RE: Hillary Probed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/6/2016 6:12:39 PM)

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/usa-today-admits-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-is-a-sham/22371/

And now even the nutsucker slobber blogs are distancing themselves from their own felching.




thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/6/2016 6:28:09 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for wanting this so bad - yes. I *hate* liars.


You have been caught in so many lies that one looses count...the self loathng/hatred is obvious.





Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/6/2016 10:48:20 PM)

A statement by a Patrik Kennedy flunkie (himself a long term clinton apparatchnik) has no probative value.

The determination of whether there is any "there" there will be made by the courts and by the FBI. The latest court rulings indicate there is sufficient to continue. Recall, the judge threatened the state department lawyers with contempt, and refused their requests to delay.




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/7/2016 7:53:33 AM)

Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times is not a Patrick Kennedy flunkie, it is a major felching hole for nutsuckers.




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/7/2016 8:21:12 AM)

And in other news, nutsuckers are signing up for more stupid, they are going to fuck around and get us all caught.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secretaries-handled-classified-material-private-email-state-dept/story?id=37404084




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/7/2016 3:48:13 PM)

"Judge Napolitano Says This Is the ‘Horrific Catch-22′ Hillary Clinton Will Face in a Matter of Months"

[judge Napolitano? oh no comrades, fox news!]

quote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano said Monday that Hillary Clinton could face a “horrific catch-22″ in her ongoing email scandal — and it could come as soon as the next couple of months...

...he expects the FBI’s investigation to be completed sometime in May.

When the federal investigation has concluded, investigators will then ask Clinton to appear for an interview, Napolitano said. But he added that “no lawyer” would allow their client to answer questions without knowing what prosecutors know.

And therein lies the “catch-22,” according to Napolitano.

“If she refuses to go in for that interview, her [political] opponents will have a field day. ‘Wait a minute, you say you’re innocent, but you don’t want to tell the FBI?’” Napolitano said. “Either way, she loses.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/07/judge-napolitano-says-this-is-the-horrific-catch-22-hillary-clinton-will-face-in-a-matter-of-months/

[oh no comrades, glenn beck! got ya coming and going on this one!]




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/7/2016 4:29:06 PM)

Oh, No communist Nutsuckers are felching a rather nobody one time judge, who is a catamite of Sun Myung Moon, his hard hitting nutsucker propaganda in the Benghazi matter, and any other matter he has spoken of leads most people to question what the fuck is this cretin doing breathing on his own. He now judges that the FBI will have a sit down with her in May (he must just feel this in his 'trump penis')

But he is serving up masturbation fantasies to the feebleminded nutsuckers, as they are in mass hysteria, desperation, pants shitting mythological cockgargling.

If the FBI calls her to a meeting (interview, whatever you want to call it) she will go, with her lawyer.

Nobody will be shown the transcript that we are acquainted with or ever even remotely heard the name of not ever.

And that ends the catch-22, Yosarian.





Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/7/2016 6:25:36 PM)

25 pages and its ALL been masturbation fantasy

quote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano said Monday that Hillary Clinton could face a “horrific catch-22″ in her ongoing email scandal — and it could come as soon as the next couple of months...

...he expects the FBI’s investigation to be completed sometime in May.

When the federal investigation has concluded, investigators will then ask Clinton to appear for an interview, Napolitano said. But he added that “no lawyer” would allow their client to answer questions without knowing what prosecutors know.

And therein lies the “catch-22,” according to Napolitano.

If she refuses to go in for that interview, her [political] opponents will have a field day(no they will orgasm). ‘Wait a minute, you say you’re innocent, but you don’t want to tell the FBI?’” Napolitano said. “Either way, she loses.”


So hes imagining a situation...that maybe will come....soon(no shit).
The brain on the man is less than sterling...thats why he "was a judge" and is now dealing with fox douche poodles.





MrRodgers -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/7/2016 7:36:08 PM)

Well I am thinking this OP has run its course. So let's just settle on the knowledge that because Bill is and has almost always been spending his time constantly looking for strange (because Hillary told him long ago that if his cock was any fucking longer, he'd be gett'n some strange at home) and directly as a result.....

.....Hillary hasn't been gett'n 'probed' enough. So we get fuck ups at DOS.




Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/7/2016 9:41:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for wanting this so bad - yes. I *hate* liars.


You have been caught in so many lies that one looses count...the self loathng/hatred is obvious.




Yeah? So you shouldn't have a problem quoting, say.. one?




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/8/2016 5:47:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for wanting this so bad - yes. I *hate* liars.


You have been caught in so many lies that one looses count...the self loathng/hatred is obvious.




Yeah? So you shouldn't have a problem quoting, say.. one?


that from a guy whose moral compass leads him to selectively editing quotes in order to make it seem like the poster has said something other than what he originally said.

plus, there's the whole idea of how the comrades and other fellow travelers define "lying"---which is as broad as something they don't understand or agree with.




thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/8/2016 6:42:48 AM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for wanting this so bad - yes. I *hate* liars.


You have been caught in so many lies that one looses count...the self loathng/hatred is obvious.




Yeah? So you shouldn't have a problem quoting, say.. one?

Well there is this one where you lie about my position.


quote:

Do you think it is a sound practice to have a bar in close proximity to a firing range?


Contrary to you - we don't believe that range owners have the right to stop bar owners from building in any appropriately zoned location.
Similarly nor do bar owners have the right to restrict ranges.


Now that is not what I said. If you are going to answer your own questions then I would sugest you respond to yourself and not to me.




thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/8/2016 6:46:27 AM)


ORIGINAL: bounty44

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

that from a guy whose moral compass leads him to selectively editing quotes in order to make it seem like the poster has said something other than what he originally said.

If you post it I will quote you...somehow that offends you.[8|]

plus, there's the whole idea of how the comrades and other fellow travelers define "lying"


Lying is when you say something you know not to be true.





mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/8/2016 7:17:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for wanting this so bad - yes. I *hate* liars.


You have been caught in so many lies that one looses count...the self loathng/hatred is obvious.




Yeah? So you shouldn't have a problem quoting, say.. one?



Neutron reactors and a piece of paper or drywall.




Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/8/2016 8:02:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for wanting this so bad - yes. I *hate* liars.


You have been caught in so many lies that one looses count...the self loathng/hatred is obvious.




Yeah? So you shouldn't have a problem quoting, say.. one?



Neutron reactors and a piece of paper or drywall.



Demonstrating that you and thompsonx don't know what a lie is.




Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/8/2016 8:04:03 AM)

From IBD:

The Washington Post, of all places, found that not only did Hillary Clinton send and receive classified material on her unsecured email server as Secretary of State, she wrote dozens of classified emails herself.

To understand the implications of this revelation, let’s rewind the clock to almost exactly one year ago, when Clinton first addressed her private email controversy at a press conference held in the United Nations building.

A reporter asked Clinton whether she was “ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?”

Her answer was emphatic: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

Then she went on: “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

The first claim had been proved false long ago, once the State Department started releasing what would end up being 2,093 of Clinton’s emails that it said contained classified material.

Once those emails started emerging, Clinton changed her story to say that she never “knowingly” sent or received classified information, because none of the messages were so marked. That excuse fell by the wayside when emails turned up containing information deemed “classified at birth.” Then several showed up that couldn’t be released at all because their classification rating was so high.

The Post’s latest revelations, however, are particularly damning. It found that three-quarters of the classified emails she sent were written by Clinton herself.

Saying she didn’t know the information was classified because it wasn’t marked makes no sense, since she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place.

And, since she claims that she was “well aware of the classification requirements,” she can’t now claim that she was ignorant of the nature of the information she was sending.

As this story has unfolded over the past year, Clinton has tried to brush it aside as a partisan witch hunt. When that didn’t wash, she tried to blame the State Department for “over classifying” information, or charged that it was just the result of interagency squabbles.

Clinton also tried to smear the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community, both of whom were appointed by President Obama.

But what she has never done is admit the truth. Namely, that she set up her private email account as a way to shield her communications from public scrutiny — a tactic that worked for a time — and that in doing so she gave little thought to the national security implications.

Her cavalier attitude apparently set the tone for the department. The Post notes that top aid John Sullivan “was the most frequent author of classified emails,” and other top officials, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, “authored dozens of such notes.”

Under the law, gross negligence in handling classified material is all that’s required for a government official to face criminal charges. At this point, is there anyone who can honestly say that Clinton wasn’t being grossly negligent?




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/8/2016 9:33:17 AM)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

The IBD nutsucking makes no sense.

Hillary would not classify emails.

The Bureau of Administration and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the direction of The UnderSecretary for Management
would do that.

Hillary would no more do that than she would be likely to sharpen her secretary's pencils.


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88401.pdf




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/9/2016 4:10:39 AM)

I was very impressed that sanders and Clinton agreed to a townhall type meeting hosted by brett baier. I like baier a lot but I loathe Hillary Clinton and cant stand listening to her, so I didn't watch but I did see this after the fact and its worth watching.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4792262501001/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-town-hall-e-mail-story/




DaddySatyr -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/9/2016 4:42:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I was very impressed that sanders and Clinton agreed to a townhall type meeting hosted by brett baier. I like baier a lot but I loathe Hillary Clinton and cant stand listening to her, so I didn't watch but I did see this after the fact and its worth watching.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4792262501001/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-town-hall-e-mail-story/



I almost can't believe it is I who is doing this, but ...

Fair dues to the anti-Christ (Clinton). She had to know that Baier wasn't going to be tossing up too many "meatballs, right down the heart of the plate", but she showed up, anyway.

I wonder if it was because she realized that Trump's Liberal past and his popularity on Fox News Channel meant that there might be some votes for her to proselytize there?



Michael




thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/9/2016 7:46:30 AM)

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I almost can't believe it is I who is doing this, but ...

Fair dues to the anti-Christ (Clinton). She had to know that Baier wasn't going to be tossing up too many "meatballs, right down the heart of the plate", but she showed up, anyway.

I wonder if it was because she realized that Trump's Liberal past and his popularity on Fox News Channel meant that there might be some votes for her to proselytize there?

Or maybe she is just another sleeze bag politician who will do anything to get their face in front of a camera.








Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875