Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:03 PM
 
Location: A Beautiful DEEP RED State
5,632 posts, read 1,760,136 times
Reputation: 3902

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
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.

Next...
I beg to differ. You may prefer it to be a non issue and go away, but in the extremely unlikely event a Clinton would be held to the same legal standard as Jane the plumber, the server issue would be brought up in court to show she has a history of doing wrong and feeling rules do not apply to her.

But I get what your intent is. Derail the conversation into just about the server and get the focus off her own staff ratting her out in court under oath. Good job.

On another note, people should understand multiple threads have been merged into one and that is causing issues with what post people are referring to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:03 PM
 
46,219 posts, read 26,980,998 times
Reputation: 11091
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralParty View Post
you got her now!

lmao
She will never be "gotten" but exposing the left is far more important. Whether the left can comprehend that is a 100% different story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:03 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,317,241 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
^^^^^







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.

I figured when I said "what crimes" that reasonable people would assume I was asking within the context of the thread topic. Evidently I was wrong.

The fact that the link is from 2016 is irrelevant. Prove you wrong? The proof is in the pudding! She has not been and will not be indicted for the server/emails. Prove me wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:06 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,317,241 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith View Post
I beg to differ. You may prefer it to be a non issue and go away, but in the extremely unlikely event a Clinton would be held to the same legal standard as Jane the plumber, the server issue would be brought up in court to show she has a history of doing wrong and feeling rules do not apply to her.
IF your aunt had wheels she'd be a tricycle. It's not going to happen, therefore it's a non-issue. I thought we had already agreed that nothing was going to happen re: the emails?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith View Post
But I get what your intent is. Derail the conversation into just about the server and get the focus off her own staff ratting her out in court under oath. Good job.
No, you clearly don't "get it". For the tenth time, I DIDN'T BRING UP THE SERVER/EMAILS! It's not me derailing anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith View Post
On another note, people should understand multiple threads have been merged into one and that is causing issues with what post people are referring to.
Well, huzzah! Common ground there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
3,730 posts, read 1,313,872 times
Reputation: 3486
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
Now who's being dense? "Bring up" = "introduce into the conversation". Glad I could educate on common English idioms. You're welcome.



Nope, sorry clown! Your flip-flopping/spin doctor tactics won't work on me. Congratulations on clearly demonstrating on how much of a petulant child you are whenever someone calls you out. Grow up and just admit you EFFED UP.




Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
Except that activity doesn't fall under the Espionage Act and you can't provide any examples otherwise.


It absolutely does. Me and many other provided why it would. Again....DENSE.






Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
LMFAO. OK. Do let me know when she's indicted under the Espionage Act and I'll publicly admit you were right.

I mean, Durham made an argument in his case that it's espionage. Not my problem you're not paying attention to this case. And I highly doubt you'd admit anything. Just look at the lengths you're going to try and tell all of us you never said half the crap you posted.



Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
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.



Read the thread just fine. For some reason, you're refusing to acknowledge someone's testimony under oath, because it doesn't fit the watered down narrative that you want. And I honestly don't believe you want her held accountable. If you did, you wouldn't have a "nothing to see here attitude." Plus you're already doing a ton of bitching and moaning right now so what would it matter?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:11 PM
 
46,219 posts, read 26,980,998 times
Reputation: 11091
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
I figured when I said "what crimes" that reasonable people would assume I was asking within the context of the thread topic. Evidently I was wrong.
You've figured a lot, and you've been proving wrong numerous times. But that's o.k., you should be used to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
The fact that the link is from 2016 is irrelevant. Prove you wrong?
Yea, prove me wrong, even you post below is useless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
The proof is in the pudding! She has not been and will not be indicted for the server/emails. Prove me wrong.
It's pretty amazing on how mad your're getting. You cannot prove anything, you are changing the subject AFTER you asked for crimes, and then when I did, the ONLY thing you do is deflect and you have even said my posts are not within the the realm of the topic, yet you asked a question within in this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:25 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,317,241 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736 View Post
Nope, sorry clown! Your flip-flopping/spin doctor tactics won't work on me. Congratulations on clearly demonstrating on how much of a petulant child you are whenever someone calls you out. Grow up and just admit you EFFED UP.
"Clown"? "Petulant child"? Personal attacks are against the ToS, DK. Naughty, naughty.

I didn't "eff up". It's not my fault you can't comprehend common written english.




Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736 View Post
It absolutely does. Me and many other provided why it would. Again....DENSE.
Your legal opinion appears to be about worth the price we're all paying for it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736 View Post
I mean, Durham made an argument in his case that it's espionage. Not my problem you're not paying attention to this case. And I highly doubt you'd admit anything. Just look at the lengths you're going to try and tell all of us you never said half the crap you posted.
Lawyers argue a lot of things. Can you provide an example of someone being indicted under the Espionage Act for a similar scenario?





Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736 View Post
Read the thread just fine. For some reason, you're refusing to acknowledge someone's testimony under oath, because it doesn't fit the watered down narrative that you want. And I honestly don't believe you want her held accountable. If you did, you wouldn't have a "nothing to see here attitude." Plus you're already doing a ton of bitching and moaning right now so what would it matter?
Whose testimony am I ignoring? No one's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:26 PM
 
Location: A Beautiful DEEP RED State
5,632 posts, read 1,760,136 times
Reputation: 3902
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
IF your aunt had wheels she'd be a tricycle. It's not going to happen, therefore it's a non-issue. I thought we had already agreed that nothing was going to happen re: the emails?





No, you clearly don't "get it". For the tenth time, I DIDN'T BRING UP THE SERVER/EMAILS! It's not me derailing anything.




Well, huzzah! Common ground there.
1) I did not say she would be prosecuted for the email issue. I said the email issue would be brought up in court to show she has a history. It would be brought up in the trial over the false collusion scam.

2) I think in todays world my aunt can identify as a tricycle and we have to recognize her as one.

3) We agree Hillary will never ever be held accountable in court.

4) You are most certainly trying to shift this conversation away from the Russian collusion scam onto just the former email issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:30 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,317,241 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
You've figured a lot, and you've been proving wrong numerous times. But that's o.k., you should be used to that.



Yea, prove me wrong, even you post below is useless.




It's pretty amazing on how mad your're getting. You cannot prove anything, you are changing the subject AFTER you asked for crimes, and then when I did, the ONLY thing you do is deflect and you have even said my posts are not within the the realm of the topic, yet you asked a question within in this thread.

I haven't been wrong a single time in this thread. All you've done is deflect with nonsense about how long ago the buttery mails scandal died.

You mistake frustration for anger, but you mistake a lot of things, so I don't expect better.


I'm getting off this crazy train with you and DK. The answer to my actual question appears to be, that Hilldog "should be" prosecuted for a relatively wild interpretation of the Espionage Act relating to the Steele Dossier and its release to the press. I'm going on record that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. I'll happily admit it if I'm wrong.

Have a good night, everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 04:31 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,317,241 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith View Post
1) I did not say she would be prosecuted for the email issue. I said the email issue would be brought up in court to show she has a history. It would be brought up in the trial over the false collusion scam.

2) I think in todays world my aunt can identify as a tricycle and we have to recognize her as one.

3) We agree Hillary will never ever be held accountable in court.
Cool.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith View Post
4) You are most certainly trying to shift this conversation away from the Russian collusion scam onto just the former email issue.
Wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top