House Resolution 446...The Draining of the Sewer Begins Today 72717....

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: RomeByFire

Just because she set her self up as the most above the law woman in US history doesn't mean she isn't a war mongering mass murdering terrorist colluding drug running POS career criminal whom deserves history's ultimate show trial to set the example of the Millennium that The People will not tolerate corruption of her kind ever again.

But keep on deluding yourself for party everyone. The Party before The People woohoo!

She lost, get over it.

And if you honestly think for a second that I have anything but absolute detest for Clinton, well, that's your problem - not mine.

Isn't the right-wing that gets all bent out of shape regarding "witch hunts?"

This is thread 839506067262739 regarding Hillary's emails and how "this time, she's going down!"

Keep on deluding yourself, and insisting that anyone who doesn't share your woefully-optimistic opinion as being a Hillary supporter/Democrat.

Lol.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I misrepresented you a little bit, granted. But you said:

And you say "pull the plug on the swamp" and yet — nobody mentioned in the amendment to the resolution is in government any longer. Doh? Put it together. It's swamp creatures trying to protect the other swamp creatures that swim in their circles.

It looks this type of rampant speculation is reserved for the stories we are most invested in.

originally posted by: Grambler

And yet apparently you are more concerned with Trump hyperbolic claim of this being wiretapping than you are that Obama actually was using intelligence agencies to hurt his political opponents.

Trump is the sitting President, Hillary isn't, nor is Obama.

I suppose we could always go back and bring charges against Hoover too, if that would make you happy.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Are they going after Bush for the million emails he deleated from the RNC server about 911 and WMDs??

No?

Sad.

Why would the RNC servers have a single thing on them about 911 or WMD's or anything Presidential at all? You do not make any sense here. Both the RNC and DNC are PRIVATE organizations. They might violated their own charter by favoring one candidate over another, like with what happened to Bernie, and what the RNC wanted to do to Trump, but neither are governmental in anyway. Breaking their charter i.e. screwing over Bernie against the wishes of their voter based might cost them the election, but does not break any laws.

I think you are confused with Hillary's illegal unprotected private server that she used to keep Governmental business secret, and the DNC server that was hacked in showing Bernie getting screwed.

Really??

Ok
Bush email scandal

During the 2007 Congressional investigation of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, it was discovered that administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[1] for various official communications.

The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The use of this email domain became public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[2]

Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[3]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[4]).

Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available.

Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.[5]

Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[6][7] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[8] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[citation needed]

That was the Initial discovery...THEN...

Newsweek- The Bush Administration "Lost" 22 Million Emails

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration.

Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails.

This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

These were also on the private RNC server...

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee.

And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails.

“It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters.

“If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC.

Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”

So yeah. It ain't about justice, friend. It's about politics for the Reps. That is what they have always done.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Asking you a question and then remarking on my observations isn't a lie or a deflection. Do you not know the definitions of those two words?

I sure do. You still haven't mentioned my argument because you've since deflected to George Bush.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Does the FBI have the 33k now?

I know the State Dept. and Hillary's lawyer had them on a flash drive. No doubt about that part.

It seems the FBI has always had the 33k...Weird how the whole "all the emails were lost" stories got started. Now that DOJ and FBI are not controlled by the people who were part of the lost email propaganda I wonder what will be coming out now.

a reply to: Xtrozero

In 2008, Fox in particular, and the RNC annihilated Ron Paul in the Primary's. I couldn't even bear to endure it again in 2012 and sure enough they did it all and more again.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: lordcomac

It's political retaliation against Comey and Mueller for the investigation against Trump. Also they are trying to rejumpstart the Hillary Clinton witch hunts.

Holy crap I just spit out my coffee due to laughing... Witch hunt?? LOL... Is that you Hillary?? Holy hell that's one of the funniest things I've read... Star for you sir, (or maam) for being so funny, not for being remotely accurate!

a reply to: alphabetaone

Trump is the sitting President, Hillary isn't, nor is Obama.

I suppose we could always go back and bring charges against Hoover too, if that would make you happy.

I suppose the statutes of limitations end when terms end in your alternate reality?

a reply to: TheTory

No. I made a comparison to another politician that has done some legally questionable things while in office but has never been investigated for all because you insisted that we should investigate Hillary Clinton and that her not being in office isn't an excuse to not investigate her. Meanwhile, you refuse to give me a straight answer on the matter which really speaks to me that you are just partisan biased.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. I made a comparison to another politician that has done some legally questionable things while in office but has never been investigated for all because you insisted that we should investigate Hillary Clinton and that her not being in office isn't an excuse to not investigate her. Try to keep up.

It isn't an excuse to not investigate her or any past politician, including Bush. Do you agree?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

And yet apparently you are more concerned with Trump hyperbolic claim of this being wiretapping than you are that Obama actually was using intelligence agencies to hurt his political opponents.

Trump is the sitting President, Hillary isn't, nor is Obama.

I suppose we could always go back and bring charges against Hoover too, if that would make you happy.

Yes I think that a president using intel agencies against his political opponent not even a year ago is worth investigating.

I am sorry that you feel that this behavior is acceptable so long as you get out of office before you are caught.

I suppodse then you will have no problem with Trump using all intel agencies to attack all opponents when he is a lame duck. After all, once he is out of office, who cares right.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

Trump is the sitting President, Hillary isn't, nor is Obama.

I suppose we could always go back and bring charges against Hoover too, if that would make you happy.

So I guess what you are saying is if Trump makes it past his four years all is good no matter what comes out after that. I see this as a repeating event with the left. With the recent Comey situation we had the left scream for his removal and a few months later they said it was too late and Trump was wrong...Boy I would love to get a speeding ticket and just wait until it goes away...lol.


i guess Hillary's clock of wrong doings has been reset so another Presidential attempt is all good now that she has been washed clean again...lol

a reply to: RomeByFire

I'm not a party chump. I didnt even know about any of it until about a year ago. I had washed my hands of all the two party bs and lunatic society trends. But keep acting like I'm just another partisan hack you can shrug off and keep playing yourself the fool.

All these war criminal POS' need to go down from Bush to Cheney to Obama to Hillary but keep on downplaying it all as 'get over it' and the world will keep burning with millions of human beings per decade splattered into bloody mud chunks by weapons / terrorists / soldiers that have all of our names scribbled on them.

If we cant start somewhere with any of this stuff then we will never get anywhere. And if we cant ever do any of any of it well then the politicians MIC IC MSM RNC DNC Bankster Cartel will wittingly remain above the law and it will all just keep on keeping on to the tune of the USA deserving to get nuked off the face of the planet for a century of imperial war crimes.

That will be on YOU and yours not ME and mine.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes I think that a president using intel agencies against his political opponent not even a year ago is worth investigating.

Especially when that political opponent now sits as leader and the focus point of what might be a political witch hunt managed and coordinated by those very same ones who tried to stop him in the first place.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Meanwhile, you refuse to give me a straight answer on the matter which really speaks to me that you are just partisan biased.

Try to keep up.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. I made a comparison to another politician that has done some legally questionable things while in office but has never been investigated for all because you insisted that we should investigate Hillary Clinton and that her not being in office isn't an excuse to not investigate her. Try to keep up.

It isn't an excuse to not investigate her or any past politician, including Bush. Do you agree?

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your double negative, but I think I understood your point. Not being in office isn't a valid excuse to not investigate someone and I agree. So if Hillary is fair game then anyone demanding an investigation into her should be even more concerned with investigating the Bush admin because they did FAR more dubiously legal things while in office than Clinton did.

Furthermore. The Republicans have rewritten a bill intended to investigate Donald Trump and his admin to investigate Hillary Clinton. Why is this necessary? Why do we need to stop or impede an investigation into Donald Trump in order to investigate Hillary Clinton? How does that not scream political deflection to you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They both have about the same amount of blood on their hands. Bush + Cheney with Iraq engineered civil war vs. Obama + Hillary with Libya + Syria engineered civil wars... that'd be about a dead heat in the splattered bodies counts.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Furthermore. The Republicans have rewritten a bill intended to investigate Donald Trump and his admin to investigate Hillary Clinton. Why is this necessary? Why do we need to stop or impede an investigation into Donald Trump in order to investigate Hillary Clinton? How does that not scream political deflection to you?

It does not stop or impede any existing investigation. More than one investigation (or as Loretta Lynch told Comey to call it, "a matter") can occur at the same time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. I made a comparison to another politician that has done some legally questionable things while in office but has never been investigated for all because you insisted that we should investigate Hillary Clinton and that her not being in office isn't an excuse to not investigate her. Try to keep up.

It isn't an excuse to not investigate her or any past politician, including Bush. Do you agree?

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your double negative, but I think I understood your point. Not being in office isn't a valid excuse to not investigate someone and I agree. So if Hillary is fair game then anyone demanding an investigation into her should be even more concerned with investigating the Bush admin because they did FAR more dubiously legal things while in office than Clinton did.

Furthermore. The Republicans have rewritten a bill intended to investigate Donald Trump and his admin to investigate Hillary Clinton. Why is this necessary? Why do we need to stop or impede an investigation into Donald Trump in order to investigate Hillary Clinton? How does that not scream political deflection to you?

I have no problem with investigating Bush. In fact, I think the Bushes and Clintons are largely connected in many questionable issues.

There are several investigations into Russia continuing, these amendments don't change that.