Regardless Of Political Affiliation
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
How's that collusion coming along? All the corruption and you guys can't git eem? What's taking so long?
What was obviously factually incorrect on her March, 2015 statement?
Well, I am a gray beard but I keep it too short to stroke it. People will either respond thoughtfully or they won’t. When they do I will attempt to engage them. You are often thoughtful, even when you’re wrong!
"In internal emails, Clinton campaign chairman (and former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton’s emails from Congressional Benghazi committee under executive privilege." Click the link. Executive privilege is never even broached.
Here's the link that should have been used. This email is well known.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56229
Would you call SA's represemtarepr of this email exchange to be in good faith?
Quite a few indictmwnts... campaign manager, national security advisor plea bargained.... it's been productive!
I could not help notice you did not answer my question though. You have been leading the charge that Hillary should be prosecuted. Anything yet?
So, how many for collusion? Where's the Trump indictment? Impeachment? A slap on the wrist maybe? Something? Anything? It's muh Russia for Pete's sake.
We're going to get to find out why Hillary wasn't prosecuted and we both know it wasn't because of a credible, thorough, and impartial
She walked because of political friends. She thoroughly destroyed her own credibiliy in the process. She denied herself her lifelong political dream of being the first female POTUS. That gives me more satisfaction than a disqualification from running or a bullshit sentence could have ever provided. We got to see the dirty Clinton machine from the inside out. It's in the history books now. Delicious stuff.
Cankles being on the road whining about not being crowned is exactly the best thing for her to be doing at this point. She's a laughing stock and a continued albatross of the Democrats. It's now her legacy. I want her to keep herself in the forefront of leftist politics for years to come. You loved her. You wanted her. And you still get to have her.
What I will actually enjoy at this point is watching the saints of the Obama DOJ reduced to a pile of pathetic, shitty corruption. It will serve as a significant reminder to everyone not in the leftist sycophant camp that this is what the Democratic Party represents now. That is going to be awesome, shysterkine.
Not misrepresentation. Would you call her representation a good faith attempt to accurately summarize what actually occurred?
Quit spinning, dipshit. He didn't say misrepresentation. You just have to spin and lie, don't you? Hell you make Hillary blush.
Sorry, took a guess on what you typed.
Yes, I think it was a good faith attempt at summarizing what occurred. It was well reported in the media that the State Department and Obama administration attempted the executive privilege route and got shot down. It's very reasonable to believe that philosophy extended to the discovery of Hillary's emails. The Podesta email specifically mentions it and when put into previously available context, makes complete sense.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-benghazi-legal-idUSBRE94G0VZ20130517
Last edited:
SA: "In internal emails, Clinton campaign chairman (and former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton’s emails from Congressional Benghazi committee under executive privilege."
is not a good faith summary of this exchange:
Re: Special Category
From:cheryl.mills@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-04 21:13
Subject: Re: Special Category
there were only a handful and all were kind exchanges
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:41 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his
> exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I
> seems like they will.
>
From:cheryl.mills@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-04 21:13
Subject: Re: Special Category
there were only a handful and all were kind exchanges
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:41 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his
> exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I
> seems like they will.
>
Notice how she leaves out the only emails discussed are the ones to and from Obama.
"In internal emails, Clinton campaign chairman (and former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton’s emails with POTUS from Congressional Benghazi committee under executive privilege."
has an entirely different ring to it.
For the 835th time: You and the toothless horde of simpletons were screaming she's a criminal and Obama fixed it for years -- no excuses now. What's taking so long. Anything yet?
For someone reaching at partisan straws, maybe.
Who is Podesta referring to with "We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I> seems like they will."
Is the "they" and "them" referring to Obama and officials or some Disney princesses? And is "that" referring to the previously typed "heart of his exec privilege" or a recipe for lemon moonshine?
This really doesn't offer much in the way of complexity like the effects of epigenetics on fraternal birth order and sexual orientation. Have you started only digesting surface talking points on politics like you do on science?
Lol. So, not gitting Trump? W.T.F?
We'll get to see the "Obama" fix for Hillary very soon. You know I'll rub your nose in it and you will loathe every moment of it, but be powerless to appear as anything other than a brainless, spineless partisan bootlicker.
Them/they is the Whitehouse
That is executive privilege for emails to and from POTUS
This isn't hard.
I wonder why you would try to change the subject.
You're changing the topic to whether Obama "fixed" it for her. Okay, I'll take you at your word (snicker -- can't believe I typed that)
The topic you dodge is why she hasn't been charged. Why not?
Sorry, pilt, didn't mean to abandon the conversation. I got called to a jobsite where my guy was having trouble knowing where to run pipe in compliance with code. (In his defense the house is one huge mess of a framing job.) Anyway it took me until now to get basck.
You asked if I think SA wrote her timeline in good faith. I would answer that I absolutely believe she did. I don't know what her politics are. I assume she leans to the right considering she has been associated with Fox News. Plus, people like syskatine assure me she is. I will concede the point. She leans to the right. However, I view her the same way I see Glen Greenwald. I don't know his politics either, but since he writes for the intercept.com everybody assumes he's a leftist. Greenwald may be a leftist, but he strikes me as the most objective reporter in the business. He eschews his opinions for the most part. He is what I wish other leftists would be, namely objective in his understanding of what government officials do and say regardless of their political affiliation. He is not shy about criticizing leftist politicians who overstep their lawful mandate. I see Sharyl Atkisson as a right-wing Glen Greenwald. She reports the facts and leaves her opinions out of the equation. So, yes, I believe her timeline is reported in good faith.
As to your rebuttal on her March report. If I understand your argument correctly you are saying she reports that on that date Podesta recommended executive privilege, and then she provided a link in which there was no such recommendation. Therefore, because that portion of her timeline is factually incorrect one must dismiss the entire timeline as tainted, partisan hogwash. Am I understanding your argument correctly?
I admit I looked through the link she provided, and did not see anything by Podesta calling for exec. priv. That is a glaring error on her part. However, it is well known that Podesta did indeed tell the administration to invoke exec. priv., as Medic's link clearly shows. I do not see your rebuttal as justified.
That's what I was thinking too.
So, as you've posted, this
is so unlike this
that you conclude that
.
I simply disagree with your assessment, which is exactly why I posted
You did offer a counter of
which I do agree would have provided more clarification, especially in light of the link provided being incorrect.
I'll offer the counter that SA did not specifically state that Podesta sought to withhold all of Clinton's emails from the Benghazi Committee and I don't think that she intended to imply that in light of her inclusion of a link to the email, despite it being the wrong link. I provided the email link that should have been used in her piece that sheds plenty of clarity on what she was referencing had the link been correct. And I seriously doubt SA intended to provide a link that had nothing to do with the subject paragraph.
Thus, I think it is a good faith summary of the exchange.
Exactly, which is why I posted
Pointing out that our previous discussion of epigenetics was much more complex than the above is changing the subject? Hmm.
My contention is that even if she did link to the correct email exchange, her summary of it was not a good faith attempt to convey the truth of the matter. My question is if she can't even make it to 2016 with out attempting to mislead us about executive privilege, how can we trust her to lead us in the right direction on her hundreds of other entries?
I actually made it to October 2016, though, and it is actually pretty tame stuff. As it relates to her conclusions though:
- Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters. Her timeline doesn't support this.
- A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material–in part–to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates. This is true and uncontroversial.
- There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press, including by ex-FBI Director James Comey. Not supported by her timeline
- The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and politially-motivated “unmaskings” of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials. The US always is engaged in questionable surveillance practices (as Greenwald will tell you), but the politically motivated unmasking aren't supported by her timeline
- Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump’s alleged Russia ties. As far as I can tell this is only true of McCabe and even there the connection is pretty tenuous.
Sys is on tilt.
Wtf does her having no charges presently have to do with anything?
Is it charge then build a case, is that how it works?
Duh, Russia, huh?
Anyway, you're getting measurably more ridiculous by the day.
Wtf does her having no charges presently have to do with anything?
Is it charge then build a case, is that how it works?
Duh, Russia, huh?
Anyway, you're getting measurably more ridiculous by the day.
No nimrod, I'm not changing the topic. I simply used your terms hoping that I don't have to wait for you to see the Wizard to get a brain.
I haven't dodged the topic of why hasn't she been charged. I can't help it if you can't read or just refuse reality. I've specifically stated numerous times why I believe she wasn't charged. You're an idiot, but I refuse to believe you're an idiot on the level of your little brother. That would mean that I waste my time with a complete retard.
So in plain English and in Crayola colors... I believe the Obama DOJ, with the full knowledge and support of Obama himself, ordered and carried out a sham "investigation" for purely political purposes, those being HRC for President. Is that easy to understand? Need more See Spot Run?
Let's see if you're brave enough to answer a few questions of mine...
- In your opinion, did the FBI conduct a criminal investigation according to the normal procedures they follow when conducting a criminal investigation?
- Do you believe the Attorney General was being impartial when she asked the FBI Director to call the investigation a "matter?"
- Do you believe the tarmac meeting between WJC and the AG was a benign meeting of chance where miscellaneous topics not including the "matter" were the only things discussed?
- Does the FBI Director normally make the announcement that no charges will be filed?
OK, I’ve had my say. You can have the last word. I appreciate that you read most of SA’s article even though you clearly did not want to. I, too, appreciate that we could converse in calm tones (notwithstanding the beard stroking comment) and neither of us felt s need to besmirch the character of the other. Good job!
I'm sorry, I guess I haven't been clear enough. I don't need the umpteenth phantasy explanation about why not in the Obama administration, you've been very articulate about that. But I'm not asking why she wasn't charged in the Carter Administration, or the Bush administration, but in the TRUMP administration. As you can see from the bold, underlined, enlarged questions above, I've tried three times itt to get you off of Obama and to explain why such an obvious criminal isn't NOW being charged. Biff appointed the S.D.N.Y. U.S. Attorney. The U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. J. Beauregard Sellers, XVI is the A.G. It's sure been a while.
And you yourself were screaming she was a criminal.
Right here, "Vaghag is a lying criminal."
How's that non-investigation FBI criminal investigation of Cankled Vaginasaurus going? (But you love women, right? Let's make fun of her for having an -- EW!!! -- vagina!! You love women, though.)
The bootlicking left has to decide between an establishment criminal and an independent socialist. (Here I'm just glad you're not criticizing her for having a vagina, you incel, creepy, booger eating, woman hating, dunce.)
You railed about it back then and still are. I could go on, but for now I'd just like to ask you for the 836th time.... anything yet? When may we expect her to be charged?
Bwwaahahahaha! That's hilarious! You actually spent time searching old posts to bring up what we all stated regarding the Sack of Chewed Bubblegum's email "matter" (it's being exposed) and predicted regarding Trump wins (that actually happened)! And holy shit, thanks for the reminder that 0bama's revered replacement lost to a complete shit show. Geezus dude, that's funny shit! Seriously, thanks for taking the time to post that stuff.
Goodness, what a poor menstruating girl you must be right about now, all alone in a sea of MAGA and helplessly triggered by the fact that your dear Messiah's shitty, corrupt, and incompetent administration and you saggy titty fed sycophinfants aren't going to be able to mew "Scandal free!" any longer.
In fact, when the shit comes out, the Kenyan Goat Herder and his merry band of window licking 0Tards are going to make Trump look like the freakin Pope. You can't even use your screeching dork saber of #resistance to to do any decent deflection on this shit. Damn funny, man. I almost feel sorry for you, but at this point being a butt sniffer is a conscious choice of yours.
But seriously, when are the collusion indictments for muh Russia going down? Soon? Maybe before the 30th of Nonevember in the year Two Thousand and Noneteen? You guys gonna fer sure git Literal LEE Hitler? Maybe if you guys git him impeached, the Sack of Chewed Bubblegum can finally have her go at it?
I'm pretty sure that if you took the MMPI, your personality would come back as "anal leakage."
Muh Russia! How's them Russian troll indictments going? Muheller gonna nail those Russian bastages to the wall? Is Nancy Paulson still terrorizing the Twitter space?
Let's see if you're brave enough to answer a few questions of mine, #2...
- In your opinion, did the FBI conduct a criminal investigation according to the normal procedures they follow when conducting a criminal investigation?
- Do you believe the Attorney General was being impartial when she asked the FBI Director to call the investigation a "matter?"
- Do you believe the tarmac meeting between WJC and the AG was a benign meeting of chance where miscellaneous topics not including the "matter" were the only things discussed?
- Does the FBI Director normally make the announcement that no charges will be filed?
Pilt, he's been following me for years, humping my leg and every so often I actually stop and engage him and this is what happens. Once he finally admitted the only sources that had the credibility to comment on climate change were unpaid, non-governmental employees. He ripped everyone with an opinion and when finally nailed down, that's the best he could come up with. He can't think these things through.
He was railing about science being wrong about an ice age in the 1970's and when pressed, he only produced a small town newspaper editorial. Nothing peer reviewed. No major science pub. Nada. He gets these narratives and watching him actually have to confront reality is a treat.
If you actually engage him on his "facts" this is what happens. Watch:
@Medic007
#838.... anything yet? Hell I bolded, underlined, don't know another way to ask.
He was railing about science being wrong about an ice age in the 1970's and when pressed, he only produced a small town newspaper editorial. Nothing peer reviewed. No major science pub. Nada. He gets these narratives and watching him actually have to confront reality is a treat.
If you actually engage him on his "facts" this is what happens. Watch:
@Medic007
#838.... anything yet? Hell I bolded, underlined, don't know another way to ask.
