2016 Postmortem

840high

(17,196 posts)

162. They are ALL lying - feel

Reply to NastyRiffraff (Reply #136)

Sun May 8, 2016, 05:57 PM

May 2016

better now?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

169 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

WaPo/CNN ran a preemptive leak with a lot of backspin. Read it closely and it says the FBI has [View all] leveymg May 2016 OP

"Sources close to the investigation" are Hillary Cronies in the State Dept. FreakinDJ May 2016 #1

"Close to the investigation" is rhetoric. Does it mean in the same room or same city or rhett o rick May 2016 #54

Actually catnhatnh May 2016 #72

...! KoKo May 2016 #90

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #2

Take your Hillary smears to a RW site. riversedge May 2016 #3

LOL! Truth has now become a 'smear' in camp weathervane! Segami May 2016 #5

Just as meaningless as classified information law is to Hillary Clinton. leveymg May 2016 #12

You've been pushing this for quite a while. brush May 2016 #55

A key word in the Clinton email investigation: 'Knowingly' Gothmog May 2016 #118

How is 'truth' taking out words so it has the exact opposite meaning? nt puffy socks May 2016 #17

Scant means nothing? hootinholler May 2016 #22

LOl I'm poitning out it DOES mean something puffy socks May 2016 #26

Funny, the point was hootinholler May 2016 #44

Imagine that your daughter tells you that she is a "little bit" pregnant. Jemmons May 2016 #37

+1 K&R bobthedrummer May 2016 #45

This is damage control in high gear Jemmons May 2016 #47

Wrestling with whether she intended inchhigh May 2016 #61

They are just looking for mitigation. Exactly. leveymg May 2016 #85

Wrong again Gothmog May 2016 #120

I had a friend who accidentally dropped papers "to be shredded and incinerated" into the recycled LiberalArkie May 2016 #163

Your reasoning seems very fair and balanced... KoKo May 2016 #92

You forgot BENGHAZI!!!!!1111 Renew Deal May 2016 #66

It gets old...it gets stale... So much investigation has moved on... KoKo May 2016 #95

The truth has always been a problem TrueDemVA May 2016 #108

Why go the free republic when we can get silly stuff here Gothmog May 2016 #117

It's all over the net. 840high May 2016 #132

Oh, wow, it must be true then! NastyRiffraff May 2016 #136

They are ALL lying - feel 840high May 2016 #162

Pathetic Sanders acolytes clinging to Bernie's only path to the nomination redstateblues May 2016 #151

I've been here a decade longer than you, and no one has ever accused me of being RW. leveymg May 2016 #10

So you claim that you're not a single-issue person here to slander Hillary? Dem2 May 2016 #11

Truth is always a full defense against libel and slander charges. leveymg May 2016 #14

thank you for writing this op questionseverything May 2016 #75

I love laughing a laypersons who get simple legal concepts wrong Gothmog May 2016 #123

In Camp Bansalot any position not in 150% enthusiastic support of Clinton hobbit709 May 2016 #18

Silly and foolish laypersons are funny when they attempt to understand the law Gothmog May 2016 #119

Maybe Hillary's Party needs a much smaller tent FreakinDJ May 2016 #13

"Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" Vast I tell ya, Vast bahrbearian May 2016 #16

Funny how conservatives will post an article that includes spin, but when the spin lie is rhett o rick May 2016 #23

I feel sorry for you CoffeeCat May 2016 #31

Thank you. A wonderful, thoughtful post! RufusTFirefly May 2016 #107

Bravo! Ignoring and minimizing this issue will only make things worse if and when the FBI announces merbex May 2016 #156

Nothing to do with RW.. This is just a little deflective technique used pangaia May 2016 #76

The whole thing creeksneakers2 May 2016 #157

The reality is that they did in fact find evidence and she is in trouble Ferd Berfel May 2016 #77

You are funny. 840high May 2016 #130

My gosh, another screed of copy and paste drooling over Hillary's potential demise Dem2 May 2016 #4

How is it slander? I assume you accepted the article that said there was "scant evidence", the rhett o rick May 2016 #25

If someone's sole intent is to destroy our likely candidate Dem2 May 2016 #27

I like "sole intent" as if you can devine that. I believe Hillary's sole intent is to amass rhett o rick May 2016 #29

Yes of course Dem2 May 2016 #33

You think that a messageboard CoffeeCat May 2016 #38

I defend both candidates Dem2 May 2016 #106

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #101

Let it go. hrmjustin May 2016 #6

Somebody posted a video yesterday of Hillary from 2008 saying she wasn't going to use email BernieforPres2016 May 2016 #7

It's this one xloadiex May 2016 #35

Thanks BernieforPres2016 May 2016 #43

Recommend watch....very revealing. KoKo May 2016 #104

And, that's why she used a "Private Server" during her time as SOS... KoKo May 2016 #115

Sort of like scantily clad Skink May 2016 #8

Doesn't that mean they should be raped? hootinholler May 2016 #20

"somewhat pregnant" MisterP May 2016 #69

The parts of this that didn't hurt my brain to read, I am in total agreement with. pdsimdars May 2016 #9

modify it again so it says puffy socks May 2016 #15

This is getting bad........... pinebox May 2016 #19

Just like her little "out" tag of "as far as I know." All she knows how to do is spin. GreenPartyVoter May 2016 #21

Bookmarked. Thanks. nt floppyboo May 2016 #24

"Scant" means some, we just don't know how much because the investigation rhett o rick May 2016 #28

You're reading way too much into things Onlooker May 2016 #30

+1 n/t JTFrog May 2016 #124

leveymg, you need to enlighten Cenk Ugyur antigop May 2016 #32

If someone has his email address, please forward it to him. leveymg May 2016 #46

Under your sad but wrong analysis talking about NYT articles on drones is illegal Gothmog May 2016 #125

Even Fox News is not stupid enough to believe that there will be an indictment Gothmog May 2016 #133

Those handling confidential information are trained extensively on how to recognize rhett o rick May 2016 #34

And of course the Secretary of State is going to GENERATE a lot of classified communication BernieforPres2016 May 2016 #40

"Wiped? You mean like with a cloth?" Jemmons May 2016 #49

First of all she is trained and fully knows what is and isn't confidential. rhett o rick May 2016 #51

You can be smart and have terrible judgement XemaSab May 2016 #59

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law Gothmog May 2016 #134

Interesting that those that don't handle confidental information think lawyers know all. rhett o rick May 2016 #138

It is even more interesting seeing laypersons attempting to understand legal concepts Gothmog May 2016 #150

Good grief.. you never give up on this nonsense. DCBob May 2016 #36

No, it means the charges under Sec 793 are limited to subsections (e) and (f). leveymg May 2016 #50

You are too much! Its gonna really hurt when the FBI report finally comes out. DCBob May 2016 #52

The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained Gothmog May 2016 #126

Actually, her use of the Blackberry... ljm2002 May 2016 #67

Try reading for content... catnhatnh May 2016 #74

Just like there's "no malicious intent" when someone cheats on their spouse. . Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #39

Interesting illustration of the OCD syndrome... Surya Gayatri May 2016 #41

+ 1 JoePhilly May 2016 #42

The law is against you, and there are no facts on your side, so go ad hominem. leveymg May 2016 #48

Reminds me of the "disapppointed" scene from "A Fish Called Wanda"... Surya Gayatri May 2016 #53

You really are in no position to be lecturing anyone COLGATE4 May 2016 #80

No, the law is clear and it is the silly attempts of laypersons to understand the law that is wrong Gothmog May 2016 #127

Everything they say seems possible to parse. The communications seem intended to obsfuscate HereSince1628 May 2016 #56

Thanks, leveymg. I'm glad someone else noticed that... tex-wyo-dem May 2016 #57

Whatever it takes to STOP HER! YES! YES! YES! CROOKED HILLARY! BootinUp May 2016 #58

No it does not Demsrule86 May 2016 #60

KNR amborin May 2016 #62

When she is interrogated, is she a target then? aspirant May 2016 #63

All this makes me nervous Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #64

Why would anyone be given immunity aspirant May 2016 #65

"Scant Evidence" under the Law Means "No Evidence" ie Insufficient Evidence to Meet Burden of Proof Stallion May 2016 #68

No. (S)he is just a lawyer wannabe. COLGATE4 May 2016 #81

thank you for the thoughtful and comprehensive analysis. grasswire May 2016 #70

leveymg, I think you are right about the word "scant," also about "intended." Peace Patriot May 2016 #71

The difference between intended and not intended is only which felony to charge her with. nt leveymg May 2016 #73

There is no specific intent or mens rea here Gothmog May 2016 #128

This artice is from September 8, 2015 and look at what he said, again: KoKo May 2016 #149

What Kind of Evidence? pmorlan1 May 2016 #78

Playing lawyer again? COLGATE4 May 2016 #79

Laypersons are so silly when they try to understand legal concepts Gothmog May 2016 #121

Pure babble. COLGATE4 May 2016 #159

LOL DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #82

I am also laughing at this thread also Gothmog May 2016 #131

LOL (REPRISE) DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #83

LOL (REDUX) DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #84

LOL ( ad nauseum) leveymg May 2016 #112

Why don't we make a wager? DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #113

leveymg contends that HRC has broken the law JonLeibowitz May 2016 #129

Will you admit you are making a semantic argument? DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #135

Of course I don't admit that; I am trying to show how you are arguing different things JonLeibowitz May 2016 #143

It doesn't matter if I think someone violated the law. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #145

Well in a civil society we have a free exchange of ideas over whether public officials break the law JonLeibowitz May 2016 #146

I believe you missed my edit. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #147

I agree. It is fine to argue that she should be indicted (it is how I read it) JonLeibowitz May 2016 #148

scant means it doesn't meet the probable cause standard hill2016 May 2016 #86

I read it is dangerous to interrupt a person when he or she is dreaming. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #88

lol nt BootinUp May 2016 #97

They cannot let this continue up to the convention. ViseGrip May 2016 #87

Good lord. Parsing words until the words beg for mercy. Buzz Clik May 2016 #89

If words could cry... DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #91

I was mocked for saying the Hillary Primary Math ignores the FBI variable demwing May 2016 #93

Battle for what remains of the soul of the Republic. Octafish May 2016 #94

Wow, good call. Bookmarking. nt silvershadow May 2016 #96

Irrelevant. Members of The Club are not accountable for anything n/t eridani May 2016 #98

Move on, folks, nothing to see here. emsimon33 May 2016 #99

Yeah, like "Hillary says Bernie is unQualified to be President." nt Jitter65 May 2016 #100

There are some statutes where intent doesn't even come into play. Skwmom May 2016 #102

Read what Warren said really close. She hasn't ruled out a run. Nt NCTraveler May 2016 #103

Your prayer circle called. They need you back for the hourly coin-toss. randome May 2016 #105

Kick kgnu_fan May 2016 #109

Couldn't "scant" mean the ONE SAP email (Special Access Programs). Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #110

Thing is, there were 22 TS/SAP. Even the lowest Classified are illegal leveymg May 2016 #111

Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath Gothmog May 2016 #137

Not So Fast! Here: from "The Hill" KoKo May 2016 #153

Deleted duplicate... KoKo May 2016 #154

Anyone who has mentioned that we operate drones in Pakistan has revealed an SAP Recursion May 2016 #169

The Democratic Party du jour chervilant May 2016 #114

You are wrong again Gothmog May 2016 #116

+ 1 JoePhilly May 2016 #122

The air smels of Bernie-suporters' desperation today Tarc May 2016 #139

Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy. It won’t matter. Gothmog May 2016 #140

This message was self-deleted by its author Matt_R May 2016 #158

Let's stop playing dumb. Fuddnik May 2016 #141

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi beachbumbob May 2016 #142

I can't wait NastyRiffraff May 2016 #144

Pathetically, Sanders' acolytes are clinging to Bernie's only path to the nomination- redstateblues May 2016 #152

Well speaktruthtopower May 2016 #155

You're applying the rules of stautory construction ot newspaper copy anigbrowl May 2016 #160

Perhaps creeksneakers2 May 2016 #161

Give it up. You have lost and you're not going to win this way. This is pathetic. pnwmom May 2016 #164

She has the facts and the law against her. As her supporter, start looking for another candidateandi leveymg May 2016 #165

LOLOL. nt pnwmom May 2016 #166

Well, what are your contingency plans? More LOL? leveymg May 2016 #167

Whoever her VP nominee is would be fine. And it won't be Bernie. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #168