Intel operation against Trump still going strong

[kwc57]

Makes you wonder why he doesn’t sit down with the OIC and clear it all up. He said he wanted to about 18 months ago. What happened?

Because stupid, if a federal agent wants to hit you with a perjury charge, he (or she) will get you with one.

I've see it happen.

Two people are interviewed about the same event, give two conflicting stories, the justice department can actually charge BOTH parties with lying to federal agents and then let them prove they didn't lie in court or not.

Why do you dummies all the sudden trust federal law enforcement? Oh that's right orange man bad!!!

More 'perjury trap' buzzword bullshit to try and cover the fact that the Orange Virus can't tell the truth. Simple as that. Liars are non-starters for me. Cult45 supports liars. They can all rot in hell.

So you haven't liked any president then?

Read my lips, no new taxes.

I did not have sex with that woman.

If you like your insurance plan/doctor, you can keep your insurance plan/doctor.

 

[DandyDonovan]

i get to do whatever i damn well please, son. the flow of this conversation has gone from trump still being "chased" by sections of the FBI to her compromised computer to how it got that way. you can blame a lot of people for where this went but that's how conversations go.

obama's DOJ is currently in court. we'll see what happens, spanky. and while no he didn't get prosecuted, that doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. this blind allegiance is pretty telling.

*if* trump is then yes. but so far there's NOTHING to show he has now is there?

We're done. Pot meet kettle

so you can't show trump actually committing crimes. just scream he does.

son, we were done before your ass started.

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

The only thing Trump is guilty of is winning an election Democrats thought they had in the bag. I realize yall would love to make that illegal, but it is not.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Makes you wonder why he doesn’t sit down with the OIC and clear it all up. He said he wanted to about 18 months ago. What happened?

Because stupid, if a federal agent wants to hit you with a perjury charge, he (or she) will get you with one.

I've see it happen.

Two people are interviewed about the same event, give two conflicting stories, the justice department can actually charge BOTH parties with lying to federal agents and then let them prove they didn't lie in court or not.

Why do you dummies all the sudden trust federal law enforcement? Oh that's right orange man bad!!!

More 'perjury trap' buzzword bullshit to try and cover the fact that the Orange Virus can't tell the truth. Simple as that. Liars are non-starters for me. Cult45 supports liars. They can all rot in hell.

So you haven't liked any president then?

Read my lips, no new taxes.

I did not have sex with that woman.

If you like your insurance plan/doctor, you can keep your insurance plan/doctor.

Let's see: 3 lies vs. someone that tells 6000+ lies in 2 years. This is a valid comparison on your planet?

 

[iceberg]

Makes you wonder why he doesn’t sit down with the OIC and clear it all up. He said he wanted to about 18 months ago. What happened?

Because stupid, if a federal agent wants to hit you with a perjury charge, he (or she) will get you with one.

I've see it happen.

Two people are interviewed about the same event, give two conflicting stories, the justice department can actually charge BOTH parties with lying to federal agents and then let them prove they didn't lie in court or not.

Why do you dummies all the sudden trust federal law enforcement? Oh that's right orange man bad!!!

More 'perjury trap' buzzword bullshit to try and cover the fact that the Orange Virus can't tell the truth. Simple as that. Liars are non-starters for me. Cult45 supports liars. They can all rot in hell.

So you haven't liked any president then?

Read my lips, no new taxes.

I did not have sex with that woman.

If you like your insurance plan/doctor, you can keep your insurance plan/doctor.

Let's see: 3 lies vs. someone that tells 6000+ lies in 2 years. This is a valid comparison on your planet?

damn. most of those are opinions, not "facts". you read the explanation or just go WAH HE LIES WAH?

nevermind. i know the answer.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Makes you wonder why he doesn’t sit down with the OIC and clear it all up. He said he wanted to about 18 months ago. What happened?

Because stupid, if a federal agent wants to hit you with a perjury charge, he (or she) will get you with one.

I've see it happen.

Two people are interviewed about the same event, give two conflicting stories, the justice department can actually charge BOTH parties with lying to federal agents and then let them prove they didn't lie in court or not.

Why do you dummies all the sudden trust federal law enforcement? Oh that's right orange man bad!!!

More 'perjury trap' buzzword bullshit to try and cover the fact that the Orange Virus can't tell the truth. Simple as that. Liars are non-starters for me. Cult45 supports liars. They can all rot in hell.

So you haven't liked any president then?

Read my lips, no new taxes.

I did not have sex with that woman.

If you like your insurance plan/doctor, you can keep your insurance plan/doctor.

Let's see: 3 lies vs. someone that tells 6000+ lies in 2 years. This is a valid comparison on your planet?

damn. most of those are opinions, not "facts". you read the explanation or just go WAH HE LIES WAH?

nevermind. i know the answer.

He is ******* scum. Change my mind.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Intel operation against Trump still going strong

But I think there’s one shocking aspect — perhaps a larger story — that’s gone virtually unreported. It appears that anonymous intelligence officials are executing an operation against the sitting commander-in-chief. It might not qualify as all-out mutiny, but it’s also not all that far from one.
----------
making up shit and then attacking anyone who doesn't believe your lie seems to be the mantra of the left right now.

Has it ever crossed.your mind that there are good reasons they are still watching him? Like...even once?

 

[Coyote]

We're done. Pot meet kettle

so you can't show trump actually committing crimes. just scream he does.

son, we were done before your ass started.

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.

so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

Are you willing to apply those same standards and energy in defense of Clinton? And yes, intent matters. What is disturbing about Trump is the many layers to his lies and constantly changing stories every time new information comes out. That implies the possibility of intent to decieve. How serious remains to be seen. That is what investigations are for. And Hillary was thoroughly investigated. Trump not so much.

 

[DandyDonovan]

so you can't show trump actually committing crimes. just scream he does.

son, we were done before your ass started.

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.


so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

[/QUOTE]


You know what the difference between Clinton and Trump is?

With Hillary there were specific crimes that she was accused of and investigated for. With Trump yall want to investigate until you find a crime to accuse him of.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

With Hillary there were specific crimes that she was accused of and investigated for.

Total horseshit,of course. See: Benghazi, cattlegate, filegate....

You just kind of made something up there, hoping it was right...

 

[DandyDonovan]

With Hillary there were specific crimes that she was accused of and investigated for.

Total horseshit,of course. See: Benghazi, cattleate, filegate....

You just kind of made something up there hoping it was right...

I was speaking of actual criminal investigations moron. I'm on record clearly here that I believe members of both parties in Congress are idiotic children who play idiotic political games.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was speaking of actual criminal investigations moron.

No you weren't, you stupid shit. Because the criminal investigations around Trump amd his criminal enterprise all have stated crimes that are being investigated. So you clearly did not mean that, unless you're retarded.

 

[iceberg]

so you can't show trump actually committing crimes. just scream he does.

son, we were done before your ass started.

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.

so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

Are you willing to apply those same standards and energy in defense of Clinton? And yes, intent matters. What is disturbing about Trump is the many layers to his lies and constantly changing stories every time new information comes out. That implies the possibility of intent to decieve. How serious remains to be seen. That is what investigations are for. And Hillary was thoroughly investigated. Trump not so much.

first - if you're not accusing trump of any crimes, why are you asking me if i think he's guilty or innocent?

of what?

second - when you come back to "trump and his many layers to his lies" - you're locked and loaded and i'm speaking to a wall. you're wanting honesty and unbiased answers out of me while you are not doing the same. you've judged trump already and to a point, simply waiting for validation now.

and the whole "she didn't mean to" - even if this is a valid defense (and i don't believe it to be) then again, did trump mean to break laws or simply do it while caught up in the emotions of the election? you can't use a defense then say only YOU can use it. it becomes public property more or less and anyone can then use the same excuse. so far i don't see the left giving the leeway they sure took with this "defense".

now, when i speak of generalities of how we are today and you run back to clinton OF WHICH i was never referring to - what do you want from me? when i speak of liberals demanding jobs i speak of the general population demanding a principal gets fired cause they didn't think the police acted improperly. this happened in miami and simply because this man didn't feel like the left did, the left went after and got his job.

as for clinton, i've said and i'll repeat - i think she's guilty and should pay for that; but there comes a time you need to move on and live with things you don't necessarily agree with or believe in. i think any ongoing WE GOT YOU NOW is pointless and needs to stop.

the hate simply needs to stop. i don't care where it's coming from. if you have an issue with that, nothing i can do.

 

[iceberg]

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.


so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

You know what the difference between Clinton and Trump is?

With Hillary there were specific crimes that she was accused of and investigated for. With Trump yall want to investigate until you find a crime to accuse him of.[/QUOTE]
and i must agree. with trump you're looking for something he did wrong. with hillary, it was stated what she did and they went after that. one has a purpose, the other is simply fishing.

 

[candycorn]

You know what the difference between Clinton and Trump is?

With Hillary there were specific crimes that she was accused of and investigated for. With Trump yall want to investigate until you find a crime to accuse him of.

The investigation has uncovered several crimes and the Russians who did interfere in our 2016 election have been indicted. As has Roger Stone on campaign related charges.

You left out that Hillary has sat in front of investigators in public, twice. And they found nothing.
The blob has run and hidden from investigators for about 2 years now…all while complaining about how long the investigation is taking.

 

[DandyDonovan]

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.


so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

You know what the difference between Clinton and Trump is?

With Hillary there were specific crimes that she was accused of and investigated for. With Trump yall want to investigate until you find a crime to accuse him of.

The investigation has uncovered several crimes and the Russians who did interfere in our 2016 election have been indicted. As has Roger Stone on campaign related charges.

You left out that Hillary has sat in front of investigators in public, twice. And they found nothing.
The blob has run and hidden from investigators for about 2 years now…all while complaining about how long the investigation is taking.[/QUOTE]


Hillary setting in hearings in front of Congress has nothing to do with a criminal investigation.

I would say you already knew that, but you're stupid and thus probably did not.

 

[candycorn]

Hillary setting in hearings in front of Congress has nothing to do with a criminal investigation.

I would say you already knew that, but you're stupid and thus probably did not.

Sure.

Oh…so if the House happens to subpoena Trump…you’re of course saying he should go and testify before the House committee like Hillary did then, right?

 

[sealybobo]

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.


so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

You know what the difference between Clinton and Trump is?

With Hillary there were specific crimes that she was accused of and investigated for. With Trump yall want to investigate until you find a crime to accuse him of.[/QUOTE]
And although Hillary was never convicted of a crime you still talk about her like she's a criminal.

You mean the crime of using her private email? Trump does it all the time.

And if we call him on it he says "hillary used private email too"

Not a defense.

Can you imagine what you would say if this many Obama staffers were charged with crimes?

All The Criminal Charges To Emerge So Far From Robert Mueller's Investigation

 

[sealybobo]

We're done. Pot meet kettle

so you can't show trump actually committing crimes. just scream he does.

son, we were done before your ass started.

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

The only thing Trump is guilty of is winning an election Democrats thought they had in the bag. I realize yall would love to make that illegal, but it is not.

That reminds me of when a guy interviewing me asked me what one of my flaws was. I said caring too much.

That's how silly your comment sounds to me. The only thing Trump is guilty of is collusion with Russia and we can prove everyone but him was involved. Do you honestly believe he wasn't involved?

Napolitano: Trump Jr. thinks he will be indicted by Mueller

 

[DandyDonovan]

Hillary setting in hearings in front of Congress has nothing to do with a criminal investigation.

I would say you already knew that, but you're stupid and thus probably did not.

Sure.

Oh…so if the House happens to subpoena Trump…you’re of course saying he should go and testify before the House committee like Hillary did then, right?

What are you talking about moron? I believe all these hearings are stupid, political and pointless. You have never seen me post that Hillary Clinton should have testified before Congress about Benghazi or her emails or any other such, and so I don't then have to justify why I feel differently about Trump, because I don't feel differently about Trump. This is just another case of an idiotic leftist (you) accusing someone of something that they themselves are guilty of.

 

[DandyDonovan]

so you can't show trump actually committing crimes. just scream he does.

son, we were done before your ass started.

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

The only thing Trump is guilty of is winning an election Democrats thought they had in the bag. I realize yall would love to make that illegal, but it is not.

That reminds me of when a guy interviewing me asked me what one of my flaws was. I said caring too much.

That's how silly your comment sounds to me. The only thing Trump is guilty of is collusion with Russia and we can prove everyone but him was involved. Do you honestly believe he wasn't involved?

Napolitano: Trump Jr. thinks he will be indicted by Mueller

Colluding with Russia is not against the law, therefor no one will be indicted for it, even if indeed anyone did it.

Stop trying to make being a political opponent into a crime, it is not.