Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BSCSMD

May I Respectfully Suggest...

130 posts in this topic

While I am not in any way a Clinton supporter, sympathizer, or apologist, may I respectfully suggest - as someone who knows that Hillary Clinton brought this all upon herself by attempting to have a secret email server to avoid being subject to the Freedom of Information Act and being held accountable to the People - that you listen to or watch the entire testimony before House Oversight Committee hearings today before you pass judgment based upon the accounts - the carefully picked and edited accounts based upon where the person doing the picking and editing lays on the ideological and political spectrum - you are sure to hear and see for months to come?
 
I don't appreciate or support when those who I ideologically and politically oppose cherry pick facts and comments made by people and use them to advance their cause or misrepresent in a most dishonest manner people they oppose. I don't appreciate or support when those whom I ideologically and politically agree also engage in the same unfair behavior.
 
I did listen to nearly the entire hearing. My takeaway is that while Hillary Clinton did absolutely violate her responsibility to safeguard classified information and that she and her staff absolutely should have known better than to engage in the whole litany and pattern of behavior in which they engaged, there was simply was not enough there IN TOTALITY to make a CLEAR case to a Grand Jury - more or less and jury in a criminal prosecution - that what she did was anything other than careless and frankly, stupid, but based on the evidence and case law precedent, a reasonable prosecutor would not be able to able to expect a reasonable enough chance of obtaining a conviction, and therefore would be foolish to proceed in such a manner. As such, the FBI has done the right thing in this case. Their reputation and integrity should not be called into question over this matter. Again, if you listen to or watch the entire hearing, you will hear or see Director Comey specifically state that he looked for any wat he could to find a way to prosecute Hillary Clinton for what she had done, but he simply could not find a way to justify doing so.
 
In no means does this indicate that in any possible way that Hillary Clinton has been cleared of any wrongdoing. To the contrary, she has behaved in a foolish, careless manner. It does not mean that she is getting a "free pass." In taking account the actions that she did, along with her staff - who are a direct reflection of her - her judgment has seriously called into question to the point that she is forever damaged. It also clearly illustrates the lengths she will go and the risks she will take to avoid transparency and accountability to the American People, with blatant disregard to the public trust and national security. This entire fiasco is nothing short of a reminder of her behavior which belies what must be her personal belief that she is above the law and better than the "average" American.
 
The question remains: "Will it matter to the American voter come November 8, 2016?"
 
For this American voter, "Yes, it will!" and a hope and pray that it matters to enough voters that she is not elected and forever leaves public "service" once and for all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes::lol: :lol: Do people still take Prozac? 'Cause it sounds like the GOP needs it today. Meltdown after meltdown...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this include Colin Powell and Connie Rice who also supposedly had systems at home, a culture in the State Department, where I've known for many many years senior members had secure devices at home like STU telephones.  Yes they were secure devices to place calls but the area, their homes were not.

Edited by BaySock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes::lol: :lol: Do people still take Prozac? 'Cause it sounds like the GOP needs it today. Meltdown after meltdown...

You obviously did not read what I wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this include Colin Powell and Connie Rice who also supposedly had systems at home, a culture in the State Department, where I've known for many many years senior members had secure devices at home like STU telephones.  Yes they were secure devices to place calls but the area, their homes were not.

While their names were brought up today by the minority members of the Committee in an effort to distract and deflect away from the failures of Hillary Clinton and her staff, what they had done prior to this case have no bearing whatsoever on this case.

 

As a matter of fact, your behavior is exactly the sort of behavior that I spoke of in what I wrote - which you obviously did not read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously did not read what I wrote.

Sure he did. You have the same sour grapes that every other right winger who posts here has. The only difference is, you acknowledge Comey did his job properly despite not getting an indictment. And you didn't include the conspiracy theory nonsense

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. It still ended with the same  Donald Trump talking point that she's damaged beyond electability.  C'mon it's not like you would've voted for Hillary anyway regardless of this  :rolleyes:

Edited by Marshan Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure he did. You have the same sour grapes that every other right winger who posts here has. The only difference is, you acknowledge Comey did his job properly despite not getting an indictment.

Right. Like he really needed to start another whole new thread for this dramatized rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While I am not in any way a Clinton supporter, sympathizer, or apologist, may I respectfully suggest - as someone who knows that Hillary Clinton brought this all upon herself by attempting to have a secret email server to avoid being subject to the Freedom of Information Act and being held accountable to the People - that you listen to or watch the entire testimony before House Oversight Committee hearings today before you pass judgment based upon the accounts - the carefully picked and edited accounts based upon where the person doing the picking and editing lays on the ideological and political spectrum - you are sure to hear and see for months to come?

 

 

I don't appreciate or support when those who I ideologically and politically oppose cherry pick facts and comments made by people and use them to advance their cause or misrepresent in a most dishonest manner people they oppose. I don't appreciate or support when those whom I ideologically and politically agree also engage in the same unfair behavior.

 

 

I did listen to nearly the entire hearing. My takeaway is that while Hillary Clinton did absolutely violate her responsibility to safeguard classified information and that she and her staff absolutely should have known better than to engage in the whole litany and pattern of behavior in which they engaged, there was simply was not enough there IN TOTALITY to make a CLEAR case to a Grand Jury - more or less and jury in a criminal prosecution - that what she did was anything other than careless and frankly, stupid, but based on the evidence and case law precedent, a reasonable prosecutor would not be able to able to expect a reasonable enough chance of obtaining a conviction, and therefore would be foolish to proceed in such a manner. As such, the FBI has done the right thing in this case. Their reputation and integrity should not be called into question over this matter. Again, if you listen to or watch the entire hearing, you will hear or see Director Comey specifically state that he looked for any wat he could to find a way to prosecute Hillary Clinton for what she had done, but he simply could not find a way to justify doing so.

 

 

In no means does this indicate that in any possible way that Hillary Clinton has been cleared of any wrongdoing. To the contrary, she has behaved in a foolish, careless manner. It does not mean that she is getting a "free pass." In taking account the actions that she did, along with her staff - who are a direct reflection of her - her judgment has seriously called into question to the point that she is forever damaged. It also clearly illustrates the lengths she will go and the risks she will take to avoid transparency and accountability to the American People, with blatant disregard to the public trust and national security. This entire fiasco is nothing short of a reminder of her behavior which belies what must be her personal belief that she is above the law and better than the "average" American.

 

 

The question remains: "Will it matter to the American voter come November 8, 2016?"

 

 

For this American voter, "Yes, it will!" and a hope and pray that it matters to enough voters that she is not elected and forever leaves public "service" once and for all.

Good to hear from you, Sarge. Long time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure he did. You have the same sour grapes that every other right winger who posts here has. The only difference is, you acknowledge Comey did his job properly despite not getting an indictment.

I do not know where you get the idea that I am engaging in any "sour grape" behavior or that I am a "Right-Winger." I tend to vote Republican and lean Conservative on the ideological and political spectrum.

 

I was also very clear in my dislike of anyone of any ideological and political persuasion who selectively misrepresents facts and comments to support their ideological and political point-of-view.

 

If you did read what I wrote, I invite you to do so once again, as it seems that you have missed my point and my fairness - regardless of my ideological or political thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. It still ended with the same  Donald Trump talking point that she's damaged beyond electability.  C'mon it's not like you would've voted for Hillary anyway regardless of this  :rolleyes:

If you read it, you did so in the same manner that the lawyers for Hillary Clinton read her emails before they deleted them, only looking for keywords or phrases that fit their preconceived notion of what was important, because nowhere did I state Hillary Clinton is "damaged beyond electability." As a matter of fact had you paid attention, you would have noted that I lament that in spite of all of this she still very well could be elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear from you, Sarge. Long time!

I have a life. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read it, you did so in the same manner that the lawyers for Hillary Clinton read her emails before they deleted them, only looking for keywords or phrases that fit their preconceived notion of what was important, because nowhere did I state Hillary Clinton is "damaged beyond electability." As a matter of fact had you paid attention, you would have noted that I lament that in spite of all of this she still very well could be elected.[/size]

You ever hear of the saying you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich?

Their absolutely was enough there to prosecute her for compromising Nation Security and it was ridiculous and dirty political pool for the DOJ to cospire with the FBI, the FBI should not be the ones to determine if the case was not enough to prosecute.

Hillary is a dirty fat liar

Edited by genghiskhanraven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ever hear of the saying you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich?

Their absolutely was enough there to prosecute her for compromising Nation Security and it was ridiculous and dirty political pool for the DOJ to cospire with the FBI, the FBI should not be the ones to determine if the case was not enough to prosecute.

Hillary is a dirty fat liar

That was the point of Director Comey. He did not feel it was just to present this or any other similar case to a grand jury as it "criminalizes" bad judgement. He never once stated that he did not feel he could get an indictment. He felt that given legal precedent there were not grounds to seek such an indictment.

 

Again, had you listened to or watched the entire testimony given before the Committee you would know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know where you get the idea that I am engaging in any "sour grape" behavior or that I am a "Right-Winger." I tend to vote Republican and lean Conservative on the ideological and political spectrum.

 

I was also very clear in my dislike of anyone of any ideological and political persuasion who selectively misrepresents facts and comments to support their ideological and political point-of-view.

 

If you did read what I wrote, I invite you to do so once again, as it seems that you have missed my point and my fairness - regardless of my ideological or political thoughts.

Why does everyone here pretend they are somebody they aint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RWNJ meltdown continues. It's a lovely thing to see :D :D

I do not know what is the "RWNJ" means, unless it is shorthand for "Right-Wing Nut Jobs", in which case I see no need to engage in slurs and insults. I have been respectful of you. Is it too much to ask that you return the favor?

 

As for any "meltdown", I don't see it. I do, however, see people who do not understand that ENTIRETY of the matter acting out on PARTIAL information, which is being used to agitate other for political purposes. That is the point of what I have written and shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ever hear of the saying you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich?

Their absolutely was enough there to prosecute her for compromising Nation Security and it was ridiculous and dirty political pool for the DOJ to cospire with the FBI, the FBI should not be the ones to determine if the case was not enough to prosecute.

Hillary is a dirty fat liar

You saw the evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone here pretend they are somebody they aint?

I would not know. I am concerned with myself and no one else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You saw the evidence?

Do you listen to or watch the ENTIRE testimony given today before the House Oversight Committee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure he did. You have the same sour grapes that every other right winger who posts here has. The only difference is, you acknowledge Comey did his job properly despite not getting an indictment. And you didn't include the conspiracy theory nonsense

Your "sour grapes" BS is just that - BS. You're usually better than that ken. What BSCSMD posted is the simple plain truth of the matter. Whether it affects the way people choose to view Hillary is up to the individual voter.

 

I too watched a whole lot of that hearing today and Comey did an excelent job of dealing with stupid questions that came from both Republicans and Democrats, all of whom were going for the best political spin with their questions while Comey was refusing to bite with his answers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not know. I am concerned with myself and no one else.

You start a long winded tirade against Hillary and repeat the same talking points that Trump did and then you say "I do not know where you get the idea that I am engaging in any "sour grape" behavior or that I am a "Right-Winger." Very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you listen to or watch the ENTIRE testimony given today before the House Oversight Committee?

Didn't the FBI directer repeatedly say there was not enough evidence and that any reasonable prosecutor would no go thru with indictment?

Edited by veraciousmooncalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "sour grapes" BS is just that - BS. You're usually better than that ken. What BSCSMD posted is the simple plain truth of the matter. Whether it affects the way people choose to view Hillary is up to the individual voter.

 

I too watched a whole lot of that hearing today and Comey did an excelent job of dealing with stupid questions that came from both Republicans and Democrats, all of whom were going for the best political spin with their questions while Comey was refusing to bite with his answers.

Come on bro, give me a break. Did you read Genghis's post? Did you read the posts of most of the republicans here? How can you say it's not sour grapes? How many posts were there here prior to this announcement about "Hillary will be in handcuffs"? How many pubbies here claim that Comey didn't do his job or he gave into pressure? What do you call that if it's not sour grapes? Sarge's post is just a nicer. more intelligent sour grapes post. Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0