Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Foolmewunz]

But that's not really the issue. The issue is actually Hillary's mischaracterization followed by her supporters repetition of the mischaracterization as the truth when the plain facts are all there for us to see. If you can admit that the FBI is investigating her for potential criminal violations, which is clearly what is happening here, then I really don't care if you call such an investigation a "gloofitz" investigation. We already have a perfectly valid phrase for that and it is, simply "criminal investigation."

But no. We have "she's not the target/subject," "it's a national security review," "it's a just a conservative wiitch hunt, "she hasn't been informed." Page after page after page. All in contravention to the evidence.

It's as if someone pointed out a dog and other people said, oh no, that's "a four legged mammal," "a non-feline domesticated animal," "undetermined until a veterinarian gives us a definitive statement."

Calling it a criminal investigation is not spin. That's just what it is. Why can't we just call things what they are?

No. You are simply supporting your candidate's propaganda and spin.

And what do we call investigations that could lead to criminal charges in everyday language?

Who's doing the "Spin Spin Spin"?

This is getting hillary-ous. Yuk yuk.

From the press secretary's statement onto the judge in the civil trial, no one on the Shillary team said a damned thing. It was the right-wing blogosphere and mouthpiece sites who picked up on it.

The efforts in this thread are dedicated to exposing the spin for what it is. Spin. If it doesn't matter whether we agree to call it a criminal investigation, as you claim, then why are so many Hillary Hunters spending so much time working the audience on this? Spin.

 

[acbytesla]

But that's not really the issue. The issue is actually Hillary's mischaracterization followed by her supporters repetition of the mischaracterization as the truth when the plain facts are all there for us to see. If you can admit that the FBI is investigating her for potential criminal violations, which is clearly what is happening here, then I really don't care if you call such an investigation a "gloofitz" investigation. We already have a perfectly valid phrase for that and it is, simply "criminal investigation."

But no. We have "she's not the target/subject," "it's a national security review," "it's a just a conservative wiitch hunt, "she hasn't been informed." Page after page after page. All in contravention to the evidence.

It's as if someone pointed out a dog and other people said, oh no, that's "a four legged mammal," "a non-feline domesticated animal," "undetermined until a veterinarian gives us a definitive statement."

Calling it a criminal investigation is not spin. That's just what it is. Why can't we just call things what they are?

No. You are simply supporting your candidate's propaganda and spin.

And what do we call investigations that could lead to criminal charges in everyday language?

Who's doing the "Spin Spin Spin"?

No, in fact that is not true. It's an investigation. You know and we know that the word "criminal" matters to you so it can be put In the same sentence as your political opponent. In your mind, you know that the only thing that will come of this is a report providing better rules governing diplomats use of e-mails.

But just like Ben GhazI there is a deliberate attempt to keep this going for as long as humanly possible in an attempt to effect an election. There is no excuse that this so called investigation wasn't completed before the primaries began. None...yet, on and on it goes. like Ken Starr milking the tit of Whitewater for 4 years.

 

[The Big Dog]

If there is a sillier argument than the Shillary's argument that the FBI is doing an investigation, and don't you dare call it Criminal! I have yet to see it.

Good times!

 

[DavidJames]

It really doesn't matter what it's called. Who but the pedantic points counters that is.

The reality is evidence will determine the outcome. Except for the HDS sufferers of course, they will cling to their conspiracy theories to give them comfort.

Pull it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now I realize that there might be a bit of a feeling that the terrible "arguments" that discussing what is literally the very top story on google new aggregator is a CONSPIRACY might be the worst argument ever, but I am simply going to have to respectfully disagree.

...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[acbytesla]

If there is a sillier argument than the Shillary's argument that the FBI is doing an investigation, and don't you dare call it Criminal! I have yet to see it.

Good times!

Oh give me a break. That's just Hillary being smart. Language matters. For the same reason you have to include the word criminal she is deliberately excluding it. This isn't her first rodeo.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh give me a break. That's just Hillary being smart. Language matters. For the same reason you have to include the word criminal she is deliberately excluding it. This isn't her first rodeo.

If language matters why is she still lying about it on her website:

Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.

Oh wait, is pointing out that Hillary lied a "conspiracy"?

 

[Dog Town]

If language matters why is she still lying about it on her website:



Oh wait, is pointing out that Hillary lied a "conspiracy"?

Only to the "point counting" Shillaries!

 

[Foolmewunz]

If there is a sillier argument than the Shillary's argument that the FBI is doing an investigation, and don't you dare call it Criminal! I have yet to see it.

Good times!

Almost as silly as "Pull It" insisting that a "stand down" order was issued when the SecDef, the Pentagon, and the guys/gals who would've issued that order ALL state that no such order was given?

 

[acbytesla]

If language matters why is she still lying about it on her website:

Oh wait, is pointing out that Hillary lied a "conspiracy"?

Again that's not lying. They're not. It's not "criminal".

 

[The Big Dog]

Again that's not lying. They're not. The FBI not the DOJ is conducting the investigation

You pulling our leg? You know that the FBI is under the jurisdiction of the DoJ right?

If you are "pull it."



whoops! You edited.

Well, I have a Federal Court order from a Federal Court Judge that says that it is. But hey, if you want to make that egregiously terrible argument and claim that Congenital Liar Hillary isn't lying, go right ahead, I love a good laugh!

 

[acbytesla]

You pulling our leg? You know that the FBI is under the jurisdiction of the DoJ right?

If you are "pull it."

It's only "criminal" if they determine that an actual crime has been committed.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's only "criminal" if they determine that an actual crime has been committed.

Tell that to the Judge because he already found otherwise.

 

[acbytesla]

Tell that to the Judge because he already found otherwise.

What judge?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Tell that to the Judge because he already found otherwise.

The civil court judge who has zero standing in this case?

Why don't you show us where the FBI or their bosses at the DoJ refers to it as a "criminal investigation". Hint, lest you forget,.... a White House Press Secretary is not the POTUS and thus not in charge of Justice.

But with all the certainty the HDS Squad has, it ought to be simple in the various comments issued by both the FBI and the Department of Justice for you to produce that statement. That'd sure clear this up in a hurry.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Bill Clinton up to his old tricks in meeting with Loretta Lynch

Bill Clinton reminded America what the future will look like if Hillary Clinton — his wife and enabler — is elected president of the United States.

The problem for Democrats in all of this is that the Clinton's are considered by most Americans to be liars. Not just pedestrian liars, either, but Olympian liars.

In Chicago the other day, Hillary Clinton acknowledged she has a trust problem and plans on working on it. She's been in public life for more than 30 years, and now she's working on it?

Bill and Hillary have shown us who they are. They've spent years showing us. And now they want to show us again, and again.

Read more:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-loretta-lynch-kass-0701-20160630-column.html (June 30, 2016)

Donald Trump called the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and Bill Clinton "one of the big stories of this week, of this month, of this year." He said on the "Mike Gallagher Show" that it was "terrible and nobody can understand why nothing's happened. And you see a thing like this and even in terms of judgment, how bad of judgment is it for him or for her to do this?"

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement that the incident "does nothing to instill confidence in the American people that her department can fully and fairly conduct this investigation," and he called on her to appoint a special counsel "in light of the apparent conflicts of interest."

The watchdog group Judicial Watch charged that the meeting "creates the broad public impression that the fix is in."

And Democrats, too, are concerned about the way the meeting appears. Former top Obama adviser David Axelrod tweeted that it was "foolish to create such optics."

 

[RobRoy]

If language matters why is she still lying about it on her website:

Because she's not.

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral - it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.​

Ugghh, I hate having to defend Hillary. Seriously, can we get back to why Hillary is done, because this clearly isn't it.

 

[The Big Dog]

What judge?

Judge Sullivan

 

[The Big Dog]

Because she's not.

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral - it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.​

Ugghh, I hate having to defend Hillary. Seriously, can we get back to why Hillary is done, because this clearly isn't it.

You don't have to defend Hillary AT ALL!

I have explained this numerous, numerous times. You are focusing on the activities of the ICIG. They are in the making referrals business they are not in the business of making the call whether something is criminal. They leave that to the experts in the FBI

 

[RobRoy]

You don't have to defend Hillary AT ALL!

And you don't have to keep making false claims. Yet here we are.

I have explained this numerous, numerous times. You are focusing on the activities of the ICIG.

Errr, no. I'm not. You made a claim that Hillary is lying on her website. That's demonstrably false. She claims a security referral was made by the IG, and I've pointed and quoted you to where the IG said they made a security referral.