Hillary back on the chopping block

Thing1 said:
Generally correct.

It didn't start because "Dems" or "libs" called for an investigation, and it didn't start based on a whisper. In fact, Dems were kind of ticked when they found out Comey had been investigating it throughout the last part of the campaign, since they felt that his airing of information publicly about the investigations was one-sided.
Click to expand...

The "investigators" have never been allowed access to the DNC computers, and are unanimous in saying that thus far, there is no evidence of collusion.
 
NOVA said:
And it didn't start because 'Repubs' or "Cons" called for an investigation either.....

and airing the information about Hillary's email server was one sided because only ONE SIDE was responsible for the crimes being investigated....
Click to expand...

Were there indictments, then?
 
Thing1 said:
Republicans are now talking about healthcare on liberal's terms - they have to talk about covering everyone.

Obama's legacy doesn't end w/ the repeal of Obamacare. Universal healthcare is now the acceptable standard for voters.
Click to expand...

So your assertion is that the Republicans don't want everyone covered. they're the boogie man.. "We don't want everyone covered, just the white people"

Do you even read what you write. And don't you have homework to do?
 
Getin the ring said:
So your assertion is that the Republicans don't want everyone covered. they're the boogie man.. "We don't want everyone covered, just the white people"

Do you even read what you write. And don't you have homework to do?
Click to expand...

Republicans 8+ years ago didn't even want the government involved. I didn't make it a racial thing.

Liberals won the issue. Sorry 'bout that.
 
NOVA said:
And it didn't start because 'Repubs' or "Cons" called for an investigation either.....

and airing the information about Hillary's email server was one sided because only ONE SIDE was responsible for the crimes being investigated....
Click to expand...

Maybe I knew this and forgot lol.

But let me get this straight. The DNC wouldn't allow the FBI to investigate; and it was a private company that concluded the Russians were responsible.

Was this company being paid by the DNC?
 
I Love America said:
It isn't relitigating the election. It would be righting a wrong. Comey should have brought charges. He failed

This would be beautiful if a new director did it. The libs are making it so they will have a hard time bitching about it. They will claim Trump said he wouldn't do anything but after this kerffuffle he can just say "it isn't for me to interfere"

I don't know if they will, but if the new FBI agent reopens the case then the libs have been outplayed and outmaneuvered by Trump
Click to expand...
in practicality it would be re-litigating or else none of us would care.
Let Hillary stew in her "what if's" we have an agenda to get to
 
Thing1 said:
How many indictments came out of all that time investigating Hillary, anyway?
Click to expand...

Exactly why we need a special prosecutor to handle her alleged distruction of evidence under subpoena, sending classified material to Weiner and other criminal activity
 
aloysious said:
Yes. tit for tat, yours for mine. hrc actually committed a crime(s), that's already been established. As for Trump: we'll continue to investigate until wefind something, anything and if we don't we'll continue to investigate. There's no end in sight, a bottomless pit of investigation. This is what governance has come to on the nat'l level. Investigate and prosecute the opponent, no longer debate and compromise to come to solutions.
As for Comey, the more I think about it the more I agree he needed to be fired. The FBI did their job, found crimes committed by hrc, fine. Then Comey decides to go on TV and become a judge. "No reasonable person would prosecute this crime." Not his call, at all.
Arrrrrg!
I just started reading Tolstoy's Anna Karenina to shield myself from all this nonsense. I need a news blackout.

Maybe both sides would be satisfied if we just redid the entire election and disqualified trump and hrc. Imagine how sedate Jeb! and O'Malley would be? Would be nice.
Click to expand...
I've talked to others who follow politics closely, and sooner or later they want a sabbatical - sooner considering the absolute swampy non-events taking hold in DC
 
Darth Omar said:
Maybe I knew this and forgot lol.

But let me get this straight. The DNC wouldn't allow the FBI to investigate; and it was a private company that concluded the Russians were responsible.

Was this company being paid by the DNC?
Click to expand...
yes it was a private company (Crowdstrike)..The DNC never returned the FBI phone calls that they were the targets of hacking.
Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
The gist of the Case Against Russia goes like this:
The person or people who infiltrated the DNC’s email system and the account of John Podesta left behind clues of varying technical specificity indicating they have some connection to Russia, or at least speak Russian.
Guccifer 2.0, the entity that originally distributed hacked materials from the Democratic party, is a deeply suspicious figure who has made statements and decisions that indicate some Russian connection.
The website DCLeaks, which began publishing a great number of DNC emails, has some apparent ties to Guccifer and possibly Russia.
And then there’s WikiLeaks, which after a long, sad slide into paranoia, conspiracy theorizing, and general internet toxicity has made no attempt to mask its affection for Vladimir Putin and its crazed contempt for Hillary Clinton. (Julian Assange has been stuck indoors for a very, very long time.) If you look at all of this and sort of squint, it looks quite strong indeed, an insurmountable heap of circumstantial evidence too great in volume to dismiss as just circumstantial or mere coincidence.

But look more closely at the above and you can’t help but notice all of the qualifying words: Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this. The question, then, is this: Do we want to make major foreign policy decisions with a belligerent nuclear power based on suggestions alone, no matter how strong?
 
aloysious said:
The hrc investigation is over, done. She committed crimes.
This is all about politics anyway. Let congress have a debate and make a deal: You guys continue investigating trump for some nebulous something or other and we'll prosecute hrc along with Huma and whoever else in that Clinton cesspool. Oh and while we're at it we'll investigate Podesta and Wasserman Schultz.
Quit wasting time and money on trump 'colluding' with russians and we'll let hrc and the DNC gang off.
Click to expand...

As you say, "she committed crimes." All that's left then is the sentencing phase. I'm all for it. It's what would happen (and has happened) to ordinary peon citizens. No preferential treatment here. And, they could lock up her whole family for all I care for their Clinton Family Money-Laundering Foundation, too.
 
anatta said:
I've talked to others who follow politics closely, and sooner or later they want a sabbatical - sooner considering the absolute swampy non-events taking hold in DC
Click to expand...
We had a local election in April and the turnout was abysmal. The newspaper attributed it to "political burnout". I agree.
 
anatta said:
yes it was a private company (Crowdstrike)..The DNC never returned the FBI phone calls that they were the targets of hacking.
Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
The gist of the Case Against Russia goes like this:
The person or people who infiltrated the DNC’s email system and the account of John Podesta left behind clues of varying technical specificity indicating they have some connection to Russia, or at least speak Russian.
Guccifer 2.0, the entity that originally distributed hacked materials from the Democratic party, is a deeply suspicious figure who has made statements and decisions that indicate some Russian connection.
The website DCLeaks, which began publishing a great number of DNC emails, has some apparent ties to Guccifer and possibly Russia.
And then there’s WikiLeaks, which after a long, sad slide into paranoia, conspiracy theorizing, and general internet toxicity has made no attempt to mask its affection for Vladimir Putin and its crazed contempt for Hillary Clinton. (Julian Assange has been stuck indoors for a very, very long time.) If you look at all of this and sort of squint, it looks quite strong indeed, an insurmountable heap of circumstantial evidence too great in volume to dismiss as just circumstantial or mere coincidence.

But look more closely at the above and you can’t help but notice all of the qualifying words: Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this. The question, then, is this: Do we want to make major foreign policy decisions with a belligerent nuclear power based on suggestions alone, no matter how strong?
Click to expand...

Got it.

So, we are risking war with Russia based on evidence you could maybe wring a conviction out of in a civil suit.

Amazing.
 
Stretch said:
They can lock up Obama, too. Negligence in not reporting Hillary's illegal server. He knew about it...he communicated with her on that thing so send him up the river, too. LOL
Click to expand...
While we're at it let's investigate Biden. Remember Bush I and Iran-Contra? Dims tried to go after him after Reagan was out of office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top