Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Democrats controlled those hearings but not this one.See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.
It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.
Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.
Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.
What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.
Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.
And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.
Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?
Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.
Laughing....where have I heard that before? Wait, it'll come to me.
Oh, that's it! The LAST time they held Benghazi hearings. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. Your ilk are on what? The 9th round? The 8th investigation?
Face it....either republicans are the most piss poor investigators on god's green earth, putting the 'eh' in 'spectacularly inept', so incompetent that it takes them 8 separate investigations to do what any competent investigator could do in one....
.......or they've got nothing.
I'm going with 'yes'.
Just keep smiling kid. Even the best get beat.Democrats controlled those hearings but not this one.See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.
Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.
And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.
Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?
Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.
Laughing....where have I heard that before? Wait, it'll come to me.
Oh, that's it! The LAST time they held Benghazi hearings. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. Your ilk are on what? The 9th round? The 8th investigation?
Face it....either republicans are the most piss poor investigators on god's green earth, putting the 'eh' in 'spectacularly inept', so incompetent that it takes them 8 separate investigations to do what any competent investigator could do in one....
.......or they've got nothing.
I'm going with 'yes'.
Nope. Republicans controlled every single one of them. They've held control over the House since 2010. They've held the heads of every committee and subcommittee. And they controlled every Benghazi inivestigation. Without exception.
And we're on round 8? Their incompetence is nothing less than legendary.
Just keep smiling kid. Even the best get beat.Democrats controlled those hearings but not this one.See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.
And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.
Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?
Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.
Laughing....where have I heard that before? Wait, it'll come to me.
Oh, that's it! The LAST time they held Benghazi hearings. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. Your ilk are on what? The 9th round? The 8th investigation?
Face it....either republicans are the most piss poor investigators on god's green earth, putting the 'eh' in 'spectacularly inept', so incompetent that it takes them 8 separate investigations to do what any competent investigator could do in one....
.......or they've got nothing.
I'm going with 'yes'.
Nope. Republicans controlled every single one of them. They've held control over the House since 2010. They've held the heads of every committee and subcommittee. And they controlled every Benghazi inivestigation. Without exception.
And we're on round 8? Their incompetence is nothing less than legendary.
Nope. Charges have a legal definition, and filing a lawsuit doesn't amount to filing charges.No, to charge suggests movement. If YOU charge someone in real life you are moving forward. So the definition in this case would be JW is moving forward with their complaint.Charges CAN be civil or criminal. Charges is what the PLAINTIFF files. If you sue some one for denting your car you ARE charging them for the damage.Yet his title is "uncensored" and the thread remains in this forum. Curious, huh?Again Dark Fury - there are NO CHARGES filed. Only a lawsuit.
No. There are no ferals involved. Got a problem Nutz? PM one of us.
In this case a plaintiff files a lawsuit. To be charged is criminal. charge legal definition of charge
There has already been a Republican Benghazi report!See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.The term applies as shown in the thread.If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.
But you did.
Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.
It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.
Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.
Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!
Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.
What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.
Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.
And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.
Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?
Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.
Bullshit. The House hearings were done under Republican control.Democrats controlled those hearings but not this one.See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.
It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.
Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.
Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.
What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.
Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.
And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.
Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?
Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.
Laughing....where have I heard that before? Wait, it'll come to me.
Oh, that's it! The LAST time they held Benghazi hearings. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. Your ilk are on what? The 9th round? The 8th investigation?
Face it....either republicans are the most piss poor investigators on god's green earth, putting the 'eh' in 'spectacularly inept', so incompetent that it takes them 8 separate investigations to do what any competent investigator could do in one....
.......or they've got nothing.
I'm going with 'yes'.
Exactly. Anyone who knows anything about the birther Klayman knows what a joke he is - going all the way back to the 90's.Don't think I would go so far about calling it a frivolous lawsuit... She's probably losing sleep over this one.From the site.Charges filed? Op is retarded.
"The complaint, which lists Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation as defendants, alleges the Clintons sold access to other U.S. government officials in return for donations to their organization, which they concealed, allegedly, by using a private computer server for her emails operated from their home in Chappaqua, New York.
And this little bit..
" civil suit alleges the Clintons “systematically and continuously ... conducted a corrupt enterprise” over more than 10 years, allegedly in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, which deals with abuse and misuse of organizations or businesses.
No charges have been filed dude. Frivolous lawsuits abound - it's the American way after all.
I assure you, she's not. Larry Klayman and FreedomWatch having been filing frivolous lawsuits against her and Bill for more than 20 years now, and every single one of them has been laughed out of court.
She must have been a Liberal.Exactly. Anyone who knows anything about the birther Klayman knows what a joke he is - going all the way back to the 90's.Don't think I would go so far about calling it a frivolous lawsuit... She's probably losing sleep over this one.From the site.Charges filed? Op is retarded.
"The complaint, which lists Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation as defendants, alleges the Clintons sold access to other U.S. government officials in return for donations to their organization, which they concealed, allegedly, by using a private computer server for her emails operated from their home in Chappaqua, New York.
And this little bit..
" civil suit alleges the Clintons “systematically and continuously ... conducted a corrupt enterprise” over more than 10 years, allegedly in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, which deals with abuse and misuse of organizations or businesses.
No charges have been filed dude. Frivolous lawsuits abound - it's the American way after all.
I assure you, she's not. Larry Klayman and FreedomWatch having been filing frivolous lawsuits against her and Bill for more than 20 years now, and every single one of them has been laughed out of court.
The dude filed frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit.
A few of his lawsuits squeaked by.
One of his lawsuits was him -- this, I kid you not --- suing his own mother.
This is the FIRST of what maybe many charges to be filed. Charges have been filed on Hillary Clinton for RACKETEERING.
News Distribution Network Inc.
Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails TheHill
You know you are a lemming teaper when a canadian schools you.This is the FIRST of what maybe many charges to be filed. Charges have been filed on Hillary Clinton for RACKETEERING.
News Distribution Network Inc.
Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails TheHill
No charges have been filed. This is a crackpot lawsuit filed by a right wing asshole who filed dozens of nuisance lawsuits against the Clintons when Bill was President.
Just *some* of the fucknuttery from that fucknut:
Klayman: Hillary Clinton 'Is Technically A Woman But She Acts Like An Evil Man'
04/14/2015, 12:40pm
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, who thinks that it’s “past time that Hillary, the ‘Wicked Witch of the Left,’ be put behind bars,” spoke last month with far-right radio host Pete Santilli — who once called for Clinton to be “shot in the vagina”
Klayman Prepares for Armed Revolt; Barber Predicts 'Second Civil War'.
Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman is once again calling for a revolution in his WorldNetDaily column, telling readers to “pray that Obama and Biden and the likes of Pelosi and Reid are so stupid as to carry through with their threats, so that the masses will finally be provoked to rise up as they did in colonial times.”
Larry Klayman: Obama Seeks To 'Be Rewarded With 72 Virgins In Islamic Heaven'
Larry Klayman: Obama Can't Swear To The Constitution Because He's A Muslim
Klayman: Obama Must Be 'Taken Alive' For Bringing Ebola To America To Afflict White People
Larry Klayman Sues Obama Again, Says He 'Views Himself Primarily As A Muslim And Acts Accordingly'
Larry Klayman, the Judicial Watch founder who now spends his time suing President Obama when he is not trying to overthrow him, has filed a new complaint against the president, this time alleging that Obama conspired with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to launder money to Hamas for terrorist activities.
Update: lawsuit tossed. One again Klayman files a frivolous lawsuit that goes nowhere. Judge dismisses racketeering case against ClintonsThis is the FIRST of what maybe many charges to be filed. Charges have been filed on Hillary Clinton for RACKETEERING.
News Distribution Network Inc.
Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails TheHill
Charges have not been filed. Some Whacko Bird wingnut group filed a lawsuit.This is the FIRST of what maybe many charges to be filed. Charges have been filed on Hillary Clinton for RACKETEERING.
News Distribution Network Inc.
Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails TheHill
