Jump to content

IG Horowitz report on Clinton email due soon

Ragnarok

By Ragnarok
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

My prediction is that it will confirm that Comey and McCabe acted improperly when they did the things that hurt Hillary and helped Trump win, and that Trump will cite those conclusions as support for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Can we stop using "cunt" and "bitch" for little babies who cry about rep points? Us girls don't whine about it nearly as much as you fellas.  Why use female pejoratives? Call him "tiny dick"

Degenerate Gardner
Degenerate Gardner

Pussies are people who ignore IG findings because their fragile, irrational bubble just can't bear popping.  Pussies are those whose principles are so malleable that they embrace wannabe fascists rath

Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Setting aside the intent questions for a moment, because I think that is a red herring (the relevant intent for hildawg was "grossly negligent" and the doublespeak surrounding her intent was ridiculous), the nature of Petraeus' actions was different in character from those of Hilary and more culpable. 

The intent argument seems pretty reasonable to me:  the statute would be unconstitutionally vague absent a mens rea requirement, ergo it should be read to include one.   While I disagree with Comey's conclusion on the evidence, that legal conclusion seems sound to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tennesseehorn

Tennesseehorn 101

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

I suspect it is because Petraeus plead guilty for actions that involved providing access to top secret information to a reporter and then lied about it. 

The continued Hillary hatred is really bizarre. 

You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.

 

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tennesseehorn

Tennesseehorn 101

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

 

The MSM complaining about damaging American democracy is so ironic considering the damage the MSM has done to journalism in general.  Generational damage.

 

I didn't know Time still had a footprint in media or the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steamboat1874

Steamboat1874 4391

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

The MSM complaining about damaging American democracy is so ironic considering the damage the MSM has done to journalism in general.  Generational damage.

 

I didn't know Time still had a footprint in media or the internet.

Uh yes it does.....you should try getting out more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

I didn't know Time still had a footprint in media or the internet.

Oh yeah, they still have some serious cachet.  So much so that there are famous and powerful people who have been known to print fake Time covers praising themselves and display those fake covers to the public, if you can imagine that! 

Edited by Mojo Hand
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 42005

Posted
Posted
The MSM complaining about damaging American democracy is so ironic considering the damage the MSM has done to journalism in general.  Generational damage.
 
I didn't know Time still had a footprint in media or the internet.

You’re right isolating ourself from our closest allies while praising hostile governments is so much better. If anything media now days is better and more in depth than ever before and we’re able to get inside information and scoops more now. Yeah sometimes the actual as seen on tv media embellishes a story but they all do it and it’s not like one is better than the other. But reading written articles now days is far better than the past. You as a consumer have to be educated enough, which is your problem, to draw your own conclusions from what you read while not just reading from one side of the source.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tennesseehorn

Tennesseehorn 101

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:


You’re right isolating ourself from our closest allies while praising hostile governments is so much better. If anything media now days is better and more in depth than ever before and we’re able to get inside information and scoops more now. Yeah sometimes the actual as seen on tv media embellishes a story but they all do it and it’s not like one is better than the other. But reading written articles now days is far better than the past. You as a consumer have to be educated enough, which is your problem, to draw your own conclusions from what you read while not just reading from one side of the source.

Frankly with the way the MSM has treated DJT since he was elected POTUS I take ANYTHING they print with a "grain of salt" and need to really, really see what their angle is since it normally will be negative.  The main difference with the MSM and BHO/DJT is that with BHO they didn't question ANYTHING and with DJT they questioned EVERYTHING 1000x over and while DJT has has said some outrageous things (not defending everything he says) the MSM goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to trash DJT every chance they get.  DJT DS is real and makes BHO DS seem like a seasonal allergy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steamboat1874

Steamboat1874 4391

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Economy(unemployment etc) , trade, stock market, going the right way as a Country.  Hell HRC ain't President.

All of these thing were happening when Obama rescued the country from one the worst economic messes in history.

Try again. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Frankly with the way the MSM has treated DJT since he was elected POTUS I take ANYTHING they print with a "grain of salt" and need to really, really see what their angle is since it normally will be negative.  The main difference with the MSM and BHO/DJT is that with BHO they didn't question ANYTHING and with DJT they questioned EVERYTHING 1000x over and while DJT has has said some outrageous things (not defending everything he says) the MSM goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to trash DJT every chance they get.  DJT DS is real and makes BHO DS seem like a seasonal allergy.

It only seems that way to you because you're one of the severely deranged ones.  But to understand that, you'd have to not be deranged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13636

Posted
Posted



Frankly with the way the MSM has treated DJT since he was elected POTUS I take ANYTHING they print with a "grain of salt" and need to really, really see what their angle is since it normally will be negative. 


Thank you for illustrating essentially the 2 step process Trumpkins use for evaluating the veracity of information.

1. Is this negative information on Trump?
2. If yes, then probably untrue and UNFAIR!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack Burton

Jack Burton 35

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Frankly with the way the MSM has treated DJT since he was elected POTUS I take ANYTHING they print with a "grain of salt" and need to really, really see what their angle is since it normally will be negative.  The main difference with the MSM and BHO/DJT is that with BHO they didn't question ANYTHING and with DJT they questioned EVERYTHING 1000x over and while DJT has has said some outrageous things (not defending everything he says) the MSM goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to trash DJT every chance they get.  DJT DS is real and makes BHO DS seem like a seasonal allergy.

Quit yelling at the TV

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1957

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:


 

 


Thank you for illustrating essentially the 2 step process Trumpkins use for evaluating the veracity of information.

1. Is this negative information on Trump?
2. If yes, then probably untrue and UNFAIR!

 

There is an unfortunate sizable percent of our population that has completely bought into the tribalism, us-vs-them identity politics to the point that 2+2=5, facts/logic/science are replaced with feelings, trolling is appropriate, and nothing matters as long as my side comes out on top. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19569

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Economy(unemployment etc) , trade, stock market, going the right way as a Country.  Hell HRC ain't President.

This is the Obama economy. That's not even up for debate. All you have to do is look at the trendlines that started in March of 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Well, in the Petraeus case, there was virtually unquestionable evidence that he had the criminal intent to share classified materials with Broadwell.  For example, he was literally caught on tape telling her about the materials, "I mean, they are highly classified."   With Hillary, by contrast, the FBI did not find evidence that would reasonably show that Hillary had the intent to violate the laws concerning classified information.   They concluded that the evidence instead showed that she was a careless idiot.  If she were sending emails to reporters saying "here's some highly classified intel," she would be doing what Petraeus did and would have been charged. 

Now OJ, on the other hand, is an entirely different situation.  He was charged and brought to trial, so there is no question as to the sufficiency of evidence for prosecution.   And, although he was acquitted under the stringent reasonable doubt standard, he was found civilly liable for the murders under a preponderance of the evidence standard.   So there is a significantly stronger basis to think that OJ committed the murders compared to Hillary.  And that is confirmed by the fact that Hillary isn't even being prosecuted by the Trump DOJ.  They are effectively ratifying the Lynch/Comey decision, because the statute of limitations is not up, but they aren't going after her. 

Hope that clears things up for you. 

Aren't there roughly 33,000 possibilities of her doing something like this?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

This is the Obama economy. That's not even up for debate. All you have to do is look at the trendlines that started in March of 2009.

This is absolute baloney.  You had seven years of trendlines from March 2009 under Obama and not one of them produced three percent growth in any time period.  I would say Obama knew as much about economics as a pet rock but that would insult the intelligence of rocks. His energy policies alone are proof of this.  Trump doesn't understand how tariffs affect the economy.  Obama didn't understand how anything affected the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Aren't there roughly 33,000 possibilities of her doing something like this?

Perhaps, but zero possibility of Petraeus not doing it, because we have that evidence.   Hence the clear distinction you were asking about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3509

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Frankly with the way the MSM has treated DJT since he was elected POTUS I take ANYTHING they print with a "grain of salt" and need to really, really see what their angle is since it normally will be negative.  The main difference with the MSM and BHO/DJT is that with BHO they didn't question ANYTHING and with DJT they questioned EVERYTHING 1000x over and while DJT has has said some outrageous things (not defending everything he says) the MSM goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to trash DJT every chance they get.  DJT DS is real and makes BHO DS seem like a seasonal allergy.

I have never even partially agreed with Tennesseehorn on anything he has written here or at he old site wrt to politics, although I did not read everything he ever wrote.

But, during Obama's presidency I seem to recall MSM laying it on a little thick. I noticed the same thing while Clinton was president especially when it came to praising the quality of his speeches-the phrase "best presidential orator evar" was thrown about .  True, he was much better at that than Bush I and the contrast was there , but's its like they forgot all about Reagan or Kennedy or FDR.  I really can't stand the hero worship--both sides/ducks.

I have also noticed a tendency, CNN especially, to post a sensational negative headline wrt DJT, and upon reading the accompanying article find out that while   I may have disagreed with actions, they were no way deserving of the headline given.

Also DJT's spoken word read's much worse.

That being said, as harsh as the press seems with DJT, I don't think they go far enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19569

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

This is absolute baloney.  You had seven years of trendlines from March 2009 under Obama and not one of them produced three percent growth in any time period.  I would say Obama knew as much about economics as a pet rock but that would insult the intelligence of rocks. His energy policies alone are proof of this.  Trump doesn't understand how tariffs affect the economy.  Obama didn't understand how anything affected the economy.

In any time period? You sure about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3509

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

This is absolute baloney.  You had seven years of trendlines from March 2009 under Obama and not one of them produced three percent growth in any time period.  I would say Obama knew as much about economics as a pet rock but that would insult the intelligence of rocks. His energy policies alone are proof of this.  Trump doesn't understand how tariffs affect the economy.  Obama didn't understand how anything affected the economy.

Yeah a 40% reduction in the corporate tax rate will do wonders for stock price.

Your characterization of Obama administration economic policies is inflammatory, insulting, simply not true, and  not necessary.

"Pet rock" led the US out of the worst recession since GP. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26249

Posted
Posted
On 6/8/2018 at 7:43 AM, Tennesseehorn said:

Frankly with the way the MSM has treated DJT since he was elected POTUS I take ANYTHING they print with a "grain of salt" and need to really, really see what their angle is since it normally will be negative.  The main difference with the MSM and BHO/DJT is that with BHO they didn't question ANYTHING and with DJT they questioned EVERYTHING 1000x over and while DJT has has said some outrageous things (not defending everything he says) the MSM goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to trash DJT every chance they get.  DJT DS is real and makes BHO DS seem like a seasonal allergy.

another great take from TennesseeRocko!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7794

Posted
Posted
On 6/8/2018 at 9:43 AM, Tennesseehorn said:

Frankly with the way the MSM has treated DJT since he was elected POTUS I take ANYTHING they print with a "grain of salt" and need to really, really see what their angle is since it normally will be negative.  The main difference with the MSM and BHO/DJT is that with BHO they didn't question ANYTHING and with DJT they questioned EVERYTHING 1000x over and while DJT has has said some outrageous things (not defending everything he says) the MSM goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to trash DJT every chance they get.  DJT DS is real and makes BHO DS seem like a seasonal allergy.

In other words, he turns to Fox News to get the REAL story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29600

Posted
Posted
On 6/8/2018 at 12:40 PM, David Dennison said:

In any time period? You sure about that?

It’s so easily disproven that you’d think they’d stop parroting that bullshit, but then you remember that they’re Trump fans and instead you’re mildly impressed that they managed to type a few complete sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
On 6/8/2018 at 8:55 AM, Steamboat1874 said:

Yes and we are so much better off right?

 

Yes, we are.  For starters our military would be running around in Syria now if Hillary was in office.  No way would we have tax cuts with Hillary in office.  We would still be in the stupid Paris Accord and the Iran nuclear joke of an agreement and Un would still be testing rockets in North Korea.  Then there would be the cover ups we would never hear about because the media would be too busy licking her calves.

  • Like 4
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

Yes, we are.  For starters our military would be running around in Syria now if Hillary was in office.  No way would we have tax cuts with Hillary in office.  We would still be in the stupid Paris Accord and the Iran nuclear joke of an agreement and Un would still be testing rockets in North Korea.  Then there would be the cover ups we would never hear about because the media would be too busy licking her calves.

Worth repeating over and over and over and over again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ragnarok

Ragnarok 103

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Can't wait to watch Trumpkins claim that the IG report proves that the FBI acted improperly towards Hillary Clinton... which proves how biased they are against Trump.

That about sums it up.  Is lying to the FBI a crime or not?  It's apparently not if you are on Hillary's team. Cheryl Mills lied to the FBI about having no knowledge of Hillary's server. This goes to the heart of what the investigation was about. That statement was contradicted by her emails.  She should have been indicted.  Michael Flynn is indicted for much, much less.

Edited by Ragnarok
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47298

Posted
Posted
On 6/8/2018 at 12:33 PM, EMAWesome said:

This is absolute baloney.  You had seven years of trendlines from March 2009 under Obama and not one of them produced three percent growth in any time period.\

Damn the stupid burns.  If I prove otherwise will you start telling your moron friends that they're wrong, or will it all be "FAKE DATA"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...