Judicial Watch: Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin avoided using secure lines of communication on purpo

a reply to: shooterbrody

Heh. Sure deflect back on me while you ignore how the current President is clearly violating security protocols that bunches your panties super tight when Democrats do it. In any case, I knew you wouldn't see the light. I said my piece and I'm done. Carry on with your echo chamber of confirmation bias.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Heh. Sure deflect back on me while you ignore how the current President is clearly violating security protocols that bunches your panties super tight when Democrats do it.

uh deflect?
is this subject not about hillary and huma? you brought trump into the discussion. your only intention was to deflect; then when called on it, as usual, you run like a scalded dog.

In any case, I knew you wouldn't see the light.

please point out ANYTIME i have not advocated for bringing accountability to ALL who have broken these laws.
oh and what you are selling isn't light guy.
run off to other discussions that better suit your slanted opinion of the world.

originally posted by: 200Plus
How can anyone argue some should be allowed a pass to commit actions (collusion, corruption, cronyism, espionage) while in the same conversation hold others accountable, based solely on political leanings? The very idea is breathtaking in it's moral decreptitude.

So when are you going to call Trump out for violating security protocols? I hear over and over and over about Hillary's alleged transgressions yet when I merely bring up Trump's violations I get these indignant responses about how I should be calling out Hillary and blah blah blah. You don't sound very sincere buddy. Just sounds like typical partisan schlock to me.

And this surprises anyone?? These two women among others in their circle are criminals. PERIOD!!

If any of you did a fraction of what they did you would be under the jail. That fact alone should make it impossible to defend this lot. Anyone who says other wise is either a criminal themselves or an idiot.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t
uh deflect?
is this subject not about hillary and huma? you brought trump into the discussion. your only intention was to deflect; then when called on it, as usual, you run like a scalded dog.

Whatever the subject about, it isn't about Krazysh0t; yet you continue talking about me in this post too.

My intention was to try to give a parallel to something in your own backyard that you are bending over backwards to ignore while you rant and rave over an issue that has already been federally investigated (just not to your liking, which doesn't matter one iota).

please point out ANYTIME i have not advocated for bringing accountability to ALL who have broken these laws.

This very thread when I pointed out Trump violated security protocols.

oh and what you are selling isn't light guy.
run off to other discussions that better suit your slanted opinion of the world.

Lol. It's called a cliche. Intelligent people know not to take them literally.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nothing about the subject again. How refreshing from you.
Is hillary or huma your long lost aunt or something? It seems impossible for you to comment on their illegal actions, and despicable behaviors. Or are you ok with what was done?
Twitter use and misuse of, mishandling of, unauthorized access of, illegal destruction of classified info are in no way parallel. Your disingenuous attempt to make it so only reflects on your general lack of respect for any rule of law when the democratic party is involved.

If you are so concerned about trump and his use of twitter and it being a security protocol violation, please by all means start a different discussion; post the violation, post the law. I would be happy to discuss that with you. I do not think you give 2 craps about twitter. I think you just like to slag trump, perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think so.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nothing about the subject again. How refreshing from you.
Is hillary or huma your long lost aunt or something? It seems impossible for you to comment on their illegal actions, and despicable behaviors. Or are you ok with what was done?

I just don't care about it anymore. It's been investigated to death. Y'all couldn't get anything to stick and beating the dead horse is just tiring and a distraction from more current and pressing events.

Twitter use and misuse of, mishandling of, unauthorized access of, illegal destruction of classified info are in no way parallel. Your disingenuous attempt to make it so only reflects on your general lack of respect for any rule of law when the democratic party is involved.

Of course not. Trump doing unsecured telecommunications activity is A-Ok to Trump supporters. I already know how you guys think. The reasoning doesn't matter, as long as you have an excuse to excuse him from the same # that lights a fire under your ass when Dems do it.

If you are so concerned about trump and his use of twitter and it being a security protocol violation, please by all means start a different discussion; post the violation, post the law. I would be happy to discuss that with you. I do not think you give 2 craps about twitter. I think you just like to slag trump, perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think so.

Nah. I'll just post in here about it just like you guys do in Trump threads by talking about Hillary in all of them. I know you don't care about Trump's activities. That is why I'm pointing out your double standard.

Oh btw, I have no desire to pursue Trump's security violations. I'm only doing what I'm doing to show how you and other Trump supporters have a double standard when it comes to security violations. You do know that I didn't just bring up him using Twitter on an unsecured phone right? I also posted a link of him using his camera phone's flashlight (also unsecured) to view a secure document about North Korea. Where is your outrage about that?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nothing about the subject again. How refreshing from you.
Is hillary or huma your long lost aunt or something? It seems impossible for you to comment on their illegal actions, and despicable behaviors. Or are you ok with what was done?

I just don't care about it anymore. It's been investigated to death. Y'all couldn't get anything to stick and beating the dead horse is just tiring and a distraction from more current and pressing events.

Twitter use and misuse of, mishandling of, unauthorized access of, illegal destruction of classified info are in no way parallel. Your disingenuous attempt to make it so only reflects on your general lack of respect for any rule of law when the democratic party is involved.

Of course not. Trump doing unsecured telecommunications activity is A-Ok to Trump supporters. I already know how you guys think. The reasoning doesn't matter, as long as you have an excuse to excuse him from the same # that lights a fire under your ass when Dems do it.

If you are so concerned about trump and his use of twitter and it being a security protocol violation, please by all means start a different discussion; post the violation, post the law. I would be happy to discuss that with you. I do not think you give 2 craps about twitter. I think you just like to slag trump, perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think so.

Nah. I'll just post in here about it just like you guys do in Trump threads by talking about Hillary in all of them. I know you don't care about Trump's activities. That is why I'm pointing out your double standard.

Oh btw, I have no desire to pursue Trump's security violations. I'm only doing what I'm doing to show how you and other Trump supporters have a double standard when it comes to security violations. You do know that I didn't just bring up him using Twitter on an unsecured phone right? I also posted a link of him using his camera phone's flashlight (also unsecured) to view a secure document about North Korea. Where is your outrage about that?

Did you ever wonder why things didn't stick? Because our government is corrupt, not because she wasn't guilty. Comedy didn't go forward because Lynch was in her back pocket and would have squashed any move forward.

Wake me up when 5 nations hack into Trumps insecure email server in his closet with classified materials on it.

originally posted by: Throes
Did you ever wonder why things didn't stick? Because our government is corrupt, not because she wasn't guilty. Comedy didn't go forward because Lynch was in her back pocket and would have squashed any move forward.

No I didn't wonder why. I don't jump to silly conclusions to keep the narrative going when investigations don't turn out the way I would like them to go. I just accept them and move on with my life.

why does judicial watch keep being used as a reference here?....it's like the Klu Klux Klan being used as experts on race relations

originally posted by: jimmyx
why does judicial watch keep being used as a reference here?....it's like the Klu Klux Klan being used as experts on race relations

LOL

They have a pretty good track record IN COURT.

At least they aren't just "opinion" based.

Do some studying.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: amazing
What does JW mean in the headline?

Sorry, Judicial Watch. Got it. Even after reading the article once, I didn't get it. LOL More coffee?

Yeah it's Judicial Watch sorry i meant to type it out but forgot about it. I got a lot on my mind lately. My bad.

No prob. Being on ATS of late, my first thought was Justice Warrior and then I'm like that doesn't make any sense. LOL