Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Back to Clinton again? Make up your mind. Hey….maybe she was the evil mastermind behind all this. She snuck into Maralago disguises as a Chinese spy and planted those top secret documents there….but then, that doesn’t work since Trump retroactively declassified them. But it would, at least, make your thread slightly more coherent.I'm not surprised. You couldn't figure out one of my posts quoting large sections of Comey outlining how Hitlery had classified info on her home brew server was actually about Hitlery and not Trump.
You aren't very bright, Troll.
Just because the president is allowed to make the decision doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged in court.Judicial Watch is the party who filed the suit, moron. Here is the relevant part of the decision. Explain how that is not relevant:
Judge’s Ruling Over Audio Tapes Hidden in Bill Clinton’s Sock Drawer Could Impact Trump’s Effort to Contest FBI Raid | A new report connects a case tied to former President Bill 'Slick Willy' Clinton with the investigation tied to the raid on Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump. “Judge’s ruling over audio tapes hidden in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer could significantly impact Donald Trump’s effort to contest FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago,” journalist John Solomon | The Tea Party's Front Page. | Slowly, our freedoms are being chipped away with, "We know better..." justification as its hammer and chisel.
“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote.“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” the judge wrote.
Calm down little man, trucks take up exactly one sentence. That is it. Can’t have been that important. Try again.Already told you, Simp.
They are listed in the affidavit. Man, you really are one dumb POS.
Okay. If Clinton never told anyone to delete the server, then you can’t accuse her of destroying emails.When did I ever claim that Clinton told them to delete the server? That statement doesn't even make any sense.
I posted the video, and the transcript of Comey. 52 email chains were marked classified at the time they were sent.
52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information
We know they interviewed witnesses, that has been stated and is part of the reason for the redaction, and we know this is not a move that would have been made lightly. Think about it. It is red meat for the Trump base. For democrats, more of a millstone for 2020.We don't know what the justification since 65% of it was redacted.
I'll post whatever the fuck I want, Troll.Back to Clinton again? Make up your mind. Hey….maybe she was the evil mastermind behind all this. She snuck into Maralago disguises as a Chinese spy and planted those top secret documents there….but then, that doesn’t work since Trump retroactively declassified them. But it would, at least, make your thread slightly more coherent.
On the hand…regardless of the affidavit….what about the material they took. Any cause of concern there for you?
How do you know when they were destroyed, because Clinton said so? ROFL!Yeah. None of that is actually true.
The cell phones were destroyed long before a subpoena. Clinton did not destroy emails or bleach bit a server. She couldn’t work a computer at all.
No, the documents weren’t marked top secret, your article doesn’t say anything otherwise.
It would help you guys if you knew what actually happened.
In other words, just trust the FBI to do the right thing.We know they interviewed witnesses, that has been stated and is part of the reason for the redaction, and we know this is not a move that would have been made lightly. Think about it. It is red meat for the Trump base. For democrats, more of a millstone for 2020.
You edited what I posted in a lame attempt to cover your lies. Why did you cut out the part where it said in addition to those 52 email chains were 2000 containing classified info that wasn't marked at the time?The top is what you claimed the transcript said. The bottom is what it actually said.
Notice how you use the word “marked” in the top and it doesn’t appear in the bottom? That’s because you put it in there yourself.
You lied.
She was the Secretary of State, dumbass. She should have known those emails were classified.FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...oversight.house.gov
Does it really matter if many in the half of the population you hate would watch an enemy detonate weapons of mass destruction on our own territory. And the kicker is, many of you Progs would do it also.Back to Clinton again? Make up your mind. Hey….maybe she was the evil mastermind behind all this. She snuck into Maralago disguises as a Chinese spy and planted those top secret documents there….but then, that doesn’t work since Trump retroactively declassified them. But it would, at least, make your thread slightly more coherent.
On the hand…regardless of the affidavit….what about the material they took. Any cause of concern there for you?
Okay. You tell me when they were destroyed. After all, if you’re going to claim they destroyed evidence you’re going to have to prove it.How do you know when they were destroyed, because Clinton said so? ROFL!
She gave the order to use bleach-bit on the server, you blithering idiot.
It could have been any time before stoop up and gave his little speech.Okay. You tell me when they were destroyed. After all, if you’re going to claim they destroyed evidence you’re going to have to prove it.
I put the two quotes next to each other to make it really easy for you to see how you added words to claim the transcript supported your lie.You edited what I posted in a lame attempt to cover your lies. Why did you cut out the part where it said in addition to those 52 email chains were 2000 containing classified info that wasn't marked at the time?
Pathetic edit to try to cover your pathetic, lying ass.
I am Not sure what you mean exactly, but no, I think most of the country, regardless of ideology, would not.Does it really matter if many in the half of the population you hate would watch an enemy detonate weapons of mass destruction on our own territory. And the kicker is, many of you Progs would do it also.
Seems that if you have no idea when they were destroyed, you’re going to have a hard time proving it was destruction of evidence since that’s essential to the charges.It could have been any time before stoop up and gave his little speech.
They were marked because in the part you edited out it said in addition to those email chains were 2000 up classified after the fact.I put the two quotes next to each other to make it really easy for you to see how you added words to claim the transcript supported your lie.
You said 50 email chains contained information MARKED classified. The quote that you say proves it doesn’t say MARKED.
It’s a lie. Blathering about 2000 emails doesn’t change the fact that you lied.
You claimed Trump snuck into the white house after Biden was sworn in to get the material.Back to Clinton again? Make up your mind. Hey….maybe she was the evil mastermind behind all this. She snuck into Maralago disguises as a Chinese spy and planted those top secret documents there….but then, that doesn’t work since Trump retroactively declassified them. But it would, at least, make your thread slightly more coherent.
On the hand…regardless of the affidavit….what about the material they took. Any cause of concern there for you?
So again, what about the actual documents Trump took? Doesn’t that cause a bit of discomfort?I'll post whatever the fuck I want, Troll.
Go troll some other thread, Troll.
