22 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidSo if you're asked a question "why wasn't X charged with a crime" saying "because the person in charge of the investigation found no crime was committed" isn't an answer?
Well, why can't you libs answer questions? A dem Pres candidate, Marianne Williamson was just asked what SHE thinks about the fact that Hillary, with all her misdeeds, was never charged with anything. (stay with me, here, I am not talking about Hillary per se). The woman answered, with the first words out of her mouth, saying 'James Comey thought that...."
You see, ...[text shortened]... makes sense. Or, explain what you mean by an inaccurate paraphrase, and I will answer your question.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable one to me esp. when it is asked to a person who isn't a prosecutor and doesn't have legal training.
22 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidThink for one moment. I know, asking a con to think might be a futile gesture, but ask yourself, "Hmmmmm, what could possibly be the reason for someone not being charged with a crime?" The best possible answer is that those doing the charging didn't think the person committed the crime. Occam's Razor.
Well, why can't you libs answer questions? A dem Pres candidate, Marianne Williamson was just asked what SHE thinks about the fact that Hillary, with all her misdeeds, was never charged with anything. (stay with me, here, I am not talking about Hillary per se). The woman answered, with the first words out of her mouth, saying 'James Comey thought that...."
You see, ...[text shortened]... makes sense. Or, explain what you mean by an inaccurate paraphrase, and I will answer your question.
So stop asking this infantile question.
22 Jun 23
@no1marauder saidNo it is not an answer to the direct question. If it were, she would not mention another person’s (Comey) name. And don’t try to kid ole AvJoe, it is FACT that she destroyed govt property, began the Russia Hoax, etc, this woman did not need to reference Comey’s thinking.
So if you're asked a question "why wasn't X charged with a crime" saying "because the person in charge of the investigation found no crime was committed" isn't an answer?
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable one to me esp. when it is asked to a person who isn't a prosecutor and doesn't have legal training.
So again, a person who is qualified to run for president of United States certainly has enough information which you refer to, legal training or not, to be able to comment with a simple answer to this question, knowing what she knows about Hillary Clinton‘s activities. You are unbelievable the way you obfuscate and segue. Just unbelievable. Creds are floundering. “ oh dear, I have to see what someone else thinks about something and get the opinions of other people before I can answer a simple question.”
Jesus. Ask me a question.
@suzianne saidA great post. Please read my response to the ‘infantile’ segue of Marauder, and then put your heads together, and answer the simple question with what you know, and certainly what the candidate for the presidency knows,……… would it not be reasonable to assume that Hillary should have been investigated as well? Did I mention her deleting, destroying, evidence?
Think for one moment. I know, asking a con to think might be a futile gesture, but ask yourself, "Hmmmmm, what could possibly be the reason for someone not being charged with a crime?" The best possible answer is that those doing the charging didn't think the person committed the crime. Occam's Razor.
So stop asking this infantile question.
Whew.
Think for one momentš¤
22 Jun 23
@AverageJoe1
Do you two know that Hillary paid for and bought the Russia hoax dossier, and started the whole thing, and even included five principles, such as Obama, in on the lies?
@averagejoe1 saidNo I don't because it's BS.
@AverageJoe1
Do you two know that Hillary paid for and bought the Russia hoax dossier, and started the whole thing, and even included five principles, such as Obama, in on the lies?
The investigation started when an Australian diplomat told the FBI that a Trump campaign worker informed him that the Russians had thousands of e-mails stolen from the DNC and HRC's campaign.
22 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidShe answered the question directly and accurately. Sorry, her answer doesn't conform to the propaganda you have been fed.
No it is not an answer to the direct question. If it were, she would not mention another person’s (Comey) name. And don’t try to kid ole AvJoe, it is FACT that she destroyed govt property, began the Russia Hoax, etc, this woman did not need to reference Comey’s thinking.
So again, a person who is qualified to run for president of United States certainly has enough ...[text shortened]... he opinions of other people before I can answer a simple question.”
Jesus. Ask me a question.
What high school did you drop out of?
22 Jun 23
@no1marauder saidYou are quite incorrect. I will not even bother linking the proof. Hillary bought and paid for the dossier, and the rest is history. This is even worse than a segue. Now Suzianne will pick up on your post and spread it all around, being quite wrong.
No I don't because it's BS.
The investigation started when an Australian diplomat told the FBI that a Trump campaign worker informed him that the Russians had thousands of e-mails stolen from the DNC and HRC's campaign.
@no1marauder saidShe did not. You are really messing with truth on this thread.
She answered the question directly and accurately. Sorry, her answer doesn't conform to the propaganda you have been fed.
What high school did you drop out of?
Get your head out of Nexis and think common sense. Hillary did it, and other stuff, and was not brought to the fore. Why not? I seem to recall the element of 'intent' is what Comey hung his hat on. Yeah, right.
23 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidYou're a truly ignorant and gullible individual:
You are quite incorrect. I will not even bother linking the proof. Hillary bought and paid for the dossier, and the rest is history. This is even worse than a segue. Now Suzianne will pick up on your post and spread it all around, being quite wrong.
"Former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, in an extensive interview, spoke out on his mysterious role in triggering the launch of the Trump-Russia probe -- while seeming to push back on suggestions that his fateful 2016 meeting with then-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos was somehow a set-up.
In an interview with Sky News earlier this week, Downer discussed the meeting between himself and Papadopoulos in London in May 2016, where the young Trump aide had mentioned how Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. The diplomat later told the Americans, which reportedly helped prompt the FBI probe."
"“All we did was report what Papadopoulos said, and that was that he thought the Russians may release information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign at some stage before the election,” Downer told Sky News. “Now, he didn’t have to tell me that. I didn’t go to the meeting thinking he was even going to mention Russia in a context like the election campaign, I had no idea he would say that.”
Papadopoulos had several meetings with foreign individuals overseas, including Downer and Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, during the 2016 presidential election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report stated that Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” in the form of emails that could damage Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Papadopoulos then told Downer about his conversations with Mifsud."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-australian-diplomat-alexander-downer-defends-work-pushes-back-on-claims-he-tried-to-trap-papadopoulos
Even right wing nut job Matt Gaetz conceded the other day when questioning Durham:
""Hard to say who Mifsud is?" Gaetz exclaimed. "He's the guy who started the whole thing. We've known it for years."
https://gazette.com/news/wex/john-durham-testimony-gop-accuses-special-counsel-of-cover-up-on-trump-russia-genesis/article_601b02ec-3608-521b-8456-2a3fb982195c.html
23 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidWe know you don't like her. That's not a good enough reason to start an investigation into imagined crimes.
No it is not an answer to the direct question. If it were, she would not mention another person’s (Comey) name. And don’t try to kid ole AvJoe, it is FACT that she destroyed govt property, began the Russia Hoax, etc, this woman did not need to reference Comey’s thinking.
So again, a person who is qualified to run for president of United States certainly has enough ...[text shortened]... he opinions of other people before I can answer a simple question.”
Jesus. Ask me a question.
It might be if Trump gets back in, but right now, no.
23 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidHow many times do I have to say this?
A great post. Please read my response to the ‘infantile’ segue of Marauder, and then put your heads together, and answer the simple question with what you know, and certainly what the candidate for the presidency knows,……… would it not be reasonable to assume that Hillary should have been investigated as well? Did I mention her deleting, destroying, evidence?
Whew.
Think for one momentš¤
SoSs Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice both conducted business through servers in their own home. When they left office, those servers were destroyed, along with the information on them, which undoubtedly continued to exist elsewhere, which is probably standard. Stop getting your panties in a twist when Hillary does the same.
You simply don't know enough about it to start charging her with non-existent crimes.
Do you think the President of the United States should be able to persecute and prosecute his political enemies, as Trump said he would do if he gets back in office?
23 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidDid you never read the Mueller Report?
@AverageJoe1
Do you two know that Hillary paid for and bought the Russia hoax dossier, and started the whole thing, and even included five principles, such as Obama, in on the lies?
Trump's dealings with Russia before and after the election was not a "hoax".
23 Jun 23
@AverageJoe1
You can't do a proof because there IS no proof. Hillary has been examined time and again with nothing there but you zombies continue to weaponize all that thinking you are somehow winning a debate. You are losing the debate but you are too too programmed by Trump to even understand that.
23 Jun 23
@no1marauder saidYou mean an Australian diplomat told the FBI about a false rumor he heard from George Papadopoulos.
No I don't because it's BS.
The investigation started when an Australian diplomat told the FBI that a Trump campaign worker informed him that the Russians had thousands of e-mails stolen from the DNC and HRC's campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)
If an investigation was started about you because of a rumor would that be cool with you? I heard Biden stole emails from the RNC. Probably a false rumor, but investigate him anyway. Rumors are enough for investigations now. Should we now investigate all rumors regardless of credibility?