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

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.
Click to expand...

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

No.
Click to expand...

Hillary is done because she lies and lies and lies.
 
16.5 said:
Oh dear:

Hillary is done because she lies and lies and lies.
Click to expand...

And, once again, for those keeping score at home, because I largely suspect 16.5 knows this already and is simply choosing to ignore it for convenience sake:

The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed.

"You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it," Pollitt said.​
 
16.5 said:
Nope, Judge Sullivan considered it and ruled.

Check it yo!
Click to expand...

Was the criminal nature of the investigation really a contested issue in a case where a judge took arguments on that issue and made a ruling? If not, your language is confusing.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Was the criminal nature of the investigation really a contested issue in a case where a judge took arguments on that issue and made a ruling? If not, your language is confusing.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
absolutely 100% yes.
Click to expand...

English translation: No. He was not a party to the FBI investigation, the case is not related to the FBI investigation and he certainly wasn't making a "ruling" nor did he "find"[in legal terms]. He commented.
 
Foolmewunz said:
English translation: No. He was not a party to the FBI investigation, the case is not related to the FBI investigation and he certainly wasn't making a "ruling" nor did he "find"[in legal terms]. He commented.
Click to expand...

I don't think this summary is quite correct. From this article:

In his ruling, Sullivan noted that “discovery is an extraordinary procedure” in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. But he said that “discovery should be permitted…when a plaintiff raises a sufficient question as to the agency’s good faith in processing documents in response to a FOIA request.”
​

But it isn't a decision on guilt, and it's not part of the FBI investigation. This is a separate matter of Huma Abedin. It does touch on the Clinton emails, because the suggestion is that's how Clinton hid whatever it is Abedin is being accused of.
 
Foolmewunz said:
English translation: No. He was not a party to the FBI investigation, the case is not related to the FBI investigation and he certainly wasn't making a "ruling" nor did he "find"[in legal terms]. He commented.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing this up for me. In the future, in the interest of critical thinking, I'll assume by default that the things that 16.5 posts aren't factual/material.
 
RobRoy said:
I don't think this summary is quite correct. From this article:

In his ruling, Sullivan noted that “discovery is an extraordinary procedure” in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. But he said that “discovery should be permitted…when a plaintiff raises a sufficient question as to the agency’s good faith in processing documents in response to a FOIA request.”
​

But it isn't a decision on guilt, and it's not part of the FBI investigation. This is a separate matter of Huma Abedin. It does touch on the Clinton emails, because the suggestion is that's how Clinton hid whatever it is Abedin is being accused of.
Click to expand...

Oh dear! Did you think that was Judge Sullivan's only order in the case. Well that does not make any sense at all.

Mr. Pagliano and the government object to disclosure of the immunity agreement. Indeed, the privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential.
Click to expand...

Order here

varwoche said:
Thanks for clearing this up for me. In the future, in the interest of critical thinking, I'll assume by default that the things that 16.5 posts aren't factual/material.
Click to expand...

Hee hee!

That order and link are factual/material. Mayhap you wish to change you post as so:

Thanks for clearing this up for me. In the future, in the interest of critical thinking, I'll assume by default that the things that 16.5 FMW posts aren't factual/material

Oh man the timing is extra delicious!
 
16.5 said:
Oh dear! Did you think that was Judge Sullivan's only order in the case. Well that does not make any sense at all.
Click to expand...

No, but it's been dealt with previously and isn't germane to this discussion. It only gets brought up by folk trying to muddy the waters, even though those arguments have nothing to do with reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom