|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
apatzer 28-Jan-18, 08:34 |
 Deleted by apatzer on 28-Jan-18, 08:39.
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Sorry Stahl, I had to edit my posts And again I ask you find nothing wrong with that? She should have refused to see him. The entire situation was inappropriate. And no one knowing what they talked about during thier impromptu meeting on a runway in a private plane. Is kind of the whole point lets say Melania Trump had an impromptu meeting with The head of the agency that Robert Muller was going to refer his case and recommendation to. And that meeting took place aboard a private plane where no press or witnesses were allowed to be on board. Given the things Trump is being investigated for, I bet most people who have a real problem with that. So would you have a problem with the above senerio? 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? I don't know if she could or could not, we are all human. And that is the point She is called to a much higher standard! Just to be put in a position of the mere possibility of improprieties or any situation that could lead a reasonable person to think that impartiality was being compromised. Is against the oath she took when she accepted that office. I admit, sometimes I may take things too far with conspiracy and things about that meeting may not have been as bad as I think. But I say that they are not as innocent as you think they are either. So you see nothing wrong with that meeting and nothing wrong with the way the classified information was handled? The fact that they chose not to prosecute is irrelevant to the fact that laws were broken. It is at their rescission to prosecute or not, to cut a deal or not. There have been people who have committed murder and the courts chose not to prosecute. The point is really this.... The law was broken! and they appear for all intents and purposes to be above the law. Like the old saying, there are no courts for people like that. and that is a problem |
|||||||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 28-Jan-18, 08:49 |
www.politico.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 09:01 |
apatzer I obviously see what waves that meeting caused. It was obviously extremely undiplomatic. Yet, it must not change our objective judgement of how FBI and Mr. Comey handled the matter; that would be unfair to both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Comey. It is equally obvious that classified information was handled in a most dubious way. This is precisely what Comey concluded (using different wording). But he also concluded that this was not sufficient to make it a crime. <The fact that they chose not to prosecute is irrelevant to the fact that laws were broken.> I am not sure I understand what you mean. If the judiciary system in USA is of the opinion that federal laws have been broken to the extent that require prosecution, I don't understand why they haven't done that up till now. The way I see it is that the official US Law system agrees with Comey that Ms. Clinton's mistakes were not sufficiently serious for prosecution. What I fail to understand is why you (and some others) won't accept that. Or is it really only because she does not represent your political views? |
|||||||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 28-Jan-18, 09:34 |
www.wsj.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
My political views have nothing to do with my opinion on the situation, wait maybe they do because it is my belief that everyone should be treated fairly and impartially, with no regard given to Class, race, religion or what office you hold. Or how much money you have, or don't have. Justice should be blind, not blind deaf and dumb. There have been many cases where persons have been prosecuted for far less and I mean FAR LESS than the allegations brought before Mrs Clinton in what they actually found to be true. And in those cases there was never a mention to (Intent) EVER. So why does intent suddenly play a factor for one American and not the scores of other Americans who were prosecuted for lesser offenses? For me this is the problem. They pick and choose who and how justice will be handed down to. T |
|||||||||||||||
|
stal It is a trick that all trump people have learned from trump, that if he is doing things that are wrong, then he points at his opponent, and writes look what she did (or is doing), even if the thing that he is pointing at is not as bad as what he is doing himself. That is an old trick used even by kids, when they are caught "red handed". The trump campaign got busy by getting people to try to find as much "trash" as they could on Hillary, so that people would forget about all the wrong way trump was doing wrong. AND IT WORKED!!! for a lot of people that were either gullible, or worked for trump. And it is still being used here by those who want to defend him. Anytime you write any facts about trump, they will call it "fake news", and write about Hillary Clinton emails. Here I am not trying to convince anyone that Hillary is impeccable, and has never made a mistake in her life, but all anyone has to do is look at how much those Russians had to work, to find what they accused her of doing, while the campaign was going on, so that the politicians could use that as an excuse to dismiss her as a good candidate for the presidency! What amazes me, is that if you say anything that trump is doing or writing that is unacceptable, or downright stupid, they will still use that ploy, and turn around and say, or write, "But look at what she did". Even though it was found that the mistakes that she herself admitted were not done correctly, and the investigators could not find something to prosecute for, or was insufficiently reliable to convict. Those that like trump, will say things about Obama, Hillary, Bill, or anyone else they can think about to point the finger away from trump. Yes there was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy that was provided by the Russians assistance to keep Hillary from getting elected as president, and to get trump selected, so that people would think, well, maybe we got the better of two evils. So it was a conspiracy not only against Hillary, but against the will of the people of these United States of America, to cheat the voters out of the choice for the presidency who voted for Hillary Clinton by close to THREE MILLION VOTES. Now the Russians are thinking, "BOY, ALL THOSE AMERICANS ARE SO DUMB!" |
|||||||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 28-Jan-18, 10:28 |
If you would like to skip ahead to the Russia nonsense, then please present a point of contention and we can try to get to the bottom of it. The post by easy-win appears to be an opinion piece. |
|||||||||||||||
|
easy-win Yeah they gave huge sums to the Clinton foundation and got some great deals for Boeing contracts and a little Uraimium on the side. Both parties are in it deep. |
|||||||||||||||
|
This thread is about the conspiracy of the deep-state to attempt to dismiss Hillary's crime and foist a false crime against Trump. I was discussing Comey's role in the first part of the conspiracy. _____________________________________________________________________________ apatzer writes Yeah they gave huge sums to the Clinton foundation and got some great deals for Boeing contracts and a little Uraimium on the side. ______________________________________________________________________________ NOW: Doesn't that seem like finger pointing???? Now HC won the ELECTION, and trump won the SELECTION, So trump is the president....... Arn't you happy enough with that? |
|||||||||||||||
|
People the system is working as intended |
|||||||||||||||
|
Both serve the oligarchy. And no I am not happy with Trump. He is a reality tv star doing his Job of being a meat shield and attention magnet. To divert attention from the oligarchy which he so dutifully serves. What is funny is that people seem to think that Hillary Clinton dies not serve the same master |
|||||||||||||||
|
HRC smokescreen All your accusations are groundless and right-wing BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not going to work this time. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I tell you what. If Trump gets successfully prosecuted. I will conceded my point. And the real point was... Both of them are above the law. The Orange menace will serve out his term. Why is it that if a person doesn't agree with one side they have to be for the other? Oh that's right because that is how the duleopoly works. Pick a team you have two choices . Both parties work for the same master. Oh and it was ok that the dems rigged thier own primary. Poor Omaley never stood a chance. And the excuse was well it may be immoral but it isn't illegal. Both sides have made it easy for pay day lenders to trap people in debt. And for big pharma to sell thier oxycodone.... on and on and on. Are you blind to this? Your just choose to look the other way? |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 28-Jan-18, 12:17 |
force and www.politico.com is responsible for a such a conspiracy. Unlike those speculating here I’ve met some of those deep state folks they are talking about. This theory simply is not credible. I’ve tried to explain in terms reasonable people should understand hat because we do not have a spoils system our political diversity precludes such a situation. If anything I’d say this group runs more conservative than the population as a whole. And frankly those making these claims do not understand the complex situation we actually face. It’s dangerous to oversimplify intractable dilemmas into mere problems or make perfection the enemy of the best we can get now. Suffice to say we are in the middle of an ongoing influence war and the populace has not shown they understand what a threat that is, Saying conduct isn’t criminal doesn’t necessarily make it right but the effort to single out Clinton while ignoring others is wrong. This isn’t an attack on my friend Apatzer. It’s more a cautionary warning. |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro My prediction is Clinton will win the 2020 election. Baring any unforseen health issues. And I agree with you and thank you for the reminder |
|||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer, Winslow People who are so partisan that only one side is at fault and only one side is "good" is simply showing their lack of education or inability to see reality. It shows an inability to accept other views and possibilities. The do not accept diversity. They do not accept multi-culturalism. |
|||||||||||||||
|
DM and LS People who are so partisan that only one side is at fault and only one side is "good" is simply showing their lack of education or inability to see reality. It shows an inability to accept other views and possibilities. The do not accept diversity. They do not accept multi-culturalism. That's the difference between the Truth and Bull crap. Not the other way around. They can't help it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
BC |
|||||||||||||||
|
Unsecured Server? Uh, no. The private company she hired to set up the server had stringent security protocols in place--probably better than those used by the Department of State. My conservative friends insist government is incompetent and that private business should do all work instead--except of course when it comes to the opportunity to be hypocritical in this regard. I know you're not that--I'm just commenting in general. Hillary specified the backup should be local and private--NOT to the cloud. The techs apparently overlooked this specification and instructed the server to back up to Datto's secure cloud server. (Source: New York Post). So a mistake was made, by the private firm hired to do the work. There were NOT "volumes" of classified documents passing through her server. I think the FBI identified one document State had declassified but which had subsequently been reclassified by another branch of the federal government. Correction--there were eight email chains in reference to "top secret" classified material, though it appears whoever sent them to her mistakenly (or purposefully) removed the classification headers. Eight is hardly "volumes," though to be sure it isn't good--especially when those passed out to a cloud storage--however "secure." Why is the cloud not secure? Row Hammer. You can flip bits rapidly, inducing bit flipping in adjacent memory. There are plenty of other means of harvesting cloud data, not least of which is planting agents in technical departments. Of course, state secrets get stolen out of government just as easily if not more easily--given that state is a huge target and Datto isn't. |
|||||||||||||||
|
thank you LS |
|||||||||||||||
|
Democrats Rigged Nothing While that could possibly happen with the Democrats also, it would be far less likely. They just are not as susceptible. There was no rigging--they operated within the rules. Same sort of rules that allowed DG to win the electoral college and become president despite losing the popular vote. Had the rules been different DG says he would have followed a different strategy. Olmely or Barney or whoever should have followed a different strategy if he wanted to beat Hillary in the primary, because what he did failed to work. Maybe he didn't get an early enough start. Hillary really had kind of a sixteen year lead on him. |
|||||||||||||||
|
You know it. I know it. We all know it. It probably will never come out officially, but everyone knows it. And worse yet... most foreign governments have the emails (top secret or not) in their possession. Our intelligence people in other countries have been killed because of it. But, that will never become public either. Had she become President, there is NO end to the blackmail she (and we) would have been subject to. She was willing to sell out the country for money. No telling what she would do under duress of blackmail. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Mueller investigation should be two way traffic. This thread is about the conspiracy of the deep-state to attempt to dismiss Hillary's crime and foist a false crime against Trump. I was discussing Comey's role in the first part of the conspiracy. _____________________________________________________________________________ apatzer writes Yeah they gave huge sums to the Clinton foundation and got some great deals for Boeing contracts and a little Uraimium on the side. ______________________________________________________________________________ Both GOP and Democrat accused each other of Russian collusion. Trump accused HRC of collecting Russian Dossier to smear Trump and HRC accused of Russian collusion to defeat her. So far, Mueller's investigation is one sided against Trump. Is he colluding with democrats. I strongly suspect that Winslow is correct that Mueller is doing a witch hunt. There is nothing coming out yet from Mueller about Pay for Play, Clinton foundation bribery scheme. If Mueller continues on one way traffic against Trump, Mueller and Democrat conspirators are digging their own graves. |
|||||||||||||||
|
softaire That's the difference between fact and Fiction. That's the difference between the truth and the Great Lie of the 21st Century. It will not stand in this CLUB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't stop it, but Damn i will shine the Light on it Mr Breitbart!!!!!!!!!! |
|||||||||||||||
|
Ha Just to show that this isn't personal, I invite you to come visit San Diego. We are having a beautiful day... one even you would enjoy. Beautiful clear, blue skies, nice temps, winds whipping the trees, Nice waterfall, doggies playing. Nice music in the back yard. A lean and green dinner to come later. And, I promise... no Trump gloating! |
|||||||||||||||
|
that sounds nice 'I only regret, that I have but one life to lose for my country. NH |
|||||||||||||||
|
Firing Mueller will be a political suicide. Will Mueller's investigation be over after he interviews Trump ? I doubt it. They will still try to find fault or continue witch hunt to impeach Trump. Trump's inner enemies are much worse than foreign enemies. |
|||||||||||||||
|
BC The State Department under Hillary Clinton authorized arms sales to countries that had donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report. State approved $165 billion worth of weapons sales to 20 foreign governments during Clinton's tenure, the International Business Times reports. Among the countries involved in the sales were Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It doesn't matter who is in office that will never change. What bothers me is you appear to think that one side does it and the other does not. Fact check it please. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Obama's collusion with Russia Russia don't like nuclear tipped US missiles encircling close to her border. The time was before his second term presidential election. If he agreed what Putin like him to do, that is, if Obama dismantled or moved away the US missiles, American voters would see him as very weak and gave away to Putin, his reelection would be in jeopardy but at that time nobody cared about it. Obama thought that he was talking secretly to PM Medvedev but the mic. was still on. Obama was reelected for second term and he did not need to worry to talk with Russia after his erection was over. If Trump said similar to Putin that he would lift the sanctions on Russia, all hell will break loose from Democrats. That is the name of the game. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
