The Obama-DOJ ordered FBI not to pursue charges against Hillary

[Indus]

Fake outrage? Not on one reliable news site covering it.

 

[soundforbjt]

I put a mixture of mainstream sources in the OP.

LOL, none of those are mainstream.

 

[fskimospy]

If the charge wasn't sustainable, why did they change the language from that that clearly is against the law (gross negligence) to "extremely careless?"

Because gross negligence is a specific legal charge, ONE THEY COULDN'T SUSTAIN.

DURRRRRRRRRRRR.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Buttering the emails. The Trump DoJ was free to charge Clinton, but they didn't do it, either.

What does it mean, Mr Wizard?

It means there's no case to be made that would stand up to legal scrutiny.

Scrutiny from the alternative facts post truth right wing noise machine is another matter entirely.

Trump on this:

The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!

Let's see what "more to come means," eh?

 

[fskimospy]

I put a mixture of mainstream sources in the OP.

Are you so far trapped in the bubble that you think even a single one of those sources is mainstream? Jesus Christ this thread is illuminating.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the charge wasn't sustainable, why did they change the language from that that clearly is against the law (gross negligence) to "extremely careless?"

To make it clear that the charge of gross negligence was unsustainable. Duh.

 

[Stryke1983]

If the charge wasn't sustainable, why did they change the language from that that clearly is against the law (gross negligence) to "extremely careless?"

As the articles stated, there wasn't sufficient evidence and the charge itself hasn't been used before.

Could you answer the previous question please? Do you believe the charge wasn't pressed due to corruption or the reasons stated?

 

[soundforbjt]

Trump on this:



Let's see what "more to come means," eh?

It means he watched Hannity and probably Faux & Feinds and is regurgitating what he heard.

 

[zinfamous]

I put a mixture of mainstream sources in the OP.

no, you didn't.

 

[fskimospy]

It's very interesting to see how much more seriously Spidey takes tabloid reports about justice department decisions than he takes sworn statements by the justice department in federal court. I wonder why that is?

After all, you would think if justice department officials are credible enough to believe in this case they would DEFINITELY be credible enough to believe when they say Trump committed one or more felonies. Oddly enough, Spidey doesn't seem to feel that way.

lol. This thread is fun.

 

[SlowSpyder]

LOL, none of those are mainstream.

Fox news is the largest mainstream news in terms of viewership.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's very interesting to see how much more seriously Spidey takes tabloid reports about justice department decisions than he takes sworn statements by the justice department in federal court. I wonder why that is?

After all, you would think if justice department officials are credible enough to believe in this case they would DEFINITELY be credible enough to believe when they say Trump committed one or more felonies. Oddly enough, Spidey doesn't seem to feel that way.

lol. This thread is fun.

And I am enjoying watching you guys work overtime to pretend something that obviously happened, didn't in fact happen.

 

[Indus]

And I am enjoying watching you guys work overtime to pretend something that obviously happened, didn't in fact happen.

If you think for a moment this fake outrage story will change minds, I have a bridge that crosses the whole pacific ocean to sell you.

 

[dank69]

If the charge wasn't sustainable, why did they change the language from that that clearly is against the law (gross negligence) to "extremely careless?"

Because the original draft was written by a Hillary hating retard like you that didn't understand that gross negligence is a legal term that the investigation did not find evidence to support. It would be like an investigation finding evidence of manslaughter but because some mouth-breathing retard like you hated the subject of the investigation their initial draft flat out stated that the investigation found evidence supporting murder. Then someone who actually knew what they were doing, unlike you, send the shit draft back with an explanation written in crayon so the person like you could understand it, saying "No, dumbass, change 'murder' to 'manslaughter' because we did not find evidence to suggest murder."

 

[soundforbjt]

Fox news is the largest mainstream news in terms of viewership.

Do they have more viewership than all of the actual mainstream news sites combined? Not even close.

 

[fskimospy]

And I am enjoying watching you guys work overtime to pretend something that obviously happened, didn't in fact happen.

Haha with Clinton when the justice department officials involved testify and say ‘we didn’t have sufficient evidence to sustain this charge’ your response is: it obviously happened.

When federal prosecutors come right out and say in filings to a federal court that Trump committed a felony you say: it’s all lies.

If you were smarter you would space these things out some so it was less obvious what a hypocritical liar you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Fox news is the largest mainstream news in terms of viewership.

‘I included mainstream media because I linked to Fox News’ is good for even more laughs, hahahaha.

 

[Dulanic]

Please continue to DRAIN THE SWAMP Mr. President.

The hypocrisy of this is mind numbing.

 

[dank69]

And I am enjoying watching you guys work overtime to pretend something that obviously happened, didn't in fact happen.

I am enjoying watching you post this story as if it is brand new news when this was discussed and hashed out a long time ago.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I’m still waiting on why she hasn’t been charged.

Are the current and recent Justice Department heads incompetent

or

Is there nothing to charge her with

 

[Homerboy]

In fact why did I bother unignoring Slow to see what the thread was about? A basic error on my part as he's always just trolling or simply refuses to accept any evidence that goes against what he wants to be true. I mean, to go ahead and make an argument when your own articles used as evidence demonstrate the opposite. That's just comedy gold. Oh yeah, that's why I unignored him.

Coincidentally I think I'm putting him on ignore now due to this post. I haven enough stupid people in the real world to deal with. Don't need to read his bullshit too.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Do they have more viewership than all of the actual mainstream news sites combined? Not even close.

Actually, it is kind of close. That's the big three. CNN and MSNBC combined have a little more total viewership than Fox. Fox has a solid lead over either, though. Another.

One thing I've noticed on Youtube, channels like CNN have way more subscribers than Fox, but Fox videos seem to regularly have as many to more views. < shrug >

 

[soundforbjt]

Coincidentally I think I'm putting him on ignore now due to this post. I haven enough stupid people in the real world to deal with. Don't need to read his bullshit too.

I wonder if we all did it for a couple of weeks, would he go away?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I wonder if we all did it for a couple of weeks, would he go away?

I wonder if there is a way to make his accounts posts only appear to him.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wonder if we all did it for a couple of weeks, would he go away?

Protect your bubble at all costs.