I'm liking this Guccifer guy...

CM189191

Stickman12 said:

She has lied to the American people and she has lied under oath. Same can be said for her husband. Yeah she is trustworthy.

Is this true?! Someone should look into this immediately! Perhaps Congress can order some sort of extensive investigation....

Free

Gern, this is ridiculous. Stop being a Hillary apologist and wake up. She is NOT on your side, no matter how much you think she is.

Stickman12

CM189191 said:

Stickman12 said:

She has lied to the American people and she has lied under oath. Same can be said for her husband. Yeah she is trustworthy.

Is this true?! Someone should look into this immediately! Perhaps Congress can order some sort of extensive investigation....

Is it true...yes. Looked into?....yes, but the requirements that need to be fulfilled to get a conviction for perjury is impossible no matter who it is, what they say, what they do, regaurdless of party affiliation.

Stickman12

Gern Blansten said:

Stickman12 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stickman12 said:

https://youtu.be/d8FtqzdiYFU


Watch this and tell me that she did not lie to congress under oath.

"Marked" classified....she was referring to the classified emails coming through the secure system. None of those emails were on her server....NONE

listen at 2:00

I can't say that she lied under oath. The FBI did not say that she lied under oath....why should I listen to you and believe that she lied under oath?

Lying under oath and making statements that could be considered inaccurate is not considered perjury.

You are definitely out there brother. Catch you on the flipside

I have the FBI and justice Dept on my side....you've got Sean Hannity and Godfather

Never mentioned Hannity or The Godfather. The department of justice (Lynch) said she was accepting the FBI teams decision before they even made a decision. Never been done before but hey why not. The FBI director clearly stated that emails were sent or received did in fact contain classified material at the time they were sent or received on her private server. The facts are not influenced by politics. The results are.

CM189191

Stickman12 said:

CM189191 said:

Stickman12 said:

She has lied to the American people and she has lied under oath. Same can be said for her husband. Yeah she is trustworthy.

Is this true?! Someone should look into this immediately! Perhaps Congress can order some sort of extensive investigation....

Is it true...yes. Looked into?....yes, but the requirements that need to be fulfilled to get a conviction for perjury is impossible no matter who it is, what they say, what they do, regaurdless of party affiliation.

hmmm....makes you wonder why so much time, energy and money was wasted. It's almost like some sort of political theater was going on....I hope the people aren't so easily misled

Gern Blansten

Stickman12 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stickman12 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stickman12 said:

https://youtu.be/d8FtqzdiYFU


Watch this and tell me that she did not lie to congress under oath.

"Marked" classified....she was referring to the classified emails coming through the secure system. None of those emails were on her server....NONE

listen at 2:00

I can't say that she lied under oath. The FBI did not say that she lied under oath....why should I listen to you and believe that she lied under oath?

Lying under oath and making statements that could be considered inaccurate is not considered perjury.

You are definitely out there brother. Catch you on the flipside

I have the FBI and justice Dept on my side....you've got Sean Hannity and Godfather

Never mentioned Hannity or The Godfather. The department of justice (Lynch) said she was accepting the FBI teams decision before they even made a decision. Never been done before but hey why not. The FBI director clearly stated that emails were sent or received did in fact contain classified material at the time they were sent or received on her private server. The facts are not influenced by politics. The results are.

She said she would accept it regardless of what it was. Quit spinning Hannity. Change your username to Hannity right now.

Gern Blansten

Free said:

Gern, this is ridiculous. Stop being a Hillary apologist and wake up. She is NOT on your side, no matter how much you think she is.

You lost all credibility a long time ago. Go back to bed.

PJ_Soul

Stickman12 said:

I know you guys are intelligent. Look it up. It's not hard to find. One of the "dorky" things i do is watch congress oversight committee hearings.

Interesting tactic. Make something up or repeat misinformation, and the place the onus on others to prove that you're wrong.

Free

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Gern, this is ridiculous. Stop being a Hillary apologist and wake up. She is NOT on your side, no matter how much you think she is.

You lost all credibility a long time ago. Go back to bed.

Take a look at yourself, man.

JimmyV

If you want to be suspicious of the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, I'm not going to argue that it didn't/doesn't smell a little funny. But the Attorney General announcing she will abide by an FBI recommendation is not suspicious at all. I would be more concerned if it went the other way with an AG expressing doubts about an FBI investigation of a political ally. Seems like Lynch headed that off by saying she would abide either way.

Stickman12

PJ_Soul said:

Stickman12 said:

I know you guys are intelligent. Look it up. It's not hard to find. One of the "dorky" things i do is watch congress oversight committee hearings.

Interesting tactic. Make something up or repeat misinformation, and the place the onus on others to prove that you're wrong.

Ok prove I'm wrong. If I say the sun is hot do I have to prove that to you.

Stickman12

JimmyV said:

If you want to be suspicious of the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, I'm not going to argue that it didn't/doesn't smell a little funny. But the Attorney General announcing she will abide by an FBI recommendation is not suspicious at all. I would be more concerned if it went the other way with an AG expressing doubts about an FBI investigation of a political ally. Seems like Lynch headed that off by saying she would abide either way.

Accepting the recommendations before it was even proposed when that has never been done before is what is suspicious when that statement has not been made before

Stickman12

Gern Blansten said:

Stickman12 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stickman12 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Stickman12 said:

https://youtu.be/d8FtqzdiYFU


Watch this and tell me that she did not lie to congress under oath.

"Marked" classified....she was referring to the classified emails coming through the secure system. None of those emails were on her server....NONE

listen at 2:00

I can't say that she lied under oath. The FBI did not say that she lied under oath....why should I listen to you and believe that she lied under oath?

Lying under oath and making statements that could be considered inaccurate is not considered perjury.

You are definitely out there brother. Catch you on the flipside

I have the FBI and justice Dept on my side....you've got Sean Hannity and Godfather

Never mentioned Hannity or The Godfather. The department of justice (Lynch) said she was accepting the FBI teams decision before they even made a decision. Never been done before but hey why not. The FBI director clearly stated that emails were sent or received did in fact contain classified material at the time they were sent or received on her private server. The facts are not influenced by politics. The results are.

She said she would accept it regardless of what it was. Quit spinning Hannity. Change your username to Hannity right now.

Didn't spin anything. Your the one on the merry go round

JimmyV

Stickman12 said:

JimmyV said:

If you want to be suspicious of the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, I'm not going to argue that it didn't/doesn't smell a little funny. But the Attorney General announcing she will abide by an FBI recommendation is not suspicious at all. I would be more concerned if it went the other way with an AG expressing doubts about an FBI investigation of a political ally. Seems like Lynch headed that off by saying she would abide either way.

Accepting the recommendations before it was even proposed when that has never been done before is what is suspicious when that statement has not been made before

So the AG should have brought charges even though the FBI did not recommend them? I don't think the statement matters so much as the action in this case.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

If you want to be suspicious of the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, I'm not going to argue that it didn't/doesn't smell a little funny. But the Attorney General announcing she will abide by an FBI recommendation is not suspicious at all. I would be more concerned if it went the other way with an AG expressing doubts about an FBI investigation of a political ally. Seems like Lynch headed that off by saying she would abide either way.

Exactly....if the FBI said they had something to prosecute and she declined there would be something to consider.

Tin foil hat bullshit

Stickman12

JimmyV said:

Stickman12 said:

JimmyV said:

If you want to be suspicious of the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, I'm not going to argue that it didn't/doesn't smell a little funny. But the Attorney General announcing she will abide by an FBI recommendation is not suspicious at all. I would be more concerned if it went the other way with an AG expressing doubts about an FBI investigation of a political ally. Seems like Lynch headed that off by saying she would abide either way.

Accepting the recommendations before it was even proposed when that has never been done before is what is suspicious when that statement has not been made before

So the AG should have brought charges even though the FBI did not recommend them? I don't think the statement matters so much as the action in this case.

Not at all but at least review them and make a decision. Don't blindly say that the recommendations will be accepted when the investigation is not completed. People have been prosecuted and convicted for less serious offensives concerning classified information.

Stickman12

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

If you want to be suspicious of the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, I'm not going to argue that it didn't/doesn't smell a little funny. But the Attorney General announcing she will abide by an FBI recommendation is not suspicious at all. I would be more concerned if it went the other way with an AG expressing doubts about an FBI investigation of a political ally. Seems like Lynch headed that off by saying she would abide either way.

Exactly....if the FBI said they had something to prosecute and she declined there would be something to consider.

Tin foil hat bullshit

Attorney general, FBI director, head of the state dept, all appointed by Obama. All in the same bed. Truth hurts. But your right, I'll take my tin foil hat off and join your flock that is being directed by shepherd Clinton.

CM189191

Stickman12 said:

CM189191 said:

Stickman12 said:

She has lied to the American people and she has lied under oath. Same can be said for her husband. Yeah she is trustworthy.

Is this true?! Someone should look into this immediately! Perhaps Congress can order some sort of extensive investigation....

Is it true...yes. Looked into?....yes, but the requirements that need to be fulfilled to get a conviction for perjury is impossible no matter who it is, what they say, what they do, regaurdless of party affiliation.

You know what should be looked into? Trump being accused of raping a 13 year old.

Two witnesses are now joined by a third, “Joan Doe,” who said in court documents that:
“In the 1994-95 school year, I was told by the plaintiff in Jane Doe v. Trump and Epstein (1:16-cv-04642, SDNY) that the plaintiff was subject to sexual contact by the Defendants at parties in New York City during the summer of 1994.

When Epstein was asked if he had ever “socialized” with Donald Trump with underage girls, Epstein plead the Fifth.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I’d like to answer that question, at least today I’m going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.

Sounds pretty damning to me....

PJ_Soul

Stickman12 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Stickman12 said:

I know you guys are intelligent. Look it up. It's not hard to find. One of the "dorky" things i do is watch congress oversight committee hearings.

Interesting tactic. Make something up or repeat misinformation, and the place the onus on others to prove that you're wrong.

Ok prove I'm wrong. If I say the sun is hot do I have to prove that to you.

No, because everyone already knows the sun is hot.... Are you saying that Hillary lying to Congress is common knowledge?

Stickman12

CM189191 said:

Stickman12 said:

CM189191 said:

Stickman12 said:

She has lied to the American people and she has lied under oath. Same can be said for her husband. Yeah she is trustworthy.

Is this true?! Someone should look into this immediately! Perhaps Congress can order some sort of extensive investigation....

Is it true...yes. Looked into?....yes, but the requirements that need to be fulfilled to get a conviction for perjury is impossible no matter who it is, what they say, what they do, regaurdless of party affiliation.

You know what should be looked into? Trump being accused of raping a 13 year old.

Two witnesses are now joined by a third, “Joan Doe,” who said in court documents that:
“In the 1994-95 school year, I was told by the plaintiff in Jane Doe v. Trump and Epstein (1:16-cv-04642, SDNY) that the plaintiff was subject to sexual contact by the Defendants at parties in New York City during the summer of 1994.

When Epstein was asked if he had ever “socialized” with Donald Trump with underage girls, Epstein plead the Fifth.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I’d like to answer that question, at least today I’m going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.

Sounds pretty damning to me....

Agreed.