Don't you know that "you" can do ANYTHING/say ANYTHING about a GOPer, but not a damned Dem? LOL
You aren't a lawyer, I bet, and neither have you ever worked in any financial market. Yet you feel compelled to post about topics you neither know nor understand.
Are you having fun? I certainly hope so. :-)
I have posted the facts of the matter.
I have also told you the history of such cases.
I have asked you for specifics, OF ALL OF THE MANY CASES YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CLIMED HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED and you have failed to list even one.
You can NOT convict a person without hard evidence; supposition and probability don't count in this kind of a case. You have to PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty. You can't prove that Hillary told Red Bone what to do. You can't even prove that she knew what he was doing. He was referred to her; she didn't search for him.
And hearsay doesn't count either.
But hey..............knock yourself out, have fun making up all garbage and posting it, all the while pretending that you know what you're talking about. I'll just sit here and laugh AT you. ;^)
laugh away clown lawyer but for example
you have consused your self invented "shadow of a doubt" standard of proof with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the true standard of proof. and as I said earlier many drug mules are doing time (life) when the only proof against them was that there defense of ignorant participation was UnREASONABLE.
trying to change the subject again (trying to get out of the hole you have dug for yourself) realy wont do. Your contention is she could not have been prosecuted. I have demonstrated repeatedly that she could and should have been. No hearsay (if you have a clue what that means) is needed. Her own words are enough (conflicting explanations support inference of guilt; incredible explanations support inference of guilt) Shall I start posting the damn jury instructions for you?