Lock her up! ... Lock her up!... Lock her... oh oh...

"WASHINGTON—The State Department identified 91 security violations by 38 individuals in its review of classified information on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server.

The report, the culmination of several years of work by the department, found there was “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information” by anyone in government, according to a copy of the report provided to the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), which shared it with The Wall Street Journal.

The review concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server for government business put State Department information at a greater risk of compromise because a private server “lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of State Department networks.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-...in-review-of-clinton-email-server-11571440604

You have now seen the law and the crime. The part is bold print is the violation of the law I quoted earlier.

 

If you don't know the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the U.S. Code, how did I even expect you to know the difference between quoting a law, quoting criminal law and quoting a newspaper article.

Thanks for wasting my time. Won't fall for it again....

 

I provided the US code. I provided how she violated the law. Do you honestly believe that she had no classified documents on her server and do you honestly believe that server in her closet was suitable for classified information? You were the one who provided an article from Vanity Fair. and you claim a newspaper article is not good enough. Can you spell h......... Never mind.

 

Rush and Hannity are the Patrick Henry's of our day! You'll grow to appreciate them.

 

There you go again .. right back into denial mode - followed by spewing falsehoods - ones that you know are false.

I did not make up the "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" - it is a real bill - cosigned by 13 bipartisan in congress.

You want to live in denial of this reality - to a point of mindless absurdity - that is confounding .. and troubling ..

 

So you're planning on investigating Hillary for infringing a law that hasn't even passed Congress yet?

Your nonsense is getting more... nonsensical... by the second.

 

The law forbidding lying to Congress has been on the books for many years - What nonsense fantasy are you living in ?
There were also laws on the books forbidding arming/supporting terrorist groups.

What part of "Under US Law" did you not understand the first 4 times I gave you this link - for similar mindless nonsense like the above post.

I don't understand the degree of mindless desperation - Why does the fact that Hillary is guilty of war crimes - shake your world to the core so badly that all your faculties become distorted - rational thought capabilities out the window.

Yet you keep digging and digging at the sore that won't go away - demonizing the messenger - making accusations you know are false.

Change is painful - but you must.

 

I did not say that a president cannot be investigated over an arbitrary label of which hunt - assuming that sentence even made sense - which it doesn't. You committed a non-sequitur fallacy. It does not follow - that a President cannot be investigated - over false charges - because someone labels them false charges.

You have charges - that someone labels them false - does not mean the charges cannot be investigated.

In the case of a Which Hunt - what is being done is going outside of the scope of those charges - rounding up people somehow related to the story - and charging those people with unrelated offenses - in an effort to get them to talk.

That is what a Witch Hunt is - and I am just calling a spade a spade.

If I am in error then tell me what the # of inches of cigar - slick willy inserted into Monica's oval orifice - had to do with whitewater ? Out of Scope

In Trump's case - how many people were rounded up and charged with out of scope offences. Then there are the ones that were charged - but found not guilty .. and the CIA involvement in setting Papadopolous up.

Plenty o Crosses burning there were - the hunt was on.

 

If you find something "disturbing" and you label it "a witch hunt", it most definitely does follow (sequitur) that you are saying that it should not be made.

There are two alternative "sequiturs". One is that you are in favor of things that disturb you and in favor of witch hunts. Which I find ridiculous to even entertain. The second, and most likely, is that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Since you denied my original interpretation, then the latter of these two would logically have to be the case.

You're falling deeper and deeper into the proverbial logic rabbit hole. Of course they can be investigated. Nobody with the power to decide that gives a damn what you believe. As a matter of fact they are, in fact, being investigated. But I'm discussing your opinion.

If you're talking about the Bidens, you are correct. Otherwise, it's absolute nonsense. At least in what refers to the Trump Impeachment, the charges are clear, and the relevance of those who the Democrats have called to testify is absolutely clear.

More conspiracy theories? Who was found not guilty?

What nonsense!

This is off topic. I say again: on threads about Trump, right-wingers want to talk about Hillary, and now on a Hillary thread, they want to talk about Trump.

You call the Mueller investigation only because your idol, Trump, calls it that. But it's clear that Mueller's team found many "witches". Including Trump and his family. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Mueller went beyond the scope of his investigation. Except in the mind of the conspiracy theorists in the wingnut media.

However, I say again, completely off-topic.

 

What bunch if gibberish and projecting your issues onto others. I stated specifically what your non sequitur was .. all you are doing is making unsubstantiated accusations - because you can not address the material presented.
If you're talking about the Bidens, you are correct. Otherwise, it's absolute nonsense. At least in what refers to the Trump Impeachment, the charges are clear, and the relevance of those who the Democrats have called to testify is absolutely clear.

That Congress stated that the US was arming radical Islamist Jihadists in Syria is Fact - running around crying "Conspiracy" and crying "Nonsense" does not change this fact. Hillary was never found not-guilty of lying to congress about arming terrorist groups.

I hate Trump - this does not change the fact that - Mueller went out of scope - rounding up people and charging them with crimes not related to the alleged crimes for which he was given special powers.

You are the one engaging in the laughable conspiracy that Congress made up a story about the US arming terrorists in Syria.

 

It should not be called the Mueller Investigation. Mueller did not appear to even know what was in the report.

 

And the above, ladies and gentlemen... believe it or not... is the response the poster, who says that somebody accused by Mueller was acquitted, gives to the simple question "Who was acquitted?" i.e. another conspiracy theory about the most exonerated person in history. Yeah... investigate her... 437 instead of 436 accusations for which she has been exonerated might very well mean the difference between keeping the record, and losing it to the next victim of Republican pathological conspiracy theories.

Nope! Not even a micron. He didn't overreach. If there is anything to be criticized about him is that he under-reached.

 

what a big strawman falsehood - wrapped up in mindless gibberish

 

The point was that he was never convicted of murder, even though he was responsible for many. Your point is that Hillary Clinton was never tried in a court of law; therefore, she is as innocent as the driven snow. And that is such elementary, sophistic thinking.

You're silly! These are ridiculous conversations!

I will say you are right in that it was a bit of a lousy point to compare Clinton to Capone, for Capone was not a former US Senator, Secretary of State, and First Lady, which makes her a mistress of the establishment DNC. A woman with such political clout is not going to be treated like you and me; there are double standards. For instance, if we are charged with a crime, the chief of police will not say that the DA should not prosecute, as Comey said to Loretta Lynch. And the chief of police will not, out of his province, make up the prerequisite of intent as a crime. Also, unlike you and I, a member of our family, will not talk privately with the DA, as Bill Clinton (a former president!) did with Loretta Lynch. The woman is dirty, but she has so much political clout that she is not treated like you and me. Your level of logic in this powwow is beyond infantile.

 

Your arguments get more absurd by the second. Here is your argument at this point: "Al Capone was never convicted of murder. Hillary was never even tried for... anything. Therefore, Hillary is like Al Capone"

I've never been on trial for anything (other than a traffic ticket once. Which I won!) So your logic makes me guilty of who knows how many terrible crimes.

I think it would have been wise of you to leave it at that when you were not that far behind. Now you're up to your neck in silliness.

Bottom line: Hillary is now the most exonerated politician (probably person) in history. And that hurts you guys to your guts. Which, if I am to be honest, is what actually amuses me in all of this. Because I couldn't care less about Hillary.

I had my doubts about her. But being exonerated so many times in so many instances and in such a bi-partisan way has convinced me that she actually was treated unfairly.

 

vs.

Your signature is terribly ironic.

My argument is though you have not been investigated or charged with anything, it does not mean you have not done anything criminally wrong. For someone who boasts that they spend a "long time" to make their arguments valid, you appear to have trouble comprehending. That, or you are being purposely disingenuous. Either way, you are being silly.

 

I have shown everybody who has challenged me that it is accurate. The arguments I used on factual discussions are invariably preceded by research. I have already tutored you on the factual part (i.e. Capone, unlike Clinton, was accused of many things. Sometimes he was declared guilty, others not.) When your attempt to make a factual argument failed, you attempted to make a logical argument. Which I immediately debunked, as shown by what follows...

That means that your reason to believe that Hillary is guilty of something is the same you have that I'm guilty of something.

So either you're a nihilist or you have rebutted your own argument (actually maybe both).

That was easy....

And there you go again... rebutting your own statements. Because my sig has nothing to do with comprehending or not comprehending. It has to do with researching facts.

On the matter of "comprehending" I have shown above that you don't comprehend your own argument. i.e. you don't know what you're talking about

 

This is ironic, as Clinton has been accused of many things as well; she just has not been charged with anything. So much for the "factual" side of your argument. If she was not accused of many criminal things, what would have been the purpose of creating this thread?

Yeah, that is not a grammatically correct statement. It actually hurt my head to read it and try to decipher it into intelligible English. Here is my attempt to correct you; correct me if I am wrong. And if you do correct me, try to been understandable when you do.

"That means that your reason to believe that Hillary is guilty of something is the same [as] I'm guilty of something."​

Again, another ironic statement, considering your signature. You claim that you invest a long time on the validity of your posts, yet you argue in a sophistic way. What are you doing right now is creating a straw man argument--also known as "attacking a straw man," a classical form of sophistry, an invalid argument. I am not saying that those who have not been charged are guilty; I am saying that those who have not been charged are not therefore innocent of any crime. People have gotten away with crimes without having been accused or officially charged. When you run a red light, and the cop does not catch you, you running a red light is still a crime. When you go above the speed limit, and the cop does not catch you or pull you over, you are still engaging in criminal behavior. You just did not get caught. Why you are arguing against this logic is insane.

 

I'm referring to being accused criminally. In a criminal court. Not by right wingnut media conspiracy theories.

But this is obvious. So your statement is a strawman.

The purpose is to show that those accusations were mostly conspiracy theories with no factual basis whatsoever. Given that the investigations were multiple, and were extended much longer than needed.

The purpose is also to demonstrate how gullible people who fall for this kind of things are by far much more prevalent on the right

My statement is correct as written, and your attempt to dodge the point is duly noted. Not to mention pathetic.

Running a red light and speeding are infractions. Not crimes.

But, no matter... looks like you have no other argument than the one I stated. Which you criticized for grammar, but not for accuracy. And, for that reason, it stands unchallenged.