Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
From	Message
lord_shiva 27-Jan-18, 10:12	Hillary and Bill both were investigated for twenty years, examined more closely than any couple in the history of the world--both in terms of man hours and money squandered. Comey had run out of things to investigate. Talk about a witch hunt, you start out with a failed real estate deal and end up impeaching over a blowjob. Excuse me, LYING about a blowjob. So much worse than the actual blowjob, which turns out is not illegal. Not on the scale of using campaign funds to pay a porn star $130,000 to hush up about an affair. No crime there, of course, as IOKIYAR. Oh, we were trash talking Hillary. My bad. So you hold twenty two hearings on Benghazi--more than you did over 9/11 or the Iraq War fiasco. How many 9/11 hearings did congress hold? Anyway, the witch used a private email address! OMG OMG OMG! That must be a thousand times worse than conspiring with Russians or obstructing justice.
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 10:18	Stal Let me correct myself. My native language is not English and therefore my English is poor. So, one can interpret what I say in different ways. Now I understand what you mean about the difference between wrong doings and innocence. Pardon me for saying that HRC is innocent. Whether one is guilty or innocence is decided by the judiciary court system. A criminal like suicide bomber can commit a heinous crime and kill many people. He is presumed innocent until it is proven otherwise by the court of law. What I am trying to say is that both Trump and HRC are innocent until it is proven otherwise by the court of law. We can speculate their wrong doings but unless there is proper investigation and due process of law, how can we find out ? If we suspect that Comey and Trump did wrong things or criminal acts, both can interfere with the due process of law.
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 10:47	The dilemma of DOJ The Department Of Justice are political appointees. DOJ has the responsibility to ensure that the nation is ruled by the law and justice. Without justice, there can be no peace. The problem is that since they are political appointees, what will they do if one or some of the members of their own political party break some laws. Nobody including our POTUS should not be above the law of the land. For example, GOP- Nixon and Democrat Clinton received due process of law. There is no question that even the presidents can lie and break the laws. The question now is that if Mueller find something significant wrong doings in his investigation of Trump, will DOJ appointed by Trump will act fairly ? Can they be biased in favor of Trump ? There are suspicions that former DOJ Loretta Lynch might be colluding with HRC. because she would be rewarded with the same position if HRC was elected. I am not sure DOJ Sessions is smart or honest to evade the issue. Citing conflict of interest he recuses ( exempt himself ) from participating in investigation of Russian collusion in our election. Nevertheless, if the investigation is transparent we should not be afraid of collusion between DOJ and Trump.
lord_shiva 27-Jan-18, 10:55	Your English is Poor Nonsense. Your English is excellent. Most native speakers lack your vocabulary and grammar. You speak far better than our CIC, even when he is not insulting political rivals or other television personalities.
the-sigularity 27-Jan-18, 11:05	ace-of-aces What is all the rhetoric about innocent until proven guilty? trump reveals his actions in public, without having to go to court for the acts, or words, to be authenticated. Bill Clinton was persecuted, and prosecuted, because someone did something to him, and it was done behind closed doors, but those persecutors were not happy that they found out about it, they wanted him to be nailed up to a cross, for allowing something to be done to him that is by far less of a crime than what some of those people do, that wanted to ruin him. The difference was that all those that were "thowing the stone", and acting like their feces does not smell, were doing something, or were guilty of something worse. The truth is coming out with all thos women that are bringing out the dirt that some of those politicians that consider themselves free of sin. The bottom line to this is that if a man exposes himself in public, he does not have to be convicted in a court of law, he has already exhibited his indecency voluntarily for all to see without shame.
apatzer 27-Jan-18, 11:18	Stalh wrote: You cannot blame Comey if the DOJ accepted his judgement and refrained from raising charges! Especially since Bill Clinton arranged an impromptu meeting on the tarmac with them head of the Justice department Loretta Lynch – Bit Bill just wanted to ask how her kids were doing and talk about sports right? Nothing to see hear people. All is normal If you or I had done the things Hillary did. And during that time I did look at the Law. We would have been put in prison because we are peasants The reason Comey used the verbiage he did " no intent " could not find intent " is because several of the articles of Law that she DID break. Specifically state. If the actions are done with intent you can never again hold office in any capacity EVER. She is a great minion and they are not done using her yet, so she got a pass and also any outside law suit that may arise was quashed by "no intent verbiage " Trump will either play ball or they will remove him. This is just the deep state flexing its muscles to reign in a minion who can sometimes be difficult to control. You may get a sacrificial lamb out of this. But if Trump keeps on being a good boy to the 1 %. He will also get a pass. Mulligans galore. He may actually get to be a real life Billionare. Who controls the federal reserve system? And the Irs. Who has been entrenched in the Whitehouse no matter who is in office D or R? Oh yeah Goldman Sachs. They know Trumps real net worth. Have every tax document he has ever filled and thanks to the NSA that they fund. Have every email he has ever recived or sent in his lifetime and that only scratches the surfaceof what they have on him. Do you think he has had zero contact with organisations such as the Mafia? Your all looking at exactly what they want you to see and arguing over exactly what they want you to argue about. Subterfuge is an art of war and make no mistake America is an Empire
dmaestro 27-Jan-18, 11:28	www.google.com This “conspiracy” is simply built on sand. Winslow’s first point that Comey should not have been making prosecutorial decisions (actually OPINIONS) totally ignores the CONTEXT as I said. Comey was faced with a polarized divided FBI with some Trump FBI supporters pressing prosecution of the Clintons and leaking information; and the problem AG Lynch created by meeting with Bill privately. The reasons why prosecution wasn’t advisable were evident. The reasons why Comey said what he said were evident too. Most interesting in the article is the hints that anti Clinton FBI leakers were pushing the timing of the Weiner scandal email reopening to cause maximum damage to Clinton. Of course nothing new but it worked. Read the above article to understand how Winslow is already mischaracterizing what happened to support a dubious conspiracy.
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 11:41	Thanks LS for your comment that my English is excellent. I am humbled by your words. I still need to check the dictionary for correct spelling and meaning. I will vote for you if you run in presidential election. BTW, Transgender female Chelsea Manning will be running for the senate position.
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 12:01	Have sympathy to plug the shithole EW said : correct me if I am wrong. The difference was that all those that were "thowing the stone", and acting like their feces does not smell, were doing something, or were guilty of something worse. --------------- The two are quite different 1. Profane and vulgar language versus 2. What the people like to hear. We might think that what the decent people would like to hear all the time, that is, politically correct and beautiful words all the time but don't forget that the audience also have pent up shitholes that they want to blast it out in public but they cannot do it. Trump bears the burden of those pent up shit holes and is doing a great job for them. I have sympathy with you on the solution of how can we shut up the great shithole. So far, he cannot be impeached for his vulgarity alone. EW's greatest opportunity to impeach him will be the current Mueller investigation. So, concentrate on this conspiracy subject matter.
apatzer 27-Jan-18, 12:14	Deleted by apatzer on 27-Jan-18, 12:14.
apatzer 27-Jan-18, 12:19	What she did was totally prosecutable. Transportation of classified material by her lawyers who did not have clearance. Maintenance of servers and cloud storage of classified material by people who did not have clearance. Distribution of that information to her subordinate. When you are in possetion of classified information that is for your eyes only. You are personally responsible for everything. And some of those documents were beyond top secret. There was no retroactive classification. That was an excuse to give plausible deniability for those who were following the story and who know the law. Also information stored and the use of unapproved devices. Where the server was set up how it was set up. And then the destroying classified documents by scrubbing the server. And there is more a lot more. We are not privy to the evidence. We only know what they tell us and that story keeps changing. The entire wording of intent was designed to pre empt the law. For the law is written clearly that if intent is found you can never hold any office. Next time you get pulled over for a traffic violation tell the officer. I did not intend to violate the law and see what happens? It is at the officers discression weather or not to fine you... give you a ticket... it a warning. But that does not change the fact that you broke the law in the first place! To say it was not prosecutable is ridiculous. If I had done one half of that. I would be fined tens of thousands of dollars and spend 3 to 8 years in federal prison. And how do you know the FBI agents who leaked the information were Trump supporters? It could have been leaked for any reason and no one has a way of knowing that privileged information.
the-sigularity 27-Jan-18, 12:31	ace-of aces Thanks for agreeing with what I wrote. The opportunity to impeach trump is not my greatest opportunity. He has earned it all by himself, that is the reason he is trying his best to hide what his followers call a conspiracy, because he knows that the investigation is not favorable. It is well known that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. But to start with, he does not want people to know how much income tax he has not paid.
dmaestro 27-Jan-18, 12:59	That isn’t entirely accurate Apatzer. There really isn’t anything “beyond top secret”. That’s a Hollywood creation. What you probably refer to is SCI, usually intelligence information. The emails in question were not adequately marked and they were not beyond top secret. The email system at State was sub par prompting prior use of private email accounts. The policies were not adequate. And it’s not clear how you could prove how deeply Clinton was personally aware of the issues and thus her intent. They never found a smoking gun regarding intent. The bulk of legal opinion was that you could not get a conviction. It’s well known that the FBI became politically polarized and was leaking as well. Comey was in the middle. His Weiner announcement was to forestall the information being leaked inaccurately by anti Clinton sources supporting Trump and who wanted to see Clinton prosecutions. It’s not as simple as running a stop light or direct espionage.
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 16:19	One most likely question that Mueller would like to ask Trump. We are aware that General Flynn was communicating with Russians. He lied to VP Pence that he did not talk to Russian ambassador and was the reason he was fired by Trump. If you are Trump, how would you like to answer the following question. "Did you tell former FBI chief, Comey to stop investigating Flynn's collusion with Russians ? " Collusion with Russians for political gain is a criminal act. If Trump order Comey to stop his investigation, it will be obstruction of justice. How should Trump answer to cover his ass or what will be the likely response if you are innocent ? Will Trump answer similar to HRC in Benghazi hearings when she said, " The four Americans are already dead. Does it make any difference ? " I would like to hear from you all, even if your views on Trump is diametrically opposite to me.
stalhandske 27-Jan-18, 20:33	Apatzer <Stalh wrote: You cannot blame Comey if the DOJ accepted his judgement and refrained from raising charges! Especially since Bill Clinton arranged an impromptu meeting on the tarmac with them head of the Justice department Loretta Lynch – Bit Bill just wanted to ask how her kids were doing and talk about sports right? Nothing to see hear people. All is normal> Ohhh, really! And this is the basis for your opinion about the reaction of the official American judiciary system on the report by FBI? Pathetic! <What she did was totally prosecutable> ....and you are an expert? I suggest that before making such a statement, which is contrary both to the official FBI investigation and the reaction by the American judiciary system, you would at least acquaint yourself with the law (18 US Code §793). www.law.cornell.edu
lord_shiva 27-Jan-18, 22:42	What Difference Does it Make whether they were killed because of a terrorist attack or because of a riot over a video? Because my conservative friends insist that while the four would still be dead, their deaths would have been more meaningful had they been killed over a video protest or something. I never understood the furor over Hillary's question. She is right, what difference does it make? Everything would have been fine, and we would not have held 22 Benghazi hearings, had the deaths been the result of riot over an insulting video?
winslowhightower 28-Jan-18, 01:14	I think the first thing Comey did wrong, that we knew about, was that he preempted the role of the Attorney General and offered no prosecution, giving Loretta Lynch a reprieve from having to make a decision after the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting. The meeting looked bad and now people wouldn't be able to point to it if Loretta Lynch decided not to prosecute. The next point for Comey is his exoneration speech, which he drafted months before he even interviewed Hillary. www.cnn.com
winslowhightower 28-Jan-18, 01:17	I didn't follow the Benghazi circus. If an insulting video wasn't the reason for the riot, then what was the reason?
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 01:32	Winslow <I think the first thing Comey did wrong, that we knew about, was that he preempted the role of the Attorney General and offered no prosecution, giving Loretta Lynch a reprieve from having to make a decision after the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting. The meeting looked bad and now people wouldn't be able to point to it if Loretta Lynch decided not to prosecute.> I have stated time and time again that it was part of the FBI Director's job to INTERPRET the evidence that had been gathered. Of course a meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch "looks bad" when you look at it from an alt-right-biased angle. Neither you nor I know what that meeting was about. Moreover, some other prosecutor could also have taken up the case - nobody did (to my knowledge). <The next point for Comey is his exoneration speech, which he drafted months before he even interviewed Hillary.> This draft or part of it has been seen by two republican senators. It is unfair to judge unfinished work. At the time Comey already had plenty of data, and made draft formulations of his speech on that basis. He had the full right to do so. As much as he would have had full right to reverse his opinion had any later interviews or information been damaging enough to make him change his opinion.
winslowhightower 28-Jan-18, 01:59	And in his original draft Comey used the term "grossly negligent" and also said that Obama was aware of Hillary's private server. Then Strzok revised the draft to change grossly negligent to "extremely careless" and removed mention of President Obama and changed it to senior officials. www.scribd.com
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 02:25	Winslow Yes, I am aware of this change from draft to final product. Do you mean to say that the FBI was not allowed to modify an earier draft into a final statement? "Gross negligence" is the precise wording of USC Code 18 §793, clause f, which makes the offense a crime irrespective of whether there is intent or not. As I pointed out earlier, "Extremely careless" is (at least in my non-English ears) only a hair-thin distance away from "grossly negligent". In this case, however, the difference is between acquittal and prosecution! I think it is obvious that, in Comey's OPINION (!), Ms. Clinton's handling of the matter was not sufficiently serious to be criminal. To whine about earlier wordings of a draft is just unnecessary hair-splitting.
winslowhightower 28-Jan-18, 02:29	Strzok was then hired by Mueller for his special counsel and then removed when his text messages revealed a strong anti-Trump bias. It's interesting that Strzok was the one to change the wording of the draft.
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 02:35	But dear Winslow, are you saying that Strzok dictated to his boss what he should do? That Comey had no opinion of his own? Let me speculate, too. Perhaps Comey was not aware of the precise wording of USC Code 18 §793, clause f at the time he wrote the draft. His underling Strzok - perhaps - was.
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 03:24	Winslow Let me make one more comment on this matter, one that touches your conscience and your feeling for what is right: Do you really think than Ms. Hillary Clinton should be jailed for this oversight?
apatzer 28-Jan-18, 05:07	stalhandske Oh and you find nothing wrong with that??? an ongoing investigation where the FBI will hand over the entire investigation to lynch and give he a recommendation. Then the husband of the accused who is a former president, literally makes passengers grt off of an air plane and no pictures, just so he can talk to the head of the justice department. oh but he didn't talk about the ongoing investigation, just wanted to ask her how her kids are doing. No sir thinking nothing is wrong with that is pathetic No nothing wrong with that.???
apatzer 28-Jan-18, 05:26	stalhandske Did you actually read that us code,? or did you just get your google on? 1. Mishandling Classified Information Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) 2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act Section 1236.22 The shear volume of classified information that went through her unsecured server, that she had backed up to the cloud by a company that was not approved to do it. Her lawyer transporting data that was classified. He had zero clearance. willfully destroying classified information. She directed three of her Lawyers to scrub the server and destroy the documents that THEY were in possession of. Plat river and dato ink, If my memory serves me correct. They either backed up or maintained her servers. Seriously and that is just a little, There is also the transition of data between devices that were not authorized.' Transition to persons who were not authorized to view it, Documents from her server were found on both Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin deviceses. Now quote me some more law please.
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 05:27	apatzer How do you know what that meeting included? You are making a lot of assumptions based on your own beliefs of conspiracy. You think an appointed Attorney General in the service of her country would switch her judiciary opinions just because of a visit by a former president? Conspiracy indeed! I actually feel pity for you Americans, who believe all and everybody are against you.
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 05:31	<Now quote me some more law please.> I already did. You seem to forget the key matter: The FBI came to the conclusion that they reported via Mr Comey - that was THEIR INTERPRETATION, knowing all the details. Secondly, no part of the juridical system started a process against Ms. Clinton. YOUR interpretation is different, and I am not at all surprised at that.
apatzer 28-Jan-18, 08:20	Deleted by apatzer on 28-Jan-18, 08:38.
apatzer 28-Jan-18, 08:27	Deleted by apatzer on 28-Jan-18, 08:38.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.