Lynch to Remove Herself From Decision Over Clinton Emails, Official Says [W:225] (1 Viewer)

[ludin]

She should get the same as Martha Stewart.

yep she should or worse.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Not credible Frank, particularly when you have a posting history here on DP. I'll credit that you self identify as Independent, other than other liberal partisans who think they fool people by self identifying as Conservative, some even as Very Conservative.

But I do appreciate your deflection and that you're incapable of answering the question posed because that would compromise your defense of the indefensible.

There was no deflection, John.

And I will accept your admission that you want to claim victories in conversations like this...rather than actually discuss.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yep, at an airport..... in a private plane sitting on a remote tarmac. Just like Time's Square, eh Frank???

If your argument is that an airport...on a tarmac...with FBI agents and Secret Service men all around...IS THE MOST SECURE AND SECRET PLACE THEY COULD COME UP WITH...you have a major problem with thinking.

Deal with it.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I'm curious, when was the last private meeting of the following sets of individuals:

1. The sitting Attorney General and an ex-President
2. The sitting Attorney General and the spouse of a presidential nominee
3. The sitting Attorney General and a disbarred attorney
4. A female cabinet member and an accused rapist
5. The spouse of the subject of an FBI investigation and the sitting Attorney General

I would be shocked if any of those things ever happened before in the history of the country.

 

[Frank Apisa]

My only disagreement with your post is that neither of them ever thought the meeting would become public knowledge.

Right...because they were careful enough to meet on a tarmac at an airport...with federal agents all over the place.

Jezus H. Ceerist!

 

[SailaWay]

lynch is hiding to try to stay out of prison for her changing the transcript of the killer so that no one can LEARN which then stops progress of a nation... a higher up doing this should be big prison time to stop other higher ups doing this same thing intentionally covering up FACTS

 

[ludin]

There was no deflection, John.

And I will accept your admission that you want to claim victories in conversations like this...rather than actually discuss.

lol talk about not actually discussing that would be you.
yes it was a full on deflection because that is all you have.

you can accept the fact that the AG has probably just committed a federal crime and as well as bill Clinton and they should be forced to testify as to what the meeting was about
and what was discussed or face obstruction of justice charges.

if this meeting was on official business then it should have been recorded for public record as is required.
if she was actually discussing the Clinton case with bill that right there is a violation of law as well.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Hate to break this to you Frank, but you've been the source of a great deal of laughter in this thread.

I hope so.

I never take myself too seriously...like some of you guys.

Even I laugh at myself. Something I doubt any of you are capable of doing.

 

[Henrin]

Wake up, Henrin.

IF they wanted to meet in secret...I doubt they would choose an airport or an airport tarmac.

Sorry if you cannot see the incongruity in your position, but...you want things to look bad, so you gotta accept a lot of silliness in your argument.

I can't help to notice that after Gill gives you a piece of information you add it to your rebuttal. You don't actually know anything about the story, do you?

 

[Frank Apisa]

and again, no 'right thing' has been done by lynch

she agreed to accept the presentation of her career staff

she has not agreed to view the recommendation of her career staff as being determinative

the first was pulling something out of an 'in' box. no big deal

the second would have presented that lynch would not entertain the ability to disregard the recommendation of her career staff. now, THAT would have been doing the 'right thing' after agreeing to participate in a wrong meeting

As far as I am concerned...what she did WAS THE RIGHT THING.

If you disagree...disagree.

 

[Frank Apisa]

lol talk about not actually discussing that would be you.
yes it was a full on deflection because that is all you have.

you can accept the fact that the AG has probably just committed a federal crime and as well as bill Clinton and they should be forced to testify as to what the meeting was about
and what was discussed or face obstruction of justice charges.

if this meeting was on official business then it should have been recorded for public record as is required.
if she was actually discussing the Clinton case with bill that right there is a violation of law as well.

I'm sorry, Ludin...were you ranting something?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I can't help to notice that after Gill gives you a piece of information you add it to your rebuttal. You don't actually know anything about the story, do you?

What?

 

[CanadaJohn]

She made it TODAY, John.



Only in the minds of people DETERMINED to see things that way. Apparently Bill Clinton initiated the encounter...and either she had to brush him off or say hello and exchange a few pleasantries.

Right?

Seriously? I support conservatives in government but I've never had the slightest problem in calling out conservatives who do stupid things or are caught in compromising positions. If you see nothing wrong with this situation, then you expect nothing from your government and are satisfied that corrupt people may do corrupt things without any concern from you.

Of course, I come from a form of government where government Ministers do the honorable thing and resign their posts when they compromise confidence in the government they serve. America, unfortunately, used to be similar but no longer.

 

[Henrin]

What?

Did I stutter? Why is it that after Gill tells you something you place it in your rebuttal? At first you didn't include any information about the story, but twice now after Gill provided you information it appeared in your argument. He first told you it happened at an airport and as expected from someone ignorant of the story you included it in your rebuttal. Next he told you about the tarmac and again as expected from someone ignorant of the story you included it in your rebuttal. It's pretty obvious that you have no real clue what you're talking about.

 

[SailaWay]

Wake up, Henrin.

IF they wanted to meet in secret...I doubt they would choose an airport or an airport tarmac.

Sorry if you cannot see the incongruity in your position, but...you want things to look bad, so you gotta accept a lot of silliness in your argument.

just because they did something that did not make logical sense.. does not mean they did not do that.. thinking they were hiding

we got proof of real stupidity by lynch when she changed the transcript of the killer and that should land any higher up in prison for altering the facts so that the NATION cannot learn

 

[Abbazorkzog]

*Insert Sanders Smackdown*

 

[matchlight]

The fact she agreed to work for the Marxist liar who continues to disgrace the White House says a lot about Ms. Lynch. So do her public statements, before she became Attorney General, to the effect that certain federal immigration laws should not be enforced. That alone should have disqualified her for that office.

 

[CanadaJohn]

There was no deflection, John.

And I will accept your admission that you want to claim victories in conversations like this...rather than actually discuss.

Well, you still haven't even attempted to answer the question posed to you in the original post you dodged. That's deflection.

And I don't claim any victories - I appreciate that DP has many trolls who make it their MO to do so, but that's not me.

 

[Gill]

Did I stutter? Why is it that after Gill tells you something you place it in your rebuttal? At first you didn't include any information about the story, but twice now after Gill provided you information it appeared in your argument. He first told you it happened at an airport and as expected from someone ignorant of the story you included it in your rebuttal. Next he told you about the tarmac and again as expected from someone ignorant of the story you included it in your rebuttal. It's pretty obvious that you have no real clue what you're talking about.

It's kind of like my parrot... can only repeat what others have already said.

I wonder if Lynch's meeting with Clinton was part of her official schedule, or did she hide things on her trips like Hillary did?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Seriously? I support conservatives in government but I've never had the slightest problem in calling out conservatives who do stupid things or are caught in compromising positions.
Of course, I come from a form of government where government Ministers do the honorable thing and resign their posts when they compromise confidence in the government they serve. America, unfortunately, used to be similar but no longer.

Thank you for sharing that, John. I admire the Canadian (and English) form of government...and consider it superior to what we have.

But...this is what we have.

If you see nothing wrong with this situation, then you expect nothing from your government and are satisfied that corrupt people may do corrupt things without any concern from you.

Your usual hyperbole...which makes garbage of your many of excellent comments.

You ought to get over that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Did I stutter? Why is it that after Gill tells you something you place it in your rebuttal? At first you didn't include any information about the story, but twice now after Gill provided you information it appeared in your argument. He first told you it happened at an airport and as expected from someone ignorant of the story you included it in your rebuttal. Next he told you about the tarmac and again as expected from someone ignorant of the story you included it in your rebuttal. It's pretty obvious that you have no real clue what you're talking about.

You really should take that part of your argument into the conspiracy forum.

I have been up to speed on this story from the beginning.

But if you get your jollies with absurd accusations like this...go for it. I think it is hilarious.

 

[Frank Apisa]

just because they did something that did not make logical sense.. does not mean they did not do that.. thinking they were hiding

we got proof of real stupidity by lynch when she changed the transcript of the killer and that should land any higher up in prison for altering the facts so that the NATION cannot learn

Okay...so now they are stupid.

Hope you feel better!

 

[Henrin]

You really should take that part of your argument into the conspiracy forum.

I have been up to speed on this story from the beginning.

But if you get your jollies with absurd accusations like this...go for it. I think it is hilarious.

If that is true then perhaps you shouldn't argue like an ignorant person.

 

[SailaWay]

It's kind of like my parrot... can only repeat what others have already said.

I wonder if Lynch's meeting with Clinton was part of her official schedule, or did she hide things on her trips like Hillary did?

Logic and memory are part of the IQ.. memory copies like a parrot and logic figures things out.... many unwise people gets several degrees because of the memory part and that is not true wisdom..

lynch should be in prison for changing the transcript so the whole nation cannot learn

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well, you still haven't even attempted to answer the question posed to you in the original post you dodged. That's deflection.

And I don't claim any victories - I appreciate that DP has many trolls who make it their MO to do so, but that's not me.

I have stated what I want to state.

If you want to go further...go further.

I have done no deflecting.