Under fire after secret meeting, Lynch to step back from Clinton probe

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

Because one of these is not like the other.
AKA known as blind loyalty. Or a paycheck.

Are you calling me a paid shill?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: introvert

Ordinarily I would agree with your statement in a general sense. However, in this case there is a GIGANTIC difference between simple difference of opinion and pathological DENIAL!!

What denial is that?

Myself and others have asked for proof of the claims people have made and we are met with snarky resentment and attitude.

Okay...I'll try this ONE more time....

1. Do you deny that it was categorically inappropriate for the AG to have a 'friendly' meeting with the husband (Bill Clinton) of a presidential candidate (Hillary Clinton) who is under investigation for possible national security violations, oath violations, protocol violations, misrepresentation, campaign donation violations and improprieties related to the same?

2. Do you deny that there is no logical explanation for why two accomplished attorneys, one Harvard educated and the other Yale educated, one who served as a Federal Prosecutor and the other who served as President of the United States of America, didn't know better than to conduct such a meeting?

3. Do you deny that there is the strong appearance of impropriety and undue influence by a former president when, just days later after said meeting, this same AG appeals to the courts for a 27 MONTH extension to turn over records related to an investigation over campaign finances of the wife and presidential candidate of this same former president...who just happens to be the chairman of one of the very same charities being investigated????? (GAWD, I just can't believe I'm even having to type this!!)

4. Do you deny that no matter what way you slice this, the whole matter just stinks to high heaven, and smacks of political maneuvering?

Do you?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

I am aware of the difference.
I made no statement that wasn't true.
But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What did I make up?

I didn't say that you made anything up.

Yes you did. Here is the quote:

But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What "schtuff" did I make up?

You must have had a problem with reading my quote.
I did not say that you made anything up.
Read it a couple more times.

But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

Ok. Enlighten me. What does that actually mean?

I blamed you for feeling compelled to do something.
I didn't blame you for actually doing the thing.
It was all spelled out there.

Now, if you were to ask me to provide proof that you 'feel' a certain thing.... that would be different.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I do not deny any of those things.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

What does Bush have to do with this? I haven't complained about Bush.

Go talk to someone that does.

ALOT.

Clinton defends her Iraq War vote

a reply to: introvert

Yet you are willing to tirelessly defend their actions and redirect all discussions to some nebulous debate, why?

a reply to: butcherguy

Well, that's a huge load of nonsense.

What you just said is that you cannot prove I feel compelled to make stuff up, but you will "blame" me of feeling that way, even though I have not actually done such a thing.

a reply to: introvert

Of course not!

Blind loyalty involves no monetary transaction. One is loyal
to a famous person despite her lacking real qualifications,
her devastating track record on national security, despite the long
list of scandals and now under criminal investigation, one looks
at the political whore and sees a virtuous person instead.

The options for confidence in this creature are very limited.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: introvert

Yet you are willing to tirelessly defend their actions and redirect all discussions to some nebulous debate, why?

I just want people to be able to prove what they assert.

For some reason, that is a distraction.

Can't let facts or truth ruin a good lynching, huh?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

Because one of these is not like the other.
AKA known as blind loyalty. Or a paycheck.

Are you calling me a paid shill?

Hilary Clinton sure is.

www.opensecrets.org...

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

Of course not!

Blind loyalty involves no monetary transaction. One is loyal
to a famous person despite her lacking real qualifications,
her devastating track record on national security, despite the long
list of scandals and now under criminal investigation, one looks
at the political whore and sees a virtuous person instead.

The options for confidence in this creature are very limited.

I'm not loyal to any one person. I've stated many times that I will not vote for Hillary.

I like to debate issues and this issue is a good one to debate because it's rather easy.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

Of course not!

Blind loyalty involves no monetary transaction. One is loyal
to a famous person despite her lacking real qualifications,
her devastating track record on national security, despite the long
list of scandals and now under criminal investigation, one looks
at the political whore and sees a virtuous person instead.

The options for confidence in this creature are very limited.

I'm not loyal to any one person. I've stated many times that I will not vote for Hillary.

I like to debate issues and this issue is a good one to debate because it's rather easy.

Yes, it's so easy, right? Tell that to the hundred or more people working this case. You think they're twiddling their thumbs?

Oh, and have you SEEN Drudge's picture of Lynch on front page? Talk about cankles!

Only in America are SNIPPERS more important than private email servers with classified materials on them



Social Justice Keyboard Commandos are hiring.

originally posted by: introvert

I like to debate issues

Then why don't you?

There are a good many questions posed as to the facts,
yet your standard answer is "there is nothing wrong".

I'm not sure how so many of you avoid the T&C requirements that restrict us from calling each other paid shills.

Or how so many of you get away with what are pretty clearly "forum gang" techniques.

Or how so many get away with the rankest political baiting I've ever seen on any website.

And, I don't care anymore. Honestly. I'm done.

There's no reason we cannot present the sides of our 'case' and let them stand on their own merits. I'm not talking about "the internet" I'm talking about ATS.

We were supposed to be better than this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Was it appropriate for Loretta Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton,
if it was just about grand kids and golf?

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Was it appropriate for Loretta Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton,
if it was just about grand kids and golf?

Was it appropriate for Hillary to delete about 50% of her e-mails if they were just personal?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm not sure how so many of you avoid the T&C requirements that restrict us from calling each other paid shills.

Or how so many of you get away with what are pretty clearly "forum gang" techniques.

Or how so many get away with the rankest political baiting I've ever seen on any website.

And, I don't care anymore. Honestly. I'm done.

There's no reason we cannot present the sides of our 'case' and let them stand on their own merits. I'm not talking about "the internet" I'm talking about ATS.

We were supposed to be better than this.

It's against TC to troll threads.

Why bring up the 'rules' now?

originally posted by: RedDragon

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Was it appropriate for Loretta Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton,
if it was just about grand kids and golf?

Was it appropriate for Hillary to delete about 50% of her e-mails if they were just personal?

Surprise.

The FBI has all the deleted emails.

They were on a backup from a contractor.