• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
RobRoy said:
Err, which part of my statement that you bolded is the wrong?

One can be part of an investigation, even a criminal investigation, and yet that investigation is not actually into them specifically. That's certainly the case here.​

Because I'm not seeing it. Your claims have already been disproved, but I'm really interested in how you arrived at your conclusion that my generalization was "wrong". Do enlighten me.
Click to expand...

That's certainly NOT the case. The investigation is specifically INTO Clinton: what she did with her private server.
 
Fudbucker said:
This response to Slings and Arrows is also over the top. There is at least one expert (Ellen Glasser) who specifically is claiming that Clinton is the subject of a criminal investigation. There is also the judge working the civil trial that Bryan Pagliano is involved in who characterized it as a "criminal investigation".

The idea that Clinton is under criminal investigation can't just be laughed off as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you're really mining deep now, aren't you. Once again, you're being obtuse, and it's starting to look deliberate. All elements of your above claim have already been dealt with by myself and others. You can't prove your case, you admit that Clinton isn't a target, and your citation has been turned back against you to show how your statements don't line up. I'm not going to deal with them again.

If you're busy mining backward, feel free to re-read all of the previous responses at your leisure.

Fudbucker said:
That's certainly NOT the case. The investigation is specifically INTO Clinton: what she did with her private server.
Click to expand...

Is part of a larger investigation which includes far more than Hillary Clinton, as has already been shown. But thanks. I really enjoyed re-reading my car crash illustration. It has a certain panache.
 
It is laughable to think that Hillary is not the target: her emails, her system, her employees, her equipment, her contractors.

You know how you know who the target is of an investigation? It is the person they ask to interview last.
 
RobRoy said:
Oh dear, you're really mining deep now, aren't you. Once again, you're being obtuse, and it's starting to look deliberate. All elements of your above claim have already been dealt with by myself and others. You can't prove your case, you admit that Clinton isn't a target, and your citation has been turned back against you to show how your statements don't line up. I'm not going to deal with them again.

If you're busy mining backward, feel free to re-read all of the previous responses at your leisure.
Click to expand...

Where did I admit that? I don't know if she's an "official target". The FBI told her she wasn't ten months ago. Has that changed? Who knows. They don't have to notify you.


Is part of a larger investigation which includes far more than Hillary Clinton, as has already been shown. But thanks. I really enjoyed re-reading my car crash illustration. It has a certain panache.
Click to expand...

What "larger investigation" are you talking about?
 
Fudbucker said:
Where did I admit that? I don't know if she's an "official target". The FBI told her she wasn't ten months ago. Has that changed? Who knows. They don't have to notify you.
Click to expand...

There, you just did it again!


What "larger investigation" are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Are you ok? Do you want to sit down? I'll get you something cold to drink!
 
RobRoy said:
Of course. That's how they handle it on TV, so that must be the case on real life too!
Click to expand...

Is it? Huh, maybe TV uses as a consultant the same former AUSA we hire on behalf of my firm to respond whenever we get served with Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas.

Five and zero targets so far! WooHoo!
 
RobRoy, let me summarize all this:

There is an FBI investigation into Clinton's use of her private server. There is no "larger investigation" where Clinton is some minor player. Her actions regarding her private server and emails are at the center of what the FBI is investigating. She may or may not be an official target, but she is certainly the principle subject of the investigation.

What do you disagree with there?
 
16.5 said:
Is it?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. That's exactly how they do it in TV. I assume, in part, to build suspense for the full dramatic effect of the reveal. But probably, it's also because if they went to the guilty party right out of the gate, the audience would start to catch on.

Have you not heard of television in your land?
 
Fudbucker said:
What do you disagree with there?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to parse out each point you're attempting to make. They've been dealt with above. However, the investigation is larger than Clinton. Citations have been provided above. I'm sure you can mine others if you put your fingers to it.
 
RobRoy said:
Well, yes. That's exactly how they do it in TV. I assume, in part, to build suspense for the full dramatic effect of the reveal. But probably, it's also because if they went to the guilty party right out of the gate, the audience would start to catch on.

Have you not heard of television in your land?
Click to expand...

You sound like you watch a lot of TV. Good for you.

In the real world, they interview the target last because when they do they want to know as much or more about the criminal acts than the target.
 
Fudbucker said:
So you equate "not knowing" X with NOT X.

RobRoy, I don't know if your're 40 years old. RobRoy, YOU ARE NOT 40 YEARS OLD!

See the difference?
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see the pedantic nature of your objection. Very well, I admit that you don't know a thing in this case.
 
RobRoy said:
Well, yes. That's exactly how they do it in TV. I assume, in part, to build suspense for the full dramatic effect of the reveal. But probably, it's also because if they went to the guilty party right out of the gate, the audience would start to catch on.

Have you not heard of television in your land?
Click to expand...

When the FBI was investigating Watergate, remember when they interviewed Nixon first thing? No, because that didn't happen.
 
16.5 said:
You sound like you watch a lot of TV. Good for you.
Click to expand...

Thank you! It's mostly my wife, but I do catch the odd show while she's watching.

In the real world, they interview the target last because when they do they want to know as much or more about the criminal acts than the target.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahaha! That's a good one. I suppose the target also wears a name tag identifying themselves as such so that the order of interviews isn't jeopardized. The FBI sure does know how to keep the public glued to their seats!
 
RobRoy said:
Ahh, I see the pedantic nature of your objection. Very well, I admit that you don't know a thing in this case.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. It's pedantic to point out the difference between actually claiming something and not knowing about something.

Back to not taking you seriously.
 
Fudbucker said:
When the FBI was investigating Watergate, remember when they interviewed Nixon first thing? No, because that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Remember when they thought Watergate was a simple burglary, and interviewed the burglars last? No. Because that didn't happen either.
 
Fudbucker said:
Oh, I see. It's pedantic to point out the difference between actually claiming something and not knowing about something.

Back to not taking you seriously.
Click to expand...

Let's see if I've got this right. The article you cited has Clinton saying she isn't a target of the investigation and an expert backing her up. Then you make the statement, "True, in August the FBI told Clinton she is not a target. The story changed in Feb." I pointed out the article again, specifically the date, at which point you switch to a defense of "I don't know" and that somehow removes the burden of proof from your argument?

Alien Guy: Aliens exist.
Skeptic: Prove it.
Alien Guy: Well, I don't know that they don't exist. Don't you know the difference between actually claiming something and not knowing about something?​

And I'm the one who shouldn't be taken seriously.

No, really. No one should take me seriously. That's pretty much a given. Now, why should we take your accusations seriously, when you ignore evidence, dodge, and back-peddle like this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom