Hillary's Interview

[Colonel Hogan]

Uh, yeah. That's what happened. His pattern of dishonesty and erratic behavior was a hallmark of this campaign. I'm sorry you weren't paying attention. Look it up yourself.

Oh, and then there's, you know, this: The FBI is investigating whether Rudy Giuliani leaked information about Hillary Clinton’s emails.


But you should call them and tell them he denied it TWO WHOLE TIMES on TELEVISION! Make sure to include some eyeroll emojis.

From your link:

During Comey’s Senate hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked the FBI head if anyone from the agency leaked this information. “Did anybody in the FBI during this 2016 campaign have contact with Rudy Giuliani about the Clinton investigation?”

“I don’t know yet, but if I find out that people were leaking information about our investigations whether to reporters or private parties, there will be severe consequences,” Comey answered. He added that he is “very, very interested” in knowing if that is in fact what happened.

So, if he concludes from his investigation that that did NOT happened, are you prepared to accept that verdict, or have you already determined from YOUR investigation that such a conclusion would only document his incompetence?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It is a false dilemma because despite what he claims there was obviously the option of taking some time to look at what was there or get a proper estimate of how long it would take to do so. It took them a week to finish! Why did the fucking FBI director think it would have been "catastrophic" to assess the fucking evidence before writing to Congress, which he knew damn well would be instantly public and could affect the election.

Look: I know it's a complicated story. There's lots of blame to go around. Anthony Weiner, first of all, for being a monster. And the justice department was probably a really fucked up place to be. The Loretta-Bill meeting was dumb! The Republicans had made the whole thing a witchhunt! And Huma and Hillary, obviously!! It was all stupid and everyone's an asshole and now we have a complete maniac in charge but for fuck's sake we should be able to agree that he shouldn't have written the goddamn letter OR should have disclosed the Trump campaign/Russia investigation.

This is the crux of the matter and I appreciate that you have stated your position clearly and succinctly. I believe the following New York Times article does an excellent job of presenting the full and accurate context of what happened step-by-step from the initial discovery of the "issue" of Clinton's private email server in 2015 right on up to the present day. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html?_r=0

It is much too long to quote piecemeal, nor am I under any delusion that it would change your perspective. People can read it for themselves if they give a shit. What I see is an FBI director that, with respect to BOTH investigations and at every critical juncture, was "damned if he did and damned if he didn't" speak or conceal. And that is exactly as it has played out in reality.

So, no, I don't think it is necessarily true that we should be able to agree on Comey's proper course of action at any point in this affair. But based on the Times article I am now less adamant than I was before that we don't.

 

[SyKoKo]

The CuntClinton letters were FACT

The so called Russia shit WASNT

HUGE DIFFERENCE

Not that DERANGED LIB LOONZ would appreciate the difference

 

[Phelia]

From your link:



So, if he concludes from his investigation that that did NOT happened, are you prepared to accept that verdict, or have you already determined from YOUR investigation that such a conclusion would only document his incompetence?

This is the crux of the matter and I appreciate that you have stated your position clearly and succinctly. I believe the following New York Times article does an excellent job of presenting the full and accurate context of what happened step-by-step from the initial discovery of the "issue" of Clinton's private email server in 2015 right on up to the present day. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html?_r=0

It is much too long to quote piecemeal, nor am I under any delusion that it would change your perspective. People can read it for themselves if they give a shit. What I see is an FBI director that, with respect to BOTH investigations and at every critical juncture, was "damned if he did and damned if he didn't" speak or conceal. And that is exactly as it has played out in reality.

So, no, I don't think it is necessarily true that we should be able to agree on Comey's proper course of action at any point in this affair. But based on the Times article I am now less adamant than I was before that we don't.

Just want to make sure we close the loop on this one too, because I think I forgot an important point:

You can go fuck yourself.

I read that NYT article when it came out. One of us demonstrated a clear willingness to draw conclusions based on incomplete (and ultimately incorrect) information and it wasn't fucking me.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you were tripping over your own balls to shout me down for refusing to accept ridiculous claims at face value because what, they were first person? But then, you were just as ready to drone on and on about how Sally Yates' testimony was wrong because your chickenshit armchair law degree makes you more qualified than a Deputy Attorney General.

Gee, I wonder what was different? I'm starting to notice a pattern here!

But I'm the miserable little cunt, right? And I make shitty arguments!! I had to call in the justice department to back me up. TWICE! I'm soooooo stupid and uninformed. I should start watching Fox.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Just want to make sure we close the loop on this one too, because I think I forgot an important point:

You can go fuck yourself.

I read that NYT article when it came out. One of us demonstrated a clear willingness to draw conclusions based on incomplete (and ultimately incorrect) information and it wasn't fucking me.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you were tripping over your own balls to shout me down for refusing to accept ridiculous claims at face value because what, they were first person? But then, you were just as ready to drone on and on about how Sally Yates' testimony was wrong because your chickenshit armchair law degree makes you more qualified than a Deputy Attorney General.

My "chickenshit armchair law degree" doesn't make me MORE qualified than the DAG. It only makes it at least the arguable equal to whatever fucking furniture store where you got YOURS. And as I have repeatedly informed others, if not you, my "vast legal knowledge" is drawn ONLY from PRIOR ADJUDICATED CASELAW (primarily Supreme Court decisions). It is that line of legal history that indicts the assault on the plenary authority of the United States to assign any and all forms of "discriminatory" criteria to immigration policy -- legal history that was largely forged concurrent with and admits to no conflict whatsoever with the Establishment, Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. So your character assassination of my "legal qualifications" is a blatant "red herring" waste of time. Peddle that crap somewhere else.

But I'm the miserable little cunt, right? And I make shitty arguments!! I had to call in the justice department to back me up. TWICE! I'm soooooo stupid and uninformed. I should start watching Fox.

You're a miserable "little cunt" because of your personality and your proclivity, like far too many others, to brand people as liars, frauds and criminals, based solely on your opinion with no supporting facts. It is THAT inclination that makes for shitty arguments.

When you FINALLY "called in" the DOJ to "back you up" AND included the citation of the Times article, I gave you credit for a "clear and succinct" presentation of your case, and my response to that factually supported presentation was entirely civil. Until then, you had not done so.

It is all I ask/demand that people do. When they do that, I am usually content (though certainly not always), to focus on whatever deficiencies exist in their substantive arguments rather than the deficiencies in their personalities.

Because at least they've given me the option.

Hope that "closes the loop" for you.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As I have been saying for a little bit now, she is ugly to the bone.


Polite conversation is incomprehensible to a True Believer (Eric Hoffer).

 

[Sean]

You're a miserable "little cunt" because of your personality and your proclivity, like far too many others, to brand people as liars, frauds and criminals, based solely on your opinion with no supporting facts. It is THAT inclination that makes for shitty arguments.

RROTFL. You really are a self righteous, hypocritical cunt. You've been doing exactly that to Hillary for months if not years. You're just another little RWCJ misogynist drone, aren't you?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Boy... I watched that train wreck. She just doesn't get it. The reason she lost was not because of Russia, or because of the FBI torpedoing her, or because Trump was better. She lost because she's an awful human being and was a terrible nominee.

If she thinks she would have won without Russia's interference or Comey's announcement, she is probably right; it was a very close-run election.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

RROTFL. You really are a self righteous, hypocritical cunt. You've been doing exactly that to Hillary for months if not years. You're just another little RWCJ misogynist drone, aren't you?

Make up your mind. Is it months or years?

 

[Phelia]

My "chickenshit armchair law degree" doesn't make me MORE qualified than the DAG. It only makes it at least the arguable equal to whatever fucking furniture store where you got YOURS. And as I have repeatedly informed others, if not you, my "vast legal knowledge" is drawn ONLY from PRIOR ADJUDICATED CASELAW (primarily Supreme Court decisions). It is that line of legal history that indicts the assault on the plenary authority of the United States to assign any and all forms of "discriminatory" criteria to immigration policy -- legal history that was largely forged concurrent with and admits to no conflict whatsoever with the Establishment, Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. So your character assassination of my "legal qualifications" is a blatant "red herring" waste of time. Peddle that crap somewhere else.



You're a miserable "little cunt" because of your personality and your proclivity, like far too many others, to brand people as liars, frauds and criminals, based solely on your opinion with no supporting facts. It is THAT inclination that makes for shitty arguments.

When you FINALLY "called in" the DOJ to "back you up" AND included the citation of the Times article, I gave you credit for a "clear and succinct" presentation of your case, and my response to that factually supported presentation was entirely civil. Until then, you had not done so.

It is all I ask/demand that people do. When they do that, I am usually content (though certainly not always), to focus on whatever deficiencies exist in their substantive arguments rather than the deficiencies in their personalities.

Because at least they've given me the option.

Hope that "closes the loop" for you.

Right, and Sally Yates and the 9th district went to special democrat law school, where you don't need to know anything about adjudicated case law! I generally avoid commenting on judiciary matters and interpretations because a) it's not an area of deep knowledge and b) I don't find it particularly fascinating. You do and that's fine - snipe at KingO for as long as you like but insisting that the DAG has an "erroneous interpretation of the law" like you did is fucking ludicrous.

Read. The Fucking. Thread. YOU posted the Times article, for christ's sake. Regardless of what you want/need to believe, I made consistent arguments based on obvious and observable evidence. I call people liars when they lie. It's really not that fucking difficult to grasp. You, on the other hand, contorted yourself to try and prove me wrong. Reality did us a solid and cleared it up. Unless you'd like to treat the class to a rousing rendition of the ol' "James Comey was completely correct and justified in his actions, which Rod Rosenstein was also completely correct and justified in recommending he be fired for" tap dance - we'd all love to see it.

Have fun with query, who has yet to explain how the NYPD would have tipped Giuliani off about a federal investigation, and HisArpy, who, well, *shakes head slowly, sighs.* You're in good intellectual company.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Right, and Sally Yates and the 9th district went to special democrat law school, where you don't need to know anything about adjudicated case law! I generally avoid commenting on judiciary matters and interpretations because a) it's not an area of deep knowledge and b) I don't find it particularly fascinating. You do and that's fine - snipe at KingO for as long as you like but insisting that the DAG has an "erroneous interpretation of the law" like you did is fucking ludicrous.

Read. The Fucking. Thread. YOU posted the Times article, for christ's sake. Regardless of what you want/need to believe, I made consistent arguments based on obvious and observable evidence. I call people liars when they lie. It's really not that fucking difficult to grasp. You, on the other hand, contorted yourself to try and prove me wrong. Reality did us a solid and cleared it up. Unless you'd like to treat the class to a rousing rendition of the ol' "James Comey was completely correct and justified in his actions, which Rod Rosenstein was also completely correct and justified in recommending he be fired for" tap dance - we'd all love to see it.

Have fun with query, who has yet to explain how the NYPD would have tipped Giuliani off about a federal investigation, and HisArpy, who, well, *shakes head slowly, sighs.* You're in good intellectual company.

Ask Hogan how a state document is technically a federal document if you squint really Really REALLY hard!

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Just here to laugh at the "miserable little cunt".

If you ain't got nothin' nice to say, then don't say nothin'!
… Uh… Fuck that shit, bitch!
Eat a motherfuckin' dick, chew on a prick
And lick a million motherfuckin' cocks per second
I'd rather put out a motherfuckin' gospel record
I'd rather be a pussy-whipped bitch
Eat pussy and have pussy lips glued to my face, with a clit
Ring in my nose than quit bringin' my flows
Quit givin' me my ammo; can't you see why I'm so mean?
If y'all leave me alone this wouldn't be my M.O.
I wouldn't have to go eenee-meene-minie-moe
Catch a homo by his toe, man, I don't know no more

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Ask Hogan how a state document is technically a federal document if you squint really Really REALLY hard!

Humor me. What the fuck are you referring to?