Democrats must be VERY forgetful

[Mr Person]

It was a dark day for Trump in 2016 all Democrats promised us.

Hillary owned the polls. Polls are NEVER wrong they kept saying.
Over and over, we got the promise of an ass whipping the size of the former Soviet Union.

Today they sing the same tune. Like a cartoon in fact.
Recall their tears in 2016? Is Biden better than Hillary?

Do you honestly say with a face not made into a face, she was worse? Give me a break.

Sit down and watch the movie of 2016.

How did that age for you?

 

[eohrnberger]

No.. you DIDN"T give me citations. You gave me a link to two BOOKS..and not even the books themselves but an Amazon advertisement.

You gave me an OPINON piece.. who didn't have any citations other than an opinion.

And you gave ONE link to an article that an FBI lawyer pled guilty to altering evidence.

So basically.. you gave me nothing..

So basically you should change it to "Eorhnberger can lead a person to the Kool Aid.. but he can;t make them drink".
Sorry dude.. I am not drinking your Kool Aid... provide some actual EVIDENCE.. something... and then we can discuss.. but so far.. you got nothing.

If I were to take the time and give you citations, you'd dismiss them anyway. So what's the point?
Let's just start with one or two and see how it goes, shall we?

Strzok’s Texts And The Clinton-Trump Investigations — A Definitive Timeline

The release of FBI agent Peter Strzok's text messages has touched off a partisan debate in Washington, D.C.

dailycaller.com

In this citation you can see the timeline. Starting July 10, 2015 to May 16, the 16th being significant in that Comey had already decided what his decision is going to be about Hillary's email server case even before Strzok has completed the so called 'interviews'. I say so called, because it isn't normal FBI practice to have multiple primary subjects of the same case in the same interview, in one case Hillary, Mills and Abedin, all primary subjects in the case being investigated. So a case not taken seriously by at least 3 levels of FBI management.

Further, in this citation, we can see the political 'taint' to the Hillary's email server investigation:

Growing Evidence Of A Politically Tainted Clinton Investigation

A series of new revelations about the FBI under James Comey has provided more evidence that partisan FBI agents may have abused their agency positions for political purposes during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and 2016 presidential campaign.

dailycaller.com

Quite different than the 'bulldog don't give up his bone' in the case of Trump, Strzok begging FBI management not to terminate the Corssfire-Huricane investigation.

Does this sound like the equal treatment before the law? No, not really. The main difference? Political party of the subjects.

 

[jaeger19]

If I were to take the time and give you citations, you'd dismiss them anyway. So what's the point?
Let's just start with one or two and see how it goes, shall we?

[

But okay.. lets discuss the STRZOK :


[/QUOTE]
BWAAAHHHHH..

Okay.. so what you have.. is STRZOK one FBI agent out of 147 reported agents who worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
And what? He tells his friend in an email.. that he will likely vote for Hillary.
Thats basically what you have.. and from that you have extrapolated what? That Obama had "weaponized the FBI? Come now. You have the email from one FBI agent.. and his friend.

Dude..if you look at the TIMELINE OF YOUR OWN ARTICLE. Hillary, Mills, and Abedin were interviewed ON DIFFERENT DAYS.

July 2 — Strzok and Justice Department lawyer David Laufman interview Hillary Clinton.

April 9 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.

April 5 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Feb. 27, 2016 — Strzok interviews Jake Sullivan, a former Clinton State Department aide and adviser to her campaign.

ACCORDING TO YOUR TIMELINE.. the interviews were on different days... yet you claim:

I say so called, because it isn't normal FBI practice to have multiple primary subjects of the same case in the same interview, in one case Hillary, Mills and Abedin, all primary subjects in the case being

How are they in the same interview.. when your own timeline says they were interviewed on different days?

Come on man.. you are grasping at straws here. To make up some conspiracy that doesn;t exist.

Quite different than the 'bulldog don't give up his bone' in the case of Trump, Strzok begging FBI management not to terminate the Corssfire-Huricane investigation.

Does this sound like the equal treatment before the law? No, not really.

Actually.. yes it does.

Hillary Clinton was careless with her email server.. Extremely careless. Thats what they found.. thats what she did. They did not find any other evidence of any crime..or really anything other than she had emails on an improper server. THATS IT.

Now.. compare that to investigating RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN INFLUENCING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Which.. yes.. they absolutely tried to do so. Thats why they ultimately a number of folks got charged and convicted..namely a number of russian nationals.

YOU seem to think that the FBI needs to spend as much time investigating emails being on the wrong server.. after going through 30,000 emails.. no sign of her email server even being hacked..much less Clinton trying to collude with a foreign power etc.

As the FBI spends on investigating the Russians trying to influence a US election when the investigation continues to turn up more and more people who were being influenced or contacted by Russians.. more and more folks lying to the FBI about their contacts with Russians... etc.

Honestly man.. you haven;t even gotten really any impropriety on the part of the FBI.. other than FBI employees being dumb enough to express their political views on an email...
As if your expectation is that anyone working for the FBI, law enforcement, or intelligence community is allowed to have a political opinion.

You have not shown in ANY way even that STRZOK's political opinion.. in any way materially affected the investigation.

MUCH Less prove that the entirety of the FBI was "weaponized".

I am sorry man but you have to start actually looking at the evidence objectively.. and not through your hyper partisan lens.

 

[eohrnberger]

But okay.. lets discuss the STRZOK :

BWAAAHHHHH..

Okay.. so what you have.. is STRZOK one FBI agent out of 147 reported agents who worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
And what? He tells his friend in an email.. that he will likely vote for Hillary.
Thats basically what you have.. and from that you have extrapolated what? That Obama had "weaponized the FBI? Come now. You have the email from one FBI agent.. and his friend.

Dude..if you look at the TIMELINE OF YOUR OWN ARTICLE. Hillary, Mills, and Abedin were interviewed ON DIFFERENT DAYS.

July 2 — Strzok and Justice Department lawyer David Laufman interview Hillary Clinton.

April 9 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.

April 5 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Feb. 27, 2016 — Strzok interviews Jake Sullivan, a former Clinton State Department aide and adviser to her campaign.

ACCORDING TO YOUR TIMELINE.. the interviews were on different days... yet you claim:



How are they in the same interview.. when your own timeline says they were interviewed on different days?

Come on man.. you are grasping at straws here. To make up some conspiracy that doesn;t exist.



Actually.. yes it does.

Hillary Clinton was careless with her email server.. Extremely careless. Thats what they found.. thats what she did. They did not find any other evidence of any crime..or really anything other than she had emails on an improper server. THATS IT.

Now.. compare that to investigating RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN INFLUENCING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Which.. yes.. they absolutely tried to do so. Thats why they ultimately a number of folks got charged and convicted..namely a number of russian nationals.

YOU seem to think that the FBI needs to spend as much time investigating emails being on the wrong server.. after going through 30,000 emails.. no sign of her email server even being hacked..much less Clinton trying to collude with a foreign power etc.

As the FBI spends on investigating the Russians trying to influence a US election when the investigation continues to turn up more and more people who were being influenced or contacted by Russians.. more and more folks lying to the FBI about their contacts with Russians... etc.

Honestly man.. you haven;t even gotten really any impropriety on the part of the FBI.. other than FBI employees being dumb enough to express their political views on an email...
As if your expectation is that anyone working for the FBI, law enforcement, or intelligence community is allowed to have a political opinion.

You have not shown in ANY way even that STRZOK's political opinion.. in any way materially affected the investigation.

MUCH Less prove that the entirety of the FBI was "weaponized".

I am sorry man but you have to start actually looking at the evidence objectively.. and not through your hyper partisan lens.
[/QUOTE]
As I posted. Pretty pointless to continue this conversation with you.

 

[The Mark]

Joe is a liar, who didn't graduate at the top of his law school class with 3 degrees. He extorted the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor to protect his son who was peddling influence to the VP, and likely taking money himself. Joe set up his son to take millions from Russian,and from China and there is evidence Joe took money as well. Joe sniffed and fondled his way through Congress and even had a women accuse him of sexual assault, (ME TOO) doesn't matter now.

Some of that may be true, but other parts are unproven.
Even if it's all true though, he's still better than Trump.

 

[jaeger19]

BWAAAHHHHH..

Okay.. so what you have.. is STRZOK one FBI agent out of 147 reported agents who worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
And what? He tells his friend in an email.. that he will likely vote for Hillary.
Thats basically what you have.. and from that you have extrapolated what? That Obama had "weaponized the FBI? Come now. You have the email from one FBI agent.. and his friend.

Dude..if you look at the TIMELINE OF YOUR OWN ARTICLE. Hillary, Mills, and Abedin were interviewed ON DIFFERENT DAYS.

July 2 — Strzok and Justice Department lawyer David Laufman interview Hillary Clinton.

April 9 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.

April 5 — Strzok interviews Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Feb. 27, 2016 — Strzok interviews Jake Sullivan, a former Clinton State Department aide and adviser to her campaign.

ACCORDING TO YOUR TIMELINE.. the interviews were on different days... yet you claim:



How are they in the same interview.. when your own timeline says they were interviewed on different days?

Come on man.. you are grasping at straws here. To make up some conspiracy that doesn;t exist.



Actually.. yes it does.

Hillary Clinton was careless with her email server.. Extremely careless. Thats what they found.. thats what she did. They did not find any other evidence of any crime..or really anything other than she had emails on an improper server. THATS IT.

Now.. compare that to investigating RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN INFLUENCING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Which.. yes.. they absolutely tried to do so. Thats why they ultimately a number of folks got charged and convicted..namely a number of russian nationals.

YOU seem to think that the FBI needs to spend as much time investigating emails being on the wrong server.. after going through 30,000 emails.. no sign of her email server even being hacked..much less Clinton trying to collude with a foreign power etc.

As the FBI spends on investigating the Russians trying to influence a US election when the investigation continues to turn up more and more people who were being influenced or contacted by Russians.. more and more folks lying to the FBI about their contacts with Russians... etc.

Honestly man.. you haven;t even gotten really any impropriety on the part of the FBI.. other than FBI employees being dumb enough to express their political views on an email...
As if your expectation is that anyone working for the FBI, law enforcement, or intelligence community is allowed to have a political opinion.

You have not shown in ANY way even that STRZOK's political opinion.. in any way materially affected the investigation.

MUCH Less prove that the entirety of the FBI was "weaponized".

I am sorry man but you have to start actually looking at the evidence objectively.. and not through your hyper partisan lens.

As I posted. Pretty pointless to continue this conversation with you.
[/QUOTE]
As long as you don't have any credible or valid evidence to back up your claims? Yes. I suggest th if you want people to take your claims seriously..do some research and support your premise. Like I frankly did. If you claim that the fbi is weaponized..have something more than one fbi agent expressing who he is going to vote for with his friend. And also..you may not want 5o make a claim that witnesses were interviewed together...when YOUR OWN TIMELINE SHOWS THEY WERE INTERVIEWED ON DIFFERENT DAYS!.

 

[eohrnberger]

As I posted. Pretty pointless to continue this conversation with you.

As long as you don't have any credible or valid evidence to back up your claims? Yes. I suggest th if you want people to take your claims seriously..do some research and support your premise. Like I frankly did. If you claim that the fbi is weaponized..have something more than one fbi agent expressing who he is going to vote for with his friend. And also..you may not want 5o make a claim that witnesses were interviewed together...when YOUR OWN TIMELINE SHOWS THEY WERE INTERVIEWED ON DIFFERENT DAYS!.
[/QUOTE]
Interviewed multiple times?
The politicization of the DOJ & FBI is pretty clear.

• Hillary runs classified government documents through her private email server, essentially gets exonerated by Comey (shouldn't a US attorney be making that decision?)
• Kristian Saucier, a former Navy machinists mate, who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine in non-security areas (having realized the security breech destroyed the phones) get a 1 year sentence

Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 ...​

www.usnews.com › News › National New​

Aug 19, 2016 — A former Navy machinist mate who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine was sentenced to a year in prison Friday, with a federal ...​

​

The US justice system is bifurcated along the lines of political affiliations, and whether you are of the political elite or not.

 

[jaeger19]

As long as you don't have any credible or valid evidence to back up your claims? Yes. I suggest th if you want people to take your claims seriously..do some research and support your premise. Like I frankly did. If you claim that the fbi is weaponized..have something more than one fbi agent expressing who he is going to vote for with his friend. And also..you may not want 5o make a claim that witnesses were interviewed together...when YOUR OWN TIMELINE SHOWS THEY WERE INTERVIEWED ON DIFFERENT DAYS!.

Interviewed multiple times?
The politicization of the DOJ & FBI is pretty clear.

• Hillary runs classified government documents through her private email server, essentially gets exonerated by Comey (shouldn't a US attorney be making that decision?)
• Kristian Saucier, a former Navy machinists mate, who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine in non-security areas (having realized the security breech destroyed the phones) get a 1 year sentence

Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 ...​

www.usnews.com › News › National New​

Aug 19, 2016 — A former Navy machinist mate who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine was sentenced to a year in prison Friday, with a federal ...​

​

The US justice system is bifurcated along the lines of political affiliations, and whether you are of the political elite or not.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah okay..so are you saying that the reason that the machinists mate got 1 year is because of there political affiliation.? I.e. republican or Democrat?
While Hillary got off because she was a Democrat?
Unlikely.
The real difference was 1. The emails were questionable as to being really important classified info. And they were on a secure server.. and their was no intent to do something wrong. No intent to use or sell the info. Those that got access were those that were cleared to have access

Whereas.. the machinists mate..likely knew what they were doing was wrong
Perhaps what the pictures were were much more dangerous..and they were taken for distribution outside the submarine.
At the very most..you have people in power get preferential treatment.
Which didn't start with Obama and certainly continues with trump.
Its certainly not evidence that the fbi is weaponized

 

[iliveonramen]

ha ha... that's hilarious.

Let me re-phrase that for you: Biden does not have the baggage of Clinton because CNN and/or other msm have told us NOTHING about any baggage...

ha ha...

Ignorance is bliss

(but only for a time)

Biden has been a politician and in the spotlight for 40 years.

 

[eohrnberger]

Interviewed multiple times?

The politicization of the DOJ & FBI is pretty clear.

• Hillary runs classified government documents through her private email server, essentially gets exonerated by Comey (shouldn't a US attorney be making that decision?)
• Kristian Saucier, a former Navy machinists mate, who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine in non-security areas (having realized the security breech destroyed the phones) get a 1 year sentence

Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 ...​

www.usnews.com › News › National New​

Aug 19, 2016 — A former Navy machinist mate who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine was sentenced to a year in prison Friday, with a federal ...​

​

The US justice system is bifurcated along the lines of political affiliations, and whether you are of the political elite or not.

Yeah okay..so are you saying that the reason that the machinists mate got 1 year is because of there political affiliation.? I.e. republican or Democrat?
While Hillary got off because she was a Democrat?
Unlikely.

Bifurcation is between the political elite and the non-political elite in this case. But the bifurcation is also along political affiliations, as I'll post below.

The real difference was 1. The emails were questionable as to being really important classified info. And they were on a secure server.. and their was no intent to do something wrong. No intent to use or sell the info. Those that got access were those that were cleared to have access

Whereas.. the machinists mate..likely knew what they were doing was wrong
Perhaps what the pictures were were much more dangerous..and they were taken for distribution outside the submarine.
At the very most..you have people in power get preferential treatment.
Which didn't start with Obama and certainly continues with trump.
Its certainly not evidence that the fbi is weaponized

Sorry, but no.

1. Hillary's server was certainly NOT a secured server. It was connected to the Internet, so by definition is cannot be classified as a 'secure' server
2. The documents in question either had 'C' Classified markings on them, or, Hillary's staff removed those markings when adding them to the server

Further, Hillary lied about it to the public

FBI tears holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

The results of an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state shredded

www.politifact.com

Further, Hillary had her staff delete materials which were under subpeana:

Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server

Donald Trump demanded to know why Hillary Clinton's emails were deleted.

abcnews.go.com

Add all this up and she yet escapes any indictments because Comey stepped out of his lane to exonerate her, and you believe the FBI isn't politicized?
Really? I mean seriously really?

The DOJ / FBI at that time was a bifurcated part of justice system, bifurcated along the lines of political affiliations, clearly.