DJL

Do females exist in your personal life? Do they know you think this way?

Wrong.

You say that without a shred of acknowledgement as to how thoroughly HRC has been investigated by the same people with the oversight of a Republican controlled congressional committee.

Because you didn't start with anything specific enough for anyone to look up. That's like saying "God is out there, just look at all the signs." So to go one by one: "Trump did not collude with the Russians": I agree, as it stands Trump did not personally participate in coordinating efforts with Russian nationals to affect the outcome of the campaign. The investigation, however is about the body of his campaign and that has turned up several instances that Mueller is investigating such as his son and staff meeting with Russian officials. You have no sources verifying the results of the investigation. "Hillary colluded": You have only opinions that "the Steele" dossier consitutes collusion, what's your source for validating that. "In the next 2 to 4 weeks multiple referrals of indictments of Obama doj and FBI officials coming": This may as well be tea leaves.

That's exactly what someone would say who had a conversation with Zucks this morning about how he's trying to block the truth from getting onto Facebook. Nice try but I see through your ruse, Marc Antony.

Rush, what are your thoughts on this? He submitted faked threats against himself to law enforcement, is guilty of securities fraud and attempted to falsely implicate a federal officer in a sexual assault charge.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Easy with your liberal media garbage we're talking about Leftist Hypocrisy over here!

Noticed you didn't quote any sources.

You realize you're responding to a passage from a "news" agency STILL griping about HRC even though she's NOT the POTUS, right? No irony there?

I'll bet that if Clinton were elected there wouldn't have been any of that.

Your link is about the DOJ saying they're not going to prosecute. What's the mystery? They had the info and said there wasn't anything to prosecute. BTW this is a teachable moment in how news is delivered (Not that Rush will learn or is even the target audience). Notice how they never actually list the testimony in the article, they just link to other Fox News articles that say nearly the exact same thing. This is a method employed by "fake news" sources to reinforce their own opinion pieces. Rush, the meat of what you're looking for starts on page 91 of the transcript, the conversation between Ratcliffe and Page. I can't expect that you're able to adequately process this but it lays out the standards for prosecuting a case for someone who is mishandling classified information. After reading that, do you understand why the DOJ would say that they're not going to press a case? Do you understand this after seeing that there was a lot of history on the case leading up to this statement, namely that it was too constitutionally vague? https://dougcollins.house.gov/sites/dougcollins.house.gov/files/Lisa Page interview Day 1.pdf Edit: I should probably lay this out myself: Fox News article: OBAMA DOJ refuses to prosecute case. Reality: The statement to Page was made long after all the information was already on the table and they knew there was nothing and no way to prosecute.

Zeroes don't help the average that much do they, better to snip them off.

Pretty sure the Ku Klux Klan is not currently an active part of the leadership in either political party right now despite what Dinesh D'souza says on clickbait youtube videos. Do you really want to go down the path of applying misdeeds from 100 years ago to active political figures? Also, do you want that to include things more recent than 100 years as identifying the true desires of current political parties? Please answer with your true and actual answer instead of a vague allusion to guilt by historical association.

Oh come now BV, this is THE most debunked conspiracy surrounding the entire border wall debate. You can do better than lean on page seven tabloid material.

You're being selective and you're moving the goal posts. Trump wanted a wall from coast to coast, the legislature 10 years ago that both parties are still improving upon was to add wall and focus funding where it's needed. To paraphrase Obama, "If we think a little more border wall is going to solve our immigration issues we're kidding ourselves." First Trump wants a full border wall and never sets the legislature in action to make this happen. He then admits under advice from his staff that a full border wall is unrealistic so he scales it back to a partial wall, he still takes no legislative action to make this happen. Dems take back the House and a unilateral D/R Senate/House bill does not include a substantial increase on a physical border wall and this gets thrown in his face on live TV, he vetoes the bill and shuts down the govt to the tune of $11bn lost. Now he knows he's not going to get a substantial increase, he's back it to a marginal increase for which even emergency funding won't cover so it's left at a barely marginal increase which will not provide any further improvement upon the things that he's lying about happening such as drug smuggling and sex trafficking. So, what are we left with? Trump wants a win going into the elections and you're damn straight that because it's Trump, it's going to get blocked at every turn because he's a little bitch and cares more about having his way than about actually solving the problem.

Here's the envelope information for the federal law in question which included a three strikes provision: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

Something tells me he's going to have trouble picking up parts after this since he's a social and professional pariah.

And how did the rest of that work, that you had to be a land owner? That part wasn't rescinded for another 80 years.

And you follow that up with a Breitbart article?

To continue, the real issue here is that when these things happen they really do harm true accusations. That harm is amplified because it's used as a weapon to attempts to exonerate perpetrators of actual crimes and to diminish the real harm done in these crimes. So, Billy Vance and Rush I have to ask, do you wish to diminish the real crime and harm done in actual cases of assaults and hate crimes? Next, why do you feel the need to defend against actual cases of assaults and hate crimes as if it's a statement against "the right"? How about everybody just be against assaults and hate crimes and we let the system punish those who are caught for either assaulting someone or for faking an assault?

To cover both of your examples - the first was driving cars into protesters - quick youtube search will show many many many examples of people driving cars into a crowd of protesters (mostly BLM groups) besides that wasn't the only assault at the Charlottesville protest, several were charged and one person ever fired a gun. As for the Bernie Shooter, any more liberal shooters? Do we even need to list the far-right quack jobs making a habit of going on shooting sprees? You're simply not going to bring this to any conclusion by saying that THE ISSUE is liberals who fake attacks or get aggressive, there ARE bad people on both sides. As for fakes from the right just off the of my head; the fake planned parenthood video, the fake accusations against newspapers for paying people to come forward against Roy Moore, Greg Piatek filing a lawsuit falsely claiming he was kicked out of a bar for wearing a maga hat.

That was one of the dumbest things and I can't believe the Supreme Court didn't step in. It entirely takes discretion out of the hands of a judge, which is supposed to be the safeguard to excessive punishment.

Are we talking supper triggered yelling aggression or drive you car into a crowd aggression?

Who are the others?

Definitely, as if the Dems involved in this are interested in anything more that a political device to hit Trump's people over the head with. This is a good issue to be made public as it exemplifies the lack of funding at the border. You simply aren't going to have CBP agents who give a shit while risking their lives to stop drugs and criminal activities if they're not given the tools to do their job.