Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[LegendKiller]

So, no, you can't link to what she said under oath that you claim was a lie.

Me? I've looked & can't find it. All I can find is blather along the lines of your own, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle in action. For propagandists, it's easy to saturate information channels with what you want people to believe because people who want to believe will repeat it mindlessly for them.

A Professional researcher like yourself might do better if they want to base their opinion on fact rather than to merely confirm existing bias.

If you can't find it either then you might do well to look at yourself & figure out why you want to believe w/o evidence.

Here, I'll help the retards out.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidne...-statement-one-day-after-it-was-du#.ltmRvB1Vd


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/idUSnMKWJCtPYa+1f6+MKW20150810


http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/201...08/10/National-Politics/Graphics/HRC 8-10.pdf


http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com...n-to-u-s-district-court-judge-emmet-sullivan/


You even get a free link to the actual document. Do you need me to read it to you?

Now tell me, how could she swear if she turned over everything, if everything was not turned over?

 

[Blackjack200]

None of that support your claim. Try again.

 

[LegendKiller]

None of that support your claim. Try again.

Did she not swear she turned over all work related emails to that domain?

Did she turn over all of the work related emails?

Is not responding to a sworn court statement not perjury?

 

[Virge_]

As I pointed out earlier, Hillary & her predecessors had full discretion in the matter.

Accountability? For what, exactly?

I suppose this might simply be a case of agree to disagree.

You are okay with government officials having no accountability. I fundamentally believe in government transparency and believe in checks and balances, equally for everyone.

My understanding is you think elected officials can be judge, jury, and executioner. I don't agree to this.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yeah, just like you're being owned on Ahmed, you'll be owned on this. Now go suck on the teet a bit more.

Pointing out that you lied about supporting your claims makes me the owner and you the ownee. You have a long track record of parroting BS from the nutter fringe, then pussing out when challenged to support your claims. You once had fair respect here. Sadly, you have become a clown, openly mocked for your loopy, pugnacious ranting.

 

[LegendKiller]

Pointing out that you lied about supporting your claims makes me the owner and you the ownee. You have a long track record of parroting BS from the nutter fringe, then pussing out when challenged to support your claims. You once had fair respect here. Sadly, you have become a clown, openly mocked for your loopy, pugnacious ranting.

Blah blah blah.


Not surprising, not responsive towards posts with data and logic, which is why I just love fucking with people who don't respond with data or logic.

Ohh noes, I am not respected by the left winger clowns who cry racism, sexism, bigotry or partisanship at every point of a debate as to deflect reality. What will I do with myself?

 

[Blackjack200]

Did she not swear she turned over all work related emails to that domain?

Did she turn over all of the work related emails?

Is not responding to a sworn court statement not perjury?

This is what she swore:

I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
1.While I do not know what information may be "responsive" for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.
2.As a result of my directive, approximately 55,000 pages of these emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.
3.Cheryl Mills did not have an account on clintonemail.com. Huma Abedin did have such an account which was used at times for government business.

Now, which of those has been shown to be a lie?

Edit:

VVVVVVVVVV This is from the WaPo link that LK posted: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010...HRC 8-10.pdf VVVVVVVVVV

 

[Jhhnn]

This is what she swore:



Now, which of those has been shown to be a lie?

Thank you. Please link the source good sir.

 

[LegendKiller]

Thank you. Please link the source good sir.

This is the problem with retards like you. You don't bother reading anything unless it is spoon fed to you and no source is good enough, even a link to a pdf scan of the actual court filing.

And I am one that's not respected? Rofl. If being a fucking retard like above means I get no respect from you, bowfinger, then I welcome the lack of respect.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is what she swore:



Now, which of those has been shown to be a lie?

Did she produce *all* work related emails to the state department?

 

[Jhhnn]

I suppose this might simply be a case of agree to disagree.

You are okay with government officials having no accountability. I fundamentally believe in government transparency and believe in checks and balances, equally for everyone.

My understanding is you think elected officials can be judge, jury, and executioner. I don't agree to this.

Gawd. We're all judge, jury & executioner when it comes to our personal email accounts. Well, short of a subpoena or the NSA, maybe. Just because a person works for the govt doesn't mean they abdicated their right to privacy.

 

[Virge_]

Gawd. We're all judge, jury & executioner when it comes to our personal email accounts. Well, short of a subpoena or the NSA, maybe. Just because a person works for the govt doesn't mean they abdicated their right to privacy.

Do you realize that you just said, "She deserves privacy. We do, too.. well, except that a subpoena or the NSA". It's the equivalent of your own acknowledgement that she gets privacy and we don't.

I don't agree that is how it should be. I agree in equality. Either we both get privacy, or neither of us does. How can I even expect to rationally accept a system where it is one-sided? My natural human skepticism won't allow me to just "trust" the powers that be, unilaterally, for I have never in my life met or known someone who I can say is truly 100% trustworthy. My brain simply does a divide by zero that such a thing exists - and if such a thing does not exist, then the system that governs us must be transparent.

It is by this right that the lack of transparency itself is the heart of various circular issues. The less transparent the government is, the more suspicious it becomes. The more transparent a government becomes, the more I can naturally trust it. Part of this trust is hindered by a great disruption with rapidly evolving technology. I never believed the system that governs us to be perfect, but I do readily observe that to me it was observed to be significantly more trustworthy before the rapidly accessible information carried over the net connected us as a society today. This begs to question two major obvious possibilities: Either the system was more trustworthy then and has become less trustworthy based on natural and arguably instinctively selfish human psychology when you have a tool that gives you an upper hand on other humans, or the system is actually finally being held accountable for the same shady shit it's been doing for a hundred-plus years and it's struggling to keep up and adapt to find better ways of masking the corruption from the prior ignorant masses?

Notice neither of these logical conclusions are even remotely positive? If you have one you would like to offer, please do. I consider that stark observation to be what causes me to fear for the future if we continue on the road we are on. That's the kind of thing that often keeps me up at night, friend.

 

[Blackjack200]

Did she produce *all* work related emails to the state department?

That's what she swore, is it?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Not surprising, not responsive towards posts with speculation and innuendo ...

Fixed. It's sad you're so brainwashed by the nutter blogosphere that you cannot distinguish between "data and logic" and "speculation and innuendo." They fool you over and over and over, yet you continue to eagerly lap it up.

What will I do with myself?

Continue to play the RNC fool while everyone laughs at you, I expect.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the problem with retards like you. You don't bother reading anything unless it is spoon fed to you and no source is good enough, even a link to a pdf scan of the actual court filing.

And I am one that's not respected? Rofl. If being a fucking retard like above means I get no respect from you, bowfinger, then I welcome the lack of respect.

If I didn't ask for the source I'd be applying a double standard. I'm confident that it will be forthcoming, given the integrity of the poster.

In the meanwhile, I'll contemplate that in light of your lack thereof. Integrity, that is. Might try it yourself.

 

[LegendKiller]

If I didn't ask for the source I'd be applying a double standard. I'm confident that it will be forthcoming, given the integrity of the poster.

In the meanwhile, I'll contemplate that in light of your lack thereof. Integrity, that is. Might try it yourself.

Ohh, that's rich. A guy like you questioning integrity. That's why you are a hillary supporter.

 

[Jhhnn]

Now that I have a searchable quote I can confirm the veracity of what Blackjack200 offered. One source among many-

http://twitchy.com/2015/08/10/judic...oesnt-certify-that-all-records-were-provided/

Now that we know her actual words perhaps one of Hillary's detractors can pinpoint a lie.

Good luck, given the number of qualifiers in the statement.

 

[ivwshane]

That's quite the straw man. I've already tried to explain to you the issue is I can only assume the reasoning is unimportant to you.

I suppose this might simply be a case of agree to disagree.

You are okay with government officials having no accountability. I fundamentally believe in government transparency and believe in checks and balances, equally for everyone.

My understanding is you think elected officials can be judge, jury, and executioner. I don't agree to this.

 

[LegendKiller]

Now that I have a searchable quote I can confirm the veracity of what Blackjack200 offered. One source among many-

http://twitchy.com/2015/08/10/judic...oesnt-certify-that-all-records-were-provided/

Now that we know her actual words perhaps one of Hillary's detractors can pinpoint a lie.

Good luck, given the number of qualifiers in the statement.

Please point out the qualifiers?

Because "upon information and belief" is not a qualifier.

Nor is "were or potentially were".

And since all work emails are federally requires to be producable, she was not responsive.


Fuether, all emails were in her custody.

 

[Virge_]

That's quite the straw man. I've already tried to explain to you the issue is I can only assume the reasoning is unimportant to you.

Thats a straw man?

What else can you define the ability for one to simply say they cannot be judged, other than they have no accountability? You do not need to prove their actions if you know they have absolute authority.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL - I am perfectly rational. I just don't fall for your party line.

If rationality is only voting D, I am glad I am not rational.

Lol! He says he doesn't fall for party line and yet every citation he uses either comes from a right wing website, a republican, twitter posts by righties, Facebook posts and they just all happen to be saying the same thing.

You are so deep into the right wing circle jerk that you are no longer a participant, you are the target.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ohh, that's rich. A guy like you questioning integrity. That's why you are a hillary supporter.

Integrity is not achieved by claiming somebody lied under oath when you don't even know what they actually said.

 

[LegendKiller]

Integrity is not achieved by claiming somebody lied under oath when you don't even know what they actually said.

I knew what she said. I had seen it, read it, and understand it very well. You are the person who doesn't do your own research and lacks the mental capacity to understand.

 

[theeedude]

Don't worry, another Bush will restore dignity and integrity, and never ending American deaths in unnecessary wars, and waste of trillions of dollars.

 

[Jhhnn]

I knew what they said. I also read a lot of legal docs and have filed hundreds of lawsuits. I have also had my emails subpoenaed by the FBI and SEC.

Clearly you did not know or you would have referenced her statement directly several pages ago in response to my original query rather than digging the hole you're in now.

Take a hard look at yourself & Man Up.