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

[FA_Q2]

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?

Yes we do and you are absolutely insane if you thing that the powers that be go to court for breaking the law. Do you think that Bush broke the law when he authorized torture on prisoners? Where is his court case? What about Christie in bridge gate? What about Nixon? He had to leave office and yet… no court time – a pardon received right after he resigns.

Political figures rarely see court and when they do it is almost always because they are irrelevant.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

It's been going on since the beginning of time, unfortunately. Kings and Queens, Lords and Ladies, Dukes and Earls. Are we REALLY that much different now? I sincerely doubt it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

really?

blaming somebody under you is human nature. it has absolutely NOTHING to do with class.

I suggest having you on the side of people fighting the upper class is a liability. You almost always make your side look incredibly stupid

 

[RandallFlagg]

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?

Yes we do and you are absolutely insane if you thing that the powers that be go to court for breaking the law. Do you think that Bush broke the law when he authorized torture on prisoners? Where is his court case? What about Christie in bridge gate? What about Nixon? He had to leave office and yet… no court time – a pardon received right after he resigns.

Political figures rarely see court and when they do it is almost always because they are irrelevant.

Well sir, when THEY pass laws excusing their behavior while in office - what can we do? That's what most Americans just don't understand any longer. The system is rigged in THEIR favor. They (literally) laugh at us. There is no "party" in Washington - it is "Us versus Them" - no democrat, no republican. And yet, we continue to send the same assholes back - time after time after time after time - always telling ourselves that "this guy will DO something". And he goes there with the best of intentions. Then the lobbyists begin "wining and dining" treating him to Orgies, drug parties, hookers (I say this because I have seen it first-hand) and the Senior leadership tell him to "cool his jets" and suddenly - it is "business as usual". Welcome to our government.

Again, we have a snake pit in Washington DC. Not unlike Rome (before the fall). Note the words BEFORE THE FALL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

"Liberalism" rests upon "Relativism". As such, what the Left says about anything, at anytime... is irrelevant. Because the Liberal rejects all sense of accountability on anything they say or do. And that is why the Ideological Left opposes all sense of 'standard', claiming that standards are by default; by definition: Discriminatory.

Which is why any culture which tolerates "left-think", has suffered as a result of it. Point to any culture which allows the unprincipled tenets of the Ideological Left into governance and you'll be pointing to a culture in decline, and this without exception.

Liberalism is simply Evil. Plain and simple.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

really?

blaming somebody under you is human nature. it has absolutely NOTHING to do with class.

I suggest having you on the side of people fighting the upper class is a liability. You almost always make your side look incredibly stupid

Sure I do. I doubt you have any idea what 'side' I am on. You are the hack here, the one that cannot discern the fact that there are no real sides.
It has a lot to do with class BTW. The fact is that they have the POWER and INFLUENCE to blame others whereas most of us simply do not. Not surprising that you give them a pass on this though.

 

[danielpalos]

Is it wrong to impugn the right with being nothing but rebels without a Cause simply on the prima facie evidence of their having nothing but protestants and renegades in their contingents.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

 

[Pete7469]

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

The sickening part is that they wouldn't even exist let alone get away with their egregious crimes because of the deliberate ignorance of these parasitic troglodytes who are willing to allow the rest of the country to suffer just to spite people they're programmed to hate.

They remind me of the sort of people who snitched their neighbors out to the KGB just to find favor with their commisars. They're the lowest form of scum on 2 legs.

 

[Siete]

the House has had Clinton under investigation how many times now ?

Congress is sworn to uphold the law, courts be damned.

who here honestly believes the Clinton hunters in Congress just let her slide without consequence ?

idiot RW's that's who.

 

[jwoodie]

The dog could see with her nose.

Not a nice way to refer to Hillary.

 

[Pete7469]

The dog could see with her nose.

Not a nice way to refer to Hillary.

You're insulting dogs.

 

[Siete]

the republican House is ignoring Clintons guilt, and refusing to bring any charges against her simply because they want to lose to her in 2016 ..

ponder that

 

[BlindBoo]

The dog could see with her nose.

Not a nice way to refer to Hillary.

Copyrat.

 

[RandallFlagg]

the republican House is ignoring Clintons guilt, and refusing to bring any charges against her simply because they want to lose to her in 2016 ..

ponder that

Say what!?!?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Yes we do...

Good gawd!

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Yes we do...

Good gawd!

I notice how you cut the rest out and failed to respond. How about you go back and try again.

You won’t though because you can’t. Facts are facts and you are trying your damnedest to ignore them.