|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 6, 2016 22:13:45 GMT
Any Clinton supporters have any opinions on the hidden Qatar donations? Yes. I have an opinion, it is not an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 23:01:42 GMT
This is how email works. You compose an email, a copy of that is on a server somewhere. You send that email and a copy of it ends up on the addressee's email server. You can also download emails to your local drive, and so can the other person. So there might be multiple copies of the email in various places. If she acid bleached her server, took a hammer to the server and cell phones, it doesn't matter. If there were sensitive info in an email someone would probably still have it. So this is all bullshit. 100% bullshit. It will be interesting to see if the rest of America is as gullible as you,My guess is no.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 0:52:20 GMT
This is how email works. You compose an email, a copy of that is on a server somewhere. You send that email and a copy of it ends up on the addressee's email server. You can also download emails to your local drive, and so can the other person. So there might be multiple copies of the email in various places. If she acid bleached her server, took a hammer to the server and cell phones, it doesn't matter. If there were sensitive info in an email someone would probably still have it. So this is all bullshit. 100% bullshit. It will be interesting to see if the rest of America is as gullible as you,My guess is no. There is no guessing. The FBI said that there was nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 1:06:06 GMT
Comey needs to resign after the election. After outlining a case to recommend an indictment (much like a cop talking to high schooler given a break for an open container or pot pipe) he lets her off and gives five of her staffers immunity. He makes this case by writing an new clause into the Espionage Act, one that needs intent, which doesn't support the letter of the law. Comey is also not a judge, and he can't write any Federal statutes out of existence by judicial review. Then, when interviewed by Congress (lefties must have missed this one; judging by their turnout in the midterms they're confused by what Congress is) he confirms that she lied, was grossly negligent and careless. At the end of last month, he announces the investigation is open. Then it's closed. A completely bungled investigation from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 2:14:31 GMT
Comey needs to resign after the election. After outlining a case to recommend an indictment (much like a cop talking to high schooler given a break for an open container or pot pipe) he lets her off and gives five of her staffers immunity. He makes this case by writing an new clause into the Espionage Act, one that needs intent, which doesn't support the letter of the law. Comey is also not a judge, and he can't write any Federal statutes out of existence by judicial review. Then, when interviewed by Congress (lefties must have missed this one; judging by their turnout in the midterms they're confused by what Congress is) he confirms that she lied, was grossly negligent and careless. At the end of last month, he announces the investigation is open. Then it's closed. A completely bungled investigation from start to finish. Where or when was Comey "outlining a case to recommend an indictment" ?? I missed that. Please provide your source for that.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 7, 2016 2:26:33 GMT
Any Clinton supporters have any opinions on the hidden Qatar donations? The Clinton Foundation is an "arms dealer" front.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 2:26:38 GMT
Comey needs to resign after the election. After outlining a case to recommend an indictment (much like a cop talking to high schooler given a break for an open container or pot pipe) he lets her off and gives five of her staffers immunity. He makes this case by writing an new clause into the Espionage Act, one that needs intent, which doesn't support the letter of the law. Comey is also not a judge, and he can't write any Federal statutes out of existence by judicial review. Then, when interviewed by Congress (lefties must have missed this one; judging by their turnout in the midterms they're confused by what Congress is) he confirms that she lied, was grossly negligent and careless. At the end of last month, he announces the investigation is open. Then it's closed. A completely bungled investigation from start to finish. Where or when was Comey "outlining a case to recommend an indictment" ?? I missed that. Please provide your source for that. I would answer as to why I used that diction (never wrote anything close to what you're suggesting), but I've already expressed I have no interest in interacting with you in this thread especially given your penchant for Internet bullying/stalking on the old board. I'm not here to argue with deranged cyber creeps.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 2:54:20 GMT
Where or when was Comey "outlining a case to recommend an indictment" ?? I missed that. Please provide your source for that. I would answer as to why I used that diction (never wrote anything close to what you're suggesting), but I've already expressed I have no interest in interacting with you in this thread especially given your penchant for Internet bullying/stalking on the old board. I'm not here to argue with deranged cyber creeps. I literary laughed out loud when I read that. I quoted you exactly and you just claimed you "never wrote anything close to what you're suggesting".
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 2:55:25 GMT
Comey needs to resign after the election. After outlining a case to recommend an indictment (much like a cop talking to high schooler given a break for an open container or pot pipe) he lets her off and gives five of her staffers immunity. He makes this case by writing an new clause into the Espionage Act, one that needs intent, which doesn't support the letter of the law. Comey is also not a judge, and he can't write any Federal statutes out of existence by judicial review. Then, when interviewed by Congress (lefties must have missed this one; judging by their turnout in the midterms they're confused by what Congress is) he confirms that she lied, was grossly negligent and careless. At the end of last month, he announces the investigation is open. Then it's closed. A completely bungled investigation from start to finish. Where or when was Comey "outlining a case to recommend an indictment" ?? I missed that. Please provide your source for that. Right there. Before you can run back and edit it.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Nov 7, 2016 13:23:00 GMT
Hillz will not be indicted on the emails, not because she did nothing wrong as I keep hearing from libs (not necessarily on this board). She did plenty wrong. The lack of an indictment, incompetence or political agenda by Comey D. Clown aside, is based on basically 3 things. She did not sell secrets to the Russians (or whomever), she could not prove whether she lied to the FBI and they could not prove obstruction of justice. She likely is guilty of the last 2 items, just difficult to build a case around them and a lack of will to do so to a presidential candidate. Sharing classified info with staff, etc on an non-secure server id not something the FBI will press charges on. There is no doubt in my mind that she played fast and loose with the rules and likely broke some laws along the way. She isn't negligent, she did things with a calculated risk and a motive to accomplish something. I would bet most of it has to do with her wheeling and dealing with foreign powers and corporate America while SOS. The circumstantial evidence around her using the Clinton foundation with her actions as SOS is abundant. Too much to be a coincidence. She's about as innocent as OJ of murder.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Nov 7, 2016 13:57:16 GMT
It kinda reminds me of the General Petraeus case, both in terms of inappropriately (at least) sharing classified information and not ultimately being prosecuted (via plea deal) for it. Of course, Petraeus wasn't on the cusp of being President either.
I also think that Badhab has tapped on a particular point of hypocrisy from Rudy Guilliani no matter what side you're on -- "she should go to jail for sharing classified info...here's some classified info from my pals in the FBI about it...".
At any rate, I agree with Henry that Comey just looks bad all around. If his intent was to follow the law and prepare a documented case and indictment, he sure did a poor job of it.
If his intent was to avoid influencing a Presidential election in the final week of voting, he sure did a awful job of that too. He seemed to do the opposite, and without an indictment, his methods and motives will be wide open for questioning.
If his intent was to move a possible keystone criminal case into the land of hearsay, innuendo, and half-informed public fascination like it was a Dancing with the Stars elimination vote, he nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 14:31:09 GMT
Hillz will not be indicted on the emails, not because she did nothing wrong as I keep hearing from libs (not necessarily on this board). She did plenty wrong. The lack of an indictment, incompetence or political agenda by Comey D. Clown aside, is based on basically 3 things. She did not sell secrets to the Russians (or whomever), she could not prove whether she lied to the FBI and they could not prove obstruction of justice. She likely is guilty of the last 2 items, just difficult to build a case around them and a lack of will to do so to a presidential candidate. Sharing classified info with staff, etc on an non-secure server id not something the FBI will press charges on. There is no doubt in my mind that she played fast and loose with the rules and likely broke some laws along the way. She isn't negligent, she did things with a calculated risk and a motive to accomplish something. I would bet most of it has to do with her wheeling and dealing with foreign powers and corporate America while SOS. The circumstantial evidence around her using the Clinton foundation with her actions as SOS is abundant. Too much to be a coincidence. She's about as innocent as OJ of murder. She did nothing against the law, wrong is another another thing. Kels pulls you over and decides he wants to arrest you because his opinion is that he's got enough circumstantial evidence. Then Kel's boss reviews the evidence and says there isn't enough there to take you to court. I say that's bullshit, you are clearly guilty and should be in jail and Kels didn't do his job thoroughly enough. So you are out free typing up stuff on our great forum. And no matter how much I say you should be in jail, you're not even going to court because my opinion isn't a good enough reason in this country to put you in jail. These same rules apply to Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 14:36:27 GMT
Tomorrow will be the beginning of the end of this national nightmare. I hope it will be over tomorrow, but I am afraid it won't be.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Nov 7, 2016 14:42:43 GMT
Hillz will not be indicted on the emails, not because she did nothing wrong as I keep hearing from libs (not necessarily on this board). She did plenty wrong. The lack of an indictment, incompetence or political agenda by Comey D. Clown aside, is based on basically 3 things. She did not sell secrets to the Russians (or whomever), she could not prove whether she lied to the FBI and they could not prove obstruction of justice. She likely is guilty of the last 2 items, just difficult to build a case around them and a lack of will to do so to a presidential candidate. Sharing classified info with staff, etc on an non-secure server id not something the FBI will press charges on. There is no doubt in my mind that she played fast and loose with the rules and likely broke some laws along the way. She isn't negligent, she did things with a calculated risk and a motive to accomplish something. I would bet most of it has to do with her wheeling and dealing with foreign powers and corporate America while SOS. The circumstantial evidence around her using the Clinton foundation with her actions as SOS is abundant. Too much to be a coincidence. She's about as innocent as OJ of murder. She did nothing against the law, wrong is another another thing. Kels pulls you over and decides he wants to arrest you because his opinion is that he's got enough circumstantial evidence. Then Kel's boss reviews the evidence and says there isn't enough there to take you to court. I say that's bullshit, you are clearly guilty and should be in jail and Kels didn't do his job thoroughly enough. So you are out free typing up stuff on our great forum. And no matter how much I say you should be in jail, you're not even going to court because my opinion isn't a good enough reason in this country to put you in jail. These same rules apply to Hillary. It's not my opinion that she did something wrong. I admit that she did nothing that gets her indicted by the FBI and I explained why above. She did in fact share classified info improperly, did she not?
Let's say Kel see's me driving down a parallel road to him and I'm obeying the speed limit. Then a mile later there's a light and I'm already there and Kel is driving the speed limit and is a quarter mile back. He didn't see me speed because he was watching some hottie walking down the street. Circumstantial evidence says I broke the law. Kel did not see me and the law doesn't allow him to give me a ticket in this case.
Do you seriously think Hillary is not a weasel?
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Nov 7, 2016 14:45:37 GMT
She did nothing against the law, wrong is another another thing. Kels pulls you over and decides he wants to arrest you because his opinion is that he's got enough circumstantial evidence. Then Kel's boss reviews the evidence and says there isn't enough there to take you to court. I say that's bullshit, you are clearly guilty and should be in jail and Kels didn't do his job thoroughly enough. So you are out free typing up stuff on our great forum. And no matter how much I say you should be in jail, you're not even going to court because my opinion isn't a good enough reason in this country to put you in jail. These same rules apply to Hillary. It's not my opinion that she did something wrong. I admit that she did nothing that gets her indicted by the FBI and I explained why above. She did in fact share classified info improperly, did she not?
Let's say Kel see's me driving down a parallel road to him and I'm obeying the speed limit. Then a mile later there's a light and I'm already there and Kel is driving the speed limit and is a quarter mile back. He didn't see me speed because he was watching some hottie walking down the street. Circumstantial evidence says I broke the law. Kel did not see me and the law doesn't allow him to give me a ticket in this case.
Do you seriously think Hillary is not a weasel?
You mean, "he didn't see you because he pulled over to take a dump". That would be more accurate, although if the hottie had a set of "44's, it might be diaper time!
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 14:51:34 GMT
It kinda reminds me of the General Petraeus case, both in terms of inappropriately (at least) sharing classified information and not ultimately being prosecuted (via plea deal) for it. Of course, Petraeus wasn't on the cusp of being President either. I also think that Badhab has tapped on a particular point of hypocrisy from Rudy Guilliani no matter what side you're on -- "she should go to jail for sharing classified info...here's some classified info from my pals in the FBI about it...". At any rate, I agree with Henry that Comey just looks bad all around. If his intent was to follow the law and prepare a documented case and indictment, he sure did a poor job of it. If his intent was to avoid influencing a Presidential election in the final week of voting, he sure did a awful job of that too. He seemed to do the opposite, and without an indictment, his methods and motives will be wide open for questioning. If his intent was to move a possible keystone criminal case into the land of hearsay, innuendo, and half-informed public fascination like it was a Dancing with the Stars elimination vote, he nailed it. Comey has been hard on Republicans in the past, so here is my best guess as to what went down. My guess is that he had a rogue element hell bent on getting Trump elected. They must have told Comey that they had reason to suspect there was evidence on Weiner's machine important enough that the people had to know and Comey caved into them. The FBI has to clean its house on 2 counts, one is the Weiner machine debacle and the other is the leak to Rudy G. I see smoking gun undeniable evidence for both issues. For Rudy he said specifically "we have got something up our sleeve" - and Lara Trump used the same phrase AND also had the same timing just a few days before the Comey letter, plus Rudy himself saying "You're darn right I knew" so; 1) timing 2) same phrase from 2 people in the Trump camp 3)Rudy's own admission equals no doubt, at least in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 14:58:23 GMT
She did nothing against the law, wrong is another another thing. Kels pulls you over and decides he wants to arrest you because his opinion is that he's got enough circumstantial evidence. Then Kel's boss reviews the evidence and says there isn't enough there to take you to court. I say that's bullshit, you are clearly guilty and should be in jail and Kels didn't do his job thoroughly enough. So you are out free typing up stuff on our great forum. And no matter how much I say you should be in jail, you're not even going to court because my opinion isn't a good enough reason in this country to put you in jail. These same rules apply to Hillary. It's not my opinion that she did something wrong. I admit that she did nothing that gets her indicted by the FBI and I explained why above. She did in fact share classified info improperly, did she not?
Let's say Kel see's me driving down a parallel road to him and I'm obeying the speed limit. Then a mile later there's a light and I'm already there and Kel is driving the speed limit and is a quarter mile back. He didn't see me speed because he was watching some hottie walking down the street. Circumstantial evidence says I broke the law. Kel did not see me and the law doesn't allow him to give me a ticket in this case.
Do you seriously think Hillary is not a weasel?
OK, I'll go with it. Just what exactly did Hillary do with state secrets on the email server, and what evidence is there of it? "Pay for play" for the Clinton foundation is the phrase being used, but what exactly? There is no evidence at all that the Clintons are taking money for their enrichment from the foundation. The Clinton Foundation is saving lives, I honestly think that this pisses some people off because the lives saved are in 3rd world countries rather than spending the money for drug rehab or something or other in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 7, 2016 15:34:09 GMT
At any rate, I agree with Henry that Comey just looks bad all around. If his intent was to follow the law and prepare a documented case and indictment, he sure did a poor job of it. If his intent was to avoid influencing a Presidential election in the final week of voting, he sure did a awful job of that too. He seemed to do the opposite, and without an indictment, his methods and motives will be wide open for questioning. If his intent was to move a possible keystone criminal case into the land of hearsay, innuendo, and half-informed public fascination like it was a Dancing with the Stars elimination vote, he nailed it. "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove". Yay Teapotty's Chaffetz and Gowdy get to show off their idiotic congressional hearing skills for the next 8 years. Bible-hugging, open-gun carrying rednecks from the south can't wait for the sitcom. Corporate media will lap it up. Gonna be great. So Cruz is next up to run to against corrupt Hillary. He and whittle Marco can trade secrets on how to collect $100K a year without actually doing anything.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Nov 7, 2016 16:58:44 GMT
Tomorrow will be the beginning of the end of this national nightmare. I hope it will be over tomorrow, but I am afraid it won't be. I think the election ends it. It won't be that close. Trump can concede or not. It doesn't really matter if he does.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 7, 2016 17:37:01 GMT
Tomorrow will be the beginning of the end of this national nightmare. I hope it will be over tomorrow, but I am afraid it won't be. I think the election ends it. It won't be that close. Trump can concede or not. It doesn't really matter if he does. I am honestly afraid he might encourage his followers to do something nuts. As far as what that "something nuts" is... as we have already seen he will say anything and it seems there is no where he won't go.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Nov 7, 2016 18:02:13 GMT
I think the election ends it. It won't be that close. Trump can concede or not. It doesn't really matter if he does. I am honestly afraid he might encourage his followers to do something nuts. As far as what that "something nuts" is... as we have already seen he will say anything and it seems there is no where he won't go. Nah, there will be no revolt or anything crazy. Sure, some knuckle dragging Trumpists will cause some minor trouble. Like when California's Prop 8 passed (which constitutionally defined marriage as a man and woman) and the opponents looked at the donor list to find names of those who supported the proposition and then went and vandalized their property, intimidated them, attacked their businesses, etc. Something on that kind of scale. Sore loser stuff.
Donald will bitch for a couple of days about rigged systems and move on to his next venture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 23:31:52 GMT
Don't be a chump, vote for Trump!
And no on 4...I don't want all the Twinkies raided daily from my local 7-11. What about us old fat guys?
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Nov 7, 2016 23:56:58 GMT
I think the election ends it. It won't be that close. Trump can concede or not. It doesn't really matter if he does. I am honestly afraid he might encourage his followers to do something nuts. As far as what that "something nuts" is... as we have already seen he will say anything and it seems there is no where he won't go. He's a goofball businessman. He's nothing more. What could he possibly incite? That's dumb.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 8, 2016 0:25:44 GMT
I am honestly afraid he might encourage his followers to do something nuts. As far as what that "something nuts" is... as we have already seen he will say anything and it seems there is no where he won't go. He's a goofball businessman. He's nothing more. What could he possibly incite? That's dumb. OK. I feel better. I'm sure he'll give a good concession speech and it will be done. Thanks for talking me off the ledge. You're a swell guy, no matter what they say about you.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 8, 2016 0:26:29 GMT
Don't be a chump, vote for Trump! And no on 4...I don't want all the Twinkies raided daily from my local 7-11. What about us old fat guys? Disagree strongly on the first one, agree strongly on #4
|
|