Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread

Recommended Posts

Just now, Hang 10 said:

Yup. Good reason to use one of these :lmao: when Tobias brings it up then.  

But not a good reason to use it in response to people being afraid of violence.  Many things can happen other than there being a "holocaust" that make that fear perfectly reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hang 10 said:

So what percentage would you say the chances go that there's another holocaust if Trump gets elected? Because that's what we're talking about here. 

Far greater than if Hillary (or anyone else, from either party) were elected.

That doesn't mean it's a likely outcome by any stretch.  But I don't like even long odds if coming up snake eyes is something even 1/100th the magnitude of the Holocaust.  And the tone and rhetoric and style of Trump, as compared with Hitler, and the similarities in terms of their rise - including their ability to garner fanaticism from many who  crave an authoritarian leader - is at times scarily uncanny.  

As someone who lost my mothers entire family (almost) in the Holocaust, I don't go to making such analogies nor insinuations lightly.  But Germany was as advanced a nation, as culturally rich as any other on the planet when the Nazi allure seduced one of the most educated populations into a march of hate and murder.   To think it can't happen again, to not address even the slightest hints of taking that path (and, sadly, there's been far more than just slight hints, the KKK and all are outright supporting this guy and he's not disavowed it!) is to be the definition of to forget.

I have no memories of my entire family on my mothers side.  No memories has instilled in me, never to forget. 

I just wish others would see it even a little in this manner.  But I have a personal perpsective to it, so this resonates. When my wife then tells me she is "scared" and I actually could see it in her eye, it resonates all the more.  

Even if folks don't agree and dismiss what I see clear as day, have at least the respect to know what this election, and what the language and behavior of many of Trumps supporters are doing to your friends, neighbors, countrymen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

One other point on this - Cheryl Mills was involved with the calls with Combetta when the data was wiped.

The email said "not to sound like Lanny [the LAWYER] but we are going to have to dump all those emails"

It was written by John Podesta [a lawyer] to Cheryl Mills [a lawyer].  He was talking about providing the documents.  I'd go about 99.9999% certainty on that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Koya said:

I'm totally with you... we need to get the big $$ influences out of the system.  We need to create a system in which it is attractive for GOOD people to run for public office... we need to hold those we elect accountable and hold ourselves, as voters accountable, too.  We elect these idiots after all.

 

That said, in the context of this race, and the current situation, it's hardly a surprise that politicians be politicianing is all.  We also need to admit that within the current system, these stupid shady games are also how you actually get #### done... we need to fix it, but it's kinda a double edged sword to hold against someone their use of the system itself as long as it was not illegal (and fwiw, this is the same thing with Trump and his not having paid taxes, if indeed the reason he is giving is the case... of course the guy is a true coward and I'll use that however people want to take it, for not putting forth his tax returns, but that's another story).

In general I think it's not the 'illegal' aspect of thinks upsetting the balance, it's the legal 'unethical' side of things that is. Does it matter if it's not illegal if our vote and the supposed bond between citizen and representative, republican (small 'r') democracy is treated like TP? It may not be illegal but I think it has had a corrosive effect on us. It doesn't surprise me that Hillary is really pro-TPP while she tells everyone she isn't. I just think there will be some very justifiably angry voters, on the left and middle, who supported her when she supports its final passage. People feel they are being lied to in their government, that leads to anger. And we lose more than that, we don't even know at this point if TPP is good or bad because we have not had an honest debate about it. Hillary is pro-TPP and Sanders was anti-TPP, but did we get a full throated debate on it so that we could debate it and make up our mind as a people? No, the debate was not had, because Hillary said she was anti-TPP also, but even though both Dem candidates and the GOP (ahem) "candidate" were against it it will almost certainly become law.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

But not a good reason to use it in response to people being afraid of violence.  Many things can happen other than there being a "holocaust" that make that fear perfectly reasonable.

Obviously not a Holocaust, but I'm kinda worried that some unhinged fringe group will attack a college campus or news media outlet (or "insert bastion of liberal thinking and bias here") late next week if Hillary wins the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The email said "not to sound like Lanny [the LAWYER] but we are going to have to dump all those emails"

It was written by John Podesta [a lawyer] to Cheryl Mills [a lawyer].  He was talking about providing the documents.  I'd go about 99.9999% certainty on that.

Thanks for the insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hang 10 said:

So what percentage would you say the chances go up that there's another holocaust if Trump gets elected? Because that's what we're talking about here. 

100%. Reason # 357 for voting for Trump.

PS....what a ridiculous question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

But not a good reason to use it in response to people being afraid of violence.  Many things can happen other than there being a "holocaust" that make that fear perfectly reasonable.

Ask German's if something like the Holocaust would occur there ten years prior to it happening. 

You'd get the same response.  

 

Also, it can happen again, and it will happen again.  Never to my knowledge has there been a truly extended period of humankind without ethnic cleansing driven by fear and nationalism; fueled by concerns over loss of power, identity, culture. 

To think it CAN'T happen here, in America - when we are seeing signs of that threat literally before our eyes, mind you - is foolish. It's naive.  America, like Germany, is exactly where it can happen, in many ways because "it could never happen here"

I for one would prefer to take the road of caution and consider it 0.01%, which is 1000x too much of a chance for my liking.  History has proven me right time and time again. Until we, as human beings, fundamentally change/evolve, of course there will be another Holocaust. In what shape, form, era and country? 

Let's hope less than what we've seen happen before, a long long way into the future, and preferably far far away.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. So are we seriously supposed to believe the verb "dump" means to hand over all emails?

Even in Clinton speak that is so contorted. Doesn't make any sense and the more parsimonious interpretation fits more with the actual dump timeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty sad when the best defense you can muster up for your candidate is "he won't literally cause a Holocaust".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

In general I think it's not the 'illegal' aspect of thinks upsetting the balance, it's the legal 'unethical' side of things that is. Does it matter if it's not illegal if our vote and the supposed bond between citizen and representative, republican (small 'r') democracy is treated like TP? It may not be illegal but I think it has had a corrosive effect on us. It doesn't surprise me that Hillary is really pro-TPP while she tells everyone she isn't. I just think there will be some very justifiably angry voters, on the left and middle, who supported her when she supports its final passage. People feel they are being lied to in their government, that leads to anger. And we lose more than that, we don't even know at this point if TPP is good or bad because we have not had an honest debate about it. Hillary is pro-TPP and Sanders was anti-TPP, but did we get a full throated debate on it so that we could debate it and make up our mind as a people? No, the debate was not had, because Hillary said she was anti-TPP also, but even though both Dem candidates and the GOP (ahem) "candidate" were against it it will almost certainly become law.

No arguments here.  It's a ####ed system... just no contest when it comes to the choice in front of us. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cobalt_27 said:

Wait. So are we seriously supposed to believe the verb "dump" means to hand over all emails?

Even in Clinton speak that is so contorted. Doesn't make any sense and the more parsimonious interpretation fits more with the actual dump timeline. 

I'm telling you what it means in the legal community, of which everyone involved in that email is a part.  If I tell a client, or co-counsel, or opposing counsel, or any lawyer I know that I'm dumping emails, medical records, or any other document type I'm providing thousands of pages of documents to them in response to a request.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you write a serious response that references "Hitler", "Holocaust", "Nazi", and "KKK" it's probably an opportune time to step back and reconsider who the fanatics might be.

Edited by jonessed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cobalt_27 said:

Wait. So are we seriously supposed to believe the verb "dump" means to hand over all emails?

Even in Clinton speak that is so contorted. Doesn't make any sense and the more parsimonious interpretation fits more with the actual dump timeline. 

Reading that email, the key seems to be the phrase "I don't want to sound like a lawyer" 

Because a lawyer is not going to (on the record) tell you to dump records and evade discovery.  A lawyer is going to say, look, you have to hand these over to the proper folks blah blah.

 

Trust me, I believe a lot of crappy shady #### is going on (it's just surprising how people (a) act surprised and (b) act as if their guys and gals in elected office don't do the same ####), but that's a pretty strong tell with the "don't wanna sound like a lawyer" comment.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The email said "not to sound like Lanny [the LAWYER] but we are going to have to dump all those emails"

It was written by John Podesta [a lawyer] to Cheryl Mills [a lawyer].  He was talking about providing the documents.  I'd go about 99.9999% certainty on that.

 

5 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

Wait. So are we seriously supposed to believe the verb "dump" means to hand over all emails?

Even in Clinton speak that is so contorted. Doesn't make any sense and the more parsimonious interpretation fits more with the actual dump timeline. 

 

Ok, so Henry, I have another question on this - didn't Hillary turn over her printed documents in December 2014?

Why would they be proposing a document dump in March 2015?

However they destroyed all electronic copies of their emails by end of March 2015.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hang 10 said:

So what percentage would you say the chances go up that there's another holocaust if Trump gets elected? Because that's what we're talking about here. 

For like the sixth time- no, it's not.  We're talking about people fearful due to persistent threats and harassment, which includes references to the previous Holocaust and calls for another one, and a presidential campaign that's done very little to discourage its supporters from making those threats. Not actually predicting another Holocaust.  They are two different things. One is fear of individuals or groups not affiliated with the government but emboldened by a presidential campaign. That is a real thing that is happening and would IMO get even worse if that campaign succeeds. The other is fear of government-ordered genocide. To my knowledge nobody actually thinks the latter would happen here in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean the former is silly and should be dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonessed said:

When you write a serious response that references "Hitler", "Holocaust", "Nazi", and "KKK" it's probably an opportune time to step back and reconsider who the fanatics might be.

Not when you're writing it about David Duke and his followers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm telling you what it means in the legal community, of which everyone involved in that email is a part.  If I tell a client, or co-counsel, or opposing counsel, or any lawyer I know that I'm dumping emails, medical records, or any other document type I'm providing thousands of pages of documents to them in response to a request.

If you say so. I trust your input. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

Not when you're writing it about David Duke and his followers.

Or the history of WW2, but neither qualifies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm telling you what it means in the legal community, of which everyone involved in that email is a part.  If I tell a client, or co-counsel, or opposing counsel, or any lawyer I know that I'm dumping emails, medical records, or any other document type I'm providing thousands of pages of documents to them in response to a request.

In the finance/accounting world, "data dump" means pretty much exactly what you're saying here.  The auditor wants our workpapers for 2011 through 2014?  Data dump.  Our client's wife's divorce attorney wants all financial records for the last 5 years?  Data dump.

Here's your 30,000 page PDF.  Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonessed said:

When you write a serious response that simultaneously references "Hitler", "Holocaust", "Nazi", and "KKK" it's probably an opportune time to step back and reconsider who the fanatic is.

Want to counter what was written point by point, you know, in a constructive way... or you going to pass on providing something of constructive value to the thread as seems to be the general playbook by a number of emotically-driven folks round these parts.

In any other election you'd likely be right. But there's documented and legitimate reasons, sadly, to invoke and any all of the above.

 

So, again, got something to discuss or do you not / not have the cojones to get into it, point by point? Because there were specific points to address each of those mentions above.  Bring it on. Just bring it on in a legitimate way, not a cowardly flippant comment but have no substance and no backing to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jonessed said:

When you write a serious response that references "Hitler", "Holocaust", "Nazi", and "KKK" it's probably an opportune time to step back and reconsider who the fanatics might be.

That's one of the tricks in the DNC playbook! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Koya said:

Want to counter what was written point by point, you know, in a constructive way... or you going to pass on providing something of constructive value to the thread as seems to be the general playbook by a number of emotically-driven folks round these parts.

In any other election you'd likely be right. But there's documented and legitimate reasons, sadly, to invoke and any all of the above.

 

So, again, got something to discuss or do you not / not have the cojones to get into it, point by point? Because there were specific points to address each of those mentions above.  Bring it on. Just bring it on in a legitimate way, not a cowardly flippant comment but have no substance and no backing to it. 

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's going to be another Holocaust; that's unrealistic. 

But let's stop and take a look at what IS realistic under a Trump Presidency: 

1. We will no longer honor our NATO obligations. 

2. We will have our military commit war crimes. 

3. We will, for the first time since December of 1941, turn our back on the world. 

4. His election will encourage racism and xenophobia. 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's stunning to me that anyone could vote for this man, much less close to a majority of the American people based on the ABC poll. It's the most depressing political news of my lifetime. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steve Tasker said:

In the finance/accounting world, "data dump" means pretty much exactly what you're saying here.  The auditor wants our workpapers for 2011 through 2014?  Data dump.  Our client's wife's divorce attorney wants all financial records for the last 5 years?  Data dump.

Here's your 30,000 page PDF.  Have fun.

Hadn't Hillary already turned them over at that point?  What emails were they referencing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CBusAlex said:

It's pretty sad when the best defense you can muster up for your candidate is "he won't literally cause a Holocaust".

When you guys are all talking literally about one...are we supposed to deny it figuratively?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

 

Ok, so Henry, I have another question on this - didn't Hillary turn over her printed documents in December 2014?

Why would they be proposing a document dump in March 2015?

However they destroyed all electronic copies of their emails by end of March 2015.

Yes, they had already provided the emails to the State Department.  Also, I believe the date of this email exchange is March 2nd, 2015...the same day this story came out from the NYT's: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm telling you what it means in the legal community, of which everyone involved in that email is a part.  If I tell a client, or co-counsel, or opposing counsel, or any lawyer I know that I'm dumping emails, medical records, or any other document type I'm providing thousands of pages of documents to them in response to a request.

Document Dump

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Not when you're writing it about David Duke and his followers.

And the presidential candidate they have rallied behind.  Visibly, aggressively, vocally. 

With said candidate doing almost, if not nothing, to visibly, aggressively and vocally disassociate himself from well, the KKK, white supremacists, folks that idolize Hitler and well, the Nazis. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Or the history of WW2, but neither qualifies here.

David Duke is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and is currently running for office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Card Trader said:

:lmao:

We know where you stand on adding something constructive vs. taking a cowardly approach to not answering at all, and never actually addressing any points brought to bear. 

Curious if Jonessed is going to take the cowardly path as well and also not stand up for anything he says or any attacks he may make upon others/what others say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm telling you what it means in the legal community, of which everyone involved in that email is a part.  If I tell a client, or co-counsel, or opposing counsel, or any lawyer I know that I'm dumping emails, medical records, or any other document type I'm providing thousands of pages of documents to them in response to a request.

I think you need to put this in context.

If you're a plaintiff lawyer and you've sued a company and they produce discovery in December 2014.

And then a major news story hits about the defendant on March 2, 2015.

And then you ask for more discovery after the news story. But the defendant says WHOOPS we don't have any more documents, all gone, they were all destroyed. And then it turns out that the data had been destroyed by March 31, 2015.

And then through a whistleblower employee you learn that this 'clean it up' and 'dump' the emails discussion took place in between...

...does the word 'spoliation' not come to mind?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Koya said:

We know where you stand on adding something constructive vs. taking a cowardly approach to not answering at all, and never actually addressing any points brought to bear. 

Curious if Jonessed is going to take the cowardly path as well and also not stand up for anything he says or any attacks he may make upon others/what others say.

:lmao:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

 

Ok, so Henry, I have another question on this - didn't Hillary turn over her printed documents in December 2014?

Why would they be proposing a document dump in March 2015?

Because they provided however many thousands of emails prior to that and knew there were more emails that, while not necessarily (though maybe) responsive, the government was going to get in order to verify that they had everything.  Some time after that date, they were deleted.  But I would imagine no discussion of that happened over email, assuming that it was intentional and conspired about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don't think there's going to be another Holocaust; that's unrealistic. 

But let's stop and take a look at what IS realistic under a Trump Presidency: 

1. We will no longer honor our NATO obligations. 

2. We will have our military commit war crimes. 

3. We will, for the first time since December of 1941, turn our back on the world. 

4. His election will encourage racism and xenophobia. 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's stunning to me that anyone could vote for this man, much less close to a majority of the American people based on the ABC poll. It's the most depressing political news of my lifetime. 

5.  Our president will make it a priority to imprison his political opponent. I consider that more likely than any of the things you've listed.  It's pretty much a campaign promise. Throwing your political opponent is jail is something that happens in dictatorships. One of the articles of impeachment for Nixon was his misuse of law enforcement for political purpose.

6. The press will be vilified and marginalized, removing a vital check on the government.  Also more likely than the things on your list, pretty much already underway in fact.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think you need to put this in context.

If you're a plaintiff lawyer and you've sued a company and they produce discovery in December 2014.

And then a major news story hits about the defendant on March 2, 2015.

And then you ask for more discovery after the news story. But the defendant says WHOOPS we don't have any more documents, all gone, they were all destroyed. And then it turns out that the data had been destroyed by March 31, 2015.

And then through a whistleblower employee you learn that this 'clean it up' and 'dump' the emails discussion took place in between...

...does the word 'spoliation' not come to mind?

But the attorney in the room is not going to recommend, in a legal capacity "as an atty" to dump them as in throw them out. That just makes no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, on March 9, 2015, one week after the Podesta email, Mills (who is the party he sent it to) sent a preservation request to Platte River Networks asking that they preserve everything.  However, PRN claimed not to have read that request and deleted the emails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't December 5th, 2014 the only date Clinton's lawyers provided emails?  I believe they printed and handed over 30,490 emails at that time.  Can anyone point me to a date after March 2nd, 2015 where they "dumped" additional emails to State?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I don't think there's going to be another Holocaust; that's unrealistic. 

But let's stop and take a look at what IS realistic under a Trump Presidency: 

1. We will no longer honor our NATO obligations. 

2. We will have our military commit war crimes. 

3. We will, for the first time since December of 1941, turn our back on the world. 

4. His election will encourage racism and xenophobia. 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's stunning to me that anyone could vote for this man, much less close to a majority of the American people based on the ABC poll. It's the most depressing political news of my lifetime. 

1.  Most NATO members already don't.  I think a compromise can be reached that includes everybody fulfilling their obligations going forward.  I'm tired of subsidizing Europe's military.

2.  More like the CIA, but I have no idea where they draw the current line.

3. Rhetoric.  See #1.

4.  Maybe, maybe not.  I think Obama's election encouraged racism.  Race is a hot topic right now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Venezuela introducing Clinton today

:lmao:

the ship be sinking folks

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

Because they provided however many thousands of emails prior to that and knew there were more emails that, while not necessarily (though maybe) responsive, the government was going to get in order to verify that they had everything.  Some time after that date, they were deleted.  But I would imagine no discussion of that happened over email, assuming that it was intentional and conspired about.

'Some time after' was 2 weeks after.

There were no more emails provided to the government. The only change in the data was it was destroyed after the 'dump' and 'clean it up' comments.

The only point that makes sense here is 'there's no way they were so stupid as to discuss this over email' but seriously there was no dump that followed that email, the government had already received everything 3 months previously.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Baloney Sandwich said:

Isn't December 5th, 2014 the only date Clinton's lawyers provided emails?  I believe they printed and handed over 30,490 emails at that time.  Can anyone point me to a date after March 2nd, 2015 where they "dumped" additional emails to State?

 

 

On March 9 - one week after this email exchange with Podesta - Cheryl Mills sent a notice to where the emails in question had been preserved (the off-site server space that had backed them up) and requested that PRN preserve the emails.  They deleted them some weeks later, with no reasonable explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Baloney Sandwich said:

Isn't December 5th, 2014 the only date Clinton's lawyers provided emails?  I believe they printed and handed over 30,490 emails at that time.  Can anyone point me to a date after March 2nd, 2015 where they "dumped" additional emails to State?

 

 

There wasn't one.  Everything after that date came from the seizure of the computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

'Some time after' was 2 weeks after.

There were no more emails provided to the government. The only change in the data was it was destroyed after the 'dump' and 'clean it up' comments.

The only point that makes sense here is 'there's no way they were so stupid as to discuss this over email' but seriously there was no dump that followed that email, the government had already received everything 3 months previously.

No, there was no dump, but there was a request made by a member of that email chain to preserve thousands and thousands of emails for such a dump.  But they deleted the emails, and no such dump could then happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

In fact, on March 9, 2015, one week after the Podesta email, Mills (who is the party he sent it to) sent a preservation request to Platte River Networks asking that they preserve everything.  However, PRN claimed not to have read that request and deleted the emails.

Combetta lied 3 times about that issue.

IIRC Mills received the preservation request from Congress as they issued a subpoena on March 4th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

On March 9 - one week after this email exchange with Podesta - Cheryl Mills sent a notice to where the emails in question had been preserved (the off-site server space that had backed them up) and requested that PRN preserve the emails.  They deleted them some weeks later, with no reasonable explanation.

the same PRN where in August of 2015 employee exchanged the following?

a Platte River Networks employee wrote to a coworker that he was, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) s**t."
"I just think if we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups, and that we can go public with our statement saying we have backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30days (sic), it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better," the unnamed employee continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Koya said:
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

I don't listen to them, so I'm not sure where they stand.  Are they more of the "Damn right...Russia should be doing whatever it takes to keep Hillary out of the Presidency" or "Well, if Russia is going to uncover the stuff our government is trying to hide, so be it."

Those are pretty different positions.  

Donald Trump himself stood in front of an audience and cameras and ENCOURAGED Russia to uncover more dirt on Hillary.  Needless to say, since that occurred weeks ago, his puppets (no puppet) have parroted the sentiment many times over. 

So, in your view, which of the two does this fall or is it some other variation?  It's been somewhat scary for me this election cycle is how willfully ignorant and uniformed the voting block is in this country.  To an extent, I include myself in that group because I haven't paid real close attention to our election processes all that closely until now.  Some of what I have seen is appalling.  Some of it is expected.  Other governments influencing our elections is expected given our noses being in elections in other countries all the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koya, here's one thing you need to understand about the Trump supporters in this forum (and a lot of the Trump supporters in general): 

 

They don't care what Trump says. They don't give a crap what his proposals are or how crazy he sounds. They're voting for Trump because they want to see our heads explode. By "our heads" I'm talking about liberals. pro-establishment types, and those who try to adhere to political correctness. They (Trump supporters) want to see us defeated and freaked out about it. 

That is, for many, the sole agenda. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Combetta lied 3 times about that issue.

IIRC Mills received the preservation request from Congress as they issued a subpoena on March 4th.

The subpoenas were pretty limited in scope.  They likely wouldn't have covered everything involved there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.