Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus Christ man. Again, why are you so hung up on that? It's not our fault you failed to skip the beginning of the Durham trial where the servers and emails were already discussed. They literally had a chart showing the process of how it was done and it involved the emails and the servers. The topic is about the latest info from the trial that was received back on Friday. And that info was.....wait for it.....Robby Mook testifying under oath that Hilary was in fact briefed on the Alfa Bank story they were going to fabricate, and agreed to go through with it.
Do you always act this immature and petty when you can't win an argument?
Exactly my point. Thanks for noticing. Unless Sussman or Mook has given new testimony about the server, it's irrelevant to the discussion - pretty sure I've said that already, but nice of you to catch up.
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again - has Sussman or Mook provided new testimony about the server/emails? If not, I don't see your point.
Deleting the emails is a federal offense. Again, your link is from 2016.
Let's put this into prospective, if "hooligan" is issued a subpoena for "whatever" and hooligan deletes half of "whatever" after the subpoena is issued, is hooligan wrong?
Deleting the emails is a federal offense. Again, your link is from 2016.
Let's put this into prospective, if "hooligan" is issued a subpoena for "whatever" and hooligan deletes half of "whatever" after the subpoena is issued, is hooligan wrong?
Still not answering the question.
If there has been no recent testimony regarding the server/emails - it's irrelevant to this discussion. HAS THERE BEEN ANY RECENT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE EMAILS?
I didn't bring up the server/emails, professor. Try reading the thread. I was responding to other posters.
Yet YOU asked for crimes professor (but if you can prove me wrong, proved a post, with your screen name, post numbers clearly don't mean anything in this thread). You were provided crimes and now you are saying "well" I did not bring that up.
Yet YOU asked for crimes professor (but if you can prove me wrong, proved a post, with your screen name, post numbers clearly don't mean anything in this thread). You were provided crimes and now you are saying "well" I did not bring that up.
I already addressed the server/emails when Stephan brought it up. Read the thread.
It's a non-issue. She wasn't charged then and won't be in the future.
I didn't bring up the server/emails, professor. Try reading the thread. I was responding to other posters.
Oh really, you haven't? Because you seem to keep asking if these testimonies brought it up. Per your quote shown below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again - has Sussman or Mook provided new testimony about the server/emails? If not, I don't see your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
None of that is a crime, as far as I'm aware. Which is what I've said, repeatedly.
You can sit there and rehash your tired ass argument all you want but it is a crime. I literally provided info as to why it would be when you bitched and moaned about this not being a crime a couple pages back. Not my problem you chose to ignore it. I'm not posting it again. Go back and read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I highlighted the salient bit for you. Hiring a former intelligence officer to investigate a private citizen does not fall under the Espionage Act, to the best of my knowledge. Unless you have some precedent to cite?
Well, you're free to shout into the void about the server if you like. No skin off my nose. It's not going to change anything, however.
Doesn't matter what you highlighted. He was still a spy, who chose to tap into his connections, used his skill-set and tools to do what was asked of him. It can absolutely fall under the espionage act if the judge and jury rightfully deem it so. As I've told you countless times: your emotions are exactly that. It's facts over feelings.
Honestly why do you care? You've clearly admitted on this forum that it doesn't bother you if Hillary doesn't catch heat for this. Which basically implies you don't care how far politicians will take their corruptible tactics and do whatever is necessary to win. Don't cry the next time you feel cheated out of your vote.
Yet YOU asked for crimes professor (but if you can prove me wrong, proved a post, with your screen name, post numbers clearly don't mean anything in this thread). You were provided crimes and now you are saying "well" I did not bring that up.
This is what he does. He deflects and spins whenever the facts are presented to him. Classic example of how some people behave when they get call out on their BS.
If there has been no recent testimony regarding the server/emails - it's irrelevant to this discussion. HAS THERE BEEN ANY RECENT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE EMAILS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I'm betting you still don't answer.
Your first quote above is why we are having this discussion.
The rest of the quotes are useless because the quote that you said I did not respond to was from 2016.
If you want to prove anyone wrong, provide something.
Wait, looks like I did respond, now instead of trying to prove other wrong on a post that YOU stated and CLEARLY said you were wrong, prove what you say.
Again, your link is from 2016, you have to prove ME wrong, I don't have to prove anything you say.
Oh really, you haven't? Because you seem to keep asking if these testimonies brought it up:
Now who's being dense? "Bring up" = "introduce into the conversation". Glad I could educate on common English idioms. You're welcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736
You can sit there and rehash your tired ass argument all you want but it is a crime. I literally provided info as to why it would be when you bitched and moaned about this not being a crime a couple pages back. Not my problem you chose to ignore it. I'm not posting it again. Go back and read it.
Except that activity doesn't fall under the Espionage Act and you can't provide any examples otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736
Doesn't matter what you highlighted. He was still a spy, who chose to tap into his connections, used his skill-set and tools to do what was asked of him. It can absolutely fall under the espionage act if the judge and jury rightfully deem it so. As I've told you countless times: your emotions are exactly that. It's facts over feelings.
LMFAO. OK. Do let me know when she's indicted under the Espionage Act and I'll publicly admit you were right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736
Honestly why do you care? You've clearly admitted on this forum that it doesn't bother you if Hillary doesn't catch heat for this. Which basically implies you don't care how far politicians will take their corruptible tactics and do whatever is necessary to win. Don't cry the next time you feel cheated out of your vote.
For ****'s sake, read the thread. I've REPEATEDLY said if she broke laws, I hope she's held accountable. What I'm not going to do is ***** and moan if she isn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try reading the thread. I was responding to other posters.
