Majority Of Democrats Want Hillary Investigated

[Rotadom]

Democrats don't care about crime, dishonesty, corruption, the three major characteristics incubated in Democrat DNA.

Hey, look! You said some words!

 

[Rightguide]

McDonald's sells more hamburgers than anyone else in the world.


whew. love it when the old version you seeps through the seams.

Love it when after eating all of those McTurds you can't punctuate or talk.

 

[ll74]

Democrats don't care about crime, dishonesty, corruption, the three major characteristics incubated in Democrat DNA.

I'm a Democrat and I care about all three of those things, regardless of what party.

I also don't obfuscate every news story to target a specific party or candidate, regardless of the credibility, or lack thereof.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm a Democrat and I care about all three of those things, regardless of what party.

If true, you have big problems in how you apply those characteristics to the facts of the day. You would have seen through the Russian collusion hoax in the beginning when I was posting the evidence it was.

I also don't obfuscate every news story to target a specific party or candidate, regardless of the credibility, or lack thereof.

I don't obfuscate news stories. I simply post them when I know they will trigger the left and disrupt their false narratives.

 

[Rotadom]

McDonald's sells more hamburgers than anyone else in the world.



whew. love it when the old version you seeps through the seams.

Love it when after eating all of those McTurds you can't punctuate or talk.

lol as you prove your quoting skills.

I'll leave it as is.

 

[Rightguide]

I'll leave it as is.

Fixed it.

 

[ll74]

If true, you have big problems in how you apply those characteristics to the facts of the day. You would have seen through the Russian collusion hoax in the beginning when I was posting the evidence it was.


I don't obfuscate news stories. I simply post them when I know they will trigger the left and disrupt their false narratives.

I wasn't on this forum during that investigation. I've always pointed to the Senate Report (all the volumes) in regards to evidence of Russian involvement in the 2016 election. I don't randomly talk about "collusion" nor do I believe in evidence that isn't there.

Sure you don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Rightguide]

I wasn't on this forum during that investigation. I've always pointed to the Senate Report (all the volumes) in regards to evidence of Russian involvement in the 2016 election. I don't randomly talk about "collusion" nor do I believe in evidence that isn't there.

Sure you don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Senate Report excludes information that has subsequently been declassified and made public. It also excludes information that Durham has uncovered and documented in his court filings. John Ratcliffe, the former DNI, said on Saturday in an interview by Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, he declassified a collection of federal intel documents and personally handed them to Durham saying, "there is enough evidence in here to indict multiple individuals," He would know having been a federal prosecutor before becoming a member of Congress and the DNI under Trump.

PS: Remember as well the Senate Report was a political document and in a completely different world than a legal filing in federal court.

 

[ll74]

The Senate Report excludes information that has subsequently been declassified and made public. It also excludes information that Durham has uncovered and documented in his court filings. John Ratcliffe, the former DNI, said on Saturday in an interview by Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, he declassified a collection of federal intel documents and personally handed them to Durham saying, "there is enough evidence in here to indict multiple individuals," He would know having been a federal prosecutor before becoming a member of Congress and the DNI under Trump.

PS: Remember as well the Senate Report was a political document and in a completely different world than a legal filing in federal court.

Durham has released filings that lack context. Until the report is available, I don't believe you can rely on the limited information.

John Ratcliffe wasn't under oath in his statement, so I wouldn't rely on that as well.

PS: the Senate report was an investigation into Russian involvement by Congress. It doesn't contain criminal evidence, I'm aware. they would refer any criminal possibilities to the DoJ.

 

[pecksniff]

I don't obfuscate news stories. I simply post them when I know they will trigger the left and disrupt their false narratives.

You have never found any false narratives of the left. There are those who could, but you lack the mental capacity.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Lock her up.

 

[Rightguide]

You have never found any false narratives of the left. There are those who could, but you lack the mental capacity.

Most of what you post is an attempt to fortify or further a false premise or narrative.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Love it when after eating all of those McTurds you can't punctuate or talk.

I don't eat that bullshit. I was just adding onto your dumb flex of quantifying quality.

Fixed it.

You learn good when taught by your betters, looks like.

Keep it up.

 

[Rightguide]

Durham has released filings that lack context. Until the report is available, I don't believe you can rely on the limited information.

You don't make a filing in federal court "without context." It's a federal crime to mislead a federal court or lie to a court. Durham's filings are all about providing context to the court. If you're having trouble finding context you haven't been following along with his previous filings, and the IG Report which Durham is busy refuting aspects of.





Here's an earlier report that speaks to Ratcliffe's actions he reiterated on Saturday.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/declassification-documents-durham-probe

 

[ll74]

You don't make a filing in federal court "without context." It's a federal crime to mislead a federal court or lie to a court. Durham's filings are all about providing context to the court. If you're having trouble finding context you haven't been following along with his previous filings, and the IG Report which Durham is busy refuting aspects of.





Here's an earlier report that speaks to Ratcliffe's actions he reiterated on Saturday.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/declassification-documents-durham-probe

It truly depends on what the filing is about and how much has been made public. Ratcliffe's statements on Fox News are to serve a purpose, which is outside of the courtroom.

Until the report has been produced, we're not seeing the full picture...only what is being shown to us on purpose. The Jan 6 committee has been doing the same thing.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't eat that bullshit. I was just adding onto your dumb flex of quantifying quality.

You sure spout a lot of bullshit, it came from somewhere. That second attempt to speak English fails as well, A bunch of illiterate gibberish.

You learn good when taught by your betters, looks like.

Nobody would know better than you. You've probably spent a lifetime being whipped and browbeaten by reality and self-reflection. Despite your shortcomings, I don't hold a grudge. The next time I come to NY, I'll buy you a cup of coffee, some new clothes, and put a couple of Cs your cup.

 

[Rightguide]

It truly depends on what the filing is about and how much has been made public. Ratcliffe's statements on Fox News are to serve a purpose, which is outside of the courtroom.

That is an unsupported presumption that serves your narrative. You just don't want to face the truth after spending three years being fooled and disserved by your party and media.

 

[ll74]

That is an unsupported presumption that serves your narrative. You just don't want to face the truth after spending three years being fooled and disserved by your party and media.

You're kidding, right? Are you telling me that a political pundit appearing on a media news outlet show is not there to spin things?

It certainly worked on you. Just takes a little bit of parsing to see that it's truly nothing as it is being characterized by Ratcliffe and Fox.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Never understood why anyone hates Hillary. She never in her public career did anything to deserve it, yet it's been going on since before she was even FLOTUS.

If I had to hazard a guess people knew exactly who she was from when she was a youngish woman. Knowing what we know now I think Bill would have been perfectly happy to run around chasing skirts in Arkansas for the rest of his life and Hillary told him to move his butt. That when she didn't divorce him after the Monica that was less love and more she wanted to be president. Being the first woman would be hard enough, being a single (She was really past dating age then) divorced woman to an impeached president? It was either suck it up or hang it up.

Just like we learned under Obama we liked to think that bigotry was genuinely gone or at least an extreme minority. It just learned to code its language and respond to any accusation with "Not everything is bigotry". I have to admit its brilliant.

 

[Lazaran]

.
The NYT completely REKT ReichGuide's narrative yesterday.

ReichGuide's betters constantly DESTROY him.

BOOM!!!

 

[Rightguide]

You're kidding, right? Are you telling me that a political pundit appearing on a media news outlet show is not there to spin things?

It certainly worked on you. Just takes a little bit of parsing to see that it's truly nothing as it is being characterized by Ratcliffe and Fox.

So you think Ratcliffe the former DNI was making a false statement?

 

[ll74]

So you think Ratcliffe the former DNI was making a false statement?

I believe he was spinning the release on Fox News, yes. I believe that Democrats go on CNN.com to spin their news as well. It's the only reason the filing was released to the public.

 

[Rightguide]

.
The NYT completely REKT ReichGuide's narrative yesterday.

ReichGuide's betters constantly DESTROY him.

BOOM!!!

The NYTs is full of shit and has been for years.

 

[Rightguide]

I believe he was spinning the release on Fox News, yes. I believe that Democrats go on CNN.com to spin their news as well. It's the only reason the filing was released to the public.

So, you think he didn't "declassify enough documents to indict multiple people?" You think that was a lie, right?

 

[ll74]

So, you think he didn't "declassify enough documents to indict multiple people?" You think that was a lie, right?

Do you understand the word "spin"? He spun the news.