Debates
29 May 19
30 May 19
@vivify said
This is exactly what I'm talking about: no it doesn't.
The draft may show that Comey drew an early conclusion about the investigation doesn't indicate *intent* to prematurely end it. That's quite obvious from the fact the probe WASN'T ended before interviewing Clinton.
The very Newsweek article you cited clearly doesn't support any idea that Comey intended the end th ...[text shortened]... joe never posts links to his claims; because if he did, his statements would be more easily refuted.
The draft may show that Comey drew an early conclusion about the investigation doesn't indicate *intent* to prematurely end it.
No one is saying Comey intended to prematurely end the investigation. But apparently it is your intent to pretend I'm saying it was his intent.
30 May 19
@lemon-lime saidSo LOCK HER UP, but let's ignore Trump's daughter who also uses gommint email for her own purposes. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. But of course now things are different since we now have effectively King Trump so all bets are off and who cares now whether POTUS uses his own Iphone for official business in spite of the fact his own intel folks have repeatedly told him those calls can be tracked 100% by Putin, China, Iran, whoever, it is easily taped and they now have insider info on government business. I guess THAT is now just the new way of the world, in spite of the fact his people gave him phones that are not easily tapped.
As to who granted Comey the authority, the Attorney General did:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said on Friday she will accept the recommendations of prosecutors and investigators on whether to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her email use.
Ri ...[text shortened]... hot potato back over to Comey.
We're in your fantasy world now... I'm just a visitor.
But hey, he is now King Trump so he makes all the rules, in love with Kim, doesn't mind the taste of Putin's ass, HATES Nato our REAL allies.
Tell me I'm wrong about ANY of that.
@lemon-lime saidThen what was the point of you and avergeJoe citing that Newsweek article if you weren't saying that?The draft may show that Comey drew an early conclusion about the investigation doesn't indicate *intent* to prematurely end it.
No one is saying Comey intended to prematurely end the investigation. But apparently it is your intent to pretend I'm saying it was his intent.
@vivify saidI wasn't saying what you kept on telling me I was saying, if that's what you mean.
Then what was the point of you and avergeJoe citing that Newsweek article if you weren't saying that?
You asked for a link.
And now you want to know what was the point of providing a link to a Newsweek article.
I posted a link to a Newsweek article because you asked for a link.
In any event, I appreciate your transparency.
30 May 19
@sonhouse said
So LOCK HER UP, but let's ignore Trump's daughter who also uses gommint email for her own purposes. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. But of course now things are different since we now have effectively King Trump so all bets are off and who cares now whether POTUS uses his own Iphone for official business in spite of the fact his own intel folks hav ...[text shortened]... 't mind the taste of Putin's ass, HATES Nato our REAL allies.
Tell me I'm wrong about ANY of that.
Tell me I'm wrong about ANY of that.
Okay...
You're wrong about ANY of that.
@sonhouse saidHillary, with classified stuff on her server, violated a specific article,I cannot site it exactly. She committed ESPIONAGE, for god sakes;, plain and simple. . Title 18, US Code, section 793(f) She also tore up all her govt computers and cell phones (they were actually ours), and had an aide beat and beat with a hammer. I have always wondered why HE was not arrested. He should be locked up.
So LOCK HER UP, but let's ignore Trump's daughter who also uses gommint email for her own purposes. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. But of course now things are different since we now have effectively King Trump so all bets are off and who cares now whether POTUS uses his own Iphone for official business in spite of the fact his own intel folks hav ...[text shortened]... 't mind the taste of Putin's ass, HATES Nato our REAL allies.
Tell me I'm wrong about ANY of that.
Trump's daughter has the email, but I think she is not committing espionage. If she is, Lock HER up, and I mean that.
Trump's phone. An interesting problem, but figure, your president is so transparent that he feels there is nothing there that anyone can 'use'.
As to your last paragraph, Trump has tried to make y'all and the media understand that he feels it is important to have relationships with our 'enemies'. My great great granddaddy coined the phrase, 'keep your friends close, and your enemies closer'. I wish he would have copyrighted that!!!!! So , you are indeed wrong on this one.
30 May 19
@kazetnagorra saidYall, we are winning Katznagorra over! Come on over to USA, I have a house I'll sell you ! And I want to show you a Publix and a Costco! And any convenience you need on any corner. America. You can get a left-handed monkey wrench anywhere1
E-mail woman bad!
30 May 19
@lemon-lime saidFirst page of this thread, you claimed Comey "personally" exonerated Hillary Clinton. You implied Comey did so for personal reasons rather than because it was the outcome of the investigation.
I wasn't saying what you kept on telling me I was saying, if that's what you mean.
You asked for a link.
And now you want to know what was the point of providing a link to a Newsweek article.
I posted a link to a Newsweek article because you asked for a link.
In any event, I appreciate your transparency.
Now, in the face of having to acknowledge there's no evidence Comey intended a premature ending to Hillary's investigation, you're backing away and trying to make it seem like you did nothing more than post a link.
I've gotten to used conservative tactics like this.
30 May 19
@vivify saidI dont see much point in discussing these ambiguities.
First page of this thread, you claimed Comey "personally" exonerated Hillary Clinton. You implied Comey did so for personal reasons rather than because it was the outcome of the investigation.
Now, in the face of having to acknowledge there's no evidence Comey intended a premature ending to Hillary's investigation, you're backing away and trying to make it seem like you did nothing more than post a link.
I've gotten to used conservative tactics like this.
Hey, no sense mucking these ambiguities. Let's get on Strozk leaking sensitive info, etc. Barr was a brilliant choice to bring all these people to justice. Let's hav fun!
30 May 19
@averagejoe1 saidYou're gonna have to go "lock up" both Rice and Powell, too, in that case.
Hillary, with classified stuff on her server, violated a specific article,I cannot site it exactly. She committed ESPIONAGE, for god sakes;, plain and simple. . Title 18, US Code, section 793(f) She also tore up all her govt computers and cell phones (they were actually ours), and had an aide beat and beat with a hammer. I have always wondered why HE was not arreste ...[text shortened]... emies closer'. I wish he would have copyrighted that!!!!! So , you are indeed wrong on this one.
And "transparent" people don't need to hide what they're doing or pay people off under the table or obstruct justice.
@suzianne saidI'm with you, dont get me wrong. Lock up any and all who have committed crimes or espionage. Even if it is Donald. But, He cant be 'transparent' about everything 🙂 What if Eisenhower had been transparent exactly 75 years ago today? (D-Day) Some things have to be hidden. Don't know if he obstructed justice, as you suggest, a lot of democrat hires of Mueller did not find that (after 2 yrs, $35K).
You're gonna have to go "lock up" both Rice and Powell, too, in that case.
And "transparent" people don't need to hide what they're doing or pay people off under the table or obstruct justice.
I dont know what you mean by paying off people under the table, never heard of that. What is that. Dont even answer if you are going to bring up his dalliance.......the stuff FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ Clinton et al have done. Yawners.
Remember, Suzianne, no crime, of any kind. Please dont get sucked into that drivel.
@vivify saidAha, gotcha! I knew if I kept ya talking long enough you'd eventually trip over your own words.
First page of this thread, you claimed Comey "personally" exonerated Hillary Clinton. You implied Comey did so for personal reasons rather than because it was the outcome of the investigation.
Now, in the face of having to acknowledge there's no evidence Comey intended a premature ending to Hillary's investigation, you're backing away and trying to make it seem like you did nothing more than post a link.
I've gotten to used conservative tactics like this.
So now, in the face of having to acknowledge no one was saying Comey intended a premature ejaculation ending to Hillary's investigation, you are now backing away and trying to make it seem like you did nothing more than ask for a link.
@lemon-lime saidYawn.
Aha, gotcha! I knew if I kept ya talking long enough you'd eventually trip over your own words.
So now, in the face of having to acknowledge no one was saying Comey intended a premature ejaculation ending to Hillary's investigation, you are now backing away and trying to make it seem like you did nothing more than ask for a link.
"He essentially exonerated her when he added 'intent' into the mix, to make it appear there were no crimes"----Lemon Lime, page one
You claimed Comey deliberately tried to exonerate Hillary. Your own words now make you look dumb.
31 May 19
@vivify said"Exonerating Clinton before the investigation is over is not the same thing as preparing a statement ahead of time. This is why I ask for links."----vivify, page two
Yawn.
"He essentially exonerated her when he added 'intent' into the mix, to make it appear there were no crimes"----Lemon Lime, page one
You claimed Comey deliberately tried to exonerate Hillary. Your own words now make you look dumb.
And riding a bicycle is not the same thing as kicking a football. So what?
Hillary was at the very least guilty of negligence (a prosecutable crime). Comey was saying it wasn't 'willful' negligence, but no one was claiming it was willful (goes to intent). Comey employed a little courtroom trick by defending her of something she wasn't being accused of... and apparently it worked.
Imagine being charged with petty theft, and your attorney proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you are not guily of rape.
Well there ya go, you've been proven not guilty. Hurrah for you.
So tell me again, how was Comey not deliberately trying to exonerate Hillary?