Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

[kaz]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

What did he point out that was a lie from that video?

That she didn't have secret or top secret e-mails on her server, that she turned over all her e-mails, that she preserved e-mails.

Did you watch the video? It goes statement by statement showing lie by lie. Seriously, you are right about one thing. You are a k-k-klown. If Hillary said she had been a Bond girl, you'd believe her, wouldn't you?

The first thing in the video shows Hillary saying the emails were allowed and then Comey saying she was careless with the handling of emails.

Hillary said she used one device...She didnt

Hillary said They went through to find her emails. Comey said they didnt read each one individually

Hillary said she turned over the emails. Comey says that its HIGHLY LIKELY they missed some.


Go on, I dare you to complain and hem haw about using more than 1 device. So far thats the only contradiction and boy thats a doozy

That's the only contradiction you heard in the video? Seriously? How long ago did you drown in your bathtub?

Anytime you want to name them instead of your chorus of OMG I'm ready

There is a video. Watch it, don't just say what Rachel Madow said about it

 

[kaz]

If you watched the hearings then you know that is true. Geez, man, they said in the hearings they were sending it directly over, why do you make up shit like that?

You dopes have been so thoroughly fooled by RW media that you can't wrap your head around the fact that it's over. What they have been telling you was all bullshit. Those supposed 2 emails that were "marked classified" were addressed at the hearings multiple times. State also came out and said they were marked in error at the time they were sent as an email.
There will be no perjury investigation or charges.

I think it is over, dumb ass. At least in terms of the election. That wasn't what the post I responded to said.

And ouch, the RW media is programming me to be a libertarian. I'd be insulted by that if you weren't such an idiot

It was addressed during the hearing. How is Comey going to investigate possible perjury and come to your conclusion when he himself agreed that it was reasonable to infer that they were in fact not classified?

It's done.

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You dopes have been so thoroughly fooled by RW media that you can't wrap your head around the fact that it's over. What they have been telling you was all bullshit. Those supposed 2 emails that were "marked classified" were addressed at the hearings multiple times. State also came out and said they were marked in error at the time they were sent as an email.
There will be no perjury investigation or charges.

I think it is over, dumb ass. At least in terms of the election. That wasn't what the post I responded to said.

And ouch, the RW media is programming me to be a libertarian. I'd be insulted by that if you weren't such an idiot

It was addressed during the hearing. How is Comey going to investigate possible perjury and come to your conclusion when he himself agreed that it was reasonable to infer that they were in fact not classified?

It's done.

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world,that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What did he point out that was a lie from that video?

That she didn't have secret or top secret e-mails on her server, that she turned over all her e-mails, that she preserved e-mails.

Did you watch the video? It goes statement by statement showing lie by lie. Seriously, you are right about one thing. You are a k-k-klown. If Hillary said she had been a Bond girl, you'd believe her, wouldn't you?

The first thing in the video shows Hillary saying the emails were allowed and then Comey saying she was careless with the handling of emails.

Hillary said she used one device...She didnt

Hillary said They went through to find her emails. Comey said they didnt read each one individually

Hillary said she turned over the emails. Comey says that its HIGHLY LIKELY they missed some.


Go on, I dare you to complain and hem haw about using more than 1 device. So far thats the only contradiction and boy thats a doozy

That's the only contradiction you heard in the video? Seriously? How long ago did you drown in your bathtub?

Anytime you want to name them instead of your chorus of OMG I'm ready

There is a video. Watch it, don't just say what Rachel Madow said about it

Is the lie a secret? I mean I listed it point by point to make it easy for you and you got nothing.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I think it is over, dumb ass. At least in terms of the election. That wasn't what the post I responded to said.

And ouch, the RW media is programming me to be a libertarian. I'd be insulted by that if you weren't such an idiot

It was addressed during the hearing. How is Comey going to investigate possible perjury and come to your conclusion when he himself agreed that it was reasonable to infer that they were in fact not classified?

It's done.

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It was addressed during the hearing. How is Comey going to investigate possible perjury and come to your conclusion when he himself agreed that it was reasonable to infer that they were in fact not classified?

It's done.

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

 

[kaz]

I think it is over, dumb ass. At least in terms of the election. That wasn't what the post I responded to said.

And ouch, the RW media is programming me to be a libertarian. I'd be insulted by that if you weren't such an idiot

It was addressed during the hearing. How is Comey going to investigate possible perjury and come to your conclusion when he himself agreed that it was reasonable to infer that they were in fact not classified?

It's done.

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world,that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

Conspiracy? WTF are you talking about? Your tin foil slipping?

Obviously you didn't watch or read about Comey's congressional testimony. She wasn't investigated for perjury in her congressional testimony. Comey said the FBI needs a "referral" from Congress to do that. He has since gotten one.

How did you not know that?

 

[kaz]

That she didn't have secret or top secret e-mails on her server, that she turned over all her e-mails, that she preserved e-mails.

Did you watch the video? It goes statement by statement showing lie by lie. Seriously, you are right about one thing. You are a k-k-klown. If Hillary said she had been a Bond girl, you'd believe her, wouldn't you?

The first thing in the video shows Hillary saying the emails were allowed and then Comey saying she was careless with the handling of emails.

Hillary said she used one device...She didnt

Hillary said They went through to find her emails. Comey said they didnt read each one individually

Hillary said she turned over the emails. Comey says that its HIGHLY LIKELY they missed some.


Go on, I dare you to complain and hem haw about using more than 1 device. So far thats the only contradiction and boy thats a doozy

That's the only contradiction you heard in the video? Seriously? How long ago did you drown in your bathtub?

Anytime you want to name them instead of your chorus of OMG I'm ready

There is a video. Watch it, don't just say what Rachel Madow said about it

Is the lie a secret? I mean I listed it point by point to make it easy for you and you got nothing.

Watch the video. It shows her statement and Comey saying how it was not true point by point. Is your issue with the video it's not a kartoon, k-k-klown? I think you drove the kommunist klown kar too close to the fumes this time around ...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

Funny, you seem to think there's some sort of negative connotation surrounding the word. The definition in no way implies a conspiracy is any sort of far fetched idea, though you've been trained to think so by your masters. This is more just your lack of free thinking, and inability to think anything but what you're told by your Democrat masters. The mere fact that you still think Hillary broke no laws, after I provided the laws and detailed how she broke them is proof enough of this, in addition to the fact that you showed you didn't actually read the post. You're not interested in facts, and you're not interested in any information that contradicts what you've been told by the various arms of the Establishment.

 

[kaz]

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

No conspiracy, CNN is just left. What is wrong with you?

BTW, W is watching you through is periscope in the bathroom of his Crawford ranch. He has his army of flying kangaroos following you. They sewed microfilm into your underwear, I wouldn't wear it. Oh, and a tip. Wear pink crocs. For some reason it confuses the kangaroos and they lose you. As for why pink, it's just your color.

Go to it man, and you may want to tape down the tinfoil, it keeps coming loose and you know W is reading your mind every time it does

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It was addressed during the hearing. How is Comey going to investigate possible perjury and come to your conclusion when he himself agreed that it was reasonable to infer that they were in fact not classified?

It's done.

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world,that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

Conspiracy? WTF are you talking about? Your tin foil slipping?

Obviously you didn't watch or read about Comey's congressional testimony. She wasn't investigated for perjury in her congressional testimony. Comey said the FBI needs a "referral" from Congress to do that. He has since gotten one.

How did you not know that?

There isn't anything there.
I agree that you should bring your list of what she has said under oath before congress that you believe she has not been truthful about. Posting video from a press conference is not testimony.

Let's review what you believe to be evidence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

Funny, you seem to think there's some sort of negative connotation surrounding the word. The definition in no way implies a conspiracy is any sort of far fetched idea, though you've been trained to think so by your masters. This is more just your lack of free thinking, and inability to think anything but what you're told by your Democrat masters. The mere fact that you still think Hillary broke no laws, after I provided the laws and detailed how she broke them is proof enough of this, in addition to the fact that you showed you didn't actually read the post. You're not interested in facts, and you're not interested in any information that contradicts what you've been told by the various arms of the Establishment.

She didn't break any laws according to the investigative authority. What you believe is irrelevant. For you to believe that Comey was influenced or otherwise lying to cover for Clinton is indeed a conspiracy and not valid in any real way.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The first thing in the video shows Hillary saying the emails were allowed and then Comey saying she was careless with the handling of emails.

Hillary said she used one device...She didnt

Hillary said They went through to find her emails. Comey said they didnt read each one individually

Hillary said she turned over the emails. Comey says that its HIGHLY LIKELY they missed some.


Go on, I dare you to complain and hem haw about using more than 1 device. So far thats the only contradiction and boy thats a doozy

That's the only contradiction you heard in the video? Seriously? How long ago did you drown in your bathtub?

Anytime you want to name them instead of your chorus of OMG I'm ready

There is a video. Watch it, don't just say what Rachel Madow said about it

Is the lie a secret? I mean I listed it point by point to make it easy for you and you got nothing.

Watch the video. It shows her statement and Comey saying how it was not true point by point. Is your issue with the video it's not a kartoon, k-k-klown? I think you drove the kommunist klown kar too close to the fumes this time around ...

The video was from a press conference, not testimony.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

Funny, you seem to think there's some sort of negative connotation surrounding the word. The definition in no way implies a conspiracy is any sort of far fetched idea, though you've been trained to think so by your masters. This is more just your lack of free thinking, and inability to think anything but what you're told by your Democrat masters. The mere fact that you still think Hillary broke no laws, after I provided the laws and detailed how she broke them is proof enough of this, in addition to the fact that you showed you didn't actually read the post. You're not interested in facts, and you're not interested in any information that contradicts what you've been told by the various arms of the Establishment.

She didn't break any laws according to the investigative authority. What you believe is irrelevant. For you to believe that Comey was influenced or otherwise lying to cover for Clinton is indeed a conspiracy and not valid in any real way.

Conspiracies aren't by definition invalid, your Establishment masters just want you to believe that. You're also just basically repeating that you think what you were told to think. That's fine, though, Democrats are against free-thinking in all of its forms. You have yet to refute and specific piece of my post, you're just repeating that you believe what you're told because of the person's occupation, over and over.

 

[kaz]

Comey said there were at least 10 chains of secret+, what are you talking about he said it wasn't possible to determine?

Comey's statement listed several things that clearly showed Hillary committed perjury in her congressional hearing.

And I don't know what part of I think it is over do you not understand? You're just too stupid to understand when someone agrees with you on a point?

At this point there isn't a hill of beans to prove perjury. None of the classified material was marked as such. None. The rest is nonsense.

Perjury in her congressional testimony is easy to prove at this point.

1) She didn't have classified e-mails on her server

2) She preserved her e-mails

3) Her team read every e-mail

4) They didn't destroy any e-mails

However, it isn't going to happen. Roberts and Comey proved that. You have the ultimate Brown Shirt media and it works. You've intimidated anyone who wants to live out a normal life into silence. Glad you care about people, democracy and the rule of law so much ...

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world,that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

Conspiracy? WTF are you talking about? Your tin foil slipping?

Obviously you didn't watch or read about Comey's congressional testimony. She wasn't investigated for perjury in her congressional testimony. Comey said the FBI needs a "referral" from Congress to do that. He has since gotten one.

How did you not know that?

There isn't anything there.
I agree that you should bring your list of what she has said under oath before congress that you believe she has not been truthful about. Posting video from a press conference is not testimony.

Let's review what you believe to be evidence.

I said congressional testimony, dimwit, not press conference.

Just to be clear though, lying at a press conference is OK with you? You apply that standard to Republicans too, not just Democrats?

 

[kaz]

That's the only contradiction you heard in the video? Seriously? How long ago did you drown in your bathtub?

Anytime you want to name them instead of your chorus of OMG I'm ready

There is a video. Watch it, don't just say what Rachel Madow said about it

Is the lie a secret? I mean I listed it point by point to make it easy for you and you got nothing.

Watch the video. It shows her statement and Comey saying how it was not true point by point. Is your issue with the video it's not a kartoon, k-k-klown? I think you drove the kommunist klown kar too close to the fumes this time around ...

The video was from a press conference, not testimony.

You're changing the subject. The question there was what she lied about.

During that conversation we started discussing perjury since you said she was cleared and she wasn't.

And again, so press conference lies are OK with you? That's your standard, meaning it applies to both parties?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The rule of law was applied.- fact
The rule of law found that she didn't commit a crime.- fact

In the real world that is all that is required.

In your world, a conspiracy is required for your narrative to exist.

I prefer to live in the real world.

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

Funny, you seem to think there's some sort of negative connotation surrounding the word. The definition in no way implies a conspiracy is any sort of far fetched idea, though you've been trained to think so by your masters. This is more just your lack of free thinking, and inability to think anything but what you're told by your Democrat masters. The mere fact that you still think Hillary broke no laws, after I provided the laws and detailed how she broke them is proof enough of this, in addition to the fact that you showed you didn't actually read the post. You're not interested in facts, and you're not interested in any information that contradicts what you've been told by the various arms of the Establishment.

She didn't break any laws according to the investigative authority. What you believe is irrelevant. For you to believe that Comey was influenced or otherwise lying to cover for Clinton is indeed a conspiracy and not valid in any real way.

Conspiracies aren't by definition invalid, your Establishment masters just want you to believe that. You're also just basically repeating that you think what you were told to think. That's fine, though, Democrats are against free-thinking in all of its forms. You have yet to refute and specific piece of my post, you're just repeating that you believe what you're told because of the person's occupation, over and over.

They are utterly and completely invalid until you can prove it.

I can say with reasonable certainty that your parents conspired to keep you uneducated and uncertain about the world in which you live.

See how that works?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

"I instantly believe what I'm told by anyone because of their job title!"

No, but really, it's like CNN is constantly playing in your head and telling you what to say.

"Defend Hillary tooth and nail! It makes no sense, she's a known criminal, but do it because she's a Democrat and Establishment Servant!"

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

Funny, you seem to think there's some sort of negative connotation surrounding the word. The definition in no way implies a conspiracy is any sort of far fetched idea, though you've been trained to think so by your masters. This is more just your lack of free thinking, and inability to think anything but what you're told by your Democrat masters. The mere fact that you still think Hillary broke no laws, after I provided the laws and detailed how she broke them is proof enough of this, in addition to the fact that you showed you didn't actually read the post. You're not interested in facts, and you're not interested in any information that contradicts what you've been told by the various arms of the Establishment.

She didn't break any laws according to the investigative authority. What you believe is irrelevant. For you to believe that Comey was influenced or otherwise lying to cover for Clinton is indeed a conspiracy and not valid in any real way.

Conspiracies aren't by definition invalid, your Establishment masters just want you to believe that. You're also just basically repeating that you think what you were told to think. That's fine, though, Democrats are against free-thinking in all of its forms. You have yet to refute and specific piece of my post, you're just repeating that you believe what you're told because of the person's occupation, over and over.

They are utterly and completely invalid until you can prove it.

I can say with reasonable certainty that your parents conspired to keep you uneducated and uncertain about the world in which you live.

See how that works?

If they're invalid, deny any one of the claims I made, instead of just saying "Well, they're all invalid because I say so". You earlier showed you hadn't even read them. You just know that I'm opposing what you were told by the media to think, and that's why you ignored the information in the post. Are you planning to do ANYTHING in this thread other than S-post?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Anytime you want to name them instead of your chorus of OMG I'm ready

There is a video. Watch it, don't just say what Rachel Madow said about it

Is the lie a secret? I mean I listed it point by point to make it easy for you and you got nothing.

Watch the video. It shows her statement and Comey saying how it was not true point by point. Is your issue with the video it's not a kartoon, k-k-klown? I think you drove the kommunist klown kar too close to the fumes this time around ...

The video was from a press conference, not testimony.

You're changing the subject. The question there was what she lied about.

During that conversation we started discussing perjury since you said she was cleared and she wasn't.

And again, so press conference lies are OK with you? That's your standard, meaning it applies to both parties?

No!
The question per you is the rule of law and that she is " obviously " guilty of perjury.
You can't be charged with perjury for what you say at a press conference dope!

Build a case using her testimony.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.

Funny, you seem to think there's some sort of negative connotation surrounding the word. The definition in no way implies a conspiracy is any sort of far fetched idea, though you've been trained to think so by your masters. This is more just your lack of free thinking, and inability to think anything but what you're told by your Democrat masters. The mere fact that you still think Hillary broke no laws, after I provided the laws and detailed how she broke them is proof enough of this, in addition to the fact that you showed you didn't actually read the post. You're not interested in facts, and you're not interested in any information that contradicts what you've been told by the various arms of the Establishment.

She didn't break any laws according to the investigative authority. What you believe is irrelevant. For you to believe that Comey was influenced or otherwise lying to cover for Clinton is indeed a conspiracy and not valid in any real way.

Conspiracies aren't by definition invalid, your Establishment masters just want you to believe that. You're also just basically repeating that you think what you were told to think. That's fine, though, Democrats are against free-thinking in all of its forms. You have yet to refute and specific piece of my post, you're just repeating that you believe what you're told because of the person's occupation, over and over.

They are utterly and completely invalid until you can prove it.

I can say with reasonable certainty that your parents conspired to keep you uneducated and uncertain about the world in which you live.

See how that works?

If they're invalid, deny any one of the claims I made, instead of just saying "Well, they're all invalid because I say so". You earlier showed you hadn't even read them. You just know that I'm opposing what you were told by the media to think, and that's why you ignored the information in the post. Are you planning to do ANYTHING in this thread other than S-post?

I have denied them repeatedly.