(11-02-2017 10:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 09:20 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 09:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 08:51 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 08:35 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There are laws for election fraud. Several heads are going to roll on this one in Hillary's camp. One of her stooges was the one that started the Obama birther movement.

Andy Martin?

I honestly don't get how that's a talking point from you guys. Ok, so worst case for the DNC is a person working there floated the idea, which was shut down and picked up by the right wing conspiracy hubs along with the POTUS. Even bringing it up just makes the Dems so much better by comparison because they stamped that nonsense out. The GOP carried the torch of that embarrassing honor long after he produced a literal birth certificate.

There isn't an objective way to view that scenario as anything but positively for the Dems, and I've always found it odd that the right wing trots it out so often.

Ummm we didn't bring it up genius.

Well I'll be, that's pretty damn embarrassing on my part. I guess that's what I get.

The whole birther thing was stupid. I seriously doubt that someone could run if they weren't properly vetted. But it didn't start with Trump, he just ran with it. In fact the true designation is unclear according to my Google search. I remember a year ago the accusation was that someone from HRC's camp started it in 2008. Then the search I did brought up Andy Martin's name. Nobody here in the last year to my knowledge has brought this up, except maybe the lefties.

(11-02-2017 09:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 08:51 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 08:35 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  She could be busted for election fraud for stealing the primaries away from Sanders.

Aren't party primaries a fully internal matter?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

There are laws for election fraud. Several heads are going to roll on this one in Hillary's camp. One of her stooges was the one that started the Obama birther movement.

Andy Martin?

I honestly don't get how that's a talking point from you guys. Ok, so worst case for the DNC is a person working there floated the idea, which was shut down and picked up by the right wing conspiracy hubs along with the POTUS. Even bringing it up just makes the Dems so much better by comparison because they stamped that nonsense out. The GOP carried the torch of that embarrassing honor long after he produced a literal birth certificate.

There isn't an objective way to view that scenario as anything but positively for the Dems, and I've always found it odd that the right wing trots it out so often.

So you agree the racist left brought up the idea.

Thanks for confirming.

(11-02-2017 10:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:04 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Why isn't Trump locking her up? He went on and on about doing so on his campaign, he's still tweeting about her supposed crimes, but yet he hasn't taken any sort of action to actually prosecute her or even charge her with those crimes.

What gives?

Donna Brazille thinks Hillary is a crook... read about it here...

UCF08 you are such a partisan hack. did you not get the DSNC talking point of the day... it is time to throw Hillary under the bus.


P.S. UCF08 please take the UCF out of your username... you are an embarrassment to us.

I genuinely couldn't care less about Hillary. If she's a criminal, lock her up. But if Trump won't, despite being the POTUS and having the authority to direct the DoJ, then why does he keep bringing her up?

Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

(11-03-2017 12:35 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 09:20 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 09:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 08:51 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Andy Martin?

I honestly don't get how that's a talking point from you guys. Ok, so worst case for the DNC is a person working there floated the idea, which was shut down and picked up by the right wing conspiracy hubs along with the POTUS. Even bringing it up just makes the Dems so much better by comparison because they stamped that nonsense out. The GOP carried the torch of that embarrassing honor long after he produced a literal birth certificate.

There isn't an objective way to view that scenario as anything but positively for the Dems, and I've always found it odd that the right wing trots it out so often.

Ummm we didn't bring it up genius.

Well I'll be, that's pretty damn embarrassing on my part. I guess that's what I get.

So are you fit or john? Serious question

He's neither. He used to post here when both John and Fit did as well.

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

You're such a tool. And not even a good tool. You're like that flimsy ass allen wrenche that comes with cheap ass furniture.

(11-03-2017 10:20 AM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

You're such a tool. And not even a good tool. You're like that flimsy ass allen wrenche that comes with cheap ass furniture.

#scratchanddentbonanza in 'return'

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:04 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Why isn't Trump locking her up? He went on and on about doing so on his campaign, he's still tweeting about her supposed crimes, but yet he hasn't taken any sort of action to actually prosecute her or even charge her with those crimes.

What gives?

Donna Brazille thinks Hillary is a crook... read about it here...

UCF08 you are such a partisan hack. did you not get the DSNC talking point of the day... it is time to throw Hillary under the bus.


P.S. UCF08 please take the UCF out of your username... you are an embarrassment to us.

I genuinely couldn't care less about Hillary. If she's a criminal, lock her up. But if Trump won't, despite being the POTUS and having the authority to direct the DoJ, then why does he keep bringing her up?

Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

(11-03-2017 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:04 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Why isn't Trump locking her up? He went on and on about doing so on his campaign, he's still tweeting about her supposed crimes, but yet he hasn't taken any sort of action to actually prosecute her or even charge her with those crimes.

What gives?

Donna Brazille thinks Hillary is a crook... read about it here...

UCF08 you are such a partisan hack. did you not get the DSNC talking point of the day... it is time to throw Hillary under the bus.


P.S. UCF08 please take the UCF out of your username... you are an embarrassment to us.

I genuinely couldn't care less about Hillary. If she's a criminal, lock her up. But if Trump won't, despite being the POTUS and having the authority to direct the DoJ, then why does he keep bringing her up?

Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...inton.html

Quote:Trump: DOJ must do 'what is right and proper' and investigate Hillary Clinton

(11-03-2017 11:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:04 AM)No Bull Wrote:  Donna Brazille thinks Hillary is a crook... read about it here...

UCF08 you are such a partisan hack. did you not get the DSNC talking point of the day... it is time to throw Hillary under the bus.


P.S. UCF08 please take the UCF out of your username... you are an embarrassment to us.

I genuinely couldn't care less about Hillary. If she's a criminal, lock her up. But if Trump won't, despite being the POTUS and having the authority to direct the DoJ, then why does he keep bringing her up?

Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...inton.html

Quote:Trump: DOJ must do 'what is right and proper' and investigate Hillary Clinton

Honest question, when she's inevitably not charged with any crime, are you guys still going to accept him referring to her as a criminal?

(11-03-2017 11:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I genuinely couldn't care less about Hillary. If she's a criminal, lock her up. But if Trump won't, despite being the POTUS and having the authority to direct the DoJ, then why does he keep bringing her up?

Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...inton.html

Quote:Trump: DOJ must do 'what is right and proper' and investigate Hillary Clinton

Honest question, when she's inevitably not charged with any crime, are you guys still going to accept him referring to her as a criminal?

How can you be so certain HRC won't be charged with any crime?

Honest question, if she is charged with a crime, are you going to refer to her as a criminal?

(11-03-2017 11:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I genuinely couldn't care less about Hillary. If she's a criminal, lock her up. But if Trump won't, despite being the POTUS and having the authority to direct the DoJ, then why does he keep bringing her up?

Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...inton.html

Quote:Trump: DOJ must do 'what is right and proper' and investigate Hillary Clinton

Honest question, when she's inevitably not charged with any crime, are you guys still going to accept him referring to her as a criminal?

Yes. We already know from Comey's testimony that if you or I had done or been part of 1/10th of what she was involved in regarding her emails, we would be under the jail.

(11-03-2017 11:49 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...inton.html

Quote:Trump: DOJ must do 'what is right and proper' and investigate Hillary Clinton

Honest question, when she's inevitably not charged with any crime, are you guys still going to accept him referring to her as a criminal?

Yes. We already know from Comey's testimony that if you or I had done or been part of 1/10th of what she was involved in regarding her emails, we would be under the jail.

I think the poster knows she's a criminal. He/she just doesn't think Hillary will ever be charged.

(11-03-2017 11:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I genuinely couldn't care less about Hillary. If she's a criminal, lock her up. But if Trump won't, despite being the POTUS and having the authority to direct the DoJ, then why does he keep bringing her up?

Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...inton.html

Quote:Trump: DOJ must do 'what is right and proper' and investigate Hillary Clinton

Honest question, when she's inevitably not charged with any crime, are you guys still going to accept him referring to her as a criminal?

He needs either 1) to stop referring to her as a criminal or 2) to start prosecution. Calling her a criminal without prosecuting her as one just looks stupid.

As for personally agreeing that she is not a criminal, or should not be one, I will get to that point when someone can explain to me why the facts recited by Comey do not fulfill all elements required to convict of multiple crimes. And lack of intent is not an answer for at least two reasons—one, intent is not a required element of several of the crimes, and two, two primary generally accepted indicia of intent—multiple occurrences and destruction of evidence—are both present.

(11-03-2017 09:54 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 12:35 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 09:20 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 09:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I honestly don't get how that's a talking point from you guys. Ok, so worst case for the DNC is a person working there floated the idea, which was shut down and picked up by the right wing conspiracy hubs along with the POTUS. Even bringing it up just makes the Dems so much better by comparison because they stamped that nonsense out. The GOP carried the torch of that embarrassing honor long after he produced a literal birth certificate.

There isn't an objective way to view that scenario as anything but positively for the Dems, and I've always found it odd that the right wing trots it out so often.

Ummm we didn't bring it up genius.

Well I'll be, that's pretty damn embarrassing on my part. I guess that's what I get.

So are you fit or john? Serious question

He's neither. He used to post here when both John and Fit did as well.

Nope, he's smarter than Fit and not as long winded as John.

(11-03-2017 06:15 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 09:54 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 12:35 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 09:20 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Ummm we didn't bring it up genius.

Well I'll be, that's pretty damn embarrassing on my part. I guess that's what I get.

So are you fit or john? Serious question

He's neither. He used to post here when both John and Fit did as well.

Nope, he's smarter than Fit and not as long winded as John.

Fit doesn't take this crap so seriously.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Where is Fit?

(11-02-2017 07:22 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh I definitely agree it's throwing red meat to his base, I just find it weird that so many people who are truly convinced Hillary has committed crimes and that she should go to prison are also willing to make up reasons why it isn't happening. Why isn't Trump actually addressing it?

Because on the list of things which will "improve my life, America, and the world", putting a crazy old lady in jail is not in the top 10. Especially considering how quickly the media and hollywood would come to her defense (crime or not).

She sent classified material through her home brew mail server, she destoryed the server and phones to obstruct justice. She committed crimes.

She's also more useful to me as a lolcow right now than she is a threat to my liberty.

(11-03-2017 09:20 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:22 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh I definitely agree it's throwing red meat to his base, I just find it weird that so many people who are truly convinced Hillary has committed crimes and that she should go to prison are also willing to make up reasons why it isn't happening. Why isn't Trump actually addressing it?

Because on the list of things which will "improve my life, America, and the world", putting a crazy old lady in jail is not in the top 10. Especially considering how quickly the media and hollywood would come to her defense (crime or not).

She sent classified material through her home brew mail server, she destoryed the server and phones to obstruct justice. She committed crimes.

She's also more useful to me as a lolcow right now than she is a threat to my liberty.

Yup.

About sums it up. She’d have a much easier go just being put out to pasture, I’d even give her a pass on that.

But, Xe seems intent on carrying this on. If so, and Xe and her merry band of fellows continue with this crap

Bury her. Full weight and force of the same Dept of Justice they brought to bear on so many otherwise innocent Civs.

Keep it up loser, careful what you wish for...

(11-03-2017 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:17 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  Trump doesn't have athourity over the DOJ. They are a part of the Judicial branch of the government, and by constitutional decree seperate but equal. Now I understand that Obama controlled both Holder and Lynch, so perhaps that's why you think that way. Just one of the many unconstitutional acts Obama performed while in office.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't expect a Trump to unilaterally arrest Clinton apropos of nothing. The point is, the guy is STILL saying she's a criminal and should be locked up despite holding the highest office in the US and being in the best place possible to make sure she's prosecuted for the crimes he claimed she committed. What gives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...inton.html

Quote:Trump: DOJ must do 'what is right and proper' and investigate Hillary Clinton

Honest question, when she's inevitably not charged with any crime, are you guys still going to accept him referring to her as a criminal?

He needs either 1) to stop referring to her as a criminal or 2) to start prosecution. Calling her a criminal without prosecuting her as one just looks stupid.

As for personally agreeing that she is not a criminal, or should not be one, I will get to that point when someone can explain to me why the facts recited by Comey do not fulfill all elements required to convict of multiple crimes. And lack of intent is not an answer for at least two reasons—one, intent is not a required element of several of the crimes, and two, two primary generally accepted indicia of intent—multiple occurrences and destruction of evidence—are both present.

Missed this response, and it sums up about how I feel on the situation.

Shouldn’t lie to the FBI if you have an immunity deal.