Two scenarios on Trump-Russia investigators — and neither is comforting

[hadit]

I'll say it again, when the fbi says turn something over, you do.

And page is not right wing media.

If she didn’t turn in what the FBI asked for then the FBI would have charged her with obstruction. Why didn’t they?

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

And that was the situation I believe she deliberately set up. If she had carefully kept work emails totally separated from personal, she would not have been allowed to delete any of them. By mingling them, she had coverage to delete what she wanted.

 

[sartre play]

Never involved my self with if Trump colluded with Russia, stuck with what we know for a fact that Russia did involve its self in our election. for me that's a NO NO.
Why we are not spending the dollars ( that have been approved) or the energy to help keep foreign nations out of our business, guess you need to ask McConnell why he is blocking the vote for election security.

 

[iceberg]

I'll say it again, when the fbi says turn something over, you do.

And page is not right wing media.

If she didn’t turn in what the FBI asked for then the FBI would have charged her with obstruction. Why didn’t they?

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

 

[iceberg]

If she didn’t turn in what the FBI asked for then the FBI would have charged her with obstruction. Why didn’t they?

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

And that was the situation I believe she deliberately set up. If she had carefully kept work emails totally separated from personal, she would not have been allowed to delete any of them. By mingling them, she had coverage to delete what she wanted.

and by deleting anything at all KNOWING they're coming for them - well i just can't fly a more PARTY FOUL flag than that. NO ONE should be excused for deleting potential evidence.

period.

 

[sartre play]

This 0P was about Trump/ Russia, how did Hillary's get in the mix?

 

[Slade3200]

At the end of the day, when the Russian sabotage in favor of Trump was discovered, America should have let the attacks continue without investigation. We should have never looked into the guy who the sabotage campaign directly benefitted, who also happens to have deep financial ties to Russia and who’s top officials were outed as criminals.

except we can't find a valid reason to investigate trump except you don't like him.

all the rest of what you say is bullshit and unverifiable without emotions pushing them.

russia trolled the shit out of us. not illegal now is it? if so you'd be banned from this forum in seconds, dude.

we'll see what barr finds. my guess is you're about to start crying like a little girl who's hair got put into the inkwell.

Depending on which investigation your talking about I’d say the many trump lies that were told about Russia connections was adequate reason to investigate. Wouldn’t you?

What lies? Comey, Clapper and Brennen were the ones telling all the lies.

Yeah, let’s keep pointing the finger away from trump every time he is accused of something. Nice tactic

Isn't that what you Trump hating douchebags do every time new evidence points to the deep state coup?

I don’t know, is that what Trump haters do? Do you respect and thus want to emulate those tactics?

 

[Slade3200]

If she didn’t turn in what the FBI asked for then the FBI would have charged her with obstruction. Why didn’t they?

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

And that was the situation I believe she deliberately set up. If she had carefully kept work emails totally separated from personal, she would not have been allowed to delete any of them. By mingling them, she had coverage to delete what she wanted.

How do you know any of that? Did you see how the server was configured? What info was requested, what was delivered? Cause the FBI did and didn’t seem to have a problem with what went down

 

[Slade3200]

If she didn’t turn in what the FBI asked for then the FBI would have charged her with obstruction. Why didn’t they?

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

Simple question, did the FBI ask Clinton to turn over the personal emails she sent on her private server? Did they ask for every email sent on her private server? Or did they ask for the work related emails sent on her server?

 

[iceberg]

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

Simple question, did the FBI ask Clinton to turn over the personal emails she sent on her private server? Did they ask for every email sent on her private server? Or did they ask for the work related emails sent on her server?

Simple question... Do you trust who you are investigating to be honest either way? And If guilty, what would she do given the opportunity.?

2 questions. I cheated.

 

[bripat9643]

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

Simple question, did the FBI ask Clinton to turn over the personal emails she sent on her private server? Did they ask for every email sent on her private server? Or did they ask for the work related emails sent on her server?

Congress subpoenaed them, moron. Are you going to tell us that Hillary is free to ignore a Congressional subpoena?

 

[iceberg]

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

Simple question, did the FBI ask Clinton to turn over the personal emails she sent on her private server? Did they ask for every email sent on her private server? Or did they ask for the work related emails sent on her server?

Congress subpoenaed them, moron. Are you going to tell us that Hillary is free to ignore a Congressional subpoena?

Well that does seem to be the rage.

 

[busybee01]

At the end of the day, when the Russian sabotage in favor of Trump was discovered, America should have let the attacks continue without investigation. We should have never looked into the guy who the sabotage campaign directly benefitted, who also happens to have deep financial ties to Russia and who’s top officials were outed as criminals.

except we can't find a valid reason to investigate trump except you don't like him.

all the rest of what you say is bullshit and unverifiable without emotions pushing them.

russia trolled the shit out of us. not illegal now is it? if so you'd be banned from this forum in seconds, dude.

we'll see what barr finds. my guess is you're about to start crying like a little girl who's hair got put into the inkwell.

Our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that Russia attacked our election, the attacks were in favor of Trump, Trump has deep financial ties to Russia, Trump’s people had secret meetings with Russians, Trump had criminals at the highest levels of his campaign. All of that is undeniable. Had Trump not tried so hard to obstruct justice, maybe this could have ended sooner for him.

And sadly we’ll never hear from the 12 Russians Mueller wanted to take to court, because the Russian government wants Trump in power.

and did so by making assumptions and mistakes that rookies wouldn't make - did you not even bother to read the article, just come in under FULL DENY mode?

just stop being stupid, dude. either intelligently participate in the conversation or shut the fuck up.

I read the article. This is pizzagate all over again. Retarded republicans, who are well aware and grateful that Russian sabotage helped elect the most despicable prick in American history, see good politics in sweeping the Mueller report under the rug and pretending it was wrong of intelligence officials to investigate an attack on our democracy. Atkisson is a partisan hack who’s job it is to mold your tiny little brain into what will best benefit Trump’s agenda. You’re an idiot, and you should go fuck yourself.

like i said - intelligent convo or shut the fuck up. your ranting and raving is par for the course and regardless of any effort to get something "intelligent" out of you, you've learned to fight such efforts tooth and nail.

and read what i said in my initial post - people will come in here and attack HER because they can't win on merits of the issue.

you proved me correct. now go back to fucking off.

There has to be some intelligence behind the original remarks. Atkisson is following the party line.

(1) She claims that Mueller did not find any evidence of collusion. The fact is that there was collusion of a different kind. The Trump campaign did not hold a meeting with Russians and tell them what to do. They were quite comfortable to receive dirt on Clinton. Roger Stone knew about Podesta's e-mails being placed on WikiLeaks before they actually were. That means Stone has either connections to the WikiLeaks people or the Russians who hacked the e-mails. Mueller's investigation found that Manafort gave the strategy and mentioned states like Michigan to a associate with ties to Russian Intelligence as well as internal polling data. No coincidence that a lot of pro-Trump Russian social media ads played in Michigan.

(2) The fact is that information from Australia was passed onto the FBI that Trump associates were meeting with Russians. There was no spying on the Trump campaign and wiretaps on Papadopoulos was not obtained until after he left the campaign. She relies on the Hunter Biden story and provides no evidence. The Ukraine was where pro-Russian aka Putin money made its way to Manafort. Nothing here.

(3) Her other choice is ridiculous. It essentially takes a 911 truther's take on Russian interference in our elections. It did happen The fact is information on Russian interference was detected as early as 2014.

However they were in a quandary. They talked about making election systems part of the critical infrastructure and were met with call they wanted to take over elections. If they had mentioned that the Russians were trying to help Trump win, they would have been met with charges of playing politics.

 

[hadit]

this the same FBI told how to handle the case by the DOJ? looks like that's a valid question barr will dig into perhaps.

i just find it ironic you don't see a problem with picking and choosing what to give to people investigating you.

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

And that was the situation I believe she deliberately set up. If she had carefully kept work emails totally separated from personal, she would not have been allowed to delete any of them. By mingling them, she had coverage to delete what she wanted.

How do you know any of that? Did you see how the server was configured? What info was requested, what was delivered? Cause the FBI did and didn’t seem to have a problem with what went down

I know that had the server been used solely for Sec State purposes, there would have been no question about deleting anything. Likewise if it were solely personal.

 

[iceberg]

except we can't find a valid reason to investigate trump except you don't like him.

all the rest of what you say is bullshit and unverifiable without emotions pushing them.

russia trolled the shit out of us. not illegal now is it? if so you'd be banned from this forum in seconds, dude.

we'll see what barr finds. my guess is you're about to start crying like a little girl who's hair got put into the inkwell.

Our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that Russia attacked our election, the attacks were in favor of Trump, Trump has deep financial ties to Russia, Trump’s people had secret meetings with Russians, Trump had criminals at the highest levels of his campaign. All of that is undeniable. Had Trump not tried so hard to obstruct justice, maybe this could have ended sooner for him.

And sadly we’ll never hear from the 12 Russians Mueller wanted to take to court, because the Russian government wants Trump in power.

and did so by making assumptions and mistakes that rookies wouldn't make - did you not even bother to read the article, just come in under FULL DENY mode?

just stop being stupid, dude. either intelligently participate in the conversation or shut the fuck up.

I read the article. This is pizzagate all over again. Retarded republicans, who are well aware and grateful that Russian sabotage helped elect the most despicable prick in American history, see good politics in sweeping the Mueller report under the rug and pretending it was wrong of intelligence officials to investigate an attack on our democracy. Atkisson is a partisan hack who’s job it is to mold your tiny little brain into what will best benefit Trump’s agenda. You’re an idiot, and you should go fuck yourself.

like i said - intelligent convo or shut the fuck up. your ranting and raving is par for the course and regardless of any effort to get something "intelligent" out of you, you've learned to fight such efforts tooth and nail.

and read what i said in my initial post - people will come in here and attack HER because they can't win on merits of the issue.

you proved me correct. now go back to fucking off.

There has to be some intelligence behind the original remarks. Atkisson is following the party line.

(1) She claims that Mueller did not find any evidence of collusion. The fact is that there was collusion of a different kind. The Trump campaign did not hold a meeting with Russians and tell them what to do. They were quite comfortable to receive dirt on Clinton. Roger Stone knew about Podesta's e-mails being placed on WikiLeaks before they actually were. That means Stone has either connections to the WikiLeaks people or the Russians who hacked the e-mails. Mueller's investigation found that Manafort gave the strategy and mentioned states like Michigan to a associate with ties to Russian Intelligence as well as internal polling data. No coincidence that a lot of pro-Trump Russian social media ads played in Michigan.

(2) The fact is that information from Australia was passed onto the FBI that Trump associates were meeting with Russians.

Attkisson doest have a party line. Not everyone is playing this stupid right vs left shit.

 

[busybee01]

You’re talking about two different things. Proof to indict is different than evidence to investigate. Trump and those around him lied nonstop about Russia connections, Flynn was even fired for getting caught lying to Pence who then spread that lie to the world. They lied about the trump tower meeting, they lied about the Trump hotel deal in Moscow, the list goes on. Take all the lies and the timing and justifications for firing Comey and you have plenty of reason to get Mueller involved, which was done, I might add, by Republicans.

list the lies. i'd like to be specific and not generalize one side vs the other.

Ice, I’m not trying to avoid your question but if you haven’t notice Trumps lies about Russia then I’m kinda speechless. There have been so many. First off there is Flynn’s lie, your not denying that one are you? Trump had to fire him for it. That was a large catalyst to the investigation. Now that we have the mueller report many more lies have been exposed. Here is a list of a few with detailed quotes... but this is just the tip of the you

5 Times the Mueller Report Showed Trump and His Associates Didn't Tell the Truth

"after issuing thousand of subpoenas and interviewing hundreds of witnesses..."

5 "lies".

this is why i want to be specific. TRUMP LIES / TRUMP IS RACIST / TRUMP IS WHATEVER have been poured upon to the point where generic insults are taken as fact. i'm not denying anything all at this point but i'm also not going to talk in a generic sense.

i've not seen you call out hillary or obama for their "lies" so it does come across as convenient to only push what trump said and dismiss the common factor among all politicians.

so if you want to talk about trump lies - i am in no way saying he doesn't, but i'm also not going to say 'wow, yea he lies you win' and forget the rest of our recent history. so talk about the specific lies and let's go.

if you just say "trump lies" then i'm just not sure what you want from me.

You haven’t seen me call out Obama because I wasn’t on this board when he was prez and now that he isn’t in office I don’t really see the point. I e called out plenty of Dems who lie and hyperbolize about Trump, which many do. But all that is besides the point unless you want to be complacent with our elected leaders lying to us. I sure as hell am not, I don’t care what party they identify with.

That article only listed 5 lies but we all know there were several more. How many times did he publicly say No Connections with Russians?! You also don’t know how much of that evidence they already had before mueller.

Trump acted like a dirty guy trying to hide something. How do you not see that?

I will say on the flip side that the mueller investigation was waaay to long and expensive. Especially for the results it yielded.

Like I said, I'm simply not going to debate generalities.

Hillary deleted shit and the doj/fbi covered it up. How can you not see that? That is what happens when you debate generalities.

Clinton had every right to delete her personal e-mails. There is no evidence she meant to do anything but that. It was her personal attorney who did the actual deletions not Clinton. There is no evidence of a FBI/DOJ conspiracy.
-mail

 

[Slade3200]

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

And that was the situation I believe she deliberately set up. If she had carefully kept work emails totally separated from personal, she would not have been allowed to delete any of them. By mingling them, she had coverage to delete what she wanted.

How do you know any of that? Did you see how the server was configured? What info was requested, what was delivered? Cause the FBI did and didn’t seem to have a problem with what went down

I know that had the server been used solely for Sec State purposes, there would have been no question about deleting anything. Likewise if it were solely personal.

The server was used for both personal and business, that was the issue and it appears you don’t know any of the details that I just asked about. So you don’t really have enough info to make an informed opinion on the matter

 

[Slade3200]

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

Simple question, did the FBI ask Clinton to turn over the personal emails she sent on her private server? Did they ask for every email sent on her private server? Or did they ask for the work related emails sent on her server?

Simple question... Do you trust who you are investigating to be honest either way? And If guilty, what would she do given the opportunity.?

2 questions. I cheated.

Do I trust who I’m investigating? No I’m skeptical.

If guilty what would she do? I’ll answer this but let me ask for clarification... if guilty of what?

 

[busybee01]

Our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that Russia attacked our election, the attacks were in favor of Trump, Trump has deep financial ties to Russia, Trump’s people had secret meetings with Russians, Trump had criminals at the highest levels of his campaign. All of that is undeniable. Had Trump not tried so hard to obstruct justice, maybe this could have ended sooner for him.

And sadly we’ll never hear from the 12 Russians Mueller wanted to take to court, because the Russian government wants Trump in power.

and did so by making assumptions and mistakes that rookies wouldn't make - did you not even bother to read the article, just come in under FULL DENY mode?

just stop being stupid, dude. either intelligently participate in the conversation or shut the fuck up.

I read the article. This is pizzagate all over again. Retarded republicans, who are well aware and grateful that Russian sabotage helped elect the most despicable prick in American history, see good politics in sweeping the Mueller report under the rug and pretending it was wrong of intelligence officials to investigate an attack on our democracy. Atkisson is a partisan hack who’s job it is to mold your tiny little brain into what will best benefit Trump’s agenda. You’re an idiot, and you should go fuck yourself.

like i said - intelligent convo or shut the fuck up. your ranting and raving is par for the course and regardless of any effort to get something "intelligent" out of you, you've learned to fight such efforts tooth and nail.

and read what i said in my initial post - people will come in here and attack HER because they can't win on merits of the issue.

you proved me correct. now go back to fucking off.

There has to be some intelligence behind the original remarks. Atkisson is following the party line.

(1) She claims that Mueller did not find any evidence of collusion. The fact is that there was collusion of a different kind. The Trump campaign did not hold a meeting with Russians and tell them what to do. They were quite comfortable to receive dirt on Clinton. Roger Stone knew about Podesta's e-mails being placed on WikiLeaks before they actually were. That means Stone has either connections to the WikiLeaks people or the Russians who hacked the e-mails. Mueller's investigation found that Manafort gave the strategy and mentioned states like Michigan to a associate with ties to Russian Intelligence as well as internal polling data. No coincidence that a lot of pro-Trump Russian social media ads played in Michigan.

(2) The fact is that information from Australia was passed onto the FBI that Trump associates were meeting with Russians.

Attkisson doest have a party line. Not everyone is playing this stupid right vs left shit.

Attkisson is. She uses the same arguments that Trump supporters do. She fails to recognize the nuance in Mueller's report on collusion. She uses the same arguments the right uses including attacks on Hunter Biden. This is not right vs left. Independents are highly critical of Trump. This is far-left vs the middle vs the far right. Trump is on the far-right.

 

[Slade3200]

So you actually think the FBI just ignored an obvious crime and gave Hillary a pass? That’s a pretty big conspiracy that would involve a lot of people for such an obvious crime. Have you heard comeys explanation of why he didn’t charge Clinton for deleting emails when congress asked him about it?

Also, Barr is not looking into the email investigation as far as I know. I believe the inspector general looked into that stuff and I haven’t heard a word about wrong doing. Have you?

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

Simple question, did the FBI ask Clinton to turn over the personal emails she sent on her private server? Did they ask for every email sent on her private server? Or did they ask for the work related emails sent on her server?

Congress subpoenaed them, moron. Are you going to tell us that Hillary is free to ignore a Congressional subpoena?

They did? Do you have a link to more info about that?

 

[iceberg]

i know comey was told to call it a matter, not an investigation.
i know comey was told to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness"
i know page was has told the people digging the FBI was told to NOT charge Hillary

you tell me who's guiding what.

and you still continue to miss my point that if we allow people to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to people investigating them, what is the point of said investigation?

you'd not allow trump or people you don't like that luxury, she should not have it either. doing so is instant path to "WHY" that was never answered.

yoga/wedding plans.
WHY bleachbit boring info like that?

there's a lot of valid questions you blow by just to say "well the FBI didn't find anything..." when from what i can see, their very actions are now being reviewed.

we'll see where it goes. pretty much sounds like we've taken this as far as it will go for now anyway. i feel like i'm trying to apply standards evenly and you're looking to get 1 side around them and hold the other to them.

that's how you get civil wars.

I’ve been trying to answer all your questions. I’ve been critical of how Clinton handled the situation. But I’m also not going over the deep end. I don’t think using the word matter matters in the slightest, I don’t think change gross negligence matters either. In highly charged political times every word matters so it’s fine to be careful not to fan the flames. We see Barr using words like spying to fan the flames on his side. Are you complaining about that?

As far as turning in emails, she was only asked to turn in work emails not personal. As far as we know that’s what she did. What makes you think otherwise?

this is where you would be wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Prevented FBI From Pursuing Gross Negligence Charges Against Clinton

gross negligence would not require intent.
extreme carelessness does not.

so they made comey change the wording so they could give her a way out.

as for what i think - what makes you think she did? again - if i ask you to turn something over because we're investigating you - YOU DO NOT get to pick and choose what to turn over. i simply am at a loss for words how to explain this any more deeply.

you're under suspicion enough to be under invesgi...a matter - and you delete info they are specifically wanting to look at and call is "yoga" and you give her every allowance you can so that it's fine and she's to be believed.

i've not seen you ever extend that same benefit of doubt to anyone you don't like. instead you say the FBI can be trusted to do their jobs but she's ok NOT trusting the FBI with that information. that alone is a contradiction to me that simply nullifies any point as biased to me.

Simple question, did the FBI ask Clinton to turn over the personal emails she sent on her private server? Did they ask for every email sent on her private server? Or did they ask for the work related emails sent on her server?

Simple question... Do you trust who you are investigating to be honest either way? And If guilty, what would she do given the opportunity.?

2 questions. I cheated.

Do I trust who I’m investigating? No I’m skeptical.

If guilty what would she do? I’ll answer this but let me ask for clarification... if guilty of what?

Having anything she shouldn't in email?

Let's say she does, what would she do if the fbi were coming for it?