Fact check trumps resurfaces debunked claims in speech

[Muhammed]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump resurfaces debunked claims in speech
Man, oh man trump is a liar and a fraud. Along with his entire rich party!

The fact check article is factually incorrect.

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

The fact check article is factually incorrect.

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

Do some research to find more misleading statements.

So the FBI didn't investigate the matter? The FBI's role isn't to advice the Justice department?

Where is the lie exactly? And what is your evidence that those claims are false. You're vaguely alluding to evidence you have yet to actually present.

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

 

[jc456]

I really like this one:

"TRUMP: "When a secretary of state illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence - I know that corruption has reached a level like never before."

THE FACTS: Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law. Her actions were not established as a crime. The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found. FBI Director James Comey declined to refer the case for criminal prosecution to the Justice Department, instead accusing Clinton of extreme carelessness."

But the 33,000 number was correct. His point being that they couldn't find the evidence cause that was all deleted in the 33k dumped. How fkn funny. you all are kooks.

also, how about this one.

"By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014"

It doesn't get any better than that. There are others, but you get the jist. Go read them and see none of what they posted can debunk the speech. Funny though.

 

[jc456]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump resurfaces debunked claims in speech

TRUMP: "Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's 50 largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years."

THE FACTS: A rollback? President Barack Obama has actually achieved some big increases in spending for state and local law enforcement, including billions in grants provided through the 2009 stimulus. While FBI crime statistics for 2015 are not yet available, Trump's claim about rising homicides appears to come from a Washington Post analysis published in January. While Trump accurately quotes part of the analysis, he omits that the statistical jump was so large because homicides are still very low by historical standards. In the 50 cities cited by the Post, for example, half as many people were killed last year as in 1991

TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."

THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.

By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014

TRUMP: "When a secretary of state illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence - I know that corruption has reached a level like never before."

THE FACTS: Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law. Her actions were not established as a crime. The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found. FBI Director James Comey declined to refer the case for criminal prosecution to the Justice Department, instead accusing Clinton of extreme carelessness.

As for Trump's claim that Clinton faces no consequence, that may be true in a legal sense. But the matter has been a distraction to her campaign and fed into public perceptions that she can't be trusted. The election will test whether she has paid a price politically

TRUMP: "The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year."

THE FACTS: Not according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks police fatalities daily. The group found that the number of police officers who died as of July 20 is up just slightly this year, at 67, compared with 62 through the same period last year. That includes deaths in the line of duty from all causes, including traffic fatalities.

It is true that there has been a spike in police deaths from intentional shootings, 32 this year compared with 18 last year, largely attributable to the recent mass shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. But that was not his claim.

And overall, police are statistically safer on America's streets now than at any time in recent decades.

For example, the 109 law enforcement fatalities in 2013 were the lowest since 1956. ___


TRUMP: "My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian (refugees). ... She proposes this despite the fact that there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people."

THE FACTS: Trump persists in making the bogus claim that the U.S. doesn't screen refugees. The administration both screens them and knows where they are from. The Department of Homeland Security leads the process, which involves rigorous background checks. Processing of a refugee can take 18 months to two years, and usually longer for those coming from Syria. Refugees are also subject to in-person interviews and fingerprint and other biometric screening.

For all that caution, U.S. officials acknowledge that the Islamic State group could try to place operatives among refugees. Last year, FBI Director James Comey said data about people coming from Syria may be limited, adding, "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our database." ___

TRUMP: "Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when President Obama took his oath of office less than eight years ago. Another 14 million people have left the workforce entirely. ... President Obama has almost doubled our national debt to more than $19 trillion, and growing."

THE FACTS: Trump is playing with numbers to make the economy look worse than it actually is. The sluggish recovery over the past seven years has been frustrating. But with unemployment at 4.9 percent, the situation isn't as bleak as he suggests.

Trump's figure of 14 million who've stopped working since Obama took office comes from the Labor Department's measure of people not in the workforce. It's misleading for three reasons: The U.S. population has increased in that time; the country has aged and people have retired; and younger people are staying in school longer for college and advanced degrees, so they're not in the labor force, either.

A better figure is labor force participation — the share of people with jobs or who are searching for work. That figure has declined from 65.7 percent when Obama took office to 62.7 percent now. Part of that decrease reflects retirements, but the decline is also a long-term trend.

On national debt, economists say a more meaningful measure than dollars is the share of the overall economy taken up by the debt. By that measure, the debt rose 36 percent under Obama (rather than doubling). That's roughly the same as what occurred under Republican President George W. Bush.

The Hispanic population has risen since Obama while the poverty rate has fallen. The Pew Research Center found that 23.5 percent of the country's 55.3 million Latinos live in poverty, compared with 24.7 percent in 2010.

___

TRUMP: "When a secretary of state illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence — I know that corruption has reached a level like never ever before in our country."

THE FACTS: Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law. Her actions were not established as a crime. The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found. FBI Director James Comey declined to refer the case for criminal prosecution to the Justice Department, instead accusing Clinton of extreme carelessness.

As for Trump's claim that Clinton faces no consequence, that may be true in a legal sense. But the matter has been a distraction to her campaign and fed into public perceptions that she can't be trusted. The election will test whether she has paid a price politically." ___

TRUMP: "When that same secretary of state rakes in millions and millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers, I know the time for action has come." THE FACTS: That's a somewhat overheated take on a legitimately troublesome issue for Clinton.

Although financial disclosures show she earned only her government salary as secretary of state, she made more than $21 million afterward, over three years, for speeches and appearances for private companies. None of those speeches was paid for by foreign governments, but some groups she addressed could be counted as special interests.

As well, the Clintons' family charity, the Clinton Foundation, received millions of dollars in donations while she was secretary of state, some from foreigners. And Bill Clinton earned millions making appearances and speeches for foreign corporations and organizations while his wife was at the State Department. ___

TRUMP: "After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region, and the entire world. Libya is in ruins, and our ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos. Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis now threatens the West. ... This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction, terrorism and weakness."

THE FACTS: It's an exaggeration to suggest Clinton, or any secretary of state, is to blame for the widespread instability and violence across the Middle East.

Clinton worked to impose sanctions that helped coax Tehran to a nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers last year, a deal in which Iran rolled back its nuclear program to get relief from sanctions that were choking its economy.

She did not start the war in Libya, but supported a NATO intervention well after violence broke out between rebels and the forces of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The country slid into chaos after Gadhafi was ousted and killed in 2011, leaving it split between competing governments.

Clinton had no role in military decisions made during the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Republicans' claim that high-level officials in Washington issued a "stand-down" order delaying a military rescue in Benghazi has been widely debunked.

On Iraq, Clinton as a senator voted in 2002 to grant President George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq, but has since said it was a "mistake." Many in the Middle East do not regret Saddam's ouster and regional allies allowed U.S. bases in their country to support the war. But many also now fear the Islamic State group, which rose in the chaos of Syria's civil war and Iraq's security vacuum. ___ Associated Press writers Josh Boak, Stephen Braun, Deb Riechmann, Jim Drinkard and Alicia A. Caldwell in Washington and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report

Man, oh man trump is a liar and a fraud. Along with his entire rich party!

All politicians stretch the truth. All of them. Only fools such as you fall for the fact checkers agenda in propping up one while ignoring the other.

PS. INFRASTRUCTURE!

Trump is as much full of shit as Clinton but NAFTA was George H.W. Bush baby...

signed into law by Clinton. or not?

And it still doesn't change that it is bad for American workers. unless you think 1/3 the workforce ought to be unemployed.

 

[jc456]

FactCheck is far left of Marx. You expect truth from them? How naive.

PURE FACTS to you nitwits are "far left".....PURE

PURE FACTS" dude, what in that list was wrong. post one out of that list. I posted two that said he was right. So, how's about you post just one and let's discuss. i don't want to do them all, it's boring. talk one. which one. Let's see your facts, cause there are none in this OP.

 

[Skylar]

The fact check article is factually incorrect.

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

Do some research to find more misleading statements.

So the FBI didn't investigate the matter? The FBI's role isn't to advice the Justice department?

Where is the lie exactly? And what is your evidence that those claims are false. You're vaguely alluding to evidence you have yet to actually present.

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

 

[jc456]

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

Do some research to find more misleading statements.

So the FBI didn't investigate the matter? The FBI's role isn't to advice the Justice department?

Where is the lie exactly? And what is your evidence that those claims are false. You're vaguely alluding to evidence you have yet to actually present.

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Opinions? Really, hahahahaahahahahahaa dude, too funny.

 

[Skylar]

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

So the FBI didn't investigate the matter? The FBI's role isn't to advice the Justice department?

Where is the lie exactly? And what is your evidence that those claims are false. You're vaguely alluding to evidence you have yet to actually present.

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Opinions? Really, hahahahaahahahahahaa dude, too funny.

And JC just blinked. Muhammad is now ignoring his own source when it explicitly contradicts him.

Would anyone else like to take a shot at demonstrating that the fact checkers on Trump's speech are wrong? Or can we just jump to the part where you insist that you don't care if its accurate...only how it feels?

 

[Muhammed]

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

Do some research to find more misleading statements.

So the FBI didn't investigate the matter? The FBI's role isn't to advice the Justice department?

Where is the lie exactly? And what is your evidence that those claims are false. You're vaguely alluding to evidence you have yet to actually present.

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Actually my source affirms what I said.

Furthermore, the law is common knowledge. If you are so ignorant regarding the subject you should look it up in the Federal Code or remain ignorant. Do your own fucking homework.

 

[Skylar]

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

So the FBI didn't investigate the matter? The FBI's role isn't to advice the Justice department?

Where is the lie exactly? And what is your evidence that those claims are false. You're vaguely alluding to evidence you have yet to actually present.

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Actually my source affirms what I said.

Actually your source explicitly contradicted you, indicating explicitly that one of the roles of the FBI is to offer prosecutive opinion. Something you insisted is NOT their role.

Accordingly, current FBI procedures generally provide for a preliminary prosecutive opinion before the initiation of a full-scale criminal investigation.

So you ignore your own source.

The Justice Department prosecutors, consulting with the FBI, make the decision on whether to prosecute. And the FBI when consulted indicated they didn't believe any crime had been commited.

So you ignore the FBI too. And still can't show us a single instance where the fact checkers or Trump's speech were wrong about it.

The law is common knowledge. If you are so ignorant regarding the subject you should look it up in the Federal Code or remain ignorant. Do your own fucking homework.

So you keep saying. Yet when we press you to show us the 'common knowledge' law.....you give us excuses why you can't back it up. I've asked you again and again to quote the law backing your claim. And again and again, you have jack shit.

Is there anything to you but insisting that your personal opinion must be the law....because you say so?

 

[Muhammed]

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Opinions? Really, hahahahaahahahahahaa dude, too funny.

And JC just blinked. Muhammad is now ignoring his own source when it explicitly contradicts him.

Would anyone else like to take a shot at demonstrating that the fact checkers on Trump's speech are wrong? Or can we just jump to the part where you insist that you don't care if its accurate...only how it feels?

This is from my source. "The basic rule is that whenever there is reason to believe a federal crime has occurred, the Department of Justice should be advised."

The OP article twisted it. "The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found".

See how those added words to totally change the meaning? If not, you're an idiot.

In other words, it's a fucking lie. And if you cannot comprehend that fact, you're an idiot.

 

[Skylar]

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Opinions? Really, hahahahaahahahahahaa dude, too funny.

And JC just blinked. Muhammad is now ignoring his own source when it explicitly contradicts him.

Would anyone else like to take a shot at demonstrating that the fact checkers on Trump's speech are wrong? Or can we just jump to the part where you insist that you don't care if its accurate...only how it feels?

This is from my source. "The basic rule is that whenever there is reason to believe a federal crime has occurred, the Department of Justice should be advised."

And the Justice Department was advised. The FBI was consulted. And the FBI when consulted indicated they didn't believe any crime had been commited.

Where is the inaccuracy? Your own source affirms the role of the FBI as both a consultant to prosecutors in the Justice Department and in offering prosecutive opinions.

See how those added words to totally change the meaning? If not, you're an idiot.

Ad hominem now? Either agree with whatever you choose believe.....or you're an 'idiot'? If your argument had merit, ytou wouldn't need fallacies of logic to support.

Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI does not include prosecutive opinions.

Your own source affirms the explict role of the FBI to do exactly that. And for prosecutors to consult with the FBI when determining if a crime had been commited. The FBI was consulted.

And they didn't find any crime as part of their investigation.

 

[Muhammed]

Here is another lie in the OP.

"Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law."

Total fucking lie. The State Department emails do not belong to Clinton, they belong to the USA.

 

[Muhammed]

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Opinions? Really, hahahahaahahahahahaa dude, too funny.

And JC just blinked. Muhammad is now ignoring his own source when it explicitly contradicts him.

Would anyone else like to take a shot at demonstrating that the fact checkers on Trump's speech are wrong? Or can we just jump to the part where you insist that you don't care if its accurate...only how it feels?

This is from my source. "The basic rule is that whenever there is reason to believe a federal crime has occurred, the Department of Justice should be advised."

And the Justice Department was advised. The FBI was consulted. And the FBI when consulted indicated they didn't believe any crime had been commited.

That's a fucking lie. FBI director Comey indicated that Clinton committed over a hundred federal crimes.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing yourself. Again, your only source is you....and you don't know what you're talking about. Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI is NOT to offer prosecutor opinions.

Your own source affirms that is one of the roles of the FBI. And you've presented nothing to affirm your position. With Attorney General herself indicating that she was awaiting the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Opinions? Really, hahahahaahahahahahaa dude, too funny.

And JC just blinked. Muhammad is now ignoring his own source when it explicitly contradicts him.

Would anyone else like to take a shot at demonstrating that the fact checkers on Trump's speech are wrong? Or can we just jump to the part where you insist that you don't care if its accurate...only how it feels?

This is from my source. "The basic rule is that whenever there is reason to believe a federal crime has occurred, the Department of Justice should be advised."

And the Justice Department was advised. The FBI was consulted. And the FBI when consulted indicated they didn't believe any crime had been commited.

That's a fucking lie. FBI director Comey indicated that Clinton committed over a hundred federal crimes.

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Quote the law indicating that the role of the FBI does not include prosecutive opinions. Not yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Here is another lie in the OP.

"Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law."

Total fucking lie. The State Department emails do not belong to Clinton, they belong to the USA.

The FBI and Justice Department disagree. Why would I ignore them and instead believe you....citing yourself?

Your entire argument is the same: you offer your personal opinion as fact. And then insist that anyone who doesn't accept whatever hapless horseshit you make up is an 'idiot' or 'lying'.

Is that all there is to you? If so, you're done. As you citing you is meaningless.

 

[Muhammed]

Here is another lie in the OP.

"Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law."

Total fucking lie. The State Department emails do not belong to Clinton, they belong to the USA.

The FBI and Justice Department disagree. Why would I ignore them and instead believe you....citing yourself?

Your entire argument is the same: you offer your personal opinion as fact. And then insist that anyone who doesn't accept whatever hapless horseshit you make up is an 'idiot' or 'lying'.

Is that all there is to you? If so, you're done. As you citing you is meaningless.

You are fucking lying again. The FBI came straight out and listed the number of federal crimes that were committed by Clinton. It was well over 100.

If you have to constantly lie to justify your political bent, then perhaps you should change it.

 

[nat4900]

I posted two that said he was right. So, how's about you post just one and let's discuss. i don't want to do them all, it's boring. talk one. which one. Let's see your facts, cause there are none in this OP.

Trump said......."America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world.”

.....................Statistics don’t lie — the United States isn’t anywhere near the top among industrialized nations.

In 2014, according to comparative tables of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the economy — was 26 percent for the United States.

Out of 34 countries, that put the United States in the bottom third — and well below the OECD average of 34.4 percent.

 

[Flopper]

The fact check article is factually incorrect.

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

Where specifically, is it wrong?

"The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found."

That statement is a lie.

Do some research to find more misleading statements.

So the FBI didn't investigate the matter? The FBI's role isn't to advice the Justice department?

Where is the lie exactly? And what is your evidence that those claims are false. You're vaguely alluding to evidence you have yet to actually present.

The FBI's role is to advise the justice department when they believe a federal crime has been committed. Not to advise whether or not to prosecute those crimes.

The FBI advised the DoJ that Clinton committed well over a hundred federal crimes.

It's up to the DoJ to decide whether they will prosecute or not.

You can bet your ass that If Trump wins we will have a new AG who will prosecute Clinton and she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless Obama pardons her on his last day in office, of course, which is highly likely in the event that Trump wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.

• First of all, you can't pardon someone for a crime which they have not been convinced and not even been charged.
• Second, The FBI, did not advise the DOJ that any crime was committed and made no recommendation to prosecute.
• Third, The FBI stated that they found no clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.

3 strikes and your out.

You are simply wrong and obviously not familiar with the relevant federal laws. The intention to violate the law is irrelevant in this case.

Why do LWNJs insist on defending criminal scum.

Intent is always relevant in a criminal prosecution.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

 

[nat4900]

PURE FACTS" dude, what in that list was wrong. post one out of that list. I posted two that said he was right. So, how's about you post just one and let's discuss. i don't want to do them all, it's boring. talk one. which one. Let's see your facts, cause there are none in this OP.

Trump said..........“In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of American prestige around the globe — was brought down in flames.”

Trump falsely calls the Benghazi facility a “consulate” and a “symbol of American prestige.” It was merely an unofficial and temporary facility that had not even been declared to the host government — which is a key reason it did not get the security that was needed.

 

[nat4900]

PURE FACTS" dude, what in that list was wrong. post one out of that list. I posted two that said he was right. So, how's about you post just one and let's discuss. i don't want to do them all, it's boring. talk one. which one. Let's see your facts, cause there are none in this OP.

Trump said..............“Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country.”

Bill Clinton was certainly a supporter of NAFTA who pushed approval through Congress. But it was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush.

(Here’s a photo.) Moreover, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the deal, as the trade pact was vehemently opposed by labor unions. One key ally for Clinton was then-House Minority Whip (and later House speaker) Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), now a Trump supporter.