Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

Liberals Still Think Obama Was The 'Best President Ever,' Here Are 14 Reasons Why That's Ridiculous

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

MontyPython
5 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Antoon's logic, such as it is, is an absolute textbook case of doublethink.

HRC is not guilty of any crimes because she was never indicted of any crimes.

DJT is guilty of crimes because he was indicted (impeached).  Sure, he was acquitted of all charges, but since he was formally accused he is guilty.

Those two beliefs co-exist in the same pointy, partisan head.  

Yup, bullseye.

:yes:

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
24 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

What did they say?

You still talking about the estimate that assumed milder recession than the Great Recession that was actually going on?

Yea I’m sure history will be real tough on them :rolleyes:

I’m not going to even try to explain 10 different ways you are wrong about the Clinton’s email handling. But let me make it absolutely clear for you: nobody will be blaming Clinton’s servers on Obama...except maybe you.

"No true Scotsman."  There were no scandals in Obama's administration because whenever someone points out a scandal in Obama's administration, Anton Too will say it doesn't count.  Obama never broke a promise because no promises he made were real promises.  There were no scandals in his administration because none of the scandals in his administration amounted to real scandals.  

The Secretary of State's illegal server, which she used to evade the Freedom of Information Act?  That doesn't count.  

The IRS harassing Obama's critics in the Tea Party?  That doesn't count.  

BATF selling firearms to Mexican drug gangs who used them to kill hundreds of Mexicans?  Doesn't count.  

Lying to the FISA court to get a warrant to wiretap Trump's campaign?  That doesn't count.

Lying about failure to protect Americans murdered in Libya?  Doesn't count.  

Attorney General Holder held in contempt of Congress for refusal to testify about "Fast and Furious"?  Not a real scandal.  

A fund of $535 million poured down the rat hole known as Solyndra?  Not a real scandal.  

Tens of thousands of veterans denied care at the Veterans' Administration hospitals.  That one doesn't count.  

You're right, Anton Too.  There were no scandals in the Obama administration because none of the scandals were real scandals.  

 

 

 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Martin said:

"No true Scotsman."  There were no scandals in Obama's administration because whenever someone points out a scandal in Obama's administration, Anton Too will say it doesn't count.  Obama never broke a promise because no promises he made were real promises.  There were no scandals in his administration because none of the scandals in his administration amounted to real scandals.  

The Secretary of State's illegal server, which she used to evade the Freedom of Information Act?  That doesn't count.  

The IRS harassing Obama's critics in the Tea Party?  That doesn't count.  

BATF selling firearms to Mexican drug gangs who used them to kill hundreds of Mexicans?  Doesn't count.  

Lying to the FISA court to get a warrant to wiretap Trump's campaign?  That doesn't count.

Lying about failure to protect Americans murdered in Libya?  Doesn't count.  

Attorney General Holder held in contempt of Congress for refusal to testify about "Fast and Furious"?  Not a real scandal.  

A fund of $535 million poured down the rat hole known as Solyndra?  Not a real scandal.  

Tens of thousands of veterans denied care at the Veterans' Administration hospitals.  That one doesn't count.  

You're right, Anton Too.  There were no scandals in the Obama administration because none of the scandals were real scandals.  

 

 

 

The bait and switch never ends.

You throw some bs out, I address it, you ignore and throw out some other half baked crap.

I’ll agree that Holder should have testified to Congress instead of being a chicken-sht. But what is the story about? Bad tactics to try to bust up Mexican cartels? That’s not a crime make.

But just to go to consistency, when Barr didn’t show up you all gave him props for “sticking it to the Dems!”, but to listen to you Holder doing the same is no less than a historic crime.

The rest is just trying to pin anything and everything on Obama personally.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Martin said:

"No true Scotsman."  There were no scandals in Obama's administration because whenever someone points out a scandal in Obama's administration, Anton Too will say it doesn't count.  Obama never broke a promise because no promises he made were real promises.  There were no scandals in his administration because none of the scandals in his administration amounted to real scandals.  

The Secretary of State's illegal server, which she used to evade the Freedom of Information Act?  That doesn't count.  

The IRS harassing Obama's critics in the Tea Party?  That doesn't count.  

BATF selling firearms to Mexican drug gangs who used them to kill hundreds of Mexicans?  Doesn't count.  

Lying to the FISA court to get a warrant to wiretap Trump's campaign?  That doesn't count.

Lying about failure to protect Americans murdered in Libya?  Doesn't count.  

Attorney General Holder held in contempt of Congress for refusal to testify about "Fast and Furious"?  Not a real scandal.  

A fund of $535 million poured down the rat hole known as Solyndra?  Not a real scandal.  

Tens of thousands of veterans denied care at the Veterans' Administration hospitals.  That one doesn't count.  

You're right, Anton Too.  There were no scandals in the Obama administration because none of the scandals were real scandals.  

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

The bait and switch never ends.

You throw some bs out, I address it, you ignore and throw out some other half baked crap.

I’ll agree that Holder should have testified to Congress instead of being a chicken-sht. But what is the story about? Bad tactics to try to bust up Mexican cartels? That’s not a crime make.

But just to go to consistency, when Barr didn’t show up you all gave him props for “sticking it to the Dems!”, but to listen to you Holder doing the same is no less than a historic crime.

The rest is just trying to pin anything and everything on Obama personally.

Let's go with the four from martin that I bolded.

1.  HRC's server was a clear violation of the law.  Comey outlined how it was a clear violation of the law in excruciating detail.  Comey then goes on to give his OPINION that HRC didn't "intend" to break the law...even though intent is not a component or requirement of the law.  He then goes on to again give his next OPINION that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.  It was not a part of his job nor a part of the power delegated to him to decide to add the requirement of "intent" to the law nor to decide if a prosecutor would or would not prosecute. 

2.  The IRS targeted conservative organizations and denied them tax status that they were legally entitled to based on their political stance.  The IRS is a part of the Treasury Department, an Executive Agency accountable to the President...President Obama at the time.  If Trump's IRS were denying special tax status to leftist organizations, would this be a big "bait and switch" if Democrats were up in arms about it?  Would this be "just trying to pin anything and everything on Trump personally?"

3.  Illegally shipping guns that were supposed to be destroyed across international borders to put them into the hands of drug cartels is "bad tactics?"  That's it?  A dead federal agent is just a victim of "bad tactics?" 

4.  The FBI used a document that they knew was unreliable and that they knew contained falsehoods and that they knew was bought and paid for by the Democratic Party/Candidate to get a warrant to spy on the incoming NSA.  They deliberately and fraudulently and illegally withheld all of that information from top officials in the Justice Department (if you believe that Rosenstein didn't know about the Steele Dossier's "problems") and the FISA court in order to spy on not only a US citizen, but AGAIN, the incoming NSA.  There was a meeting on this investigation in the WH with your messiah and the senile hair sniffer in attendance.  This meeting led to that moron Susan Rice feeling she needed to send a CYA memo to herself on her last day in office so that there would be something in the Federal Record covering her ass.  This, to you, is nothing.

The depth of your partisanship is truly disgusting.  How you can willingly give up your capacity for independent and critical thought to ANY political party or movement is beyond me.

Edited by JerryL
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JerryL said:

 

Let's go with the four from martin that I bolded.

1.  HRC's server was a clear violation of the law.  Comey outlined how it was a clear violation of the law in excruciating detail.  Comey then goes on to give his OPINION that HRC didn't "intend" to break the law...even though intent is not a component or requirement of the law.  He then goes on to again give his next OPINION that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.  It was not a part of his job nor a part of the power delegated to him to decide to add the requirement of "intent" to the law nor to decide if a prosecutor would or would not prosecute. 

2.  The IRS targeted conservative organizations and denied them tax status that they were legally entitled to based on their political stance.  The IRS is a part of the Treasury Department, an Executive Agency accountable to the President...President Obama at the time.  If Trump's IRS were denying special tax status to leftist organizations, would this be a big "bait and switch" if Democrats were up in arms about it?  Would this be "just trying to pin anything and everything on Trump personally?"

3.  Illegally shipping guns that were supposed to be destroyed across international borders to put them into the hands of drug cartels is "bad tactics?"  That's it?  A dead federal agent is just a victim of "bad tactics?" 

4.  The FBI used a document that they knew was unreliable and that they knew contained falsehoods and that they knew was bought and paid for by the Democratic Party/Candidate to get a warrant to spy on the incoming NSA.  They deliberately and fraudulently and illegally withheld all of that information from top officials in the Justice Department (if you believe that Rosenstein didn't know about the Steele Dossier's "problems") and the FISA court in order to spy on not only a US citizen, but AGAIN, the incoming NSA.  There was a meeting on this investigation in the WH with your messiah and the senile hair sniffer in attendance.  This meeting led to that moron Susan Rice feeling she needed to send a CYA memo to herself on her last day in office so that there would be something in the Federal Record covering her ass.  This, to you, is nothing.

The depth of your partisanship is truly disgusting.  How you can willingly give up your capacity for independent and critical thought to ANY political party or movement is beyond me.

1.  No law against using personal server at the time, legal exposure was specifically about intentional mishandling of classified materials. Nothing to do with Obama. No intent, no indictments. Clinton mishandled some classified emails by keeping it on her server (just as Rice and Powell did before her wiith their personal email accounts) and appologized for it. Not exactly nafarious stuff there.

2. No implication of Obama or anyone else at the WH for that matter. No indictments.

3. Yes, bad tactics, no one ever claimed any intent aside from enforcement going after cartels just as was done under Bush. No indictments.

4. No implicaiton of Obama or anyone at the WH, no indictments. Meeting was held to apropreately brief administration of a civilian named Flynn conducting diplomacy with Russians. Zero evidence of WH directing any surveilance or any other component of the apropriately predicated (IG Horowitz report) counter intelligence investigation by FBI. 

 

You fellas sure like to shoot them blanks. Lots of assertive hot air, little substance, no indictments to show for ANYTHING after 3.5 years of unyelding claims of illegalities and "lock em' up" Trump DOJ. At what point do you start to catch yourself making yet another loud claim of criminality you know will go nowhere? At what point do you realize you've been fed a lot of politico bs that can't stand up to serious scrutiny of the courtroom?

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
4 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

1.  No law against using personal server, legal exposure was specifically about intentional mishandling of classified materials. Nothing to do with Obama. No indictments.

2. No implication of Obama or anyone at the WH for that matter. No indictements

3. Yes, bad tactics, no one ever claimed any intent aside from enforcement going after cartels just as was done under Bush. No indictments.

4. No implicaiton of Obama or anyone at the WH, no indictments.

 

You fellas sure like to shoot them blanks. Lots of assertive hot air, little substance, no indictments to show for ANYTHING after 3.5 years of "lock em' up" Trump DOJ.

1. Yes, there are laws about using personal servers to conduct official USG business in both the classified and the unclassified domains.  She violated them.  She broke the law.  The Obama DOJ chose not to prosecute, thus no indictments.  Obama was an idiot who knew absolutely nothing about what his hand picked subordinates did and should not be held accountable.  

2. Again, the standard of the Obama DOJ choosing not to indict employees of the Obama Executive Department, thus no indictments.  Obama was an idiot who knew absolutely nothing about what his hand picked subordinates did and should not be held accountable.  

3. So all US and NAFTA laws and regulations were followed when the guns were shipped across international borders?  All US laws were followed when the guns were not destroyed, as required.  Is that what you are saying?  Obama's handpicked head of the DOJ chooses not to prosecute his employees for an illegal operation he was running, thus no indictments.  Obama was an idiot who knew absolutely nothing about what his hand picked subordinates did and should not be held accountable.  

4. Tons of implications at the highest levels of the Obama administration.  Just because you ignore the evidence does not mean they it doesn't exist.  No indictments YET.  And, once again, Obama was an idiot who knew absolutely anything about what his hand picked subordinates did and should not be held accountable.  

So, based on Antoon's logic, a summary:

A.  If the Mayor and Chief of Police of Minneapolis had chosen to hold the blue shield over Officer Chauvin, he would be completely innocent because he would not have been indicted.  Forget that he killed Mr. Floyd.  He wasn't indicted!  He's better than innocent!

B.  To be a successful, scandal-free, leader is easy.  Just be 100% ignorant of everything your top officials are doing.  Then, you aren't accountable and, even better, you shouldn't be held accountable.

This is where you proudly live, Antoon.  

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
1 minute ago, JerryL said:

1. Yes, there are laws about using personal servers

What law?

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
2 minutes ago, JerryL said:

2. Again, the standard of the Obama DOJ choosing not to indict employees of the Obama Executive Department, thus no indictments. 

It's been Trump's DOJ for 3.5 years, what are you even talking about?

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, JerryL said:

3. So all US and NAFTA laws and regulations were followed when the guns were shipped across international borders?  All US laws were followed when the guns were not destroyed, as required.  Is that what you are saying?  Obama's handpicked head of the DOJ chooses not to prosecute his employees for an illegal operation he was running

Same tactics were used during Bush administration. Nobody proposed indicting anyone - weird eh?

At the heart of the matter is enforcement agencies going after Mexican cartels. No evidence of any criminal intent.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, JerryL said:

4. Tons of implications at the highest levels of the Obama administration.  Just because you ignore the evidence does not mean they it doesn't exist. 

What implication? What evidence?

We've been up and down this "obamagate" bs, no one can sanely produce anything to establish any direction form the WH.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
4 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

What law?

Federal records regulations and procedures.  Not laws, but have legally binding responsibilities on those who work in the USG.

And, 18 USC §1924.  This law does have an intent clause, but the intent is "to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location" which she clearly did.  She deliberately set up the server to avoid use of USG networks AND many of the documents found had classified headers stripped so that they could be moved onto that server.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Not laws, but have legally binding responsibilities on those who work in the USG.

And, 18 USC §1924.  This law does have an intent clause, but the intent is "to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location" which she clearly did.  She deliberately set up the server to avoid use of USG networks AND many of the documents found had classified headers stripped so that they could be moved onto that server.

Surprise! :rolleyes:

There was no law that a personal server could not be used and you now hinge your entire claim of illegality on INTENT. Intent that FBI concluded it could not establish.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
7 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

It's been Trump's DOJ for 3.5 years, what are you even talking about?

 

5 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Same tactics were used during Bush administration. Nobody proposed indicting anyone - weird eh?

At the heart of the matter is enforcement agencies going after Mexican cartels. No evidence of any criminal intent.

 

2 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

What implication? What evidence?

We've been up and down this "obamagate" bs, no one can sanely produce anything to establish any direction form the WH.

Are you so freaking stupid that you don't know who was President and who ran the DOJ and who refused to do anything about these events when they happened?  Are you so wilfully blind that you don't know what has been occupying the DOJ for the past 3.5 years?  Seriously.  

Your bolded statement is absolutely hilarious considering that you asswipes ran with "Russian Collusion" for how many years?  Not a shred of evidence, yet you drove an impeachment over it?  

Again, in Antoonland, all you have to be to be an effective and scandal free leader is to be so completely stupid as to be absolutely oblivious to everything happening around you.  The "buck no longer stops here."  

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Are you so freaking stupid that you don't know who was President and who ran the DOJ and who refused to do anything about these events when they happened?  Are you so wilfully blind that you don't know what has been occupying the DOJ for the past 3.5 years?  Seriously.  

Your bolded statement is absolutely hilarious considering that you asswipes ran with "Russian Collusion" for how many years?  Not a shred of evidence, yet you drove an impeachment over it?  

Again, in Antoonland, all you have to be to be an effective and scandal free leader is to be so completely stupid as to be absolutely oblivious to everything happening around you.  The "buck no longer stops here."  

I know a president that bent over backwards to not interfere or give apearance of interference with the FBI investigations. A President that sat out quitely while his Democrat successor named Hillary was getting T-boned publicly by a Republican FBI Director named Comey, in violation of DOJ guidelines, just weeks out from election. Not a peep, no tweet storm, no attacking FBI, no threats to fire Comey.

Thats the president Obama I know and then there is the law skirting assclown we have in WH now who ironically fired Comey under false official pretenses that he was too rough on Hillary.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
2 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Surprise! :rolleyes:

There was no law that a personal server could not be used and you now hinge your entire claim of illegality on INTENT. Intent that FBI concluded it could not establish.

Yes there is.  That code I cited says it they are against the law.  They are an "unauthorized location."  Do you really not see that?

I acknowledged that the law had an intent element.  You think you have some sort of "gotcha" because of that?  "Oh Antoon, you got me!  You got me because I have integrity and admitted a mistake."   You should try it sometime.  Besides that, the set up of the unauthorized server and the stripping of classified headers shows intent.

BTW, federal records handling regulations have administrative and financial penalties for violating them.  When you operate in a world of security clearances, the consequences can be career ending bankrupting.  

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
3 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

I know a president that bent over backwards to not interfere or give apearance of interference with the FBI investigations. A President that sat out quitely while his Democrat successor named Hillary was getting T-boned publicly by a Republican FBI Director named Comey, in violation of DOJ guidelines, just weeks out from election. Not a peep, no tweet storm, no attacking FFBI, threats to fire Comey.

Thats the president Obama I know and then there is the law skirting assclown we have in WH now who fired Comey under false official pretenses that he was too rough on Hillary.

Because they were doing what he freaking told them too, Antoon.  Or, he was an absolute moron who had no idea what his top officials were doing.  Your choice.  I am not decided on which one it is.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Yes there is.  That code I cited says it they are against the law.

I will repeat again - WHAT FN LAW?

What law Jerry? Should be very simple to answer if there is a law against personal servers as you claim.

There is no specific law like that and it was not illegal in of itself to have a personal server.

The rest are your assertions about Hillary’s intent. But that’s all they are, because again, FBI specifically said it could not establish intent and Trump’s DOJ re-affirmed the conclusion of the case (IG Horowitz report).

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Because they were doing what he freaking told them too, Antoon.  

All you have to do now is find EVIDENCE that it was so. I haven't seen any and I have no reason to belive your baseless assertions to be true.

Everything I have seen points to Obama carefully keeping the f out of the FBI's investigations.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
1 hour ago, AntonToo said:

I will repeat again - WHAT FN LAW?

What law Jerry? Should be very simple to answer if there is a law against personal servers as you claim.

There is no specific law like that and it was not illegal in of itself to have a personal server.

The rest are your assertions about Hillary’s intent. But that’s all they are, because again, FBI specifically said it could not establish intent and Trump’s DOJ re-affirmed the conclusion of the case (IG Horowitz report).

FFS, Antoon.  18 USC §1924.  Can you not read.

Of course it is not illegal to have a personal server.  If it were, no one could buy one.  But use your brain for a couple of seconds.  What she did with it could be against the law.

However, it is illegal to handle classified information on a non-authorized server, which this was.  It is also against federal regulations to conduct official USG business on non-official networks.  The State department has state.gov that our taxes pay a lot to maintain and operate.  She deliberately bypassed state.gov so that she could do <censored> like delete 30000 emails and wipe her hard drives.  

I know why Obama's DOJ didn't indict her or even discipline her.  She was "the heir."  It was "her turn."  And, Democrats NEVER punish wrongdoing by their own.  Ever.  Once in a while, they sacrifice a lamb to protect the ram, but that is it.  It will always be a mystery to me why DJT didn't pursue charges against her.  Probably because he already hand an inkling that career federal civil servants were actively acting against their oaths to resist a duly elected president.  But that is just speculation.  

1.  Bypass DOS information networks.

2.  Set up private server in a private residence for the express purpose of conducting USG business outside of USG information channels.

3.  Handling classified information, including classified information with the classified headers deliberately stripped on the unauthorized system.

4.  Deleting 30000 emails which, by Federal Regulations that she reviewed and signed, were to be protected.

5.  Hiring a firm to professionally wipe her servers to impede access to the information she illegally and improperly handled there.

Seriously, comrade, do you actually think that the same laws apply people like the Clintons and the Trumps as they do to you and I?  Are you that naive?

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
1 hour ago, AntonToo said:

All you have to do now is find EVIDENCE that it was so. I haven't seen any and I have no reason to belive your baseless assertions to be true.

Everything I have seen points to Obama carefully keeping the f out of the FBI's investigations.

You really are that stupid or naive, aren't you?  Tables turned and Trump does any of that crap, you would absolutely lose your <censored>.  You know it.  We all know it.  And don't make me laugh about your need to actually "see" evidence, cough, cough, Russian Collusion, cough, cough.

Have a good rest of your day.  I imagine it is pretty blissful living in ignorance with partisan blinders.  I am off!

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
8 hours ago, AntonToo said:

What did they say?

You still talking about the estimate that assumed milder recession than the Great Recession that was actually going on?

Yea I’m sure history will be real tough on them :rolleyes:

I’m not going to even try to explain 10 different ways you are wrong about the Clinton’s email handling. But let me make it absolutely clear for you: nobody will be blaming Clinton’s servers on Obama...except maybe you.

 

6 hours ago, AntonToo said:

The bait and switch never ends.

You throw some bs out, I address it, you ignore and throw out some other half baked crap.

I’ll agree that Holder should have testified to Congress instead of being a chicken-sht. But what is the story about? Bad tactics to try to bust up Mexican cartels? That’s not a crime make.

But just to go to consistency, when Barr didn’t show up you all gave him props for “sticking it to the Dems!”, but to listen to you Holder doing the same is no less than a historic crime.

The rest is just trying to pin anything and everything on Obama personally.

 

3 hours ago, AntonToo said:

1.  No law against using personal server at the time, legal exposure was specifically about intentional mishandling of classified materials. Nothing to do with Obama. No intent, no indictments. Clinton mishandled some classified emails by keeping it on her server (just as Rice and Powell did before her wiith their personal email accounts) and appologized for it. Not exactly nafarious stuff there.

2. No implication of Obama or anyone else at the WH for that matter. No indictments.

3. Yes, bad tactics, no one ever claimed any intent aside from enforcement going after cartels just as was done under Bush. No indictments.

4. No implicaiton of Obama or anyone at the WH, no indictments. Meeting was held to apropreately brief administration of a civilian named Flynn conducting diplomacy with Russians. Zero evidence of WH directing any surveilance or any other component of the apropriately predicated (IG Horowitz report) counter intelligence investigation by FBI. 

 

You fellas sure like to shoot them blanks. Lots of assertive hot air, little substance, no indictments to show for ANYTHING after 3.5 years of unyelding claims of illegalities and "lock em' up" Trump DOJ. At what point do you start to catch yourself making yet another loud claim of criminality you know will go nowhere? At what point do you realize you've been fed a lot of politico bs that can't stand up to serious scrutiny of the courtroom?

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

What law?

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

It's been Trump's DOJ for 3.5 years, what are you even talking about?

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

Same tactics were used during Bush administration. Nobody proposed indicting anyone - weird eh?

At the heart of the matter is enforcement agencies going after Mexican cartels. No evidence of any criminal intent.

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

What implication? What evidence?

We've been up and down this "obamagate" bs, no one can sanely produce anything to establish any direction form the WH.

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

Surprise! :rolleyes:

There was no law that a personal server could not be used and you now hinge your entire claim of illegality on INTENT. Intent that FBI concluded it could not establish.

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

I know a president that bent over backwards to not interfere or give apearance of interference with the FBI investigations. A President that sat out quitely while his Democrat successor named Hillary was getting T-boned publicly by a Republican FBI Director named Comey, in violation of DOJ guidelines, just weeks out from election. Not a peep, no tweet storm, no attacking FBI, no threats to fire Comey.

Thats the president Obama I know and then there is the law skirting assclown we have in WH now who ironically fired Comey under false official pretenses that he was too rough on Hillary.

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

I will repeat again - WHAT FN LAW?

What law Jerry? Should be very simple to answer if there is a law against personal servers as you claim.

There is no specific law like that and it was not illegal in of itself to have a personal server.

The rest are your assertions about Hillary’s intent. But that’s all they are, because again, FBI specifically said it could not establish intent and Trump’s DOJ re-affirmed the conclusion of the case (IG Horowitz report).

 

2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

All you have to do now is find EVIDENCE that it was so. I haven't seen any and I have no reason to belive your baseless assertions to be true.

Everything I have seen points to Obama carefully keeping the f out of the FBI's investigations.

:biglaugh:

Damn Skippy, you really need to lay off the drugs.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
40 minutes ago, JerryL said:

You really are that stupid or naive, aren't you?  Tables turned and Trump does any of that crap, you would absolutely lose your <censored>.  You know it.  We all know it.  And don't make me laugh about your need to actually "see" evidence, cough, cough, Russian Collusion, cough, cough.

Have a good rest of your day.  I imagine it is pretty blissful living in ignorance with partisan blinders.  I am off!

:exactly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confessor
18 hours ago, AntonToo said:

Yes, avoided any major scandals. 

If taking money for your charity or political compaigns is proof of corruption then everyone in Washington is corrupt. You can get an ear of ANY politican if you give enough money, thats just the reality of how things work.

The double standard you set out for Clinton is rediculous. Hillary (who is not Obama last I checked) has never been formally accused of any corruption, not even by "Hillary for prison" Trump's DOJ. I don't know how you could possibly erect a "major scandal" out of so little to go on.

Avoided any major scandals?  You mean he and his cadre were not prosecuted for any scandals. Benghazi, Hitlery email, Biden doing just what they impeached President Trump for, Fast and Furious, Reggie Love, and his being married to an illegal alien (Klingon, I believe), and so many others. 
 

Avoiding prosecution and investigation for all of the corruption was a product of :

A. We can’t smear the first black president 

B. Media and Deep State complicity and fawning

C. Idiot liberals backing the most corrupt person ever to occupy the White House. 
 

So please, head over to the Daily Beast where they agree with your lies and deception. We aren’t buying it here. 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
29 minutes ago, Confessor said:

Avoided any major scandals?  You mean he and his cadre were not prosecuted for any scandals. Benghazi, Hitlery email, Biden doing just what they impeached President Trump for, Fast and Furious, Reggie Love, and his being married to an illegal alien (Klingon, I believe), and so many others. 
 

Avoiding prosecution and investigation for all of the corruption was a product of :

A. We can’t smear the first black president 

B. Media and Deep State complicity and fawning

C. Idiot liberals backing the most corrupt person ever to occupy the White House. 
 

So please, head over to the Daily Beast where they agree with your lies and deception. We aren’t buying it here. 

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, JerryL said:

FFS, Antoon.  18 USC §1924.  Can you not read.

Of course it is not illegal to have a personal server.  If it were, no one could buy one.  But use your brain for a couple of seconds.  What she did with it could be against the law.

However, it is illegal to handle classified information on a non-authorized server, which this was.  It is also against federal regulations to conduct official USG business on non-official networks.  The State department has state.gov that our taxes pay a lot to maintain and operate.  She deliberately bypassed state.gov so that she could do <censored> like delete 30000 emails and wipe her hard drives.  

I know why Obama's DOJ didn't indict her or even discipline her.  She was "the heir."  It was "her turn."  And, Democrats NEVER punish wrongdoing by their own.  Ever.  Once in a while, they sacrifice a lamb to protect the ram, but that is it.  It will always be a mystery to me why DJT didn't pursue charges against her.  Probably because he already hand an inkling that career federal civil servants were actively acting against their oaths to resist a duly elected president.  But that is just speculation.  

1.  Bypass DOS information networks.

2.  Set up private server in a private residence for the express purpose of conducting USG business outside of USG information channels.

3.  Handling classified information, including classified information with the classified headers deliberately stripped on the unauthorized system.

4.  Deleting 30000 emails which, by Federal Regulations that she reviewed and signed, were to be protected.

5.  Hiring a firm to professionally wipe her servers to impede access to the information she illegally and improperly handled there.

Seriously, comrade, do you actually think that the same laws apply people like the Clintons and the Trumps as they do to you and I?  Are you that naive?

Both Rice and Powel handled classified emails on “not authorized servers” of aol and gmail. You know anyone that wanted to put them in jail for it?

The elephant you righties are trying to make of these email handling flies probably means you don’t have any serious scandals and corruption to get a grip on.

And did you know that Clinton is not Obama?

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...