It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:01 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 7547
Still Lit wrote:
jebrick wrote:
My understanding is the Mueller investigation is operating as a typical white-collared crime investigation. Digging into the money. I think he will try to turn Manifort to see what he can get. IMHO, Mike Flynn is the next person to get papers.


And over here we have, in contrast, something sensible.


They won't find that Flynn took any money, as he returned his so called lobby money. He was spookin, and he still is

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 5389
955876 wrote:
This was long but I’ll give you a gift of not following up. Or at least trying to.


But I did all that reading!

955876 wrote:

1) In your opinion, was Hillary grossly negligent in her (mis)handling of classified information? There is so much evidence she was I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.


Oh, let me just see if I can come up with something.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-i ... nton-case/

Quote:
McCarthy and others are mistaken. The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.


Quote:
Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not “gross negligence.” The key phrase is “related to the national defense.”


Quote:
This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statute to require intent to sustain a conviction.


Quote:
Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).


Quote:
Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.


Quote:
Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.


But what about that sub guy?

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... olumn.html

Quote:
Neither the FBI nor the Navy has discussed what Saucier intended to do with those photos. But after FBI agents and Navy investigators confronted him in March 2012, Saucier returned to his home and destroyed a laptop, a camera, and the camera's memory card.

He was charged with two felony counts, and in May he pleaded guilty to one of them, violating the Espionage Act. Sentencing is set for August, and under federal guidelines he's expected to serve five or six years.

Let's compare that to Clinton's behavior.

FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that Clinton knowingly broke the law. Only a "very small number" of the classified e-mails she sent or received were marked as classified, he noted.

Saucier, by contrast, must have known that taking photographs of the sub's propulsion system was illegal. It's obvious, and it's part of the training all sailors aboard a sub receive.

Clinton also did nothing to obstruct the FBI inquiry, according to Comey. Saucier rushed home as soon as he learned of the investigation to destroy evidence. Pieces of his laptop were later discovered in the woods on a property in Connecticut owned by a family member.

So is that where Comey cut a special deal for Clinton? Did her carelessness rise to the level of criminal negligence?

On that question, Comey relied on precedent. He asked whether prosecutors typically file criminal charges in similar situations, and he found the answer was no:

"All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a away as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Apply that same test to the Saucier case, and criminal charges are perfectly appropriate. He did intentionally break the law, and he did try to obstruct justice.

So where is the special treatment for Clinton? When you use precisely the same standards, as spelled out by Comey, Saucier is the one who belongs in prison.


955876 wrote:

3) In your opinion, did Hillary commit perjury when she lied under oath before Congress? There is ample evidence that shows statements made under oath proved to be false when recovered emails (you know, the ones she couldn’t delete) proved her statements were false. There is so much evidence she did I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.


I won't answer no. I'll let John Dean say no:

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/08/19/o ... ry-clinton

Quote:
To prove perjury, it should be noted however, requires showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made with “willful intent” and the speaker knew the statement was false. It is not perjury or a punishable false statement when the testimony results from “confusion, mistake or faulty memory.” Inconsequential inconsistencies or conflicts in testimony do not constitute perjury or false statements. An intentionally misleading but literally true answer cannot form the basis for prosecution. In short, perjury cannot be proven simply by showing the testimony of a witness is inconsistent with the statements of another witness, as the Republicans seek to do with the Goodlatte/Chaffetz letter, and with their video clips of Clinton vs. Comey testimony. Finally, to convict of perjury it must be proven by more than one witness, or one witness plus corroborative evidence.

The hard evidence, however, shows that Hillary Clinton did not lie, rather those charging her have distorted her testimony, or claimed she had information she simply did not have at the time she testified. It is pretty ugly stuff, made even uglier because it is being promoted by two high ranking Republican chairmen who are, the facts show, trying to frame her.


Quote:
Bottom line: The charges that Secretary Clinton lied to Congress are baseless. While there may be a few technical errors in her testimony, and there may be information that was discovered by the FBI after she testified, there is absolutely no evidence at all that she willfully and knowingly provided false information to Congress.
Ironically, there are more false statements in the letter from chairmen Goodlatte and Chaffetz to the Department of Justice, which are clearly intentional, than the hours upon hours of testimony given by Secretary Clinton. If these men were ordinary citizens, they could be arrested for making false statements to law enforcement. They lied and played it for a one-day headline, and in doing so performed at the level of banana-republic legislators, if not lower. Sadly their actions are consistent with the thinking of the new Republican Party leader, Donald Trump, who would be proud of their effort to “Lock her up, Lock her up.”


955876 wrote:
2) In your opinion, did Hillary commit obstruction of justice when she deleted thousands upon thousands of emails AND had her IT people wipe the server clean? Please note these were not her emails to do as she pleases with. Those emails were yours and mine and she was required BY LAW to maintain records of. We could also toss in destruction of government property while we are at it. There is so much evidence she did these things I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.


No quote for this one. My understanding is that Hillary had the authority to decide which emails were work-related and which were personal, and she then had the authority to delete them so that her mere deletion of the emails itself is not illegal or against State Department policy. WHEN the emails were deleted is the question, and the answer is...we don't know. Those that are inclined to believe Hillary will believe that she requested the emails to be deleted before they were subpoenaed and therefore did nothing wrong. Those not inclined to believe Hillary will believe she ordered the deletion of the emails after the subpoena and committed obstruction of justice. The point is, there is no evidence to prove it.

My final position: Comey did not have the evidence to proceed with charges, knew he could not get a conviction, and correctly did not proceed.

You came on like gangbusters as if the case against Hillary was so iron-clad that only those "sheeple" blinded by party loyalty or loyal to Hillary could possibly be so blind as to defend her. Doesn't look so iron-clad to me. It is certainly possible for reasonable, intelligent people to decide that Comey ought not or could not proceed against Hillary.

Now here's my challenge for Republicans: put up or shut up. Republicans have all the power right now. Spare me the excuses of how they can't find a way to prosecute Hillary. Either put Hillary in prison, or STFU. Republicans do NOT get to run around calling Hillary a criminal on the one hand while not convicting her on the other. Hillary not being in prison = the charges are bogus and Republicans full of crap (as usual). If Trump is going to continue to refer to her as crooked or a criminal, then I insist, I DEMAND that she be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. Failure to imprison Hillary means Republicans are full of crap. Imprison Hillary or STFU. Put up or shut up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 1100
955876 wrote:
If there are a crapload of sealed indictments that are about to come out I think it’s much more likely they are for anyone and everyone related to Trump that’s either done a lot or as little as had a sip of Stolichnaya vodka recently. And while I think what Beth posted is close to what’s been taking place, I don’t believe for one second these yay hoos have their shit together enough to pull that off. Believe it if/when I see it which should be right after Charlotte McKinney rides nude into my office this morning on a unicorn.

And what powers to the Dems have to obstruct you ask Poltargyst? For starters, the President doesn’t run the justice department and can’t just demand indictments as I understand it. Maybe I’m wrong there.

Sessions is either a grand master with a big plan (unlikely) or nothing more than a neautered dog as he’s done nothing to his point (more likely).

And here is what is lost on some. It’s not just the Dems against Trump. It’s the entire SYSTEM. Both sides. Both sides are afraid and worried about the gravy train coming to an end. Both sides have their levels of corruption. The powers that be kniw who butters their bread and it isn’t Trump for either of them. Don’t forget how strongly the republicans fought against Trump getting the nomination. They didn’t want him either. And not because his ideas are horrible but rather he said he was going to drain the swamp. And that didn’t just mean Dems it meant both.

DC has become nothing more than a playground for which politicians enrich themselves with our money. Both sides. Trump being an outsider scared them both and both sides have done their part to help him fail or not succeed.

There was a study done on CNN’s coverage of his first 100 days. Something like 96% of all their coverage was negative. It was negative immediately before the guy could do anything. Wasn’t a case of him being on he job, fucking up big time and then being critical. It was critical from he outset all the while people like Hillary announces she’s joined the “resistance” and guys like Schumer flat out saying they will obstruct anything he tries to do. That’s not working together.

It also isn’t really quite fair to expect polished politician from a guy who’s first experience with politics is as POTUS. But here’s the thing with that, these slickster leeches that infest DC are EXPERTS at portraying an image to the public while doing something quite different in private. Meanwhile, those who take things at face value get all warm & fuzzy over catching lil things like “Stronger Together” slogans. Shit, Hillary was caught saying she has a public persona and a private one. This was in relation to things she said to Wall Street bankers during one of her high paid speeches to them all the while saying something different and very contradictory to the public.

Back to you Poltargyst, I’m not sure what you are going to “read up” on in terms of the Hillary bullshit. The stuff I posted has too much evidence to disprove. She did mishandle classified info. This can’t be denied. Shit, disgraced Anthony Weiner had classified docs on his laptop. I guess Huma was bringing work home. There are recovered emails (ones that weren’t deleted) from Hilary’s IT guys saying they had to take down the server because they noticed attempts to hack into it. There was stuff that came out confirmining info got out. There is simply no way someone can say she isn’t guilty of mishandling classified info. That is treason by law and governmental employees have gone to jail for much much much less. Not to mention how the hell should she be allowed to keep her security clearance? She was granted a free pass to operate outside the law. Matter of fact, there was a recovered email discussing setting up a .gov email for her to use temporarily when server was down and the response from her was along the lines of don’t do it as she was concerned with Freedom of Information Act disclosure’s. That right there proves she was purposely hiding her work as SOS from the American people which was also against the law as she was required to maintain copies of all official correspondence.

Which leads to obstruction. She deleted and then had the server wiped clean so that nobody would ever see what she was really doing. Nobody wonders what she was hiding that she took such elaborate steps to delete (illegally) all of yours and my emails? Nope. Nothing to see here folks. Those emails were nothing more than yoga appointments, recipes, and death condolences. Ummmm ok, how fucking stupid would someone have to be to believe that? First off, that bitch hasn’t ever been on a yoga mat nor does she step foot in the kitchen. Death condolences and wedding plans I can believe. But here’s the catch, if that’s what they were, WHY WOULD SHE DELETE THEM??? Those would her get out of jail free card. Those would be her chance to rub a lot of people's noses in shit. But that’s not what they were. That’s why she had IT people use a program that wiped it all clean.

Then the perjury. And then breaking campaign finance laws etc.

There are sooooo many charges the justice department could bring against this woman as well as her inner circle it’s ridiculous. And you say what powers do the Dems have to obstruct?

Well, there are obviously very powerful people in DC that pulls he strings. Someone is protecting her and everyone around her. The evidence is too strong to deny these things happened.

And that isn’t even touching on why so many foreign entities would feel the need to pay millions upon millions of dollars into a U.S. based “charitable” foundation at the very time she was serving as SOS as well as expected to soon be POTUS. If pay to play wasn’t involved then the level of contributions should continue at the same level should they not?

Funny how the spin off organization Clinton Global Initiative had to lay off employees and be shut down after losing election and it’s already been noticed that big foreign contributions into the foundation immediately dried up post Nov. 8, 2016. I suppose foreign entities that were paying money hand over fist into this “charity” all of a sudden decided to be philanthropist elsewhere. No coincidence at all. Nothing to see there. CNN said so. So did MSNBC. Mmmm kay sheeple.

I’m not going to claim I’m never wrong in things. But I have been a long-time hater of corrupt Hillary and challenge anyone to defend, deny, or disprove any of this. It can’t be done because the criminal evidence is more than ample to bring indictments based on proven actions and events.

The fact that it hasn’t happened is just proof of how deeply corrupt DC is. So to me, any indictments that come down that don’t also include that c*nt Hillary Rotten Clinton isn’t worth the paper their written on.

This was long but I’ll give you a gift of not following up. Or at least trying to. I’m actually tired of (surprising huh) this garbage and very busy at office. Been going from 7am to 7 pm daily and sometimes earlier + longer in addition to coming in some Saturdays. Stinger would be pleased though as I know how important it is to him that us working folk do our part to pay for others.

Plus at this point, I’ve actually said all I really have to say on the matter. Again, surprising I know.


95 I am very pleased if you in fact pay your fair share. Thank you for doing the right thing and pulling your weight. Now I have no doubt, none at all that you are convinced that you are the only person working hard and paying your fair share of taxes.

Society, you know the thing that you live in needs people to help pay for things like hospitals where the sick can get treated, and schools so children can get educated and grow up to be good hard and productive working citizens who pay their fair share and will maybe look after you when you are old and infirm. So when you drive to work tomorrow on that spiffy highway or heaven forbid call the fire department or police department cause you need their services know your tax dollars and those of others have helped make the society you live in a pretty good one (but not as good as the socialist Canada :D )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 1100
Poltargyst wrote:
955876 wrote:
This was long but I’ll give you a gift of not following up. Or at least trying to.


But I did all that reading!

955876 wrote:

1) In your opinion, was Hillary grossly negligent in her (mis)handling of classified information? There is so much evidence she was I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.


Oh, let me just see if I can come up with something.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-i ... nton-case/

Quote:
McCarthy and others are mistaken. The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.


Quote:
Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not “gross negligence.” The key phrase is “related to the national defense.”


Quote:
This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statute to require intent to sustain a conviction.


Quote:
Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).


Quote:
Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.


Quote:
Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.


But what about that sub guy?

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... olumn.html

Quote:
Neither the FBI nor the Navy has discussed what Saucier intended to do with those photos. But after FBI agents and Navy investigators confronted him in March 2012, Saucier returned to his home and destroyed a laptop, a camera, and the camera's memory card.

He was charged with two felony counts, and in May he pleaded guilty to one of them, violating the Espionage Act. Sentencing is set for August, and under federal guidelines he's expected to serve five or six years.

Let's compare that to Clinton's behavior.

FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that Clinton knowingly broke the law. Only a "very small number" of the classified e-mails she sent or received were marked as classified, he noted.

Saucier, by contrast, must have known that taking photographs of the sub's propulsion system was illegal. It's obvious, and it's part of the training all sailors aboard a sub receive.

Clinton also did nothing to obstruct the FBI inquiry, according to Comey. Saucier rushed home as soon as he learned of the investigation to destroy evidence. Pieces of his laptop were later discovered in the woods on a property in Connecticut owned by a family member.

So is that where Comey cut a special deal for Clinton? Did her carelessness rise to the level of criminal negligence?

On that question, Comey relied on precedent. He asked whether prosecutors typically file criminal charges in similar situations, and he found the answer was no:

"All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a away as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Apply that same test to the Saucier case, and criminal charges are perfectly appropriate. He did intentionally break the law, and he did try to obstruct justice.

So where is the special treatment for Clinton? When you use precisely the same standards, as spelled out by Comey, Saucier is the one who belongs in prison.


955876 wrote:

3) In your opinion, did Hillary commit perjury when she lied under oath before Congress? There is ample evidence that shows statements made under oath proved to be false when recovered emails (you know, the ones she couldn’t delete) proved her statements were false. There is so much evidence she did I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.


I won't answer no. I'll let John Dean say no:

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/08/19/o ... ry-clinton

Quote:
To prove perjury, it should be noted however, requires showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made with “willful intent” and the speaker knew the statement was false. It is not perjury or a punishable false statement when the testimony results from “confusion, mistake or faulty memory.” Inconsequential inconsistencies or conflicts in testimony do not constitute perjury or false statements. An intentionally misleading but literally true answer cannot form the basis for prosecution. In short, perjury cannot be proven simply by showing the testimony of a witness is inconsistent with the statements of another witness, as the Republicans seek to do with the Goodlatte/Chaffetz letter, and with their video clips of Clinton vs. Comey testimony. Finally, to convict of perjury it must be proven by more than one witness, or one witness plus corroborative evidence.

The hard evidence, however, shows that Hillary Clinton did not lie, rather those charging her have distorted her testimony, or claimed she had information she simply did not have at the time she testified. It is pretty ugly stuff, made even uglier because it is being promoted by two high ranking Republican chairmen who are, the facts show, trying to frame her.


Quote:
Bottom line: The charges that Secretary Clinton lied to Congress are baseless. While there may be a few technical errors in her testimony, and there may be information that was discovered by the FBI after she testified, there is absolutely no evidence at all that she willfully and knowingly provided false information to Congress.
Ironically, there are more false statements in the letter from chairmen Goodlatte and Chaffetz to the Department of Justice, which are clearly intentional, than the hours upon hours of testimony given by Secretary Clinton. If these men were ordinary citizens, they could be arrested for making false statements to law enforcement. They lied and played it for a one-day headline, and in doing so performed at the level of banana-republic legislators, if not lower. Sadly their actions are consistent with the thinking of the new Republican Party leader, Donald Trump, who would be proud of their effort to “Lock her up, Lock her up.”


955876 wrote:
2) In your opinion, did Hillary commit obstruction of justice when she deleted thousands upon thousands of emails AND had her IT people wipe the server clean? Please note these were not her emails to do as she pleases with. Those emails were yours and mine and she was required BY LAW to maintain records of. We could also toss in destruction of government property while we are at it. There is so much evidence she did these things I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.


No quote for this one. My understanding is that Hillary had the authority to decide which emails were work-related and which were personal, and she then had the authority to delete them so that her mere deletion of the emails itself is not illegal or against State Department policy. WHEN the emails were deleted is the question, and the answer is...we don't know. Those that are inclined to believe Hillary will believe that she requested the emails to be deleted before they were subpoenaed and therefore did nothing wrong. Those not inclined to believe Hillary will believe she ordered the deletion of the emails after the subpoena and committed obstruction of justice. The point is, there is no evidence to prove it.

My final position: Comey did not have the evidence to proceed with charges, knew he could not get a conviction, and correctly did not proceed.

You came on like gangbusters as if the case against Hillary was so iron-clad that only those "sheeple" blinded by party loyalty or loyal to Hillary could possibly be so blind as to defend her. Doesn't look so iron-clad to me. It is certainly possible for reasonable, intelligent people to decide that Comey ought not or could not proceed against Hillary.

Now here's my challenge for Republicans: put up or shut up. Republicans have all the power right now. Spare me the excuses of how they can't find a way to prosecute Hillary. Either put Hillary in prison, or STFU. Republicans do NOT get to run around calling Hillary a criminal on the one hand while not convicting her on the other. Hillary not being in prison = the charges are bogus and Republicans full of crap (as usual). If Trump is going to continue to refer to her as crooked or a criminal, then I insist, I DEMAND that she be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. Failure to imprison Hillary means Republicans are full of crap. Imprison Hillary or STFU. Put up or shut up.


Oh SNAP, 95 getting owned. Quick run to Fox to get your talking point/rebuttal. Remember deflect, false equivalize, straw man


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:26 am 
Still Lit wrote:

I project that I think you're a wacko.


True. VERY weird guy.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 7983
SteelerChef wrote:
Still Lit wrote:

I project that I think you're a wacko.


True. VERY weird guy.


He's half right about the Texas comment, though. I was born and raised in the Lone Star State. Not many people remember this (and have no reason to have paid attention) but I was a huge Oilers fan growing up. Went to all the home games with my Dad in the Warren Moon run and shoot era. Man I fucking hated the Steelers (not as much as I hated the Bills). If Cowher had had Moon as his QB, how many more championships would the Steelers have?

But when that bastard Adams held the city hostage for a new stadium and the citizens rightly told Adams to go eff himself and he moved the team, I quit the NFL. Didn't watch a game until 2004. My now wife grew up in far, far eastern OH and was a big Steelers fan. We ended up moving to Pittsburgh and a family friend scored us lower level 50 yard line tickets to the Ravens game on Halloween night in 2004. Holy Shit, what an atmosphere. The fan base was rabid. Out for blood. That's all it took. I hopped on the Steelers Bandwagon and have been buckled in ever since.

_________________
Frank Sinatra, Jr. 'Black Night'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdwl7X6Jruo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:04 pm 
The saddest part of this thread is just how far some of you total morons will go to avoid seeing the truth. Get over yourselves and quit acting like this country and its bounty only belong to you


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:52 pm
Posts: 5879
Still Lit wrote:
SteelerChef wrote:
Still Lit wrote:

I project that I think you're a wacko.


True. VERY weird guy.


He's half right about the Texas comment, though. I was born and raised in the Lone Star State. Not many people remember this (and have no reason to have paid attention) but I was a huge Oilers fan growing up. Went to all the home games with my Dad in the Warren Moon run and shoot era. Man I fucking hated the Steelers (not as much as I hated the Bills). If Cowher had had Moon as his QB, how many more championships would the Steelers have?

But when that bastard Adams held the city hostage for a new stadium and the citizens rightly told Adams to go eff himself and he moved the team, I quit the NFL. Didn't watch a game until 2004. My now wife grew up in far, far eastern OH and was a big Steelers fan. We ended up moving to Pittsburgh and a family friend scored us lower level 50 yard line tickets to the Ravens game on Halloween night in 2004. Holy Shit, what an atmosphere. The fan base was rabid. Out for blood. That's all it took. I hopped on the Steelers Bandwagon and have been buckled in ever since.


It was either Patriots Halloween night game in '04, or Ravens in '05. You prob mean Ravens. I was at both, with my then 11-year-old or 12-year old son on both occasions. At the Ravens game, there was this chick sitting about four rows behind us. About every 10 minutes, every Ravens possession, she's screaming, "Break his FUCKIN' leg!!" A girl after my heart!! My boy's laughing his ass off. Was telling my Mom, rest her soul, about it, the next day. She says..."Isn't that terrible! What did the people around you say?" I say..."You kidding me, Mom! She was the hero of the section!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3346
Props for the leg work Poltargyst. But much of that is simply flat out wrong. The laws about the handling or in this case “mishandling” of classified info are pretty clear. Intent is not needed to show negligence. People are in jail for for less. People lost security clearances for far less.

About the obstruction, in no was does she get to decide which official correspondence she needs to maintain record of and which she does not. She must maintain copies of ALL official state department business. This is required due to Freedom of Information Act. In no way did she have the right to delete those emails. That was criminal.

The perjury did occur. There were statements made under oath directly in conflict with emails (ones she wasn’t fortunate enough to delete in time) she sent to Egyptian Price minister the night of or day following the Benghazi attack.

And I didn’t need to get this from “Fox” Stinger. I actually watched her entire testimony to Congress. All several hours worth.

And no, pulling up a counter argument from someone in support of her isn’t “owning” me Stinger. You might as well have just said Mooooo because that’s all it sounds like. It also takes the assumption (a big one) that everything Poltargyst posted was from 100% reliable sources while everything I’ve read to gain my knowledge is from 100% fraudulent sources. And that simply isn’t true.

And this is why I am tired of the debate. Because you guys believe and will continue to believe anything that fits your agenda or what you choose to accept.

Comey didn’t have enough evidence? Smashing devices with hammers, using a program to wipe the server clean, having classified docs end up on your assistants husbands computer??

There is more but those points right there are enough to support mishandling of classified info as well as obstruction.

You are acting as if these things didn’t occur and myself or “Fox” is making them up. They happened. And falling back in whatever it is youvread that tells you it didn’t shows how gullible the two of you are.

You don’t need to do research. Look at what happened. There is no dispute these things occurred. We aren’t debating that. We are debating the legality of it all.

You both are grasping at straws. She is part of the protected elite on the highest of levels. Those people get away with things the average person cannot.

Ask the naval seaman put in prison for taking a selfie while on board a nuclear submarine. His charge, mishandling of classified info. A sonar screen was captured in the background.

The info she failed to safeguard put real lives in danger. Oh but it was “only a few emails marked classified” so it’s ok then.

Believe what you want. I gain nothing in changing your mind and no longer wish to. Because here is the funny part and why I refer to you as “sheeple”. You had to go “find your opinion” by having to go search out all the places that are pro-Hillary that will tell you what she did was ok. You aren’t simply looking at the actions and telling me what YOU think Poltargyst. You are telling me what someone else has told you your opinion should be.

Oh but Comey said... That is so funny that Comey is somehow to be trusted completely.

Classified info ended up exposed-mishandling
Server was wiped clean-obstruction. And no, she didn’t have authority to do so and yes she was required to maintain record. I suppose you like our high level governmental people able to work in complete autonomy. Nothing to see here folks, I just delete record of everything I do. Mmmm Kay.

And about that perjury. That was in reference to testimony given that gave us the famous “at this point what difference does it make” comments. The one where she was still trying to back up the ridiculous claims that Benghazi was cut a peaceful demonstration over a video they were upset about that got out of hand. Mmm Kay.

Perjury was shown when an email was recovered she sent to the Egyptian Ambasaador the night if or following day after the attacks. The one where she clearly discussed the “terrorist” attack that occurred. The “video” garbage was a fabricated story told to the American people because we were but two moinths shy of a presedetial election.

All those “points you raised” were nothing more than the stuff they want you to think and you took the bait hook line and sinker.

And again, that’s why this is no longer worth discussing. Because I’m not debating you, I’m debating the the talking points it takes you two days to scour the internet for. And thus the sheeple comments.

You want to change directions here and have an interesting debate let’s discuss how the secret arms program they were running in Benghazi could very well have armed the very people that ended up murdering the ambassador...


Last edited by 955876 on Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Mothership is Afire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 4:57 pm 
Lol

Unbelievable....literally....lol


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group