- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 7,501
- Reaction score
- 1,500
- Location
- WNC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Actually that's not quite true, Comey said HRC violated the law.Of which not one of them has ever been proven to be true.
Actually that's not quite true, Comey said HRC violated the law.Of which not one of them has ever been proven to be true.
Are today's republicans really just as corrupt as republicans from years gone by? I've been watching a few documentaries about both of them recently and the one thing that stands out, the lying. Before trump came along Reagan was the fire breathing mad cowboy out to destroy communism, that was his public face. Nixon too was going to put communism in its place until he went off the deep end seeing enemies everywhere, which oddly enough seems to have turned into a gop tradition. Anyway to keep the string intact W lied us into a war with Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist and yet republican voters over the years just keep voting republican even after finding out their leadership lies to them on huge scales. Why? How do you make these things ok in your minds?
Jones, against the advice of attorneys, rejected Clinton's initial settlement offer for the full amount she had filed for - $700,000 - because it did not come with an apology. Clinton made a counter offer of $850,000. Which she took. Even though there was still no apology from Clinton and no admission of any wrongdoing.. So maybe it was the money after all. Clinton just wanted the matter taken care of before opening his campaign for a second term. Clinton and his lawyer had steadily maintained her claims were baseless and Clinton has always denied the allegations made by Jones.Of course, my bad, must be why BC settled out of court for 850K
The point is you don't know what you're talking about.Yup, that's what prosecutors do. Your point ??
Clinton always denied the allegations and lied to a grand jury. Gotta love it, hey, Paula Jones is lying so ima lie to the Grand Jury.Jones, against the advice of attorneys, rejected Clinton's initial settlement offer for the full amount she had filed for - $700,000 - because it did not come with an apology. Clinton made a counter offer of $850,000. Which she took. Even though there was still no apology from Clinton and no admission of any wrongdoing.. So maybe it was the money after all. Clinton just wanted the matter taken care of before opening his campaign for a second term. Clinton and his lawyer had steadily maintained her claims were baseless and Clinton has always denied the allegations made by Jones.
As Ronny would say - "there you go again". Comey said that that there was evidence of "carelessness" in her handling of sensitive classified information.Actually that's not quite true, Comey said HRC violated the law.
Sure I do, you just don't like the truth. Even now you're attempting to make the convo about me.The point is you don't know what you're talking about.
How many convictions? Scandals are bullshit, time in prison is the real thing. She said, he said, that's a scandal. Guilty, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars is what counts. Over the years the gop has a horrible record of criminal activity compared to the democrats.I lived through both. However why are you limiting your angst to republican scandals? Democrats have theirs as well. The Clintons have been embroiled in non-stop scandals going all the way back to the 1980s. Hillary is embroiled in one as we speak. And there was the Keating 5 scandal which involved 4 democrats and one republican.
"any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to the letter appointing him.
No, that's not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors don't normally have what they can look at determined by the person they're investigating. They don't normally follow a rule saying they're not allowed to say that evidence indicates a crime or to charge a crime.Yup, that's what prosecutors do. Your point ??
Which of these is true: 1. "The settlement said Clinton had committed perjury." 2. "In the settlement, Clinton agreed he had committed perjury." 3. "The settlement both parties agreed to said Clinton admitted no wrongdoing."Of course, my bad, must be why BC settled out of court for 850K
Yet you lied. You said that I said Clinton was impeached for a sex act. I did not say that. Then when you were confronted with your lie, you did not take responsibility or correct it, you tried to claim it was one of two possibilities. Now you again lie that you didn't lie, and try to make a false attack to justify lying. Why would I "help you understand" when you deny there's any explanation? I said it's more complicated. You refused to accept that.Then help me "understand" ?? I don't lie, if you're not concise in conveying your thoughts on a forum that's not my problem.
So, no evidence arose, we got that.An investigation strictly limited. Surprise: the strictly limited investigation didn't find evidence about things it didn't look at. It's like the "investigation" the FBI did of Kavanaugh where huge numbers of reports were sent to the FBI, who did not look at any and just gave them to trump's lawyers, who trashed them.
Prosecutors view through the "lens of criminal investigation" is exactly what prosecutors do.No, that's not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors don't normally have what they can look at determined by the person they're investigating. They don't normally follow a rule saying they're not allowed to say that evidence indicates a crime or to charge a crime.
Irrelevant, the irrefutable fact remains, BC lied before the Grand Jury and suborned perjury.Which of these is true: 1. "The settlement said Clinton had committed perjury." 2. "In the settlement, Clinton agreed he had committed perjury." 3. "The settlement both parties agreed to said Clinton admitted no wrongdoing."
That's what I thought, when confronted with the truth, make about the poster.lYet you lied. You said that I said Clinton was impeached for a sex act. I did not say that. Then when you were confronted with your lie, you did not take responsibility or correct it, you tried to claim it was one of two possibilities. Now you again lie that you didn't lie, and try to make a false attack to justify lying. Why would I "help you understand" when you deny there's any explanation? I said it's more complicated. You refused to accept that.
Answer the question. It's not irrelevant.Irrelevant, the irrefutable fact remains, BC lied before the Grand Jury and suborned perjury.
I made it about what the poster said, and understand why you don't want that.That's what I thought, when confronted with the truth, make about the poster.l
Watergate was a small blunder blown up into a large scandal. The same thing happened on a much larger scale in 2015 and it passed almost unnoticed. In contrast, Iran/Contra was very serious, more serious than even the Whitewater coverup.Are today's republicans really just as corrupt as republicans from years gone by? I've been watching a few documentaries about both of them recently and the one thing that stands out, the lying. Before trump came along Reagan was the fire breathing mad cowboy out to destroy communism, that was his public face. Nixon too was going to put communism in its place until he went off the deep end seeing enemies everywhere, which oddly enough seems to have turned into a gop tradition. Anyway to keep the string intact W lied us into a war with Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist and yet republican voters over the years just keep voting republican even after finding out their leadership lies to them on huge scales. Why? How do you make these things ok in your minds?
So, no evidence arose, we got that.
It is absolutely irrelevant, BC was fined and his law license revoked for attempting to deny a US citizen their right to a fair trial.Answer the question. It's not irrelevant.
So Team Mueller didn't look to see if any money changed hands between Trump campaign and those ebil Ruskies. Sounds incompetent to me.It's not about evidence "arising". Evidence doesn't have legs and walk onto the investigator's desk. It's about the scope of the investigation. For example, they DID NOT LOOK AT FINANCIAL INFORMATION. That doesn't prove there were no crimes based on that information because the financial information didn't 'arise' that they never obtained.
You refuse to answer a question or have an honest discussion. Done.It is absolutely irrelevant, BC was fined and his law license revoked for attempting to deny a US citizen their right to a fair trial.
I refused to answer or play your irrelevant game.You refuse to answer a question or have an honest discussion. Done.
That's not a fact. That's a lie. Lying to a Grand Jury would be a criminal offense. But Bill Clinton was never charged with a committing a criminal offense or perjury in any court of law. The judge in his case handed down a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty.Irrelevant, the irrefutable fact remains, BC lied before the Grand Jury and suborned perjury.