Quote:Ouch...<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.facebook.com/166408686759982/videos/1126914140709427/'>https://www.facebook.com/166408686759982/videos/1126914140709427/</a>
I watched that whole exchange while at the gym (made treadmill time go pretty quick) and I was like- YES! At least some folks are taking this seriously.
Quote:I never said she murdered anyone. I said you'd vote for her if she did, unless she was tried and found guilty. Apparently as long as she wasn't found guilty, no matter how obvious it might be that she had committed a crime, you'd still vote for her.
This is how Ted Kennedy, who DID commit murder (but like Hillary wasn't charged), was reelected to the Senate time after time.
It's not obvious to me the Clintons murdered Vince Foster, but is obvious to me that you think they had something to do with his death. I also believe you think you have company in this thread on that accord. Otherwise, you'd never have made the joke.
So, fine, if I thought Hillary murdered someone, I wouldn't vote for her. To reach that conclusion, a trial sure wouldn't hurt. I like evidence, not loudmouth talk show hosts, hearsay, and endless political rhetoric.
Again, my statements in this thread have nothing to do with Clinton, just the reputation of a career prosecutor, whose conduct I believe to be exemplary over the last 72 hours.
Comey said it would have been a felony for Hillary to lie to FBI agents in her interview. We know it is a felony to make false statements to Federal investigators. But I wonder how they would have brought charges or even allegations against her? With no oath, no recording, and no transcript, how could they hope to prosecute her for perjury? Where is the evidence? Why isn't there any evidence? Do we even have any evidence that the interview took place? If so, please provide it.
Quote:I don't think she's getting preferential treatment because she's a Clinton. It's because she's running for president.
I think Comey saw it as 50/50 and said "You know what? I'm going to let the American people decide."
As it should be.
Yeah... And the Attorney General meeting Bill Clinton for 30+ minutes 3 days before the decision talking about golf and children is just a coincidence.
What she did was illegal and she lied, under oath no less. Your right, the American people should deicde, but that was taken away when they decided not to charge. Jury of your peers. She got off because she was a Clinton, running for President and there was too much pressure for him too move forward with charges. More than one reason, but to say her being a Clinton wasn't a factor is ludicrous.
Quote:Yeah... And the Attorney General meeting Bill Clinton for 30+ minutes 3 days before the decision talking about golf and children is just a coincidence.
What she did was illegal and she lied, under oath no less. Your right, the American people should deicde, but that was taken away when they decided not to charge. Jury of your peers. She got off because she was a Clinton, running for President and there was too much pressure for him too move forward with charges. More than one reason, but to say her being a Clinton wasn't a factor is ludicrous.
Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. But you'll keep doing it anyway.
When you don't have facts you go to conspiracy theory. I expect that of Byron LeftTown (our tin foil hat king), but not you.
Since you have the inside scoop, what did Bill and Loretta decide? And show me your proof that James Comey is anything other than a professional and stand up guy.
James Comey v. some yahoos on a football team message board. Tough choice.
Quote:Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. But you'll keep doing it anyway.
When you don't have facts you go to conspiracy theory. I expect that of Byron LeftTown (our tin foil hat king), but not you.
Since you have the inside scoop, what did Bill and Loretta decide? And show me your proof that James Comey is anything other than a professional and stand up guy.
James Comey v. some yahoos on a football team message board. Tough choice.
You've got to admit that there appears to be some impropriety there. I mean, hell, if nothing else read Comey's statement again. He lays out a solid case as to why he should indict Clinton, then throws a curveball by saying that even though there's more than enough to indict (paraphrasing here), Clinton's incompetence in handling State Department material is not something he'd indict over. I mean, you have to raise an eyebrow at that plus Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch in the days prior. What were they discussing? Golf? Tea? Where the pluckiest interns can be found?
Quote:Agree, he sold out when it mattered the most. I am not sure that makes him a completely bad person, but I can't view him in the same light as before. His credibility has taken a huge hit.
He'll be crushed when he finds out you don't view him in the same light anymore. Now if he'd decided to recommend prosecution ...
Just because you would sell out doesn't mean he did. And you've not presented any information indicating he did. He spent four and a half hours explaining himself. But since you disagree (and I'm sure you're a legal and constitutional scholar) he's now sold out.
Is that how it works no? Anyone who disagrees is a sell out?
Quote:You've got to admit that there appears to be some impropriety there. I mean, hell, if nothing else read Comey's statement again. He lays out a solid case as to why he should indict Clinton, then throws a curveball by saying that even though there's more than enough to indict (paraphrasing here), Clinton's incompetence in handling State Department material is not something he'd indict over. I mean, you have to raise an eyebrow at that plus Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch in the days prior. What were they discussing? Golf? Tea? Where the pluckiest interns can be found?
I have no idea what they talked about? Do you? Does it look good? Heck no. But to pretend there was some "deal" or whatever with no proof is just stupid and makes anyone saying so look foolish.
Are you (or whomever) saying Comey was told to do something he didn't want to do? Show me one piece of proof. If you saw his testimony and know his record and reputation I think you'd highly doubt it.
For for all the people with
no record or reputation throwing around terms like "sell out" makes them look desperate and partisan.
Quote:Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. But you'll keep doing it anyway.
When you don't have facts you go to conspiracy theory. I expect that of Byron LeftTown (our tin foil hat king), but not you.
Since you have the inside scoop, what did Bill and Loretta decide? And show me your proof that James Comey is anything other than a professional and stand up guy.
James Comey v. some yahoos on a football team message board. Tough choice.
She lied. James Comey said as much.
As far as Bill Clinton goes, it certainly isn't a conspiracy theory. Bill Clinton didn't delay his arrival on purpose to ensure meeting the AG to talk about grandkids and golf. I do not believe the AG planned it, but you would be pretty naive to think it was done by chance on Bill Clinton's part.
No saying it over and over doesn't make it so, but it is another example of those in power flexing their muscles and saying the law doesn't matter as long as you are above it. She lied, was given plenty of opportunities to correct what she was doing and chose defiantly not too. She broke the law. I think any American should care about that, but as always politics gets in the way.
Quote:I have no idea what they talked about? Do you? Does it look good? Heck no. But to pretend there was some "deal" or whatever with no proof is just stupid and makes anyone saying so look foolish.
Are you (or whomever) saying Comey was told to do something he didn't want to do? Show me one piece of proof. If you saw his testimony and know his record and reputation I think you'd highly doubt it.
For for all the people with no record or reputation throwing around terms like "sell out" makes them look desperate and partisan.
I'm sorry, where did I say Comey was given instructions? Where did I say that there was a deal? All I said was that it looks shady to a skeptical set of eyes, certainly to an unbiased pair as well, which you seem to agree it does.
Quote:I have no idea what they talked about? Do you? Does it look good? Heck no. But to pretend there was some "deal" or whatever with no proof is just stupid and makes anyone saying so look foolish.
Are you (or whomever) saying Comey was told to do something he didn't want to do? Show me one piece of proof. If you saw his testimony and know his record and reputation I think you'd highly doubt it.
For for all the people with no record or reputation throwing around terms like "sell out" makes them look desperate and partisan.
No matter what happened on that plane, Hillary got away with breaking the law. And one side is okay with that because of politics. Defending it is the very essence of what is wrong with our country right now. Power and money and using the other side as a reason to blow it off.
Quote:She lied. James Comey said as much.
As far as Bill Clinton goes, it certainly isn't a conspiracy theory. Bill Clinton didn't delay his arrival on purpose to ensure meeting the AG to talk about grandkids and golf. I do not believe the AG planned it, but you would be pretty naive to think it was done by chance on Bill Clinton's part.
No saying it over and over doesn't make it so, but it is another example of those in power flexing their muscles and saying the law doesn't matter as long as you are above it. She lied, was given plenty of opportunities to correct what she was doing and chose defiantly not too. She broke the law. I think any American should care about that, but as always politics gets in the way.
Please, let's not get too self-righteous. If someone doesn't agree with your slant they are an American who doesn't care about people breaking the law? Do I have that right?
You failed to tell me what "deal" Clinton and Lynch arrived at and how you know this. According to Comey she didn't break the law. You can disagree, but to question someone's patriotism and claim another's viewpoint is based on politics while yours is simply because you only seek Truth, Justice and The American Way is pretty disingenuous.
Look, don't vote for her. I don't plan to. But to second guess The Director of the FBI with no counter argument ("she broke the law" ain't good enough) is not an argument. It's a political wish.
Quote:He'll be crushed when he finds out you don't view him in the same light anymore. Now if he'd decided to recommend prosecution ...
Just because you would sell out doesn't mean he did. And you've not presented any information indicating he did. He spent four and a half hours explaining himself. But since you disagree (and I'm sure you're a legal and constitutional scholar) he's now sold out.
Is that how it works no? Anyone who disagrees is a sell out?
He laid out exactly why she should be prosecuted and then summarily concluded the equivalent of 'No one would really charge Hillary tho, I mean come on!' I believe what he said, I just think he made a choice that would personally benefit him by not recommending charges even though he had plenty of support to do so, and stated that if it was someone else they usually would be charged. It was a cop out. I don't know why he did it, but I suspect that it was politically expedient.
Edit: 'Just because I would sell out'? Where did I say that. If it were me, and I believed all the things he said prior to his conclusion, I would have recommended charging. I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is a sell out, but I do think that someone who lays out all the evidence why Clinton should be charged, and then recommends something else is a sell-out. Its simple, if he came out, said she had no classified emails at the time, and that everything her campaign said is true, and he could see no reason to charge her, then his conclusion makes sense. But thats not what happened.
What was said on the plane? Why would anything have to be said? The mere fact that she let Bill get on the plane created the perfect excuse for Lynch to recuse herself from the process. Bill and Loretta had to know that Comey was going to take the unprecedented step of announcing on national TV that it's not a good case for prosecution. That should have been Loretta's call, but the optics would have stunk to high heaven if Loretta lets Hillary skate then becomes a high ranking member of her Administration. Note that as soon as Lynch sorta recused herself from the process, Hillary came right out and said she'd love to keep Lynch on as AG.
So the 3 hour interview with FBI was a PR stunt, as all parties knew she would skate. Comey said he didn't even wait for the analysis of her interview to be completed before going public against his own investigation.
Quote:He laid out exactly why she should be prosecuted and then summarily concluded the equivalent of 'No one would really charge Hillary tho, I mean come on!' I believe what he said, I just think he made a choice that would personally benefit him by not recommending charges even though he had plenty of support to do so, and stated that if it was someone else they usually would be charged. It was a cop out. I don't know why he did it, but I suspect that it was politically expedient.
Edit: 'Just because I would sell out'? Where did I say that. If it were me, and I believed all the things he said prior to his conclusion, I would have recommended charging. I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is a sell out, but I do think that someone who lays out all the evidence why Clinton should be charged, and then recommends something else is a sell-out. Its simple, if he came out, said she had no classified emails at the time, and that everything her campaign said is true, and he could see no reason to charge her, then his conclusion makes sense. But thats not what happened.
You would have recommended charging in order to achieve a political end. That's called selling out. Comey explained very clearly why he thought that it would be wrong to charge her. But of course you know best! And you say he made a decision that was best for him but can't explain what what that benefit would be.
I understand you are disappointed that you didn't have your political work done for you. I understand your fear that Donbo won't be able to defeat someone like Clinton. But you need to face the reality that this election is going forward and you'll just have to hope that the carnival barker wins.
Quote:I'm sorry, where did I say Comey was given instructions? Where did I say that there was a deal? All I said was that it looks shady to a skeptical set of eyes, certainly to an unbiased pair as well, which you seem to agree it does.
So you're saying you're not saying anything?