RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely"

RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/3/2016 5:52:47 PM)
LOL, the nutsuckers refuse to face up to their bombshell, their secret they dont want you to know, and are shitting their pants and circlefelching in their airport bathrooms. That's about it, same as always. As we see, from start to finish, the nutsucker slobberblogs are spewing propaganda for the feebleminded and it is unlikely to matter, they will still be unlikely to rise above their imbecility and slobber.

lovmuffin -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/3/2016 6:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Not only that but the libs are getting pissy because things haven't been looking so good for Hillary lately. you mean that's not their normal modus operandi? It is of course but they seem a bit more irritable than usual[8D]

thompsonx -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/3/2016 6:41:43 PM)
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny I posted a news story. No you did not. It is not news it is opinion. If it's true then it's very interesting. If we look at the veracity of that source in the past we find it to be virtually non existant. Since you could not be ignoant of that fact it sorta begs the question why did you post it? Also why would you comment on it if you did not agree with it's premis? If it's false then If? How many times in the past few months have we been told that bill's wife was going to be indited any minute? How many times in the past few months have we been told that the fbi was going to resign in mass if she were not?

RottenJohnny -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/3/2016 9:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx No you did not. It is not news it is opinion. When a reporter says "a source told me this" they're stating it as a fact, not an opinion. quote: ...it sorta begs the question why did you post it? Because I thought it was an important story and I wondered if the idea of "likely" indictment puts Obama in a tougher position to either let the FBI have their investigation or get rid of Comey in order to shut it down. My impression is that Comey wants to pursue this regardless of what Obama or the DOJ (Loretta Lynch) says. (BTW...that's an opinion) As a side note, I did notice how nobody approached the post based on my comment and simply started throwing around all their own bullshit. Congratulations. Well done. quote: How many times in the past few months have we been told that bill's wife was going to be indited any minute? Until the investigations are done, I assume she still could be, right? And it occurs to me that if he wants to avoid seeing her pardoned he could even wait until after Jan 20 to bring charges, depending on how the election goes. quote: How many times in the past few months have we been told that the fbi was going to resign in mass if she were not? Well, I don't see that as impossible. The WSJ printed an article earlier highlighting the tensions between the investigators and their bosses and between the FBI and the DOJ. http://www.wsj.com/articles/secret-recordings-fueled-fbi-feud-in-clinton-probe-1478135518

Lucylastic -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/3/2016 9:14:17 PM)
the wsj is part of the mess, i mentioned it earlier.

Greta75 -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/3/2016 9:39:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Never mind that: are you okay with the circus peanut raping children? Nobody is okay with anybody raping children, but until it is proven, we don't know if this is true or not. What if some day some woman claim you rape her when she was 13 and you didn't do it? You'd like people to call you a rapist? Personally I find it extremely hard to a believe a 13 yr old was raped at 13 and she didn't tell her parents and if she did, her parents did absolutely nothing. I mean she is not just accusing Trump, she is claiming Trump and another man, gang raped her together. I mean, semen sample and everything, there could have been so much proof. Unless she has shitty parents like mine who would blame me and tell me to suck it up. But even then? Tell a friend? Tell a teacher? She got gang raped by two men and kept silence at 13?? Very unbelievable. And there must have been sooo many signs. She would have gone into complete depression and be crying all the time. There is no way, you could be that age, and get horrendously raped and behave as IF nothing happened. And someone of that age have the emotional maturity to stay calm and keep quiet until now. I mean, if she got raped at 13, assuming she never had sex BEFORE, it must have been her first time too. No experience with sex, the trauma must have been huge! Losing her virginity by gang raped by two creepy older men! The whole story does not add up. And seriously, there is one thing about an adult woman claiming rape of a two big and powerful men. But when a 13 yr old claim rape for two big and powerful men. All the media will take notice. Nobody will blame the 13 yr old. She has the strongest case at that age if it is true. It's crazy nobody seek justice way back then!!

heavyblinker -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/3/2016 11:14:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker The information source you posted has zero accountability because nobody has the time, patience or energy it would need to debunk every single lie it tells. The FBI is NOT going to respond to them because they know they're a fucking joke... and so should you. They exist only to feed you the bullshit you want to hear in order to get your indignation fix. They know that in a few days you won't care that what they said was a lie, because your attention will be focused on a brand new lie that produces the same effect. That momentary thrill is all you will care about, which is exactly what is happening now. I'm not saying I haven't also been guilty of compulsively checking the news to see what brand new shitstorm is joining this mother of all shitstorms... but seriously, the reality is already sensational enough without having to bring conspiracy sites and other fake news sites into the mix. Whatever, dude. I posted a news story. Take it however you want. when one is incapable of informed critical thought and cannot deal effectively with the content, all that's left throwing crap at the source and the messenger and hope that works. although the approach here is novel, if not somewhat reeking of desperation too. fox is a "fake news site??"---oh in a comrade's wet dream maybe. oh and yeah---of course we all know journalists ALWAYS reveal their sources and NO ONE ever says anything anonymously. Oh right you're such a clear, critical thinker that you've completely ignored everything I was saying, invented your own version of it, and then responded to that. I would call it a straw man, but I think you're just slow. This report WASN'T done for FOX. It was a FOX reporter who gave the story to a fringe RWNJ website. Either that or they're simply regurgitating the same 'story' that FOX has been pushing since at least July. Either that or the reporter has absolutely nothing to do with it and the site is simply reminding people that he reported this story back in June or whatever. It has nothing to do with what the FBI is doing now... it's not exactly a lie, but it's really dishonest. FOX is incredibly dishonest about the way they present their 'news', but this site doesn't even have their shitty reputation. If you had clicked on the link, or if you were actually capable of processing reality you would know this... but whatever, obviously I'm the one who isn't thinking critically. I DIDN'T SAY THEY NEED TO REVEAL THEIR SOURCES. Who are you even talking to??? I'm saying that their sources are almost certainly people with opinions that aren't relevant, but were chosen because they matched the narrative that they wanted to push. This is one of FOX's favorite tactics... presenting unqualified opinions as breaking news, giving the unqualified people titles like 'sources within the FBI' (could be anyone--janitors, secretaries, interns, etc.) and knowing that people like you will be too busy riding your wave of indignation and self-congratulation to ask any questions.

mnottertail -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/4/2016 4:54:49 AM)
look at the dirty politics by the nutsucker felchgobblers. http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/11/03/trump-campaign-manager-admits-walked-back-fox-report-was-wrong-then-celebrates-damage-done/214290

thompsonx -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/4/2016 5:29:20 AM)
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny ORIGINAL: thompsonx No you did not. It is not news it is opinion. When a reporter says "a source told me this" they're stating it as a fact, not an opinion. Like dan rather? Because I thought it was an important story and I wondered if the idea of "likely" indictment puts Obama in a tougher position to either let the FBI have their investigation or get rid of Comey in order to shut it down. My impression is that Comey wants to pursue this regardless of what Obama or the DOJ (Loretta Lynch) says. (BTW...that's an opinion) The articulate black guy with the big ears has already stated his position. The fbi has it's search warrant yet you seem to want to say otherwise. Why is that? As a side note, I did notice how nobody approached the post based on my comment and simply started throwing around all their own bullshit. Congratulations. Well done. How many times in the past few months have we been told that bill's wife was going to be indited any minute? Until the investigations are done, I assume she still could be, right? And it occurs to me that if he wants to avoid seeing her pardoned he could even wait until after Jan 20 to bring charges, depending on how the election goes. Lets say she looses the election then the articulate black guy with the big ears could pardon her. If she wins the election then wouldm't they have to impeach her? How many times in the past few months have we been told that the fbi was going to resign in mass if she were not? Well, I don't see that as impossible. Then why hasn't it happened? The WSJ printed an article earlier highlighting the tensions between the investigators and their bosses and between the FBI and the DOJ. Doesn't rupert murdoch own the waj?

bounty44 -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/4/2016 6:45:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If? How many times in the past few months have we been told that bill's wife was going to be indited any minute? the answer to that question troll, is precisely zero. dating back to july, here's an exhaustive search for the use of the word "indict" from any of the threads having to do with Hillary: quote:* "I know he made a huge mistake when he indicted Clinton — though not indicting her — but now he's trying to turn that around. Prosecutors across America went on cable and print outlets to decry the actions & to proclaim that had they been given the same case that they not not only would have indicted, but would have argued a guilty verdict to a successful conclusion. Similarly all six of the department of justice attorneys that work the case believed that she should have been indicted. Justice did not want to use the grand jury because doing so would have signaled that the case was headed toward indictment. The Obama Justice Department was never going to indict Hillary Clinton, and was determined not to damage her presidential campaign by taking steps suggestive of a possible indictment. If they were not, why hasn’t Mrs. Clinton been indicted he has an interest in seeing to it that Mrs. Clinton is not indicted, The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton The "vast majority" of these people are said to believe that based on the evidence they reviewed, an indictment was warranted: The FBI seriously dropped the ball, and Clinton was more concerned about being indicted But by saving herself from indictment, And then the FBI recommended to the Department of Justice that she not be indicted. The FBI’s summary of their interview with Hillary Clinton is a devastating indictment of her judgment, Comey said she was not indicted because Hillary Wasn't Indicted Over Email Scandal Because FBI Didn't Bother Asking Her About Intent" Comey managed to make both Democrats and Republicans angry by indicting Clinton politically but not legally she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted. James Comey’s conclusions last week not to indict the former secretary of state, she would have then been confronted with inquiries into why she didn’t indict her. political pressures very well may have played a major role in Comey's non-indictment recommendation, I'd bet on not... I thought [listening to the announcement] that he was going to come to the conclusion she was going to be indicted. I have never believed Hillary will be indicted, An indictment of Hillary would likely increase her popularity you'll see that not one of them is predictive of an impending indictment. so which is it---you are either lying, or youre incompetent? while you ponder that one, id like to remind the viewing audience of this gem you recently posted: quote: If I disagree with another poster I will deliniate my disagreement with validation from reputable sources. When proved wrong I admit it and thank the poster for disabusing me of my ignorance. I have been proved wrong in less than a half dozen cases with more than 20,000 post. no need to thank me, but if you don't admit to being wrong, well, go back to the question I posed to you a few lines above.

WhoreMods -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/4/2016 7:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Never mind that: are you okay with the circus peanut raping children? Nobody is okay with anybody raping children, but until it is proven, we don't know if this is true or not. Really? That doesn't seem to apply to any allegations made against Clinton, so why should it apply to the circus peanut? Either both get the benefit of the doubt, or neither does.

thompsonx -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/4/2016 8:23:46 AM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 no need to thank me, but if you don't admit to being wrong, well, go back to the question I posed to you a few lines above. Perhaps one day you will learn to read.

mnottertail -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/6/2016 12:52:21 PM)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html Oh, no nutsuckers, facts!!

dcnovice -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/6/2016 9:06:49 PM)
FR Fox News' Bret Baier issued an apology Friday after reporting earlier this week that FBI sources told him there would "likely" be "an indictment" in the Clinton Foundation and email investigations. "On the hacking of Clinton's private, unsecured server, while multiple sources believe and are operating under the working assumption that the server has been hacked, and some had specific quotes to that belief, there are, to this day, no digital fingerprints of such breaches," Baier clarified Friday. * * * Baier: "Well, that just wasn't inartful, it was a mistake, and for that I'm sorry. I should have said, they will continue to build their case. Indictment obviously is a very loaded word, Jon, especially in this atmosphere and no one knows if there would or would not be an indictment no matter how strong investigators feel their evidence is. It is obviously a prosecutor who has to agree to take the case and make that case to a grand jury." http://theweek.com/speedreads/659751/fox-news-bret-baier-apologizes-saying-clinton-likely-indicted-claims-mistake

Real0ne -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 6:14:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html Oh, no nutsuckers, facts!! yeh nutsuckers, it does not matter, using a private unsecured server is not authorized, a breech of security and a crime against the state. the content of the emails being personal is irrelevant. Its not a single crime its several

mnottertail -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 6:23:16 AM)
show me the crime against the state, I am sure you have actual law statute at your disposal. here let me help you out imbecile. 18 USC 764-765 and 768. Go to it you fucking retard. insofar as your factless unsecured shit is concerned who amongst these have no evidence of a server being hacked? NSA FBI State Hillary. answer is 1. Hillary.

bounty44 -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 6:39:45 AM)
yes but you cannot convince the comrades of that; even despite vile critter parts' apparent recent conversion to liking "facts."

mnottertail -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 6:52:19 AM)
I have shown you the facts, dogshit44, and you cannot refute their veracity and accuracy. There is the statute, all you got is felchgobble. you are reeled in with the hook deep in your felchgobbling tongue, and wriggling like the worm you are. But you do have a strong tongue after so much felching. No facts, no credible citations, no knowledge, just dogshit, dogshit44.

Real0ne -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 8:38:50 AM)
youve shown nothing

Real0ne -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 8:39:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 yes but you cannot convince the comrades of that; even despite vile critter parts' apparent recent conversion to liking "facts." deprogramming robots is a bit difficult

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875