Anticipation

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******Hi turtle,

Quote

If they were indeed guilty, then yes.

And Ms. Clinton has not been found guilty of anything.

Care to tell us why you hate so much?

Jerry Baumchen

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4804752;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Watch the featured video.

How much do you like blatant lying shoved in your face and special treatment handed out?

Did it kill hundreds of thousands and give rise to ISIS?

Your selective "outrage" about politicians lying is pretty clear.

her and Obama gave rise to ISIS

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

It's not selective, as you say. If I could change the past, I would. What I'm doing is trying to prevent worse in the near future.

And you think campaigning against Clinton, thereby helping Trump become president is the best way to ensure nothing bad happens in the future?

Don't think Trump has a much better record being honest.

You sound like Bush.

If you aren't with us, you are against us.

I would be very happy if there was a viable third party candidate. Even with these two deplorable candidates there is no viable third party candidate on the horizon.

So in this case, practically speaking it is pretty binary yes.

Now that that has been explained, you going to answer the questions or just keep dodging like a politician?

You do not vote here do you?

If not....

Shove off!
I do not give a fuck what you think of any candidate running here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>And Ms. Clinton has not been found guilty of anything.

Indeed, despite the best efforts of a FBI chief first appointed to the Attorney General's office by GWB (and praised regularly by Republicans) there wasn't even enough to charge her - much less find her guilty of anything.

Kallend was spot on here - the whining is already becoming deafening.

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

H rush,

Quote

I do not give a fuck what you think

And the vast majority of us here feel the same way about you.

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

H rush,

Quote

I do not give a fuck what you think

And the vast majority of us here feel the same way about you.

Jerry Baumchen

then we are even

I like how you speak for a vast majority

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>And Ms. Clinton has not been found guilty of anything.

Indeed, despite the best efforts of a FBI chief first appointed to the Attorney General's office by GWB (and praised regularly by Republicans) there wasn't even enough to charge her - much less find her guilty of anything.

Kallend was spot on here - the whining is already becoming deafening.

You misunderstand the message he sent. Not surprising.

What the announcement means is that HRC is above the law, and he admitted it.
He inferred that to bring charges would be an excersize in futility, not because the charges wouldn't be valid, and warranted, but because of who she is, the effort would be a waste.

He did say, in about as many words, that if it were someone else, they would have been fucked.

Another reason no charges will be filed is because one main witness in the hearings and trial would be Obama. He would have to testify that he was aware of the server, because of the address, and used the servers address, and thusly is implicated. He would have to testify he knew a breach of national security was on going and accepted by him. That simply would not have happened.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 905]

Man the rose color is intense in your glasses.

[DanG 1]

I hope you warmed up before that swami-level stretch. You could pull a muscle.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

Man the rose color is intense in your glasses.

Well - it looks like the FBI is going to get another chance at her.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

turtlespeed

***Man the rose color is intense in your glasses.

Well - it looks like the FBI is going to get another chance at her.

Do you believe in the concept of double jeopardy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,131]

>He inferred that to bring charges would be an excersize in futility, not because the
>charges wouldn't be valid, and warranted, but because of who she is, the effort would
>be a waste.

No, he said quite clearly that bringing charges would be futile because she did not break the law. He was asked this about a dozen times by several very angry and petulant republicans, and answered the same way every time; you must have missed it.

>He did say, in about as many words, that if it were someone else, they would have
>been fucked.

That is true. If it had been someone else, and they had actually broken the law, they would have been fucked.

Sorry. I know you really, really wanted to fuck her over royally - but the facts simply did not support legal action, even after a republican FBI chief tried every possible angle to indict her. Perhaps you could just call her really bad names? Or attack her family?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

her and Obama gave rise to ISIS

Somebody on LSD with a side of meth makes more sense than you do.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

Man the rose color is intense in your glasses.

that is the color you are seeing through yours

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

*********

Quote

It's not selective, as you say. If I could change the past, I would. What I'm doing is trying to prevent worse in the near future.

And you think campaigning against Clinton, thereby helping Trump become president is the best way to ensure nothing bad happens in the future?

Don't think Trump has a much better record being honest.

You sound like Bush.

If you aren't with us, you are against us.

I would be very happy if there was a viable third party candidate. Even with these two deplorable candidates there is no viable third party candidate on the horizon.

So in this case, practically speaking it is pretty binary yes.

Now that that has been explained, you going to answer the questions or just keep dodging like a politician?

You do not vote here do you?

If not....

Shove off!
I do not give a fuck what you think of any candidate running here

I wasn't taking to you little boy. Go ask mommy for a sucker.

[rushmc 23]

quade

******Man the rose color is intense in your glasses.

Well - it looks like the FBI is going to get another chance at her.

Do you believe in the concept of double jeopardy?

If you think that applies in this context, you certainly don't!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>He inferred that to bring charges would be an excersize in futility, not because the
>charges wouldn't be valid, and warranted, but because of who she is, the effort would
>be a waste.

No, he said quite clearly that bringing charges would be futile because she did not break the law. He was asked this about a dozen times by several very angry and petulant republicans, and answered the same way every time; you must have missed it.

>He did say, in about as many words, that if it were someone else, they would have
>been fucked.

That is true. If it had been someone else, and they had actually broken the law, they would have been fucked.

Sorry. I know you really, really wanted to fuck her over royally - but the facts simply did not support legal action, even after a republican FBI chief tried every possible angle to indict her. Perhaps you could just call her really bad names? Or attack her family?

Actually, HE created his own standard under the law.

Intent is not needed, only gross negligence which is also defined as reckless carelessness which he did accuse her of.

This statue does NOT require intent. He is making this up.(when it comes to this law)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 905]

Ignorant of the facts in the case and prosecution in general, got it.

[quade 4]

rushmc

*********Man the rose color is intense in your glasses.

Well - it looks like the FBI is going to get another chance at her.

Do you believe in the concept of double jeopardy?

If you think that applies in this context, you certainly don't!

Uh huh . . . How many times should the government be allowed to "investigate" an incident involving a person after repeatedly finding not enough evidence to even try the person once?

Should that be something that is allowed to happen for the rest of a person's life?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

************

Quote

It's not selective, as you say. If I could change the past, I would. What I'm doing is trying to prevent worse in the near future.

And you think campaigning against Clinton, thereby helping Trump become president is the best way to ensure nothing bad happens in the future?

Don't think Trump has a much better record being honest.

You sound like Bush.

If you aren't with us, you are against us.

I would be very happy if there was a viable third party candidate. Even with these two deplorable candidates there is no viable third party candidate on the horizon.

So in this case, practically speaking it is pretty binary yes.

Now that that has been explained, you going to answer the questions or just keep dodging like a politician?

You do not vote here do you?

If not....

Shove off!
I do not give a fuck what you think of any candidate running here

I wasn't taking to you little boy. Go ask mommy for a sucker.


Projecting again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

quade

************Man the rose color is intense in your glasses.

Well - it looks like the FBI is going to get another chance at her.

Do you believe in the concept of double jeopardy?

If you think that applies in this context, you certainly don't!

Uh huh . . . How many times should the government be allowed to "investigate" an incident involving a person after repeatedly finding not enough evidence to even try the person once?

Should that be something that is allowed to happen for the rest of a person's life?

You better look it up Paul.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 905]

I'm starting to see who will be spending our Social Security funds....

[rushmc 23]

normiss

Ignorant of the facts in the case and prosecution in general, got it.

Actually
You go nothing

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 905]

"have"

Surely you realize the more you post, the more it becomes clear, no?

[rushmc 23]

normiss

"have"

Surely you realize the more you post, the more it becomes clear, no?

you are digging with two shovels now

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TriGirl 349]

billvon

>He did say, in about as many words, that if it were someone else, they would have
>been fucked.

That is true. If it had been someone else, and they had actually broken the law, they would have been fucked.

You're both wrong. He said that if it were someone in similar circumstances, they likely would be subject to security or administrative sanctions. That means security clearance is suspended and under review (security), or they are asked/allowed to resign (administrative). Trust me, that's not being fucked.

Similar circumstances: willfully passing classified documents and information to an uncleared civilian (American) with no intent on espionage. Ex: Petraeus. He was allowed simply to leave his job (administrative sanctions). As the CIA director, and thirty-plus-year military officer, I know he knew what was required of handling that information and who should be allowed access to it, in my mind making his actions much more reprehensible than hosting a personal server that ended up storing information that ended up classified.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!