Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by CaptUSMCNole, Oct 18, 2019.
Some here are becoming more Trump-like every day....lie your ass off and deny the facts at will.
Not really, it's pretty spot on.
In other words, they were incompetent, but not deliberately so. Seriously, who else could get away with that? Two sets of laws in Lawyerland.
Its funny that the people on here who want Hillary thrown in jail are the same ones who feel the current occupant of the White House is above investigation for allowing his private lawyer (not a government employee but his private freaking lawyer, without any clearances) use of State Department assets to jet around the world and conduct a covert investigation of a political rival, and then threaten to hold up Congressionally approved aid if another country didn't cooperate.
Or have no problem with his awarding the G-7 to a personal asset because he said the words "no profit", like there's really a moron in the world who believes that populating an asset that is otherwise only 30-40% historically occupied at the time won't result in "profit" to the owner. My guess is you don't have a business degree.
Rick decrying a set of facts as "bunk" sums it all up. You guys don't believe in facts anymore.
Party over country, but really Trump over party.
It's the definition of hypocrisy.
It's as though you used the word "flgator2" to describe someone with whom you disagree. It's profoundly astonishing.
they don’t seem to mind compelling documents witnesses to investigate democrats or HRC, but when Rick Perry, Pompeo, McGann ignore subpoenas, that is OK.
So if you needed proof that this report is all about protecting the institution, it is that statement right there. That statement is false. Clinton had documents with portion classification markings on them, specifically “(C)” for confidential. She was specifically asked about that by the FBI. The Dept of State is playing games with definitions on this report to protect itself. They are claiming that a portion marking isn’t actually a classification marking, which is an extremely hard thing to claim with a straight face.
@fredsanford - Out of curiosity, why are you putting in photos of Tweets and not the Tweets themselves?
hopefully they get fired
Along with the Trump kids.
It showed that the Secretary of State was using an on authorized unclassified server for her work email that had classified information on it.
Breaking news, 2016 style.
Jeffrey Toobin expresses regret over 'mistakes' in Clinton email coverage
Now you have a traitor President literally taking direct action on advice from dictators, sending out shadow operators to work around our governments' normal diplomatic channels, seemingly even directly in conflict with actual U.S. national security interests.
You're still stuck on "but her emails". Shame.
It is a thread about the handling of the emails
They didn't want to vote to censure Steve King of Iowa.
But EVERY.SINGLE.REPUBLICAN voted to move forward on a motion to censure Adam Schiff - who just happens to be leading the impeachment investigation of the most criminally disqualified president perhaps in our entire history.
I think that says it all.
True. Of course he is the one responsible for starting this thread and thus wants to re-raise the emails issue. Hence, "stuck on emails".
Based on posts, also not sure this guy thinks this is the "closing chapter" in the email saga. Trump sure doesn't.
None of the things you have listed are illegal. You might not like how Trump has run his Admin, and with good reason, but as POTUS all of the things you listed within his prerogative to do.
Clinton had no authority or justification to have over 500 emails with classified information on a personal server. I realize that you might not think that is a big deal but I tell you the rank and file of the IC did. The topic of "What would have happened to us if we did that?" was much discussed during '15 and '16. So please spare me "but her emails."
does the fact that the State Dept found no deliberate mishandling of classified material make the focus on emails a bit overdone?