LIVE: GOP Calling for Hillary Investigation...Wednesday, December 6, 2017

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Representatives Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and others hold a press conference "calling for investigation on the FBI's treatment of Hillary Clinton."

What agency will investigate the FBI....all 3 letters are in cahoots and protect their bros. The DOJ isn't interested in re investigating Hillary... they have bigger fish to fry...believe me!

It's just pandering by the representatives, they are giving their base just what they want to hear.

Hillary lost, Obamas gone...deal with it.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah I try and give the benefit of the doubt and argue points to.

And I am met with lies about previous conversations, claims that I am a drunk, and other nonsense.

I will discuss any points people want to make, but I am tired of trying to have a conversation with these particular tactics.

Glad I am not the only one who sees it.

You can't debate a brick.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Nothing more than sour grapes and bowing down to the conspiracy theorists, which has become SOP for the Right Wing/GOP.

Benghazi.
Emails.
Uranium 1.

All have been looked at and no wrongdoing found of Hillary and friends. In the case of U1, there was no reason to suggest there was wrongdoing by Hillary.

That being the case, now people are creating conspiracies about the FBI itself. They didn't find anything on the Right Wing political opponents, so they say they must be corrupt.

At least we can say the Right Wing is open and honest about their nutty conspiracies. There is no shame in their game.

Lol...of course no wrong doing was found, she has (had) the FBI in her pocket...you know the LE agency that would investigate those? Seems those days may be over....

a reply to: Grambler

You are lying again. Post what you are referncing or admit you are a liar.

Sure: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is the thread.

Specifically, you made an absurd claim regarding Hillary and her server, saying it was a new low for me, yet I never said anything close to or even hinting at what you had stated. I was talking about intent with classified information, and so were you (refer to the comment I responded to in that thread) and you tried to strawman me with a discussion about intent with her server's physical location.

Comedy in it's finest. It only took you one post to pull out a deflection to a point literally no one had made.

Here is the source on mills and huma lying.

Thanks. I am about to walk in to a shareholders meeting.

Will look after I get the time.

IMO, it boils down to this.

Hillary will be convicted only

#1 - if Mueller is not a political hack
#2 - if Mueller does not consider himself serving a cause he considers greater than Lady Justice (such as protecting the FBI or some office even higher)
#3 - if Mueller is not protecting a friend or some other influential person
#4 - if Mueller is not buying into Hillary's act that she doesn't know anything about tech and had "no intent" to do anything wrong.
#5 - if Mueller is not protecting his own misdeeds (U1 anyone??).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Mmmm...basil.

My bad. Fixed.

No, there is no logical fallacy associate with pointing out that there are more people who believe that Hillary needs investigated better or more thoroughly when you claim/strongly imply that it's just "the Right Wing."

Appeal to the majority. A fallacy.

No, if you're implying that the logical fallacy is "appeal to authority," you're wrong, as I'm not using that to try and persuade you, I'm just telling you that I work with professionals in the same field at the same level as those who have semi-investigated Clinton, and without fail, they recognize that the investigations have been half-assed or cut short. And with my legal background, I understand how to research laws, interpret their verbiage, and research precedent in the same manner as prosecutors, defenders, and judges.

You even knew the fallacy you were using. Congrats.

That's two so far.

That's not a logical fallacy, that's called consulting with experts and drawing on my own professional skills to come to a conclusion. If only other people would/could do the same...

There's three.

No, they need to further or re-investigate these topics because the original attempts fell far short of professional obligations, standards, and thoroughness. But, like I already noted, believe what you want to believe. Why I continue to try and approach any of your arguments with rational discussion is beyond me--thinking that you'll actually accept ANYTHING that anyone says in contradiction to your own opinion is the logical fallacy that I'm employing here.

I'll accept reasonable rebuttals. You are using obvious logical fallacies.

I'll definitely stop doing that one--I'll cite Einstein's definition of insanity as my motivator.

I don't think that is an Einstein quote.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

You are lying again. Post what you are referncing or admit you are a liar.

Sure: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is the thread.

Specifically, you made an absurd claim regarding Hillary and her server, saying it was a new low for me, yet I never said anything close to or even hinting at what you had stated. I was talking about intent with classified information, and so were you (refer to the comment I responded to in that thread) and you tried to strawman me with a discussion about intent with her server's physical location.

Comedy in it's finest. It only took you one post to pull out a deflection to a point literally no one had made.

Here is the source on mills and huma lying.

Thanks. I am about to walk in to a shareholders meeting.

Will look after I get the time.

We were talking about her intending to have the server at home.

I responded to the post you had when you asked could I prove she knowingly had stored classified info at her house.

I asked is this what you are asking. A question. Not saying this is what you are saying.



Look at the page befor etjat as you challenge my reading comprehension by not seeing the word intent on the statute.

Whoops, it's not there.

Look in that thread how you lie and say said I was drinking or drink.

But I am done with your insults and lies.

I will respond to relevant points you make, no more on the rest.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah I try and give the benefit of the doubt and argue points to.

And I am met with lies about previous conversations, claims that I am a drunk, and other nonsense.

I will discuss any points people want to make, but I am tired of trying to have a conversation with these particular tactics.

Glad I am not the only one who sees it.

Yeah, it's always the same with some people--why I never learn the lesson of futility is disappointing on a personal level. It's just hard for me to accept that some people cling to ideologically driven conclusions in the face of information or experience from others that, at the very least, should cause them to be at least slightly skeptical on some level concerning the "official story" surrounding things.

But, you know what they say about leading a horse to water...

I just hope to get better at ending the discussion sooner than later on my behalf, even if it causes someone to believe they "won."

a reply to: angeldoll

Nope, as far as I know I've been awake for the last five years watching Hillary escape "prosecution." I know, I know...maybe it is a little alarming for some people, that I recklessly announced the long awaited start of judicial precedings for her criminal acts.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: MOMof3
Maybe my English no so good.
I thought I heard them call for the investigation into the abuses of the FBI.

Lol. Godz Gunz Girlz Party.

Republicans have no stranglehold on the 'Girlz' as a party.

No, they're the fellas with the 'wide stance' if I recall correctly.

a reply to: Eshel

I understand your loyalty to Hillary, but the grave that "she must be hiding something underneath" has been dug by people that she has either paid off, or threatened. By the way, her "ghost" won't be the one that hopefully rots in prison.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

1: I don't remember saying I had a "loyalty to Hillary". But I appreciate you saying things I don't.
2: You understand that I wasn't being literal, right?

If you truly wrote that response in a serious manner, then I believe it's time to get your meds adjusted. It's people like you that make it so easy to laugh at anyone on the right. Good going guy!

ATTENTION!

The trend in this thread towards personal insults just stopped.

There will be no more personal attacks or snide insinuations.

Attempts to do so will result in penalties without additional warnings.

*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

Do not rely to this post.

TheRedneck
ATS Forum Moderator

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Nothing more than sour grapes and bowing down to the conspiracy theorists, which has become SOP for the Right Wing/GOP.

Benghazi.
Emails.
Uranium 1.

All have been looked at and no wrongdoing found of Hillary and friends. In the case of U1, there was no reason to suggest there was wrongdoing by Hillary.

That being the case, now people are creating conspiracies about the FBI itself. They didn't find anything on the Right Wing political opponents, so they say they must be corrupt.

At least we can say the Right Wing is open and honest about their nutty conspiracies. There is no shame in their game.

Just have to say 'Russia did it' in response to your post.
How can you blame the right wing for conspiracies with all that has happened and all that has been proven fake wrt to Russia?

The FBI already cost Clinton the presidency what more from them do you from them?

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Representatives Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and others hold a press conference "calling for investigation on the FBI's treatment of Hillary Clinton."

What agency will investigate the FBI....all 3 letters are in cahoots and protect their bros. The DOJ isn't interested in re investigating Hillary... they have bigger fish to fry...believe me!

It's just pandering by the representatives, they are giving their base just what they want to hear.

Hillary lost, Obamas gone...deal with it.

Correct. They have been individually and in small groups calling for attorney general Jeff sessions to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the FBI Hillary Lynch all of those potential lawbreakers. But those requests always fall on deaf ears.

So, who would we name to investigate the FBI? I'm thinking it needs to be someone with no connection to the agency. No former FBI chiefs or any of that bull#. Someone from the military? Perhaps the police chief from a major city?

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
So, who would we name to investigate the FBI? I'm thinking it needs to be someone with no connection to the agency. No former FBI chiefs or any of that bull#. Someone from the military? Perhaps the police chief from a major city?

Just the first name off the top of my head...

I prefer a dog to bite if I sick him on a sad sack of bones.

I mean my dog is gonna be mad without me doing the sicking.
Jim?

On April 20, 2017, one week after the Nangarhar airstrike, Mattis told reporters that the U.S. would not conduct a damage assessment "in terms of the number of people killed" in Afghanistan.[95] Mattis traveled to Afghanistan days later and met with government officials, Mattis explaining the purpose of the trip was allowing him to state his recommendations for the US's strategy in the country.[96] On June 13, Mattis said U.S. forces were "not winning" in Afghanistan and the administration would develop a new strategy by "mid-July" while speaking to the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services.[97] On June 27, Mattis told reporters that he was creating a conflict-ending strategy for Afghanistan that would also "remove the danger to the Afghan people and to us and to all the nations that have been attacked by terrorist groups out of that region".[98] On June 29, Mattis stated that the Obama administration "may have pulled our troops out too rapidly" and he intended to submit a new Afghanistan strategy to President Trump upon his return to Washington

I have inner-struggles, intuition says he's our guy.
Not knowing much about him on the other hand- he seems pretty hard-core-

Do we have a neutral party formed in our electoral college yet?
Yeah. Enter a new tie to the forum. Red and Blue are taken, I suggest green.
Remarks

Now I gotta do more reading for myself.


eta

Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.

would be nice