(06-02-2016 03:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He's already made a deal, pom-pom boy.

Shillary is a dead man walkin'. Bring on Bernie as nominee.

So...you're an attorney are you? One would hope that you'd be smart enough to know that he took the 5th in an open records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

His "rumored" immunity deal is with the FBI in a completely different aspect.

But I guess not.

Perhaps you should just stick to an actual discussion on what's going on instead of trying to make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

(06-02-2016 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:If this is your best effort at a post, why don't you try again with more details and a link?

(06-02-2016 04:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:If this is your best effort at a post, why don't you try again with more details and a link?

(06-02-2016 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He's already made a deal, pom-pom boy.

Shillary is a dead man walkin'. Bring on Bernie as nominee.

So...you're an attorney are you? One would hope that you'd be smart enough to know that he took the 5th in an open records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

His "rumored" immunity deal is with the FBI in a completely different aspect.

But I guess not.

Perhaps you should just stick to an actual discussion on what's going on instead of trying to make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

Gomer, if you don't think what he testifies in a civil matter can be used to screw up a deal in a criminal matter, I can't do nuttin' fer ya.

Please tell me you are really young and this is all just youthful exuberance making you keep trying so dang hard.

(06-02-2016 01:52 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  She makes Nixon look squeaky clean and not the least bit paranoid.

And still 1000 times better than Bernie or Fauxcohontas.

(06-02-2016 04:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He's already made a deal, pom-pom boy.

Shillary is a dead man walkin'. Bring on Bernie as nominee.

So...you're an attorney are you? One would hope that you'd be smart enough to know that he took the 5th in an open records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

His "rumored" immunity deal is with the FBI in a completely different aspect.

But I guess not.

Perhaps you should just stick to an actual discussion on what's going on instead of trying to make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

Gomer, if you don't think what he testifies in a civil matter can be used to screw up a deal in a criminal matter, I can't do nuttin' fer ya.

Please tell me you are really young and this is all just youthful exuberance making you keep trying so dang hard.

Well if you would have just made that actual point in the first place instead of trying to be a smart ass, there'd be no issue would there?

(06-02-2016 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:52 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  She makes Nixon look squeaky clean and not the least bit paranoid.

And still 1000 times better than Bernie or Fauxcohontas.

Disagree. I think Bernie is a kook but at least he is an honest kook.

I don't think she believes a thing that slithers past her fangs.

(06-02-2016 04:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 04:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He's already made a deal, pom-pom boy.

Shillary is a dead man walkin'. Bring on Bernie as nominee.

So...you're an attorney are you? One would hope that you'd be smart enough to know that he took the 5th in an open records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

His "rumored" immunity deal is with the FBI in a completely different aspect.

But I guess not.

Perhaps you should just stick to an actual discussion on what's going on instead of trying to make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

Gomer, if you don't think what he testifies in a civil matter can be used to screw up a deal in a criminal matter, I can't do nuttin' fer ya.

Please tell me you are really young and this is all just youthful exuberance making you keep trying so dang hard.

Well if you would have just made that actual point in the first place instead of trying to be a smart ass, there'd be no issue would there?

I sorta did, Junior.

(06-02-2016 04:51 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 04:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 04:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He's already made a deal, pom-pom boy.

Shillary is a dead man walkin'. Bring on Bernie as nominee.

So...you're an attorney are you? One would hope that you'd be smart enough to know that he took the 5th in an open records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

His "rumored" immunity deal is with the FBI in a completely different aspect.

But I guess not.

Perhaps you should just stick to an actual discussion on what's going on instead of trying to make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

Gomer, if you don't think what he testifies in a civil matter can be used to screw up a deal in a criminal matter, I can't do nuttin' fer ya.

Please tell me you are really young and this is all just youthful exuberance making you keep trying so dang hard.

Well if you would have just made that actual point in the first place instead of trying to be a smart ass, there'd be no issue would there?

I sorta did, Junior.

Right...sorta.

(06-02-2016 01:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:55 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

yeah, because if she didn't have anything to hide, everyone involved wouldn't be pleading the fifth.

She will be destroyed by Trump in the primary over this and unless the media starts asking tough questions they will be skewered as well for turning a blind eye.

So you basically have no concept whatsoever as to why lawyers advise their clients to use the protections of the 5th then, huh?

And every time Trump brings it up, she'll bring up Trump "not a" University.

While Trump U and the fleecing of people is deplorable, it's not a high crime.

(06-02-2016 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why do you guys hate our constitution anyway?

Speaking of Constitutional rights, remember when Hillary was thrown off the Watergate team for trying to deprive Richard Nixon of his?

Nah, you probably don't.

(06-02-2016 03:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

it took a whitey and a blackie getting stoned to come up with that one......

hell yeah!

some of sum do understand how to get along and laugh down this current path.....

(06-02-2016 04:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 04:51 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 04:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 04:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...you're an attorney are you? One would hope that you'd be smart enough to know that he took the 5th in an open records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

His "rumored" immunity deal is with the FBI in a completely different aspect.

But I guess not.

Perhaps you should just stick to an actual discussion on what's going on instead of trying to make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

Gomer, if you don't think what he testifies in a civil matter can be used to screw up a deal in a criminal matter, I can't do nuttin' fer ya.

Please tell me you are really young and this is all just youthful exuberance making you keep trying so dang hard.

Well if you would have just made that actual point in the first place instead of trying to be a smart ass, there'd be no issue would there?

I sorta did, Junior.

Right...sorta.

hee hee hee hee hee....overline symbol, engage! (my best shatner )

it's not so fun getting stoned in your world, eh?

many have the pen that flows faster than a penile in denial during any rainy season.....

hooty who hoo...

now pear head is back in her chastity belt laying it on Trump once again....and she's gagging as she does it....

comedy gold runnin down from her gold teeth........

(06-02-2016 07:37 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why do you guys hate our constitution anyway?

Speaking of Constitutional rights, remember when Hillary was thrown off the Watergate team for trying to deprive Richard Nixon of his?

Nah, you probably don't.

Tuff for me remember something that didn't actually happen the way you were told by your partisans it did. Sorry.

Quote:A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

(06-03-2016 08:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 07:37 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why do you guys hate our constitution anyway?

Speaking of Constitutional rights, remember when Hillary was thrown off the Watergate team for trying to deprive Richard Nixon of his?

Nah, you probably don't.

Tuff to me remember something that didn't actually happen the way you were told by your partisans it did. Sorry.

Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

regardless of rhetoric....she easily figured out it was better to destroy evidence and continue to lie as a survival mechanism....

she's a trained lawyer and the supreme grand wizard of gay libtard cuck-dim0-dem....she understands the game of tards....her throne was predestined long ago....

(06-03-2016 08:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 08:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 07:37 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why do you guys hate our constitution anyway?

Speaking of Constitutional rights, remember when Hillary was thrown off the Watergate team for trying to deprive Richard Nixon of his?

Nah, you probably don't.

Tuff to me remember something that didn't actually happen the way you were told by your partisans it did. Sorry.

Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

regardless of rhetoric....she easily figured out it was better to destroy evidence and continue to lie as a survival mechanism....

she's a trained lawyer and the supreme grand wizard of gay libtard cuck-dim0-dem....she understands the game of tards....her throne was predestined long ago....

(06-03-2016 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 08:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 08:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 07:37 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why do you guys hate our constitution anyway?

Speaking of Constitutional rights, remember when Hillary was thrown off the Watergate team for trying to deprive Richard Nixon of his?

Nah, you probably don't.

Tuff to me remember something that didn't actually happen the way you were told by your partisans it did. Sorry.

Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

regardless of rhetoric....she easily figured out it was better to destroy evidence and continue to lie as a survival mechanism....

she's a trained lawyer and the supreme grand wizard of gay libtard cuck-dim0-dem....she understands the game of tards....her throne was predestined long ago....