@earl-of-trumps saidnot to mention the destruction of evidence under subpoena
@no1marauder
No matter what Breitbart tells you, there was insufficient evidence to charge her with any crimes.
-------------------------
Oh, so lying to the FBI is not a crime? That was on CNN
You telling me that one wolf could not find fault with another wolf is not earth shattering news
@earl-of-trumps saidWhat lie did she tell the FBI? Comey made it clear in the book he thought she wasn't entirely forthcoming but a criminal charge requires far more than that.
@no1marauder
No matter what Breitbart tells you, there was insufficient evidence to charge her with any crimes.
-------------------------
Oh, so lying to the FBI is not a crime? That was on CNN
You telling me that one wolf could not find fault with another wolf is not earth shattering news
@mott-the-hoople saidWhat evidence did she destroy under subpoena?
not to mention the destruction of evidence under subpoena
@no1marauder saidThe dossier which she bought and paid for was a lie. OK< now take off on a link-infested soliloquy!
What lie did she tell the FBI? Comey made it clear in the book he thought she wasn't entirely forthcoming but a criminal charge requires far more than that.
@no1marauder saidwhy are you asking stupid questions?
What evidence did she destroy under subpoena?
@no1marauder saidhttps://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-hillary-clinton-hammer-private-email-server-evidence-fbi-1806046
What evidence did she destroy under subpoena?
Do y'all find the posts/links of the bot, Marauder, to be tiresome? He will now play Suzy, I guess, and say what kind of source is Newsweek, which is a pitiful lib rag.
@no1marauder saidThe dossier was in itself a lie. Did I not just say that?
What lie did she tell the FBI? Comey made it clear in the book he thought she wasn't entirely forthcoming but a criminal charge requires far more than that.
@averagejoe1 saidStop calling me a liberal.
I can respond to your sickening profane diatribe as follows, trashmouth. This is not my opinion, it is a fact.
Watch and listen to conservative media. No profanity. Liberal media is awash in it. It is part of their natural being, like it is for you.
So, that, and many other factors, brand you as a liberal. Don't you use the stuff of others? And how many m ...[text shortened]... ducts, like your computer, and yet say you hate corporations? That makes you a loser. A liberal.
Socialist or communist, those are the words you could use.
And, ohhhh sooooo sooorrrryyy if I offend your delicate sensibilities.
But, as demonstrated, you’re the snowflake type who leaves dinner parties, not me. Not liberals. Not real conservatives (of whom I know plenty, and have great discussions with).
But you are not a fiscal conservative.
You are a whining little maggot. A bigot. Constantly mixing up morals, religious beliefs and ethics with financial systems; indoctrinated by fear mongering and hate; unable to face the changing world.
A coward. Always blaming others, instead of looking to see what you, yourself, can do to adapt.
Welcome to 2023 in the world of MAGA.
Snowflaking the day away.
@averagejoe1 saidWell, you lied then.
The dossier was in itself a lie. Did I not just say that?
The dossier, which incidentally was brought and paid for originally by a right wing newspaper, was raw data but the main thrust of it i.e. that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump win the Presidency and that people in the Trump campaign were willing to accept such help was true.
@averagejoe1 saidWhy do you keep lying about this?
The dossier was in itself a lie. Did I not just say that?
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidYou think Wray sucks because he's that rare Republican that actually does his job.
That's because the democrats own the DoJ no matter who is in there, like Republican Wray of the FBI. He sucks.
Anyway, the democrats rarely get brought up charges, and when they do, they get let off. Hilary Clinton is a good example.
Also, look at Hunter Biden and the sweetheart deal the *prosecutor* agreed to. What a disgrace. a crime!!
And your whole post can be boiled down to: "Waaah, the democrats never get busted." Well, Sherman, there's a simple reason for that.
And I know how much you'd love to arrest democrats for doing nothing but their jobs, but as Mott says, that's a dictatorship, so you'll have to wait for your star dictator to get back in office for that to happen.
@averagejoe1 saidAdmit it, you hate people who actually do their jobs.
Who was Comey working for? Who today is Wray, or Merritt Garland, working for........................................................
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
(and I don't mean Trump)
@averagejoe1 saidRead the article. Her old devices were not "under subpoena" when they were destroyed; that happened years before when they malfunctioned or were simply replaced.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-hillary-clinton-hammer-private-email-server-evidence-fbi-1806046
Do y'all find the posts/links of the bot, Marauder, to be tiresome? He will now play Suzy, I guess, and say what kind of source is Newsweek, which is a pitiful lib rag.
Physically destroying such a device is a good idea according to security experts:
" But given that Clinton was relying on a handful of aides with limited resources to act as her entire IT infrastructure, it was the right idea from a security standpoint to attempt to destroy the devices rather than letting them sit exposed in a local Goodwill, says Jonathan Zdziarski, an iOS forensics expert and security researcher. He says the FBI report "shows that [Clinton's aides] were very serious about wanting to destroy the content, but very inexperienced with how to do it."
https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-better/