Liberals: Is Destroying Government Documents/Evidence OK With You?

[RandallFlagg]

What Hillary has done far exceeds anything Nixon was even accused of doing, yet you Liberals seem only concerned with how it might affect her polling numbers. Am I missing something, or are you morally bankrupt?

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Conservatives aren't interested in evidence and facts, they're just interested in contriving and spreading lies.

You are, without doubt, the dumbest asshole on this forum.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

With liberals and democrats the end justifies the means

Oops...

Why Conservatives Think the Ends Justify the Means The Nation

Did you even read this article?

"For liberals, generally speaking, honoring procedures—means—is the core of what being "principled" means."

Please explain how Hillary was "honoring procedures" while Secretary of State.

anyone who has experience with you and who links to or reads any article you post needs to take a rest from the internet(s)

 

[BlindBoo]

far exceeds anything Nixon was even accused of

Gearing up for 2016 I see.

Here are some other phrases you might want to practice up on for 2017.

"Is this Hilary's Waterloo?"

"Is this Hilary's Vietnam?"

"Is this Hilary's Katrina?"

"Is this Hilary's Iran/Contra?"

"Is this Hilary's [Insert Grand Fuckup here]?"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What Hillary has done far exceeds anything Nixon was even accused of doing, yet you Liberals seem only concerned with how it might affect her polling numbers. Am I missing something, or are you morally bankrupt?

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Conservatives aren't interested in evidence and facts, they're just interested in contriving and spreading lies.

You are, without doubt, the dumbest asshole on this forum.

Why would you so willingly give up your title? Are you being held hostage -- by liberals?

 

[RandallFlagg]

.

There can be no evidence that she destroyed government records because she may have destroyed the records.

Kind of the perfect crime there.

This is not a person who people trust, so the doubts of her veracity on this are reasonable.

.

Yeah...scandal follows this asshole everywhere she goes. She has a 30 year record of it. But what the hell, she should be "trusted". The left is placing their entire future on this monster. Jesus - I weep for this country.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

far exceeds anything Nixon was even accused of

Gearing up for 2016 I see.

Here are some other phrases you might want to practice up on for 2017.

"Is this Hilary's Waterloo?"

"Is this Hilary's Vietnam?"

"Is this Hilary's Katrina?"

"Is this Hilary's Iran/Contra?"

"Is this Hilary's [Insert Grand Fuckup here]?"

FOX News: Hillary Once Drove Across Country With Bill Tied To Top Of Station Wagon

 

[jwoodie]

What Hillary has done far exceeds anything Nixon was even accused of doing...

your statement is intellectually bankrupt

Thanks for reminding me to ignore you.

 

[danielpalos]

What Hillary has done far exceeds anything Nixon was even accused of doing, yet you Liberals seem only concerned with how it might affect her polling numbers. Am I missing something, or are you morally bankrupt?

The left sometimes Indulges Curiosities, but with the complexity of gender relations regarding social justice, being some form of consideration in any form of alternative.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What Hillary has done far exceeds anything Nixon was even accused of doing...

your statement is intellectually bankrupt

Thanks for reminding me to ignore you.

Uh oh!

Woodie is part of the Ignorati

 

[Jarhead]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

 

[BlindBoo]

Back then, Nixon was forced to resign (by the republicans) for having "knowledge" of the Watergate break in.

I think it was the conversation where he discussed the raising the million dollars in hush money for the burglers that convinced a few of the Republicans that it was a High Crime.

"You could get a million dollars," the president said, "You could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. But the question is who the hell would handle it? Any ideas on that?"

TAPES SHOW NIXON WEIGHED PROS AND CONS OF HUSH MONEY Deseret News

 

[RandallFlagg]

Back then, Nixon was forced to resign (by the republicans) for having "knowledge" of the Watergate break in.

I think it was the conversation where he discussed the raising the million dollars in hush money for the burglers that convinced a few of the Republicans that it was a High Crime.

"You could get a million dollars," the president said, "You could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. But the question is who the hell would handle it? Any ideas on that?"

TAPES SHOW NIXON WEIGHED PROS AND CONS OF HUSH MONEY Deseret News

Yeah. Nixon DISCUSSED it - Hillary accepts it. It's called the "Clinton Foundation". Regardless, Nixon was forced out. Hillary and Bill are celebrated. If you don't see the irony there, then I'm sorry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

sorry but this post is absolutely

 

[Jarhead]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

sorry but this post is absolutely

Kind of the response I expected from you. Nothing to say to refute it, so simply minimize the value. Old style typical childish debate tactic.

 

[RandallFlagg]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

I will give these two (Bill and Hillary) this: They do it and they get away with it - time after time after time after time. (1) They use the "law" to rape, rob and destroy. (2) they have minions of leftists who will die for their sorry asses. I have never, in my old assed life, seen anyone (other than possibly the Kennedy's) that get away with the shit these two get away with on nearly a daily basis - and the folks who adore them just keep foaming at the mouth with adoration.

I don't get it - I will NEVER get it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Back then, Nixon was forced to resign (by the republicans) for having "knowledge" of the Watergate break in.

I think it was the conversation where he discussed the raising the million dollars in hush money for the burglers that convinced a few of the Republicans that it was a High Crime.

"You could get a million dollars," the president said, "You could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. But the question is who the hell would handle it? Any ideas on that?"

TAPES SHOW NIXON WEIGHED PROS AND CONS OF HUSH MONEY Deseret News

Yeah. Nixon DISCUSSED it - Hillary accepts it. It's called the "Clinton Foundation". Regardless, Nixon was forced out. Hillary and Bill are celebrated. If you don't see the irony there, then I'm sorry.

Why belittle what Nixon actually did?

A criminal enterprise was run of of CREEP and the WH

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

sorry but this post is absolutely

Kind of the response I expected from you. Nothing to say to refute it, so simply minimize the value. Old style typical childish debate tactic.

Debate tactic? You are actually looking to debate? With what you posted? Seriously dude...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

I will give these two (Bill and Hillary) this: They do it and they get away with it - time after time after time after time. (1) They use the "law" to rape, rob and destroy. (2) they have minions of leftists who will die for their sorry asses. I have never, in my old assed life, seen anyone (other than possibly the Kennedy's) that get away with the shit these two get away with on nearly a daily basis - and the folks who adore them just keep foaming at the mouth with adoration.

I don't get it - I will NEVER get it.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

I will give these two (Bill and Hillary) this: They do it and they get away with it - time after time after time after time. (1) They use the "law" to rape, rob and destroy. (2) they have minions of leftists who will die for their sorry asses. I have never, in my old assed life, seen anyone (other than possibly the Kennedy's) that get away with the shit these two get away with on nearly a daily basis - and the folks who adore them just keep foaming at the mouth with adoration.

I don't get it - I will NEVER get it.

I get it, after six years of Obungle's eff ups they still adore the disaster, they don't care what these people do all they care about is having that "D" in front of their name and for them to win elections.

 

[Jarhead]

There is no EVIDENCE that she destroyed government records, what so ever.....nada, nilch, zilch, zip, none.

It's just your own imagination that has determined such...along with the beloved right wing media rags throwing wads of crap about her against the wall, hoping something, anything will stick.....and pulling your strings...

Good luck with that.....

Nope. No evidence at all.

However, she decided you wont care if there is no evidence. Think about it. She decided that you should trust her when she says she did not destroy government records. Sure, she could have done it the old fashioned way....you know....turn over all documents and let an independent group determine what is government property and what is personal.

But no. She decided to ask you to trust her and allow HER to make that decision and then intentionally destroy everything else.

So, no. There is no evidence she destroyed government property. She could have had proof she did not. But instead she decided that you would believe her.

She actually went out of her way to get rid of the evidence she would need to prove she did nothing wrong....but she did it anyway, because she knew you would believe her.

And she was right.

sorry but this post is absolutely

Kind of the response I expected from you. Nothing to say to refute it, so simply minimize the value. Old style typical childish debate tactic.

Debate tactic? You are actually looking to debate? With what you posted? Seriously dude...

So you continue to attempt to minimize the value of the post as opposed to refuting it. Like I said...Old style typical childish debate tactic