Reactions to Mueller prove the media and Dems know the investigation of Hillary was corrupt

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Extorris

They couldn't prove that Huma had thousands of gov't classified and non classified emails stashed on hubby Weiner's laptop? Really? That's just one.

They interviewed Huma under an immunity agreement on April 5th, 2016.

September 26, 2016 is when they discovered that Huma's Husband had emails on his laptop.

So, no. Absent time travel, they could not prove that Huma had emails on her husbands computer when they offered her immunity to be interviewed.

Time is real and non-partisan.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Extorris

They couldn't prove that Huma had thousands of gov't classified and non classified emails stashed on hubby Weiner's laptop? Really? That's just one.

They interviewed Huma under an immunity agreement on April 5th, 2016.

September 26, 2016 is when they discovered that Huma's Husband had emails on his laptop.

So, no. Absent time travel, they could not prove that Huma had emails on her husbands computer when they offered her immunity to be interviewed.

Time is real and non-partisan.

Ignores all of the other crimes that have been proven to have been committed

And immunity is contingent on telling the truth

Not disclosing crimes that you committed that are later found out is not covered all under immunity

Or is Huma now absolved of any crime she may ever committ ?

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Extorris

They couldn't prove that Huma had thousands of gov't classified and non classified emails stashed on hubby Weiner's laptop? Really? That's just one.

They interviewed Huma under an immunity agreement on April 5th, 2016.

September 26, 2016 is when they discovered that Huma's Husband had emails on his laptop.

So, no. Absent time travel, they could not prove that Huma had emails on her husbands computer when they offered her immunity to be interviewed.

Time is real and non-partisan.

Time may be real, but that doesn't negate the FACT that the findings on Weiner's laptop would have been more than enough to rescind her immunity deal.

She could have easily been charged...but she wasn't.

a reply to: RickinVa

I assume your KFS avatar is in jest? Or were you a peer of Snowden's?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Extorris

They couldn't prove that Huma had thousands of gov't classified and non classified emails stashed on hubby Weiner's laptop? Really? That's just one.

They interviewed Huma under an immunity agreement on April 5th, 2016.

September 26, 2016 is when they discovered that Huma's Husband had emails on his laptop.

So, no. Absent time travel, they could not prove that Huma had emails on her husbands computer when they offered her immunity to be interviewed.

Time is real and non-partisan.

Ignores all of the other crimes that have been proven to have been committed

What crimes did Huma Abedin commit?

“Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.”

And immunity is contingent on telling the truth

Was she asked if her husband's computer had a mirror of her email communications?
I don't believe so

Not disclosing crimes that you committed that are later found out is not covered all under immunity

That assumes she was aware of a crime she committed. But even so, you are wrong. Immunity does not require admitting all past crimes, only that you provide answers to questions truthfully.

That is not partisan rhetoric, but truth.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Extorris

They couldn't prove that Huma had thousands of gov't classified and non classified emails stashed on hubby Weiner's laptop? Really? That's just one.

They interviewed Huma under an immunity agreement on April 5th, 2016.

September 26, 2016 is when they discovered that Huma's Husband had emails on his laptop.

So, no. Absent time travel, they could not prove that Huma had emails on her husbands computer when they offered her immunity to be interviewed.

Time is real and non-partisan.

Time may be real, but that doesn't negate the FACT that the findings on Weiner's laptop would have been more than enough to rescind her immunity deal.

Not at all.

First prove that she was aware her husbands laptop had copies of her email correspondence.
Second show where she was asked if it did (months prior to the discovery) and lied about it.

This is odd. It is not me taking a political position, but rather a logical and legal position. It appears obvious to those not politically invested.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: whargoul

It’s not about crimes Hillary committed

It’s about the double standard of the investigations

Why didn’t the investigation into trumlbstart our with immunities to everyone?

Again, the fact you seek to ignore corruption by the agencies because Hillary is old news is disturbing

For about the millionth time

I am not very concerned at all about crimes Hillary May or may not have committed

I am concerned about the obvious double standard of the way the investigations took place

Such as the fact we know people connected to Hillary lies to the fbi

But they were given immunity instead of charged

Ok that’s fine, but that should be the standard applied to everyone

Instead the exact opposite tactic is employed against trump

And we are to believe that is just a coincidence that the fbi leadership likes Hillary and hated trump

It’s not about Hillary or trump; it’s about bias and corruption by agencies like the fbi

No wonder they can get away with it when so many people like you excuse the double standards and corruption as just going after hillary

I get where you're coming from on this. I just think people let it slide, because they see it as a real world reality that political allies are going to botch investigations for their friends.

You can't prove they did it on purpose. You might know they did it on purpose. It might even be blatantly obvious they did it on purpose. But if you can't prove they did it on purpose you're better off just keeping your mouth shut and ignoring it. Don't take a shot at the devil unless you're sure you won't miss.

But Trump doesn't leave as many corpses as Hillary does. And his crimes (if any) are not the kind of crimes you kill to cover up anyway.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bluesilver

What points something about me singing land of the free?

Can you post me doing that?

If not it is irrelevant

What happens when it gets to court? Well hopefully people are charged and these agencies are reigned in

You continue to erroneously imply I am saying "but Hillary"

I am not

I have said the whole time I am more concerned about these corrupt agencies than Hillary or trumps crimes

However you are trying your damnedest to label criticism of corrupt intel agencies as merely “but Hillary”

I wonder why you would do that?

You wonder why I would do that? Maybe I'm part of the Illuminati or some global cabal I guess. Or maybe I'm part of the secret service and I'm trying to confuse the entire populace by talking to you on some fairly obscure website. Or maybe I'm just fed up of hearing comparisons about two situations which are in fact different. You started this entire thread talking about Hilary and Trump and how different they have been treated. If that's isn't a "But Hilary.." then I don't know what is. If your investigations into Hilary (and investigative journalists) haven't dug up a smoking gun by now, maybe there isn't one. Maybe what she did was wrong, we can only guess, ultimately she is pretty much defunct as a politician and if there were serious wrong doings then at some point she will be found out. People generally are. However, what I am more interested in at this point is the fact the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, may well have acted not only improperly, but illegally. At this point, based on what has been released, there is a fair chance he colluded with Russia with the aim of become President and possibly, to increase his financial wealth through his business dealings there. It is also possible that Russia has power over him. THAT is the most important situation we are dealing with right now.

a reply to: Grambler

I think this thread may be some of your best work.

I find it fascinating to see the extent that some posters will go in order to keep from admitting to themselves that any kind of double standard exists here.

Perhaps if it were only SLIGHTLY obvious, it could be dismissed as a simple oversight by those here who lean to the left, yes?

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that they are ignoring a HUGE, MASSIVE, BLATANT, INCREDIBLE, PHENOMENAL, UNPRECEDENTED, BELL-RINGING double standard.

Actually, this completely REDEFINES the term "Double standard". It's your thread, so later, you may just want to go ahead and open the floor for suggestions for a more accurate terminology.

Great thread. S+F.

originally posted by: bluesilver

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bluesilver

What points something about me singing land of the free?

Can you post me doing that?

If not it is irrelevant

What happens when it gets to court? Well hopefully people are charged and these agencies are reigned in

You continue to erroneously imply I am saying "but Hillary"

I am not

I have said the whole time I am more concerned about these corrupt agencies than Hillary or trumps crimes

However you are trying your damnedest to label criticism of corrupt intel agencies as merely “but Hillary”

I wonder why you would do that?

You wonder why I would do that? Maybe I'm part of the Illuminati or some global cabal I guess. Or maybe I'm part of the secret service and I'm trying to confuse the entire populace by talking to you on some fairly obscure website. Or maybe I'm just fed up of hearing comparisons about two situations which are in fact different. You started this entire thread talking about Hilary and Trump and how different they have been treated. If that's isn't a "But Hilary.." then I don't know what is. If your investigations into Hilary (and investigative journalists) haven't dug up a smoking gun by now, maybe there isn't one. Maybe what she did was wrong, we can only guess, ultimately she is pretty much defunct as a politician and if there were serious wrong doings then at some point she will be found out. People generally are. However, what I am more interested in at this point is the fact the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, may well have acted not only improperly, but illegally. At this point, based on what has been released, there is a fair chance he colluded with Russia with the aim of become President and possibly, to increase his financial wealth through his business dealings there. It is also possible that Russia has power over him. THAT is the most important situation we are dealing with right now.

You see Grambler?

Once again it seems that the entire communication process has broken down.

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: RickinVa

I assume your KFS avatar is in jest? Or were you a peer of Snowden's?

I was at the old Field Station in Kunia.....Snowden was at the new one at Kaneohe.

FSK was closed years ago....it was a very toxic place, unfit for people to be in.


Said it before...Snowden deserves nothing less than the death penalty.

a reply to: bluesilver

In other words o discuss corruption in the fbi

You use the whataboutism oof

“But trump!”

Great job!

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: bluesilver

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bluesilver

What points something about me singing land of the free?

Can you post me doing that?

If not it is irrelevant

What happens when it gets to court? Well hopefully people are charged and these agencies are reigned in

You continue to erroneously imply I am saying "but Hillary"

I am not

I have said the whole time I am more concerned about these corrupt agencies than Hillary or trumps crimes

However you are trying your damnedest to label criticism of corrupt intel agencies as merely “but Hillary”

I wonder why you would do that?

You wonder why I would do that? Maybe I'm part of the Illuminati or some global cabal I guess. Or maybe I'm part of the secret service and I'm trying to confuse the entire populace by talking to you on some fairly obscure website. Or maybe I'm just fed up of hearing comparisons about two situations which are in fact different. You started this entire thread talking about Hilary and Trump and how different they have been treated. If that's isn't a "But Hilary.." then I don't know what is. If your investigations into Hilary (and investigative journalists) haven't dug up a smoking gun by now, maybe there isn't one. Maybe what she did was wrong, we can only guess, ultimately she is pretty much defunct as a politician and if there were serious wrong doings then at some point she will be found out. People generally are. However, what I am more interested in at this point is the fact the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, may well have acted not only improperly, but illegally. At this point, based on what has been released, there is a fair chance he colluded with Russia with the aim of become President and possibly, to increase his financial wealth through his business dealings there. It is also possible that Russia has power over him. THAT is the most important situation we are dealing with right now.

You see Grambler?

Once again it seems that the entire communication process has broken down.

Thanks for the kind words above

Yeah I know o am snarky replying to some users and I shouldn’t be

But I just find the excuse making for the double standard to be incredible

a reply to: Extorris

First you conveniently ignore the entire list of crimes I posted from members of Hillary’s campaign, such as lying to the fbi by mills and Abedin

Your own claim is that immunity means she had to tell the truth

She didn’t, yet still got immunity

You also ignore that immunity is almost never given out iness investigators know it will help them get info on another crime

In this case, everyone got immunity for easily proven crimes like destroying evidence or lying to the fbi, and none of that immunity resulted in a bigger crime getting charged

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bluesilver

In other words o discuss corruption in the fbi

You use the whataboutism oof

“But trump!”

Great job!

No. Sigh. I'm saying that if there is corruption in the FBI then prove it based on the case with Hillary. You don't need to use Trump as a comparison. What you did with talking about Clinton and Trump was compare two distinctly different cases but try to say that the FBI treated one differently, so that makes them corrupt. This is failing to address the fundamentals of the situation. You cannot compare two different 'crimes' and say that they should have been investigated in the same way. You are not a trained investigator. You have no experience in high profile investigations and you certainly were not included in any memos by the teams investigation what happened with Clinton. You are assuming you know best. You are assuming that all investigations are carried out in the same way and clearly, that won't be the case. For a multitude of reasons. That is very different to me saying she shouldn't be investigated or cases not looked at again. BUT, you cannot compare two different investigations and their methodology and say 'corruption' without any hard, informed and full facts. You are using what you've read to decide and you do not know all the facts and you were not privy to indepth questions, answers and decisions that the FBI etc were. Investigate, find out truths, just don't claim conspiracy when you simply don't know enough.

a reply to: bluesilver

I am not comparing two different crimes.

Lying to the FBI.

Flynn, papadolous charged. Mills abedin and others the FBI said knew were lying, not charged.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bluesilver

I am not comparing two different crimes.

Lying to the FBI.

Flynn, papadolous charged. Mills abedin and others the FBI said knew were lying, not charged.

I think what you're expressing here is frustration over the fact that the same crime can have entirely different outcomes via the legal system in the US. This is how it has always been. Sometimes prosecutors choose to pursue a case that in the exact same circumstance previously they did not, and for myriad reasons that you and I are usually unaware of.

That being said, I do think its egregious that a crime merits different punishment based on which judge oversee's it or which lawyers are working the case, but the sum total of disparity in your argument above is part and parcel of how the legal system works and is extremely unlikely to just be a partisan conspiracy.

It’s great that you provided such sound evidence to back up your claim. And you linking your YouTube video to it...amazing stuff. Seriously, we need to get you a Netflix special and a prime time slot on FoxNews!

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bluesilver

I am not comparing two different crimes.

Lying to the FBI.

Flynn, papadolous charged. Mills abedin and others the FBI said knew were lying, not charged.

I think what you're expressing here is frustration over the fact that the same crime can have entirely different outcomes via the legal system in the US. This is how it has always been. Sometimes prosecutors choose to pursue a case that in the exact same circumstance previously they did not, and for myriad reasons that you and I are usually unaware of.

That being said, I do think its egregious that a crime merits different punishment based on which judge oversee's it or which lawyers are working the case, but the sum total of disparity in your argument above is part and parcel of how the legal system works and is extremely unlikely to just be a partisan conspiracy.

But thats not just it.

We know that there was extreme bias by inevstigators against Trunp and for Hillary.

The argument people give as to why that is ok is that the bias didnt affect the investigations.

Clearly it did.

And we are talking about at the highest level here, investigations into presidential candidates.

Just saying well thats how things work, the FBI can go soft on people they like and hard on those they dont is not acceptable to me.

originally posted by: Assassin82
It’s great that you provided such sound evidence to back up your claim. And you linking your YouTube video to it...amazing stuff. Seriously, we need to get you a Netflix special and a prime time slot on FoxNews!

Not sure I would be a good fit on Fox.

I would settle for a reserved bar stool at my local pub.