Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
209
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

209 Views
Message 151 of 161

The usual - "Look over there", the current favorite "denial" (used to be "cats" - it's good that the left is creative) and "crime, what crime". But let's look carefully at the wording of the post article, "A federal judge on Friday ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written testimony under oath about why she set up a private computer server to send and receive emails while secretary of state....".

 

"Why" she did it - that can be answered with any story that is meaningless and unprovable. Notice that what she did with it is avoided. 

 

And then there was, "Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime." - and now we know that the report was reworded by Strzok and Comey was pressured by AG Lynch.

 

So - no "POOF".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
209
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
220
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

220 Views
Message 152 of 161

@fangoh45 wrote:

 


Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.


What crimes? Can you list "crimes" committed?  Denialism is another topic in this forum and I think  you are displaying it.

 

In the meantime the surveillance and investigations rightfully continue. Tic toc closer to trump, tic toc closer to trump, tic toc closer to trump ...............


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
220
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
221
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

221 Views
Message 153 of 161

Richva: 

With all the "crimes" you think they committed and all the time and resources the Republicans threw at finding ANYTHING they could call a crime, which of the following do you think is the case:

  • The Republicans were so stupid they could not find their behinds with both hands. 
  • The Clintons were so brilliant that not even Sherlock Holmes could have found any evidence of a crime committed.
  • This is yet another in the long line of phony conspiracy theories Republicans use to explain their incompetence. 

 

Why does all this slip their minds? They were all over these investigations while they were happening and now they pretend she's guilty of multiple crimes? They ought to asking why nothing was ever found.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
221
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
227
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

227 Views
Message 154 of 161

@MIseker wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html

 

 


Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.

 

In otherwords, MIseker....

 

 


 


That one is a hit and runner. Cant expect documentation there either lol.


You're being very generous calling it a "fallacy".  It's a flat out lie!


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
227
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
236
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

236 Views
Message 155 of 161

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html

 

 


Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.

 

In otherwords, MIseker....

 

 


 


That one is a hit and runner. Cant expect documentation there either lol.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
236
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
244
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

244 Views
Message 156 of 161

@fangoh45 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html

 

 


Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.

 

In otherwords, MIseker....

 

 


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
244
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
246
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

246 Views
Message 157 of 161

@MIseker wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html

 

One of or fellows here is under the impression Hillary never testified under oath...and is using that belief continually to cover up their DENIAL. a quick search...

 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written testimony under oath about why she set up a private computer server to send and receive emails while secretary of state, ensuring that the issue will continue to dog her presidential campaign until the eve of the election.

In a brief ruling issued on Friday afternoon, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington, approved a motion by the conservative advocacy organization Judicial Watch to pursue its vigorous campaign to expose Mrs. Clinton’s use of the private server. In addition to requiring her testimony in writing, the judge allowed the group to depose a senior State Department aide who had warned two subordinates not to question her email practices.

Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime. Yet the controversy refuses to dissipate. This week, the bureau turned over to Congress the documents it compiled in the case, including a three-and-a-half hour interview with Mrs. Clinton, even as Republicans in Congress pressed their public case for her to be charged with perjury.

Judge Sullivan’s ruling opened another front in a fight Mrs. Clinton’s campaign certainly hoped to put behind her. Although he declined to order her to answer questions in person, his ruling underscored the legal complications that Mrs. Clinton faces even as she enters the homestretch of her campaign.


Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.


If you assume its not true, it should be easily proveable. Or, you are wrong, or, just in denial.

All you have to do is list the times she has been found guilty.

 


@fangoh45- Where's the list of prosecutable crimes a court - with and/or without a jury - has found Hillary guilty of and imposed punishment?

 

What's that?

 

You got nothing?

 

We know...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
246
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
253
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

253 Views
Message 158 of 161

@fangoh45 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html

 

One of or fellows here is under the impression Hillary never testified under oath...and is using that belief continually to cover up their DENIAL. a quick search...

 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written testimony under oath about why she set up a private computer server to send and receive emails while secretary of state, ensuring that the issue will continue to dog her presidential campaign until the eve of the election.

In a brief ruling issued on Friday afternoon, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington, approved a motion by the conservative advocacy organization Judicial Watch to pursue its vigorous campaign to expose Mrs. Clinton’s use of the private server. In addition to requiring her testimony in writing, the judge allowed the group to depose a senior State Department aide who had warned two subordinates not to question her email practices.

Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime. Yet the controversy refuses to dissipate. This week, the bureau turned over to Congress the documents it compiled in the case, including a three-and-a-half hour interview with Mrs. Clinton, even as Republicans in Congress pressed their public case for her to be charged with perjury.

Judge Sullivan’s ruling opened another front in a fight Mrs. Clinton’s campaign certainly hoped to put behind her. Although he declined to order her to answer questions in person, his ruling underscored the legal complications that Mrs. Clinton faces even as she enters the homestretch of her campaign.


Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.


If you assume its not true, it should be easily proveable. Or, you are wrong, or, just in denial.

All you have to do is list the times she has been found guilty.

 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
253
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
243
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

243 Views
Message 159 of 161

@fangoh45 wrote:

Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.


With all the "crimes" you think they committed and all the time and resources the Republicans threw at finding ANYTHING they could call a crime, which of the following do you think is the case:

  • The Republicans were so stupid they could not find their behinds with both hands. 
  • The Clintons were so brilliant that not even Sherlock Holmes could have found any evidence of a crime committed.
  • This is yet another in the long line of phony conspiracy theories Republicans use to explain their incompetence. 
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
243
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
255
Views

Re: POOF!!! another fallacy exposed. CLinton testified under oath.

255 Views
Message 160 of 161

@MIseker wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html

 

One of or fellows here is under the impression Hillary never testified under oath...and is using that belief continually to cover up their DENIAL. a quick search...

 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written testimony under oath about why she set up a private computer server to send and receive emails while secretary of state, ensuring that the issue will continue to dog her presidential campaign until the eve of the election.

In a brief ruling issued on Friday afternoon, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington, approved a motion by the conservative advocacy organization Judicial Watch to pursue its vigorous campaign to expose Mrs. Clinton’s use of the private server. In addition to requiring her testimony in writing, the judge allowed the group to depose a senior State Department aide who had warned two subordinates not to question her email practices.

Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime. Yet the controversy refuses to dissipate. This week, the bureau turned over to Congress the documents it compiled in the case, including a three-and-a-half hour interview with Mrs. Clinton, even as Republicans in Congress pressed their public case for her to be charged with perjury.

Judge Sullivan’s ruling opened another front in a fight Mrs. Clinton’s campaign certainly hoped to put behind her. Although he declined to order her to answer questions in person, his ruling underscored the legal complications that Mrs. Clinton faces even as she enters the homestretch of her campaign.


Assuming this is true, you only need to find her and/or her husband without guilt on scores of other crimes of commision or omission.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
255
Views