[–] 26033940? ago 

You need to learn how to read.

The police don't create or file charges.

You're reading your emotions and bias into what I'm saying and it's super obvious. Broad inferences aren't a good way to make arguments. It's basically a strawman at this point.

[–] 26033966? ago 

Same with you.
Your arguments lack substance at all.
"you don't know" "you don't understand" and now "emotions"

OMFG. LOL

You suck at debate.

Counter a single one of my arguments with something substantial.

[–] 26034145? ago 

Not really. It's pretty obvious that you don't understand the criminal justice system. You don't understand why people wait to make arrests. You don't understand why people don't just blast evidence they have found in the public sphere. You are incapable of even considering the possibility that there are other people connected besides the target of a single investigation. Stay mad, everything I've seen points to a massive, growing investigation that will end with a shit ton of people all being arrested and put on trial at the same time so that they make sure they get as many people as they possibly can within a reasonable time and reduce the risk of people evading justice as much as they possibly can. Go read up on criminal procedure, you'll feel a lot better.

Also, you haven't actually submitted a sound argument, everything you have said is either conclusory or completely false. For example, hillary hasn't "gotten off" of anything because there was never a trial, she isn't under the protection of double jeopardy. She can still be arrested, so that entire argument is irrelevant.

I love how you say that I suck at debate but the only way you could even try to come up with an argument was by creating strawmen by trying to state that your idea of what I was implying as what my arguments were instead of addressing what I actually said.