Hillary Clinton Attorney Indictment -- Russia Russia Russia hoax

[Tom 1]

a false accusation

What false accusation?

 

[Valletta]

Re. the first link, I've never come across The Intelligencer before. I took your statement '...so many of the major American news networks' I assumed you meant the usual suspects, CNN, NYT, WAPO etc. If what you meant was some other little known news outlet, or if The Intellgencer is indeed a major news network, then mea culpa, apologies.

Re. your second article, that is the one I quoted from earlier:

'Psaki was asked repeatedly to comment on "photos of border agents on horseback using what appear to be whips on Haitian migrants" and whether it was appropriate behavior.


"I have seen some of the footage. I don't have the full context. I can't imagine what context would make that appropriate, but I don't have additional details," she told reporters at the daily White House briefing. "I don't think anyone seeing that footage would think it's acceptable or appropriate."

Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas was asked about the photo earlier in the day while visiting Del Rio, Texas, where more than 15,000 mostly Haitian migrants have converged on a border bridge. He said the reporter who asked him about the whip was "assuming the facts," and suggested it was possible the agent was simply holding a long rein.'

What do you think? Does that seem unreasonable to you?

Really though - do you really think your statement is justified? If you could produce examples of 'many major American news networks' reporting on the use of whips on refugees then that would indeed justify the assertion that 'many major American news networks' did that. As it is, you appear to be doing everything you can to avoid the simple admission that your initial statement was incorrect, not supported by the evidence you have provided.

LOL I guess MSNBC and NBC examples you can see for yourself are just not going to satisfy you.
The truth is that this is typical fake news, put out to push a narrative or racism at the border. The border is a disaster, Biden policies are promoting child trafficking, drug smuggling, and a super spreader event of COVID and other diseases. This is what journalists should be reporting on rather than follow the agenda of Democrats.

 

[Tom 1]

LOL I guess MSNBC and NBC examples you can see for yourself are just not going to satisfy you.

Whether it satisfies me or not is besides the point. You can see for yourself that there is only the remotest link between what you claim and the actual reality. Which is rather ironic, given that your whole point is that someone else is engaging in spreading false information.

 

[Tom 1]

The truth is that this is typical fake news

1) What is typical fake news?

2) When you have explained why you think your one example from a talk show somehow means 'many major American news networks' are claiming whips are used at the border, you can explain why you think this is typical. Typical would mean something like one example of a regularly encountered phenomenon. As you appear to believe that fake reporting from the 'MSM' is a regular thing, it should be easy for you to provide numerous examples showing this to be typical.

 

[Tom 1]

LOL I guess MSNBC and NBC examples you can see for yourself are just not going to satisfy you.
The truth is that this is typical fake news, put out to push a narrative or racism at the border. The border is a disaster, Biden policies are promoting child trafficking, drug smuggling, and a super spreader event of COVID and other diseases. This is what journalists should be reporting on rather than follow the agenda of Democrats.

Are you unable to respond to this?

Re. your second article, that is the one I quoted from earlier:

'Psaki was asked repeatedly to comment on "photos of border agents on horseback using what appear to be whips on Haitian migrants" and whether it was appropriate behavior.


"I have seen some of the footage. I don't have the full context. I can't imagine what context would make that appropriate, but I don't have additional details," she told reporters at the daily White House briefing. "I don't think anyone seeing that footage would think it's acceptable or appropriate."

Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas was asked about the photo earlier in the day while visiting Del Rio, Texas, where more than 15,000 mostly Haitian migrants have converged on a border bridge. He said the reporter who asked him about the whip was "assuming the facts," and suggested it was possible the agent was simply holding a long rein.'

What do you think? Does that seem unreasonable to you?

What do you think? Is it unreasonable? Is it somehow fake? It's from your link, it seems reasonable to me that you ought to be able to explain why you think so.

 

[rambot]

Evidence? The emails were destroyed, that is all the evidence needed.

But no

 

[HIM]

But no

Yes

 

[Arcangl86]

Yes

It's like saying somebody died is all the evidence you need to prove murder.

 

[rambot]

Yes

It's incriminating but it's not proof.

 

[Arcangl86]

Here is an interesting article explaining the weakness of this indictment. On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann

In addition, I did notice that the "proof" the Sussman was lying to the FBI was that he billed the Clinton campaign. Just as reasonable a conclusion from that is that he billed the Clinton campaign for the sake of having billable hours for doing a personal errand. Sleazy yes, but not the focus of Durham's investigation.

 

[HIM]

It's like saying somebody died is all the evidence you need to prove murder.

Obstruction of justice, sound familiar

 

[Arcangl86]

Obstruction of justice, sound familiar

Obstruction requires corrupt intent. The files simply being deleted don't prove that.

 

[stevil]

Here is an interesting article explaining the weakness of this indictment. On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann

In addition, I did notice that the "proof" the Sussman was lying to the FBI was that he billed the Clinton campaign. Just as reasonable a conclusion from that is that he billed the Clinton campaign for the sake of having billable hours for doing a personal errand. Sleazy yes, but not the focus of Durham's investigation.

Thanks for the link. That was an interesting article.

As to the plight of Sussman on whether he is found guilty or not. I don't personally care one way or another.

 

[Arcangl86]

Thanks for the link. That was an interesting article.

As to the plight of Sussman on whether he is found guilty or not. I don't personally care one way or another.

I thought it was interesting because it showed how weak the case was, which considering that Durham has been working for 2 years says a lot.

 

[rjs330]

How do you know there was evidence there?

The emails were evidence. Whether or not they showed there was a crime or something else we will never know. Because she destroyed them.

When you know the law is after you and wants your emails, texts etc and you destroy them so they can't get them what is that? I fully expect you to make excuses but it's obvious to those who know these things what was going on.

 

[stevil]

I thought it was interesting because it showed how weak the case was, which considering that Durham has been working for 2 years says a lot.

I think it is great that you don't have the current president and non right media claiming that this is a witch hunt and seeking to fire Durham.
Just let him quietly go about his business and see what he finds.

But I do think some oversight should be there, someone should be assessing whether the cost is justified by what they have left to potentially find.

 

[Arcangl86]

The emails were evidence. Whether or not they showed there was a crime or something else we will never know. Because she destroyed them.

When you know the law is after you and wants your emails, texts etc and you destroy them so they can't get them what is that? I fully expect you to make excuses but it's obvious to those who know these things what was going on.

The FBI told Secretary Clinton they wanted her to turn over all work-related emails on her server. That's what she did. The FBI can't just go on a fishing expedition through her personal emails.

 

[rjs330]

Please find me the statute that refers to collusion.

I'm not going to banter with you about the word in this case. You think you have made some stupid point. You know good a well that the word is just a general word used to describe, cooperating or collaborating or whatever and in this case it's with the Russians to influence the election. The truth is NOTHING was found to show Trump or his team did any such thing. End of story.

The only person who actually did that was Hillary and her team.

 

[stevil]

The FBI told Secretary Clinton they wanted her to turn over all work-related emails on her server. That's what she did. The FBI can't just go on a fishing expedition through her personal emails.

When Michael Cohen and Roger Stone got their computers and documents seized they had a group of people going over all this stuff and removing the things not related to the case.
The law does recognise that people can't just be investigated on everything and that people do have a right to privacy.
Trump had dragged through the courts for years to stop people getting access to his taxes, he lied to the public about him wanting to release his taxes but not being able to due to an ongoing audit.
Many people generally don't want all their stuff going public.

 

[rambot]

I'm not going to banter with you about the word in this case. You think you have made some stupid point. You know good a well that the word is just a general word used to describe, cooperating or collaborating or whatever and in this case it's with the Russians to influence the election.

Oh it wasn't a stupid point at all. Trump wasn't charged with a charge that doesn't exist and he can't be charged with.
Excelsior to his innocence!

The truth is NOTHING was found to show Trump or his team did any such thing. End of story.

1) Russia clearly influenced the election.
2) Trump's team had numerous russian contacts
3) Numerous Trump team members lied to the court. Why is it that innocent people lie? And how can it be that Trump, then exonerates them? Hmmmm.

The only person who actually did that was Hillary and her team.

"I know you are but what am I" with no evidence. Not exactly a damning argument.