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

[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

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.

I see the irony in trying to compare the Clinton Foundation to CREEP.

 

[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.

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.

And honestly, I believe that that is what we have come to in this country. The WWE. No one seems to give a damn about the "country" as a whole - but more about their "party" and how it might (in some perverse way) benefit them. These leftists on this forum seem to work under the notion that if a candidate like Hillary is elected that they will somehow will "gain" something from it. They will not. That broad couldn't care less for these "useful idiots". She will become filthy rich - by selling this country off in bits and pieces (Bill was good at that) and then ride off into the sunset.

After all - Hillary says - "Those rich people, God Bless us!!"




They see her saying things like this - and STILL they adore her......but let a republican make that statement and it's tag team time!!!

 

[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...

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

Value?

Might as well value a 911 conspiracy post

 

[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.

I see the irony in trying to compare the Clinton Foundation to CREEP.

Well, you know the old saying - "There is none so blind as he who will not see"

 

[Jarhead]

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

Value?

Might as well value a 911 conspiracy post

Okie Dokie Spokey.

You have made it clear that you can not refute it.

You have made it clear that you realize that, yeah, she did go out of her way to get rid of any proof that she did NOT destroy any government records. It would have been easier for her to simply turn over her server...but instead she decided to go through 60K emails on her own and then pay to have the server destroyed...

And so therefore, you have nothing to respond with.

I get it.

 

[jwoodie]

I see the irony in trying to compare the Clinton Foundation to CREEP.

So says the blind man. Millions loved Stalin, too.

 

[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.

I see the irony in trying to compare the Clinton Foundation to CREEP.

compare?

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

Value?

Might as well value a 911 conspiracy post

Okie Dokie Spokey.

You have made it clear that you can not refute it.

You have made it clear that you realize that, yeah, she did go out of her way to get rid of any proof that she did NOT destroy any government records. It would have been easier for her to simply turn over her server...but instead she decided to go through 60K emails on her own and then pay to have the server destroyed...

And so therefore, you have nothing to respond with.

I get it.

Destroy government records? What government records?

 

[RandallFlagg]

I see the irony in trying to compare the Clinton Foundation to CREEP.

So says the blind man. Millions loved Stalin, too.

Indeed. I saw people in Moscow waiting in 8 hour bread lines for a bit of bread all the while praising communism. These fools on the left here are no different.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Mindless bed wetting drones trust her...

Oh wait you said "people"...

Nevermind.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Value?

Might as well value a 911 conspiracy post

Okie Dokie Spokey.

You have made it clear that you can not refute it.

You have made it clear that you realize that, yeah, she did go out of her way to get rid of any proof that she did NOT destroy any government records. It would have been easier for her to simply turn over her server...but instead she decided to go through 60K emails on her own and then pay to have the server destroyed...

And so therefore, you have nothing to respond with.

I get it.

That seems to be the general feeling from the left. Scream that there is no evidence all the while not bothering to acknowledge that Clinton is the one that would have had to turn it over.
The very fact that she refused to turn over the server and then destroyed it really reeks of corruption.

 

[Pete7469]

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

I have to go to bat for Clayton here,

There are far dumber assholes than him on this forum.

 

[Pete7469]

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]?"

That's just the thing. Hitlary could kidnap a pregnant woman, cut a baby out of her womb, eat it and set the woman on fire and you bed wetters would either ignore it or claim Bush forced her to do it with some sort of mind control device.

The day you sniveling parasites hold your political whores to account for their egregious crimes, Jesus Christ Himself will be standing before you asking "WTF"?

 

[BlindBoo]

I see the irony in trying to compare the Clinton Foundation to CREEP.

So says the blind man. Millions loved Stalin, too.

The dog could see with her nose. I don't think you should compare Nixon to Stalin like that, but that's just me.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Don't even try to get it. You can't because you have a conscience. Even trying to understand how a bed wetter can go through their lives without thinking might damage the soul.

 

[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]?"

That's just the thing. Hitlary could kidnap a pregnant woman, cut a baby out of her womb, eat it and set the woman on fire and you bed wetters would either ignore it or claim Bush forced her to do it with some sort of mind control device.

The day you sniveling parasites hold your political whores to account for their egregious crimes, Jesus Christ Himself will be standing before you asking "WTF"?

Hyperbole much, Oh wait that's a re-run too. Nevermind.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

Value?

Might as well value a 911 conspiracy post

Okie Dokie Spokey.

You have made it clear that you can not refute it.

You have made it clear that you realize that, yeah, she did go out of her way to get rid of any proof that she did NOT destroy any government records. It would have been easier for her to simply turn over her server...but instead she decided to go through 60K emails on her own and then pay to have the server destroyed...

And so therefore, you have nothing to respond with.

I get it.

That seems to be the general feeling from the left. Scream that there is no evidence all the while not bothering to acknowledge that Clinton is the one that would have had to turn it over.
The very fact that she refused to turn over the server and then destroyed it really reeks of corruption.

Ask yourself this one question: If that were YOU, and YOU had done the very same thing, how many years in Leavenworth do you think you would get? When you are ABOVE the law - you don't worry about the details.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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]?"

That's just the thing. Hitlary could kidnap a pregnant woman, cut a baby out of her womb, eat it and set the woman on fire and you bed wetters would either ignore it or claim Bush forced her to do it with some sort of mind control device.

The day you sniveling parasites hold your political whores to account for their egregious crimes, Jesus Christ Himself will be standing before you asking "WTF"?

Damn fine reply!

 

[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]?"

That's just the thing. Hitlary could kidnap a pregnant woman, cut a baby out of her womb, eat it and set the woman on fire and you bed wetters would either ignore it or claim Bush forced her to do it with some sort of mind control device.

The day you sniveling parasites hold your political whores to account for their egregious crimes, Jesus Christ Himself will be standing before you asking "WTF"?

Damn fine reply!

"egregious crimes"????

the hyperbole is part of the reason most rational people do not take you people seriously

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Value?

Might as well value a 911 conspiracy post

Okie Dokie Spokey.

You have made it clear that you can not refute it.

You have made it clear that you realize that, yeah, she did go out of her way to get rid of any proof that she did NOT destroy any government records. It would have been easier for her to simply turn over her server...but instead she decided to go through 60K emails on her own and then pay to have the server destroyed...

And so therefore, you have nothing to respond with.

I get it.

That seems to be the general feeling from the left. Scream that there is no evidence all the while not bothering to acknowledge that Clinton is the one that would have had to turn it over.
The very fact that she refused to turn over the server and then destroyed it really reeks of corruption.

Ask yourself this one question: If that were YOU, and YOU had done the very same thing, how many years in Leavenworth do you think you would get? When you are ABOVE the law - you don't worry about the details.

Leavenworth? Do nutjobs like you seriously think if Clinton committed actual crimes she'd not be in court today?

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Value?

Might as well value a 911 conspiracy post

Okie Dokie Spokey.

You have made it clear that you can not refute it.

You have made it clear that you realize that, yeah, she did go out of her way to get rid of any proof that she did NOT destroy any government records. It would have been easier for her to simply turn over her server...but instead she decided to go through 60K emails on her own and then pay to have the server destroyed...

And so therefore, you have nothing to respond with.

I get it.

That seems to be the general feeling from the left. Scream that there is no evidence all the while not bothering to acknowledge that Clinton is the one that would have had to turn it over.
The very fact that she refused to turn over the server and then destroyed it really reeks of corruption.

Ask yourself this one question: If that were YOU, and YOU had done the very same thing, how many years in Leavenworth do you think you would get? When you are ABOVE the law - you don't worry about the details.

Truth. The ruling class avoids responsibility and blames someone under them for virtually everything.