Christopher Steele agrees to be questioned by US officials over his relationship with FBI

[Slade3200]

And if it was all bullshit then what? Do you think that’s a crime?

they damn sure accused others of crimes because of his bullshit. why wouldn't it be?

It’s could be, I’m just curious about what crime you think was committed.

whatever it was, if it benefited the left i'm pretty sure you won't think it a crime anyway.

Who gives a shit what I think? You can disagree with my politics all you want but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a substantive debate about different situations. If you are still sour grapes about our last debate then I’m sorry. At some point I hope you can let that go or decide not to engage with me.

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

 

[iceberg]

they damn sure accused others of crimes because of his bullshit. why wouldn't it be?

It’s could be, I’m just curious about what crime you think was committed.

whatever it was, if it benefited the left i'm pretty sure you won't think it a crime anyway.

Who gives a shit what I think? You can disagree with my politics all you want but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a substantive debate about different situations. If you are still sour grapes about our last debate then I’m sorry. At some point I hope you can let that go or decide not to engage with me.

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

 

[imawhosure]

Wow, you have quite the imagination. In your fantasyland what bombshell do you think Steele is going to drop?

That the Dossier was all bullshit.

And if it was all bullshit then what? Do you think that’s a crime?

~~~~~~
Indeed an attempt of a coup d' etat of a duly elected president of these United States of America is a crime against the People and our Constitution. It's Treason and at least Sedition.

What specific illegal actions make you think a coupe was attempted or treason? Everything I’ve seen has gone through our legal system.

~~~~~~
Obviously you have read any of the E-mails between Strzok and Page or McCabe. Then there's the testimonies of Ohr, Baker etc., confirming the cabal in the failed coup d' etat.

Wow, you have quite the imagination. In your fantasyland what bombshell do you think Steele is going to drop?

that his report was bullshit and he was hired to get dirt, not the truth?

You think he was hired to make stuff up? Like Clinton said, “we need to find a foreign spy to write a convincing report of lies about trump so we have something to use to try and unseat him should he end up beating me in the election.”

Is that what you think her plan was?

dunno. we'll see soon enough however, won't we?

no one has yet to be able to tell me how come clinton can hire a brit former agent to collect "dirt" and it's ok but it's not ok to collect dirt from russian lawyers.

however since you're cool with people picking and choosing what to provide authorities when they come under investigation then there really isn't a limit to how far you're willing to go - for YOUR side.

There is no doubt that the Steele situation shows the dirty underbelly of politics. He was hired to dig up dirty that a political campaign could use to attack their opponents. It is the definition of collusion. Clinton did it with Steele and Trump did it with the Trump tower meet and other contacts outlined in Muellers report.

But as we all know, collusion is not a crime. At the same time Clinton was paying for dirt the investigator was sharing the findings with the FBI, while in Trumps case they were making up cover story’s and denying any contacts with Russians.

This is where the lying bites one in the ass.

In the end, Trump wasn’t found to have committed a crime in regards to conspiracy. If you think Clinton crossed that line then please present your theory because I’m not seeing it.

if it's not a crime, then why was trump investigated for (2) years?

clinton deleted mail after being asked for it. period. you want to pretend it's personal but i contend there is ZERO WAY TO BE SURE but you again give her the benefit of doubt. i liken that to arresting someone for child porn and allowing them to turn over what they want to the police.

that his report was bullshit and he was hired to get dirt, not the truth?

You think he was hired to make stuff up? Like Clinton said, “we need to find a foreign spy to write a convincing report of lies about trump so we have something to use to try and unseat him should he end up beating me in the election.”

Is that what you think her plan was?

dunno. we'll see soon enough however, won't we?

no one has yet to be able to tell me how come clinton can hire a brit former agent to collect "dirt" and it's ok but it's not ok to collect dirt from russian lawyers.

however since you're cool with people picking and choosing what to provide authorities when they come under investigation then there really isn't a limit to how far you're willing to go - for YOUR side.

There is no doubt that the Steele situation shows the dirty underbelly of politics. He was hired to dig up dirty that a political campaign could use to attack their opponents. It is the definition of collusion. Clinton did it with Steele and Trump did it with the Trump tower meet and other contacts outlined in Muellers report.

But as we all know, collusion is not a crime. At the same time Clinton was paying for dirt the investigator was sharing the findings with the FBI, while in Trumps case they were making up cover story’s and denying any contacts with Russians.

This is where the lying bites one in the ass.

In the end, Trump wasn’t found to have committed a crime in regards to conspiracy. If you think Clinton crossed that line then please present your theory because I’m not seeing it.

if it's not a crime, then why was trump investigated for (2) years?

clinton deleted mail after being asked for it. period. you want to pretend it's personal but i contend there is ZERO WAY TO BE SURE but you again give her the benefit of doubt. i liken that to arresting someone for child porn and allowing them to turn over what they want to the police.

You are correct, I gave her the benefit of the doubt for two reasons 1. The nature of the accusations and crimes in question and 2. The conclusions of the FBI who actually investigated the matter and have waaaay more intel than you and I. But let’s not go back to the email conversation.

Anyone who thinks that this has NOTHING to do with Trump visiting the UK, offering a trade deal, etc, knows NOTHING about politics.

The Trump release of the documents? NOPE! The fact that the UK doesn't want to get tarnished by them helping the CIA and FBI? YES, and YES!

And how do we kinda, sorta get Trump to have Barr insist that document is to sensitive to release, while still getting the facts out about what happened? Oh yeah, have Steele tell everyone all of the dirty secrets-)

Again, ANYONE not believing a political deal was cut, knows NOTHING about politics, lol!

Let me tell ya--------->the Queen Mum was on the phone, telling them to TAKE THIS DEAL, and so was Farange. And all they had do was get Steele to talk, and from what it appears, DONE and DONE!

 

[Slade3200]

It’s could be, I’m just curious about what crime you think was committed.

whatever it was, if it benefited the left i'm pretty sure you won't think it a crime anyway.

Who gives a shit what I think? You can disagree with my politics all you want but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a substantive debate about different situations. If you are still sour grapes about our last debate then I’m sorry. At some point I hope you can let that go or decide not to engage with me.

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

 

[Zorro!]

He needs to be brought to the USA and put on trial.

Looks like Christopher Steele has cut a deal and will turn state's evidence on Russia Hoax prosecutions

I don't think it is a coincidence that just as President Trump is in the U.K., we suddenly learn that "dossier" author Christopher Steele has agreed to be questioned by U.S. authorities.

This is really big news:

Attorney General William Barr's investigators are hot on the trail of former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Crapper, and others who played a role in concocting the conspiracy to take down our duly elected president.

If investigators conclude that Comey, Crapper and others engaged in a criminal conspiracy — as seems increasingly likely — then Christopher Steele could easily be named as a co-defendant, which would trigger an extradition request that Britain would almost certainly honor.

Steele obviously doesn't want that to happen, which is probably why he declined a previous request for cooperation from U.S. Attorney John Durham, one of Barr's top investigators looking into the FISA warrants scandal.

We don't yet know which investigators will be interviewing Steele in the coming weeks, but it's a pretty safe bet that they've offered him some form of immunity in exchange for his candor. That should terrify the Democrats who enlisted him in their attempts to execute a Deep State coup against Trump.

If Steele spills the beans on his former handlers, the resulting prosecutions of former high-level federal officials would make Watergate seem trivial by comparison.

In addition to Comey, Crapper and Brennan, it's entirely possible that Steele's testimony will yield new insights that could eventually help to implicate even higher-ranking officials in the Obama administration.​

The walls are beginning to close in.

 

[iceberg]

whatever it was, if it benefited the left i'm pretty sure you won't think it a crime anyway.

Who gives a shit what I think? You can disagree with my politics all you want but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a substantive debate about different situations. If you are still sour grapes about our last debate then I’m sorry. At some point I hope you can let that go or decide not to engage with me.

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

so now i'm ignorant.

lesse - right talking points from site i don't visit, sharyl is a right wing pundit, now i'm speaking from ignorance while somehow your OPINION is enlightened by some method not available to the common man. and somehow you know all this about me w/o ever reading all of my posts.

if the feds told trump "turn over your laptop, we have reason to believe you have illegal info on there" no way in any shade of hell would you be ok with trump going "here, have these folders, you don't need the rest" but hillary did just that.

like i said - you're not getting away with a fucking thing. you're simply setting the standard of behavior that WILL be followed.

and disappointed was more the word i would use but hey - you seem to know all so whatever.

 

[Slade3200]

Who gives a shit what I think? You can disagree with my politics all you want but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a substantive debate about different situations. If you are still sour grapes about our last debate then I’m sorry. At some point I hope you can let that go or decide not to engage with me.

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

so now i'm ignorant.

lesse - right talking points from site i don't visit, sharyl is a right wing pundit, now i'm speaking from ignorance while somehow your OPINION is enlightened by some method not available to the common man. and somehow you know all this about me w/o ever reading all of my posts.

if the feds told trump "turn over your laptop, we have reason to believe you have illegal info on there" no way in any shade of hell would you be ok with trump going "here, have these folders, you don't need the rest" but hillary did just that.

like i said - you're not getting away with a fucking thing. you're simply setting the standard of behavior that WILL be followed.

and disappointed was more the word i would use but hey - you seem to know all so whatever.

Yes, we are all ignorant about the details of the investigation because we were not a part of it and much of it was not released to the public. That’s just a fact. I wasn’t calling you an ignorant person. Calm down

 

[BlindBoo]

Refusing to meet would make him look like he has something to hide.

 

[Slade3200]

Who gives a shit what I think? You can disagree with my politics all you want but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a substantive debate about different situations. If you are still sour grapes about our last debate then I’m sorry. At some point I hope you can let that go or decide not to engage with me.

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

so now i'm ignorant.

lesse - right talking points from site i don't visit, sharyl is a right wing pundit, now i'm speaking from ignorance while somehow your OPINION is enlightened by some method not available to the common man. and somehow you know all this about me w/o ever reading all of my posts.

if the feds told trump "turn over your laptop, we have reason to believe you have illegal info on there" no way in any shade of hell would you be ok with trump going "here, have these folders, you don't need the rest" but hillary did just that.

like i said - you're not getting away with a fucking thing. you're simply setting the standard of behavior that WILL be followed.

and disappointed was more the word i would use but hey - you seem to know all so whatever.

Jesus, you really want to keep going down this rabbit hole?! Fine. But you are not being accurate with your recount of events.

The Feds did not ask for Clinton’s computer and then she deleted emails like you just posed in your trump scenario. She deleted personal emails before the feds asked for the computer but after congress subpoenaed Libya and Banghazi related emails from her.

This was the point I was trying to make during our last conversation that kept avoiding to acknowledge.

 

[iceberg]

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

so now i'm ignorant.

lesse - right talking points from site i don't visit, sharyl is a right wing pundit, now i'm speaking from ignorance while somehow your OPINION is enlightened by some method not available to the common man. and somehow you know all this about me w/o ever reading all of my posts.

if the feds told trump "turn over your laptop, we have reason to believe you have illegal info on there" no way in any shade of hell would you be ok with trump going "here, have these folders, you don't need the rest" but hillary did just that.

like i said - you're not getting away with a fucking thing. you're simply setting the standard of behavior that WILL be followed.

and disappointed was more the word i would use but hey - you seem to know all so whatever.

Yes, we are all ignorant about the details of the investigation because we were not a part of it and much of it was not released to the public. That’s just a fact. I wasn’t calling you an ignorant person. Calm down

believe me - i'm calm.

hopefully the "disappointment" is almost gone now and i'll know better moving forward how far to take things with you.

 

[iceberg]

i just know i can't have a "substantive debate" with someone who doesn't read what i took a lot of time to put together for my reply and basis for my argument.

"oh, i was reading brietpats timeline..let me go look at yours" type shit. why should i ever go through that much trouble if you don't bother to read it. OR - when you do - you say "right wing nonsense".

when those are my outcomes, i don't bother playing.

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

so now i'm ignorant.

lesse - right talking points from site i don't visit, sharyl is a right wing pundit, now i'm speaking from ignorance while somehow your OPINION is enlightened by some method not available to the common man. and somehow you know all this about me w/o ever reading all of my posts.

if the feds told trump "turn over your laptop, we have reason to believe you have illegal info on there" no way in any shade of hell would you be ok with trump going "here, have these folders, you don't need the rest" but hillary did just that.

like i said - you're not getting away with a fucking thing. you're simply setting the standard of behavior that WILL be followed.

and disappointed was more the word i would use but hey - you seem to know all so whatever.

Jesus, you really want to keep going down this rabbit hole?! Fine. But you are not being accurate with your recount of events.

The Feds did not ask for Clinton’s computer and then she deleted emails like you just posed in your trump scenario. She deleted personal emails before the feds asked for the computer but after congress subpoenaed Libya and Banghazi related emails from her.

This was the point I was trying to make during our last conversation that kept avoiding to acknowledge.

wrong. and i showed you this in my timeline, highlighting each and every date and just where the feds asked and just where she went "oops".

you'd know this if you bothered to read my posts when you reply to them.

for grins:

from CNN:
Timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal - CNNPolitics

2014
2014 -- The State Department requests that all former secretaries of state "submit any records in their possession for proper preservation."

Also in 2014, at the request of the State Department, Clinton hands over 55,000 pages — approximately 30,000 emails. Left out were emails deemed by her and her staff to be "personal."
-----
so she was asked to turn over all records for preservation and she got to pick and choose what to send.

from wiki:
Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia
In 2014, months prior to public knowledge of the server's existence, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two attorneys worked to identify work-related emails on the server to be archived and preserved for the State Department. Upon completion of this task in December 2014, Mills instructed Clinton's computer services provider, Platte River Networks (PRN), to change the server's retention period to 60 days, allowing 31,830 older personal emails to be automatically deleted from the server, as Clinton had decided she no longer needed them. However, the PRN technician assigned for this task failed to carry it out at that time.[99]
-----
so again, she got to pick and choose what to provide.

and now from my right wing buddy - sharyl:
Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline | Sharyl Attkisson
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.

May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.

June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.

Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.

December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

so yes, she got to pick and choose what to send before deleting info from her server.

 

[easyt65]

He was officially FIRED by the FBI for LYING TO THE FBI, which is actually a CRIME for which he was never charged.

Is he going to explain why the FBI only fired him instead of indicting him?



Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec noted immediately during an interview with Steele that he LIED to her, causing her to write notes right then during the interview that Steele was a liar and untrustworthy, which she passed on to Obama's '4-horsemen'.

Is Steele going to call Kavalec a liar, despite what he told her was an obvious, blatant lie?



DOJ's Bruce Ohr testified under oath that Steele self-identified as a Trump-hating foreign spy peddling Russian-authored propaganda, that he had a political agenda, and wanted to get the contents of the Dossier out before the 2016 election so he could hurt Trump's chances. Ohr warned Obama's '4-Horsemen' that both Steele and the Dossier were unreliable frauds.

What's Steele going to say? 'NUH-UH!'



Steele admitted he had no clue if what was in the dossier was true or not, that he had made no effort to substantiate what was in it (something Steele and the FBI had / have in common...).

Is he going to claim HE was lying...or perhaps too stupid to know what he was doing / saying?



I can't wait until they ask him about Ohr's testimony that states Mueller was working with him and Steele on the Dossier BEFOE the official investigation was opened and BEFORE Steele was appointed Special Counsel. I can't wait to hear Mueller answer the question (among many) of how this was not one of many conflicts of interest that should have kept him from becoming the Special Counsel...and what he was doing working on the Dossier with Ohr and Steele to begin with...



LINKS:

Report: Christopher Steele agrees to be questioned by US officials over his relationship with FBI

FBI's Steele story falls apart: False intel and media contacts were flagged before FISA

 

[McRocket]

And Congress is going to re-open the Kennedy Assassination.

Jeez...like I care much about either.

Actually - I would like to know what the hell was going on behind that grassy knoll.

It could have been this way:

 

[Slade3200]

Then don’t debate with me anymore. Simple solution, just don’t respond to things I post or put me on ignore

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

so now i'm ignorant.

lesse - right talking points from site i don't visit, sharyl is a right wing pundit, now i'm speaking from ignorance while somehow your OPINION is enlightened by some method not available to the common man. and somehow you know all this about me w/o ever reading all of my posts.

if the feds told trump "turn over your laptop, we have reason to believe you have illegal info on there" no way in any shade of hell would you be ok with trump going "here, have these folders, you don't need the rest" but hillary did just that.

like i said - you're not getting away with a fucking thing. you're simply setting the standard of behavior that WILL be followed.

and disappointed was more the word i would use but hey - you seem to know all so whatever.

Jesus, you really want to keep going down this rabbit hole?! Fine. But you are not being accurate with your recount of events.

The Feds did not ask for Clinton’s computer and then she deleted emails like you just posed in your trump scenario. She deleted personal emails before the feds asked for the computer but after congress subpoenaed Libya and Banghazi related emails from her.

This was the point I was trying to make during our last conversation that kept avoiding to acknowledge.

wrong. and i showed you this in my timeline, highlighting each and every date and just where the feds asked and just where she went "oops".

you'd know this if you bothered to read my posts when you reply to them.

I did go back and read it. I didn’t the first time around because is was rapid replying to a bunch of stuff but when you Referred back to it I went through both your links. But the timeline remains as I just laid out, I don’t think you can dispute that

 

[BlindBoo]

Good, stalling, refusing to testify and ignoring subpoenas makes one look guilty as hell.

 

[iceberg]

oh now i just comment and talk - debating is a pointless excursion.

as for "well i excuse hillary because of ..." wow. color me shocked.

i would be pissed if ANYONE got to pick and choose what "evidence" to turn over. period.

Yes you are obviously pissed. But you are also coming from a place of ignorance as you were not privy to the details of the case. I get that you believe there was some deep state shenanigans going on. That’s fine. I don’t.

And isn’t your argument an “I excuse trump because...” thing?!

I don’t see how excusing somebody because of your opinions about a specific situation means anything. That’s what we all do.

I excuse Trump for many things. I blame Clinton for many things. That was a silly critique

so now i'm ignorant.

lesse - right talking points from site i don't visit, sharyl is a right wing pundit, now i'm speaking from ignorance while somehow your OPINION is enlightened by some method not available to the common man. and somehow you know all this about me w/o ever reading all of my posts.

if the feds told trump "turn over your laptop, we have reason to believe you have illegal info on there" no way in any shade of hell would you be ok with trump going "here, have these folders, you don't need the rest" but hillary did just that.

like i said - you're not getting away with a fucking thing. you're simply setting the standard of behavior that WILL be followed.

and disappointed was more the word i would use but hey - you seem to know all so whatever.

Jesus, you really want to keep going down this rabbit hole?! Fine. But you are not being accurate with your recount of events.

The Feds did not ask for Clinton’s computer and then she deleted emails like you just posed in your trump scenario. She deleted personal emails before the feds asked for the computer but after congress subpoenaed Libya and Banghazi related emails from her.

This was the point I was trying to make during our last conversation that kept avoiding to acknowledge.

wrong. and i showed you this in my timeline, highlighting each and every date and just where the feds asked and just where she went "oops".

you'd know this if you bothered to read my posts when you reply to them.

I did go back and read it. I didn’t the first time around because is was rapid replying to a bunch of stuff but when you Referred back to it I went through both your links. But the timeline remains as I just laid out, I don’t think you can dispute that

now you have (3) timelines - each showing she was asked for her e-mail. she knows they'll want it all. SHE gets to decide what to send after being asked multiple times and then SHE gets to decide what to delete.

prove the timelines wrong. all of them.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Looks like Christopher Steele has cut a deal and will turn state's evidence on Russia Hoax prosecutions​

Donald, is that you? Has to be. Nobody seems to love a well done steak quite like Donald. And with a post like that, you're begging to chew leather.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Report: Christopher Steele agrees to be questioned by US officials over his relationship with FBI

FBI's Steele story falls apart: False intel and media contacts were flagged before FISA

That second link is an opinion column.

 

[HappyJoy]

Plus we have Assange and can ask him, "Who gave you those DNC emails?"

Assange is playing mental retard at the moment to prepare for his defense.

OMG, so is Trump.

 

[Edgetho]

wrong. and i showed you this in my timeline, highlighting each and every date and just where the feds asked and just where she went "oops".

you'd know this if you bothered to read my posts when you reply to them.

for grins:

from CNN:
Timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal - CNNPolitics

2014
2014 -- The State Department requests that all former secretaries of state "submit any records in their possession for proper preservation."

Also in 2014, at the request of the State Department, Clinton hands over 55,000 pages — approximately 30,000 emails. Left out were emails deemed by her and her staff to be "personal."
-----
so she was asked to turn over all records for preservation and she got to pick and choose what to send.

from wiki:
Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia
In 2014, months prior to public knowledge of the server's existence, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two attorneys worked to identify work-related emails on the server to be archived and preserved for the State Department. Upon completion of this task in December 2014, Mills instructed Clinton's computer services provider, Platte River Networks (PRN), to change the server's retention period to 60 days, allowing 31,830 older personal emails to be automatically deleted from the server, as Clinton had decided she no longer needed them. However, the PRN technician assigned for this task failed to carry it out at that time.[99]
-----
so again, she got to pick and choose what to provide.

and now from my right wing buddy - sharyl:
Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline | Sharyl Attkisson
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.

May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.

June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.

Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.

December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

so yes, she got to pick and choose what to send before deleting info from her server.

dimocraps are lying scum, dude.

Every.Last.One.Of.Them.

The difference between a normal human and a dimocrap scumbag....... We know when we're lying.

They will look you right in the eye and lie their asses off. You can present them with photographic evidence and they'll still lie.

You could get absolute proof notarized by God Himself and they'd still lie.

dimocraps are scum

period

There's just no talking to them. Not when all they know how to do is lie.

Dogs bark, cats meow, pigs oink, babies cry and dimocraps lie.

It's their nature. It is who they are.