• 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:
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!
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

That might be one of the silliest things I have read in a long while.

This ain't exactly a "whodunnit" it is more of a "howproveit."
 
RobRoy said:
Remember when they thought Watergate was a simple burglary, and interviewed the burglars last? No. Because that didn't happen either.
Click to expand...

I think it is adorable that you think the burglars were the target of the Watergate investigation.

Oh brother, the hits just keep on coming!
 
RobRoy said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I pointed out this part of the article, which was bolded for emphasis:

Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown. That term is reserved for people for whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime, according to the prosecutor’s judgment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/
 
RobRoy said:
How is that better than the link to it that I already provided, as well as the link to where I quoted and responded to you?
Click to expand...

How are my direct words better than a link? Really? I'm pretty sure I never said she was a target and the link I quoted from wasn't sure whether she's a target (a lot can change between August and May).

So, please point to where I made a definite claim that Clinton is a target of the FBI.
 
Fudbucker said:
How are my direct words better than a link? Really? I'm pretty sure I never said she was a target and the link I quoted from wasn't sure whether she's a target (a lot can change between August and May).

So, please point to where I made a definite claim that Clinton is a target of the FBI.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! This is so funny.

Do, please keep playing fast and loose with your phrasing. It's hi-freaking-larious and only reflects how not seriously you should be taken on any aspect of this entire question.

Oh, also . . . Welcome to Page 88—Is Hillary Clinton done? Enquiringly minds and all that!
 
Fudbucker said:
How are my direct words better than a link? Really? I'm pretty sure I never said she was a target and the link I quoted from wasn't sure whether she's a target (a lot can change between August and May).

So, please point to where I made a definite claim that Clinton is a target of the FBI.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! This is so funny.

Do, please keep playing fast and loose with your phrasing. It's hi-freaking-larious and only reflects how not seriously you should be taken on any aspect of this entire question.

Oh, also . . . Welcome to Page 88—Is Hillary Clinton done? Enquiringly minds and all that!
 
RobRoy said:
Bwahahahahaha! This is so funny.

Do, please keep playing fast and loose with your phrasing. It's hi-freaking-larious and only reflects how not seriously you should be taken on any aspect of this entire question.

Oh, also . . . Welcome to Page 88—Is Hillary Clinton done? Enquiringly minds and all that!
Click to expand...

So no support for your claim then. OK.
 
Fudbucker said:
So no support for your claim then. OK.
Click to expand...

Nope. Just the link. Oh, and the link to my post which included your quote. But nothing beyond that. Those two things. Well, and then the post where I quoted you. So three things. And where you questioned my quoting of you. So just those four things. But other than that? No. No support at all.

I hang my head in shame and woe!
 
RobRoy said:
Nope. Just the link. Oh, and the link to my post which included your quote. But nothing beyond that. Those two things. Well, and then the post where I quoted you. So three things. And where you questioned my quoting of you. So just those four things. But other than that? No. No support at all.

I hang my head in shame and woe!
Click to expand...

You mean the link that says this?

"Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown. That term is reserved for people for whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime, according to the prosecutor’s judgment."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

Can you explain how that is proof I was making a specific claim that Clinton is an FBI target? Because the citation clearly says otherwise.
 
Fudbucker said:
You mean the link that says this?
Click to expand...

I dunno. I'm too tired to scroll back up, find the links that I provided in direct response to you and click them. Sorry. You've won again!

In other news, Hillary Clinton done? I can't get anyone to answer this question.
 
RobRoy said:
I dunno. I'm too tired to scroll back up, find the links that I provided in direct response to you and click them. Sorry. You've won again!

In other news, Hillary Clinton done? I can't get anyone to answer this question.
Click to expand...

I think you are confused between "subject" "target" and the difference between what the politifact article itself said (which was: not clear if Clinton meets definition of FBI target) and one of the experts cited (which was: not a target if notified by DOJ).
 
Fudbucker said:
I think you are confused between "subject" "target" and the difference between what the politifact article itself said (which was: not clear if Clinton meets definition of FBI target) and one of the experts cited (which was: not a target if notified by DOJ).
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not. But thanks!
 
Fudbucker said:
Well, sport, whenever you feel up to it, you can try to support this brief and meaningless tangent into whether Fudbucker thinks Clinton is an FBI target.
Click to expand...

Well I for one think Hillary Clinton is an FBI target.

And Sid Blumenthal

and Patrick Kennedy

But not Huma Abedin, although she would be pure chained heat in the joint.
 
16.5 said:
Well I for one think Hillary Clinton is an FBI target.

And Sid Blumenthal

and Patrick Kennedy

But not Huma Abedin, although she would be pure chained heat in the joint.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone outside the far Right thought the FBI was targeting her back in August, when they first got involved, but that was before thousands of classified emails and the State Department's IG report and deletion of work-related emails. I wouldn't be surprised at all now.

I'm curious what RobRoy thinks is the "larger investigation" that's going on where the Clinton email investigation is only a minor part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom