Hillary's email issue was investigated by TRUMP APPOINTED U.S. Attorney John Huber. Found nothing that would justify criminal charges. . . . . Biden had documents in his garage, but he voluntarily returned them. He never disobeyed the government request to return them. He never lied about having them. he never moved them to hide them from federal investigators.
This meme is one of the lamest "false equivalency" logical fails of all time.
We all know that what you just said here is nonsense, even you. It was a different standard then. Hillary was running for office, they said, "No reasonable prosecutor would convict," and that's where they left it. Hillary wasn't president, she had no authority to mishandle classified material. The President has always had full authority of classified materials since the president is the one that literally created that law by executive order. (please don't be stupid here, if you don't understand the foundations of classification authority, then please look it up before you say something retarded).
Hillary didn't get charged because she was the Democrat's primary candidate and it would have spelled disaster for them. She had hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments which... not only did they not belong on an unclassified private server in her bathroom, but also required extra handling that a normal classified environment wouldn't have been cleared for.
So... just stop this argument right here, because everyone here (including you) knows that you're completely wrong... you're not fooling anyone.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Hillary's email issue was investigated by TRUMP APPOINTED U.S. Attorney John Huber. Found nothing that would justify criminal charges. . . . . Biden had documents in his garage, but he voluntarily returned them. He never disobeyed the government request to return them. He never lied about having them. he never moved them to hide them from federal investigators.
This meme is one of the lamest "false equivalency" logical fails of all time.
Full of crap. Like it took Bill Bar a week to say "no fraud in 2020 presidential election", during that time he sat on his/hers/them/they fat arse with buckets of KFC and a table cloth as a bib. Elitists never get charged. All innocent. Like Hunter.
Why did Biden have them? No further investigation.
Just like Ms. Maxwell charged/convicted of underage sex trafficking. But no one else charged. No clients. Nothing. Sheee@, with all the money the FagBI gets, all sex traffickers could disappear, but it's a business to them AND YOU.
Your 'progressive' natural can't see beyond the 2 parties. Are you in favour of drug testing all those who were present in the White House for the last 4 weeks? Naaa, the elitists have separate rules, compared to us (the glue) who could have a random one at anytime.
Go back into your storage container with the rest of the screw drivers and wrenches, just be sure to wipe that white powder off your nose first..
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: We all know that what you [fredtoast] just said here is nonsense, even you. It was a different standard then. Hillary was running for office, they said, "No reasonable prosecutor would convict," and that's where they left it. Hillary wasn't president, she had no authority to mishandle classified material. The President has always had full authority of classified materials since the president is the one that literally created that law by executive order. (please don't be stupid here, if you don't understand the foundations of classification authority, then please look it up before you say something retarded).
Hillary didn't get charged because she was the Democrat's primary candidate and it would have spelled disaster for them. She [Hillary Clinton] had hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments which... not only did they not belong on an unclassified private server in her bathroom, but also required extra handling that a normal classified environment wouldn't have been cleared for.
So... just stop this argument right here, because everyone here (including you) knows that you're completely wrong... you're not fooling anyone.
Is that a fact? That Hillary Clinton had all that stuff—hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments—on an unclassified and privately owned and administered server? (In her bathroom? I thought it was her basement.)
Where is such an accounting?
I've been under the impression that the classified information that Clinton is known to have mishandled was not of the magnitude that anyone could accurately describe as "hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments."
As I sidebar, I want to say that I don't like or respect the dissing of "fredtoast"—the trash talk as the sports fans often say—that I have highlighted in green. There's no call for any of that. It definitely subtracts from 82-T/A's credibility, in my eyes.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-08-2023).]
Is that a fact? That Hillary Clinton had all that stuff—hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments—on an unclassified and privately owned and administered server? (In her bathroom? I thought it was her basement.)
Where is such an accounting?
I've been under the impression that the classified information that Clinton is known to have mishandled was not of the magnitude that anyone could accurately describe as "hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments."
As I sidebar, I want to say that I don't like or respect the dissing of "fredtoast"—the trash talk as the sports fans often say—that I have highlighted in green. There's no call for any of that. It definitely subtracts from 82-T/A's credibility, in my eyes.
Are you forgetting about the goodies on Huma Abedin's/Anthony "Dick" Weiner's laptop? Emails containing sensitive information?
You can't even say for FACT (think gov CDC misinfo promoted by MSM fake news along with bought and paid for social media platforms to force control narrative) what Trump had/has. You can link to what ever abcdefg+ network. Even .govs. But with how this admin an it's deep state cronies lie, fabricate and purposely confuse, I will not believe jack **** that come out of them.
Trash talk? Dissing. Hmm. I remember when I first started posting in OT 2020 while doing repairs on my kickass fiero, ChatRI and Pat found my account suspicious. Like I was someone with a burner account. ChatRI, piss off. Take yo whoop'n like a man, not like some Dylan Mulvaney.
I don't remember posting anything about WonderBoy and burner phones (or burner anything) or even ever having any suspicions of that kind, much less posting any such remarks.
I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but I don't remember my being involved in anything like that.
Could it be that WonderBoy is thinking of someone else, and misremembering that person as "rinselberg"..?
And no, I haven't forgotten about the classified State Department information that turned up on Huma Abedin's or Anthony Weiner's laptop, or any of the discoveries that were reported before that about Hillary Clinton's emails and private server. That's all baked into what I just said, which is that I have never had the perception that the Clinton "scraps" were anywhere even close to the significance of the Trump "horde", in terms of the amount and the sensitivity of the classified materials.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-08-2023).]
Comparison of Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton, using coins from the Roman empire to represent classified documents and fragments: pages; paragraphs; sentences; phrases; numbers; maps; charts; drawings; timelines; etc.
Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-08-2023).]
Originally posted by WonderBoy: Why did Biden have them? No further investigation..
There was nothing to investigate because Biden voluntarily returned everything.
If Trump had returned all the documents then there would not have been any further investigation of him either. The problem was he lied to federal authorities about possessing the documents and he moved them around to intentionally hide them.
Are you forgetting about the goodies on Huma Abedin's/Anthony "Dick" Weiner's laptop? Emails containing sensitive information?
Actually I do remember, but apparently you do not.
Less than two weeks before the election FBI Director Jim Comey dropped a bombshell in a search warrant for Abedin's laptop claiming it could contain evidence of Clinto mishandling sensitive documents. But then after the election he siad they did not find any evidence at all.
This is the reason Trump won the election, and he loved/praised Comey for doing it.
Is that a fact? That Hillary Clinton had all that stuff—hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments—on an unclassified and privately owned and administered server? (In her bathroom? I thought it was her basement.)
Where is such an accounting?
I've been under the impression that the classified information that Clinton is known to have mishandled was not of the magnitude that anyone could accurately describe as "hundreds of classified documents which included SAPs and compartments."
"the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program"
"July 10, 2015 – The FBI opened a criminal investigation, code-named “Midyear Exam,” into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information while secretary of state."
"July 10, 2015 – The FBI opened a criminal investigation, code-named “Midyear Exam,” into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information while secretary of state."
"John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped inNovember 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One."
"John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped inNovember 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One."
I know you're not confused here. We're talking about Hillary's email investigation and her classified documents, which you are aware of. You obviously know we're talking about the hundred+ that were found on the bathroom server... and the thousands of others they couldn't find because she wiped the drives and smashed her phones. No one here is talking about Uranium One or the Clinton Foundation... obviously you know that, so your response only acknowledges to me that you realize you're wrong. It probably hurts, I guess... doesn't happen to me that often, but you're probably getting used to it.
Do you have any more unrelated points that no one's asking about that you'd like to bring up to deflect from the issue?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I know you're not confused here. We're talking about Hillary's email investigation and her classified documents, which you are aware of.
Yes. I know all about that also. It was thoroughly investigated and there was no criminal activity found.
Your make-believe version of what happened does not matter in the real world. Hillary Clinton has been investigated more by Republican controlled administrations than any person on earth and they never find anything. There were 6 on Benghazi alone.
However when they investigate Trump they find clear evidence of criminal behavior. It is sad that none of you can just accept the truth. Trump was taken to court repeatedly BEFORE HE EVER BECAME PRESIDENT. This claim that he is now just the victim of political agendas is absurd. If he did not have the corrupt history behind him it might make some sense, but he was was found to be crooked before he ever became President.
If he did not have the corrupt history behind him it might make some sense, but he was was found to be crooked before he ever became President.
It just blows me away that millions of people look up to this con artist. It's like some sort of mass delusional behavior. Kind of scary, if the truth be known.
The SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT opened for a specially selected audience from the Federal court system on Thursday. It's the perfect summertime addition to "Barbenheimer."
Headline.....Biden DOJ Attempts to Jail Hunter Biden’s Former Business Partner Devon Archer Before Testimony
Story......DOJ files request for judge to set date for Archer to report to jail for fraud convictions from 2018. No way possible he would be jailed before testifying. Both Archer and his attorney agree that it is NOT an attempt at intimidation.
Just more spin for the rubes who believe what they want to hear.
Trying to "torture" this malfeasance of a former high-ranking FBI agent to twist it into an argument or a prejudice against the DOJ's indictments of Donald Trump is... not good.
First of all, unless there's a direct link between this Charles McGonigal and the DOJ's cases against Donald Trump, it's just another "whataboutism."
I'm not aware of any reporting of that kind of linkage.
Secondly, I think it's inescapable that the FBI itself played an important role in the investigations that resulted in the criminal indictments of this Charles McGonigal; to wit:
In October of 2021, as part of an FBI investigation, FBI agents conducted evidence searches at two properties, one in New York City and the other in D.C., that were owned by or linked with the well known Russian "oligarch" Oleg Deripaska.
In January of this year, this:
"Former top FBI official Charles McGonigal arrested over ties to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska"
Trump's lawyers want SCIF reestablished at Mar-a-Lago for the former president to review or discuss classified evidence in the Mar-a-Lago documents case
No nothing to see here. I guess taking money from a Russian oligarch is a common thing now days. How is watching the watchmen?
If a former doctor robbed a bank would see it as proof that the medical profession is a fraud? If your kids got seriously ill would you refuse to take them to a doctor?
Should all people that commit a crime be executed? Should they all be let go Scott free? I should have been clearer so you had more to twist. This person was involved in investigating Trump's involvement with Russia and himself was taking monies from them. These are not false allegations as he is pleading guilty.
Originally posted by jdv: This person was involved in investigating Trump's involvement with Russia and himself was taking monies from them.
He did not take any money while working for the FBI or investigating Trump.
And didn't the FBI investigation prove that all the "Russian collusion" allegations were just a hoax? So if we can't trust the FBI that means Trump really did collude with the Russians, right?
Originally posted by fredtoast: ...the "Russian collusion" allegations were just a hoax
Thank you Fredtoast. I'm glad you've finally come to this conclusion. I'm sure it took a while, a lot of soul searching, and a lot of teeth gnashing... but glad you've at least finally accepted reality.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Thank you Fredtoast. I'm glad you've finally come to this conclusion. I'm sure it took a while, a lot of soul searching, and a lot of teeth gnashing... but glad you've at least finally accepted reality.
I have now rejected that idea because I was told I can't trust the FBI.
What's you position on this. Was the FBI lying when they said there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with collusion, or should we trust and believe the FBI? I mean you can't accept two contradictory positions at the same time can you?
Originally posted by fredtoast: I have now rejected that idea because I was told I can't trust the FBI.
What's you position on this. Was the FBI lying when they said there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with collusion, or should we trust and believe the FBI? I mean you can't accept two contradictory positions at the same time can you?
1) There is no evidence. 2) The FBI cannot be trusted.
Originally posted by fredtoast: I have now rejected that idea because I was told I can't trust the FBI.
What's you position on this. Was the FBI lying when they said there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with collusion, or should we trust and believe the FBI? I mean you can't accept two contradictory positions at the same time can you?
On the contrary. If you believe the FBI is willing to lie for Democrats, but in this case, they've actually stated there was no Russia Collussion, then this only emphasizes how much more truthful that is.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: On the contrary. If you believe the FBI is willing to lie for Democrats, but in this case, they've actually stated there was no Russia Collussion, then this only emphasizes how much more truthful that is.
NO
but you will claim the same BS no matter what we post as you believe and no facts can change your miss guided faith in a fool
I speak truth the scum bag did collude there just is not the amount of proof required for a court conviction
funny how the same side that feared the USSR NOW LOVE THE THUG PUTIN
1) There is no evidence. 2) The FBI cannot be trusted.
There is no contradiction.
NO PIG LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN BE TRUSTED local cops to the very top all are pigs
THERE IS EVIDENCE JUST NOT TO THE LEVEL OF A CON-VICTION
NEVER MIND THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION THE RUMP IS GUILTY OF TREASON AND COULD BE CON-VICTED OF THAT NOW FOR 1-6 get him for what he did do that can be proven in court
secrets or rig the vote or rig the counts who cares he did it all then lead a revolt on 1-6 the scum bag is way worse the nixon at least nixon did not cheat on income tax
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: On the contrary. If you believe the FBI is willing to lie for Democrats, but in this case, they've actually stated there was no Russia Collussion, then this only emphasizes how much more truthful that is.
This is exactly what I was wanting to prove.
It is not about the institutional integrity. It is about what party you belong to. Basically you say we should trust and believe the FBI when they say something that favors Republicans, not when they say something that favors Democrats.
Your entire belief system is based on politics instead of any logic. You even ignore clear logical contradictions in order to support your beliefs.
The various federal and state-level court cases in which the former president has been criminally indicted are updated with former federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner.
Katie Phang and Glenn Kirschner. This is from a previous episode of the show, not the latest episode that's being referenced here.
