(11-19-2022 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:51 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  The sitting president administration is appointing a political hack to go after his political enemy that’s most likely going to run against him.

Let that sink in.

Political hack. Love the kneejerk speed there. Need some practice to challenge the record though…..

Tanq, quick question.

Do you believe that Merrick Garland is a man of integrity who is acting honestly and objectively as attorney general?

My guess…..Tanq doesn’t answer because he knows Garland is acting neither honestly or objectively.

Pretty much the DOJ has become the legal intimidation arm of the Democrat party.

Our government is no longer “for the people”……. It is broken.

(11-19-2022 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see that posting a cite to a statute that lays out the point where a special prosecutor is needed is now 'trolling'.

Awesome.

It's not a good idea to "debate" with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and they have much more experience there.
Mark Twain

(11-19-2022 11:52 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see that posting a cite to a statute that lays out the point where a special prosecutor is needed is now 'trolling'.

Awesome.

It's not a good idea to "debate" with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and they have much more experience there.
Mark Twain

Another quote I like to attribute to this board:

Arguing with people here is like "trying to play chess with a pigeon: it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to it's flock to claim victory."

(11-19-2022 09:31 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  There's not much to this. Once Trump announced he was running in 2024 Garland is required by the code of federal regulations to appoint a special counsel. Full stop. Garland is a political appointee. It appears that Biden will also run and you can count on Trump firing Garland if he were to be elected. Garland now has a personal interest in the outcome. So... Take a look at the CFR link below. Investigations of high-ranking political actors must be removed from the department of Justice, in this case Trump... A person who's running for the 2024 presidency. I'm not sure why this is upset the pillow guys on this board so much but it has. I guess they see a conspiracy theory somewhere somehow by someone. That's an educated guess by the way.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

Conspiracy theory...is that a progressive word for political stunt?

Justice department is weaponized under this clown show administration and their idiot supporters are too stupid to see it or just don't care. .

Thank God Garland doesn't have a lifetime appointment on SCOTIS. He's a political tool.

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:29 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see that posting a cite to a statute that lays out the point where a special prosecutor is needed is now 'trolling'.

Awesome.

When it didn't happen for Hillary....Yes.

I’ll break this up into bite size bits for you.

Biden as stating he is running for President v announced candidate —- clear conflict of interest. Special outside counsel.

Hillary at time of disclosure —- announced candidate. Private citizen. Not administration. Current administration then *not* running. No clear conflict of interest. No outside counsel.

The knee jerk ‘whadabout Hillary’ falls apart. Think. Read the statute.

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:29 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see that posting a cite to a statute that lays out the point where a special prosecutor is needed is now 'trolling'.

Awesome.

When it didn't happen for Hillary....Yes.

I’ll break this up into bite size bits for you.

Biden as stating he is running for President v announced candidate —- clear conflict of interest. Special outside counsel.

Hillary at time of disclosure —- announced candidate. Private citizen. Not administration. Current administration then *not* running. No clear conflict of interest. No outside counsel.

The knee jerk ‘whadabout Hillary’ falls apart. Think. Read the statute.

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

(11-19-2022 01:54 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:29 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  When it didn't happen for Hillary....Yes.

I’ll break this up into bite size bits for you.

Biden as stating he is running for President v announced candidate —- clear conflict of interest. Special outside counsel.

Hillary at time of disclosure —- announced candidate. Private citizen. Not administration. Current administration then *not* running. No clear conflict of interest. No outside counsel.

The knee jerk ‘whadabout Hillary’ falls apart. Think. Read the statute.

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

I answered your question about HRC. As far as Trump; after six or seven years of investigations for what ever they (FBI & DOJ) could make up. Yeah, I would say it looks alot unfair to me.

(11-19-2022 02:24 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:54 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I’ll break this up into bite size bits for you.

Biden as stating he is running for President v announced candidate —- clear conflict of interest. Special outside counsel.

Hillary at time of disclosure —- announced candidate. Private citizen. Not administration. Current administration then *not* running. No clear conflict of interest. No outside counsel.

The knee jerk ‘whadabout Hillary’ falls apart. Think. Read the statute.

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

I answered your question about HRC. As far as Trump; after six or seven years of investigations for what ever they (FBI & DOJ) could make up. Yeah, I would say it looks alot unfair to me.

That sounds a lot like a snowflake, think with your feelings type reason to me, but ok.

(11-19-2022 02:29 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 02:24 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:54 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

I answered your question about HRC. As far as Trump; after six or seven years of investigations for what ever they (FBI & DOJ) could make up. Yeah, I would say it looks alot unfair to me.

That sounds a lot like a snowflake, think with your feelings type reason to me, but ok.

You must be confused by your reading skills.

FBI whistleblowers are prepared to testify in front of a House committee in January. It’s going to be interesting seeing how the new America First members of the House use their considerable power to start pressing spineless Republicans to do something.

(11-19-2022 11:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:52 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see that posting a cite to a statute that lays out the point where a special prosecutor is needed is now 'trolling'.

Awesome.

It's not a good idea to "debate" with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and they have much more experience there.
Mark Twain

Another quote I like to attribute to this board:

Arguing with people here is like "trying to play chess with a pigeon: it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to it's flock to claim victory."

Well look. The Three Stooges.

(11-19-2022 01:54 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:29 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  When it didn't happen for Hillary....Yes.

I’ll break this up into bite size bits for you.

Biden as stating he is running for President v announced candidate —- clear conflict of interest. Special outside counsel.

Hillary at time of disclosure —- announced candidate. Private citizen. Not administration. Current administration then *not* running. No clear conflict of interest. No outside counsel.

The knee jerk ‘whadabout Hillary’ falls apart. Think. Read the statute.

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

You liberals seem to have forgotten that it was Trump who instructed the DOJ to end the investigation of HRC upon his inauguration. He said in his statement that we don’t investigate our political rivals in this country like they do in failed states.

Of course THAT WAS HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE!

He was to naive to understand the depth to which democrats will go to gain power. He learned the hard way that they care absolutely nothing about anything but regaining it at any cost.

(11-19-2022 10:51 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  The sitting president administration is appointing a political hack to go after his political enemy that’s most likely going to run against him.

Let that sink in.

If Trump had done this while president, he'd have gotten impeached. Maybe the House will impeach Biden for this.

(11-20-2022 12:55 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:54 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I’ll break this up into bite size bits for you.

Biden as stating he is running for President v announced candidate —- clear conflict of interest. Special outside counsel.

Hillary at time of disclosure —- announced candidate. Private citizen. Not administration. Current administration then *not* running. No clear conflict of interest. No outside counsel.

The knee jerk ‘whadabout Hillary’ falls apart. Think. Read the statute.

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

You liberals seem to have forgotten that it was Trump who instructed the DOJ to end the investigation of HRC upon his inauguration. He said in his statement that we don’t investigate our political rivals in this country like they do in failed states.

Of course THAT WAS HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE!

He was to naive to understand the depth to which democrats will go to gain power. He learned the hard way that they care absolutely nothing about anything but regaining it at any cost.

Here's a thought: What if Trump lied? What if he made all the hubbub about HRC up because it would hurt her campaign while helping his. Of course he "cancelled" the investigation, conveniently soon after the election, he had no use for her anymore.

Does that sound like something Donald J Trump would do? Lie for his own benefit?

(11-20-2022 08:56 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-20-2022 12:55 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:54 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is relevant here anyway. She's been pretty much out of national politics since 2016. I feel like even addressing these clear whatabouts is a waste of time

Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

You liberals seem to have forgotten that it was Trump who instructed the DOJ to end the investigation of HRC upon his inauguration. He said in his statement that we don’t investigate our political rivals in this country like they do in failed states.

Of course THAT WAS HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE!

He was to naive to understand the depth to which democrats will go to gain power. He learned the hard way that they care absolutely nothing about anything but regaining it at any cost.

Here's a thought: What if Trump lied? What if he made all the hubbub about HRC up because it would hurt her campaign while helping his. Of course he "cancelled" the investigation, conveniently soon after the election, he had no use for her anymore.

Does that sound like something Donald J Trump would do? Lie for his own benefit?

The classified files *were* in the email on the disk.

The disk *was* bit bleached with a military grade data removal software multiple times, then hammered into non-existence.

Simply by having the documents exist is violation, and Comey said it was done in manner that met the requisite level of intent for that charge.

And the data was removed in a manner that shows knowledge and obstruction.

I wouldnt go down the path of 'nothing to see here' for HRC.

(11-20-2022 10:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2022 08:56 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-20-2022 12:55 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:54 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-19-2022 01:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Here, I will help you out.

Double Standard,
dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"

So let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump shouldn't be investigated because it's... Unfair?

You liberals seem to have forgotten that it was Trump who instructed the DOJ to end the investigation of HRC upon his inauguration. He said in his statement that we don’t investigate our political rivals in this country like they do in failed states.

Of course THAT WAS HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE!

He was to naive to understand the depth to which democrats will go to gain power. He learned the hard way that they care absolutely nothing about anything but regaining it at any cost.

Here's a thought: What if Trump lied? What if he made all the hubbub about HRC up because it would hurt her campaign while helping his. Of course he "cancelled" the investigation, conveniently soon after the election, he had no use for her anymore.

Does that sound like something Donald J Trump would do? Lie for his own benefit?

The classified files *were* in the email on the disk.

The disk *was* bit bleached with a military grade data removal software multiple times, then hammered into non-existence.

Simply by having the documents exist is violation, and Comey said it was done in manner that met the requisite level of intent for that charge.

And the data was removed in a manner that shows knowledge and obstruction.

I wouldnt go down the path of 'nothing to see here' for HRC.

We shouldn't even have to go down that route because the alleged crimes of HRC that have been investigated with no charges brought forward has no bearing on the current investigation of Trump and the charges yet to be brought. It is yet another whatabout that somehow is allowed to be taken seriously

(11-20-2022 10:40 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  We shouldn't even have to go down that route because the alleged crimes of HRC that have been investigated with no charges brought forward has no bearing on the current investigation of Trump and the charges yet to be brought. It is yet another whatabout that somehow is allowed to be taken seriously

Except that here's the big problem.

All the evidence required to convict Hillary of a number of crimes that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 20 to 40 had I done them was there and the decision not to prosecute was clearly motivated by political considerations which have the appearance of being unsavory. On the other hand, we still don't have evidence to indict Trump of any crime after 7 years of intensive witch hunts.

The issue is that there appears to be a double standard, and Hillary is relevant because her treatment defines one extreme in that situation.

(11-20-2022 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-20-2022 10:40 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  We shouldn't even have to go down that route because the alleged crimes of HRC that have been investigated with no charges brought forward has no bearing on the current investigation of Trump and the charges yet to be brought. It is yet another whatabout that somehow is allowed to be taken seriously

Except that here's the big problem.

All the evidence required to convict Hillary of a number of crimes that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 20 to 40 had I done them was there and the decision not to prosecute was clearly motivated by political considerations which have the appearance of being unsavory. On the other hand, we still don't have evidence to indict Trump of any crime after 7 years of intensive witch hunts.

The issue is that there appears to be a double standard, and Hillary is relevant because her treatment defines one extreme in that situation.

Given the plethora of admissions by the parties, and the delineation of the papers by the court and the party opponents in the Special Master aspect, the 11th Cir, and the Supreme Ct., I find it hard to jump on board with the 'dont have evidence' statement above.

There seemingly *is* evidence, enough to convince the magistrate in the warrant, enough to have Judge Cannon denote it, enough to for the 11 Cir.....

There may not be sufficient evidence to convict, and we are a long way from that. But the statement of 'dont have evidence' to pursue seems wildly in contrast to the actions of the courts, and the party opponents in those courts.

(11-20-2022 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the plethora of admissions by the parties, and the delineation of the papers by the court and the party opponents in the Special Master aspect, the 11th Cir, and the Supreme Ct., I find it hard to jump on board with the 'dont have evidence' statement above.
There seemingly *is* evidence, enough to convince the magistrate in the warrant, enough to have Judge Cannon denote it, enough to for the 11 Cir.....
There may not be sufficient evidence to convict, and we are a long way from that. But the statement of 'dont have evidence' to pursue seems wildly in contrast to the actions of the courts, and the party opponents in those courts.

At this point I see far more allegation and innuendo than actual evidence of criminal behavior. There is always evidence of something. There is, for example, evidence that I attended a wedding yesterday afternoon in the form of photos of the event in which I appear. Whether the "something" is a crime is another matter.

In the case of Hillary, the undisputed evidence was sufficient to form at least a prima facie case of multiple crimes, but no prosecution was pursued. With Trump the evidence, at least what has been disclosed, has not reached that level, as you appear to agree, and yet prosecution and conviction are routinely spoken of as if in the past tense.

The issue upon which we appear to disagree is our level of trust for the honesty and integrity of the players in the criminal justice system involved in these two case. Based upon what I have seen and heard, I have a very low regard for such honesty and integrity.

Are the likes of, say, James Comey and Merrick Garland, men of honesty and integrity or cheap political hacks? I get the impression that you believe honesty and integrity, as you are clearly affording them the deference that honesty and integrity demand. I vote cheap political hacks.