Federal Judge Orders State Department to Search for Clinton’s Benghazi Emails

[Coach is Back!]

What did I say? "They're rattling a hornets nest"

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/politics/federal-judge-orders-state-department-search-clintons-benghazi-emails/amp/

If you Libs doubt it. The Consipated News Network is covering as well

[Straw Man]

What did I say? "They're rattling a hornets nest"

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/politics/federal-judge-orders-state-department-search-clintons-benghazi-emails/amp/

If you Libs doubt it. The Consipated News Network is covering as well

Let them look all they want

fine with me

I feel the same way about this as a do about Trump investigations

don't you agree?

[Nick Danger]

Let them look all they want

fine with me

I feel the same way about this as a do about Trump investigations

don't you agree?

I agree.

[Coach is Back!]

Judge orders State Dept. to search state.gov accounts for Clinton aides' Benghazi emails
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/10/judge-orders-state-dept-to-search-state-gov-accounts-for-clinton-aides-benghazi-emails.html

[Coach is Back!]

Let them look all they want

fine with me

I feel the same way about this as a do about Trump investigations

don't you agree?

I'm glad it's fine with you, I was worried it wasn't and no, it's NOTHING like the Trump investigation. Not even remotely

[avxo]

More of the same...

"Of course investigations of your candidate—who's clearly un-American and a lying crook—are not politically motivated! It's about justice. And no, you can't possibly compare that to investigations of my candidate—a fine and upstanding American who's doing a tough and thankless job."

[Straw Man]

I'm glad it's fine with you, I was worried it wasn't and no, it's NOTHING like the Trump investigation. Not even remotely

LOL - you so predictiable

Without realizing it you're actually correct

The two are not remotely the same

Republicans did something like 7 investigations of Benghazi over  ~ 2 or 3 years and the members of the GOP and even Fox News eventually admitted it was politically motivated.

She was also investigated by the FBI and not charged with any crime

So, yeah you're certainly correct that the two are not remotely the same

[Soul Crusher]

Her and that kenyan fag ran guns from Lybia to Syria and led to the deaths of our people and you still make excuses for those two twinks - amazing. 

LOL - you so predictiable

Without realizing it you're actually correct

The two are not remotely the same

Republicans did something like 7 investigations of Benghazi over  ~ 2 or 3 years and the members of the GOP and even Fox News eventually admitted it was politically motivated.

She was also investigated by the FBI and not charged with any crime

So, yeah you're certainly correct that the two are not remotely the same

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

What did I say? "They're rattling a hornets nest"

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/politics/federal-judge-orders-state-department-search-clintons-benghazi-emails/amp/

If you Libs doubt it. The Consipated News Network is covering as well

The judge was appointed by Obama and he simply allowed Judicial Watch to waste their name.  He knows that the results will be fruitless.

[Straw Man]

Her and that kenyan fag ran guns from Lybia to Syria and led to the deaths of our people and you still make excuses for those two twinks - amazing. 

even more amazing would be if you had any proof for the idiotic claim

[Coach is Back!]

The judge was appointed by Obama and he simply allowed Judicial Watch to waste their name.  He knows that the results will be fruitless.

So deleting 33k emails, lying to congress, smashing her blackberry with a hammer, having a server hidden in her bathroom, meetings with Lynch 45min on a grounded private jet just to talk "about grandchildren" isn't obstruction. She has so many freaking possible felonies she's committed any civilian would be put away for life. The only thing I blame liberals like yourself, Strawman and others on here and in this country for who actually believe this bullshit, is flat out not knowing right from wrong

[Soul Crusher]

even more amazing would be if you had any proof for the idiotic claim

http://www.oann.com/trump-ends-cia-arms-support-for-anti-assad-syria-rebels-u-s-officials/

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438605/hillary-clinton-benghazi-scandal-arming-syrian-rebels

 

[Straw Man]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438605/hillary-clinton-benghazi-scandal-arming-syrian-rebels

 

swing and a miss

http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-cofirms-hillary-clinton-sold-weapons-to-isis/

No WikiLeaks e-mails confirm that Hillary Clinton directly and knowingly "sold weapons to ISIS."

[Coach is Back!]

swing and a miss

http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-cofirms-hillary-clinton-sold-weapons-to-isis/

No WikiLeaks e-mails confirm that Hillary Clinton directly and knowingly "sold weapons to ISIS."

Snopes? Hahahaha just quote CNN while you're at it. Most of the I think you're just trolling. Hahaha

[avxo]

Snopes? Hahahaha just quote CNN while you're at it. Most of the I think you're just trolling. Hahaha

Oh boy... what's the problem with Snopes now? Did talk radio tell you they operate out of a falafel shop in Damascus and have sex with baby goats while looking at Obama's original Kenyan birth certificate, issued by the Republic of Ceylon?

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

So deleting 33k emails, lying to congress, smashing her blackberry with a hammer, having a server hidden in her bathroom, meetings with Lynch 45min on a grounded private jet just to talk "about grandchildren" isn't obstruction. She has so many freaking possible felonies she's committed any civilian would be put away for life. The only thing I blame liberals like yourself, Strawman and others on here and in this country for who actually believe this bullshit, is flat out not knowing right from wrong

Nope, its not obstruction.  She has every right to delete personal emails that have nothing to do with official business.  The government also destroys computers, phones, and documents to keep confidential information from falling into wrong hands.  Her server was not in her bathroom and she never lied to Congress.


Hope that helps but honestly I'm more worried about what Trump is going to do rather than someone who is gone...retired from public life

[headhuntersix]

Sure think Vince...

[avxo]

Nope, its not obstruction.  She has every right to delete personal emails that have nothing to do with official business.  The government also destroys computers, phones, and documents to keep confidential information from falling into wrong hands.  Her server was not in her bathroom and she never lied to Congress.


Hope that helps but honestly I'm more worried about what Trump is going to do rather than someone who is gone...retired from public life

You should add ", Esquire" after your existing list of bullshit.

[Soul Crusher]

Nope, its not obstruction.  She has every right to delete personal emails that have nothing to do with official business.  The government also destroys computers, phones, and documents to keep confidential information from falling into wrong hands.  Her server was not in her bathroom and she never lied to Congress.


Hope that helps but honestly I'm more worried about what Trump is going to do rather than someone who is gone...retired from public life

[Coach is Back!]

Oh boy... what's the problem with Snopes now? Did talk radio tell you they operate out of a falafel shop in Damascus and have sex with baby goats while looking at Obama's original Kenyan birth certificate, issued by the Republic of Ceylon?

Snopes has always been waaaaay left bias and even though they refuse to disclose their financial backers but by most accounts it's Soros. And then there's this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/guy-of-shutting-down/

[avxo]

Snopes has always been waaaaay left bias

LOL... right... left-wing bias. Is it because they don't agree with the viewpoints your taskmasters dictate to you over the TV and the radio every day? Is it because they called "BULLSHIT" on Orly Taitz, Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo and Jerome Corsi? Is it because they called out the fake birth certificate with the little feetprints? Is it because they hurt your feelings by calling bullshit on the "sweet" lie that you fell for? The one that you couldn't defend on this very forum as I systematically tore it apart over a series of posts.

Left wing bias. That's rich coming from you when you not only can't recognize your own biases but wouldn't know what bias was if it hit you in the head and proceeded to skull-fuck you while yelling "I'M BIAS, BITCH. GOT IT?"

and even though they refuse to disclose their financial backers

By all accounts, their "financial backers" were the ad-networks whose ads they served.

And what's wrong with refusing to disclose one's financial backers anyways? Plenty of entities refuse to do so, many of which are much more blatantly political and involve themselves in the political process much more actively.

but by most accounts it's Soros.

Yes, by most accounts, George Soros paid a couple to start debunking chain e-mails and urban legends over twenty years ago, so that in 2017, they could attack the Donald Trump "agenda".

That's almost as ludicrous as the "Obama was born in Kenya and there's a massive conspiracy to hide that fact and install him as President."

And then there's this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/guy-of-shutting-down/

Uhm, that's a dead link. But if you're referring to the legal situation that Snopes finds itself embroiled in, it seems to me the sort of garden variety shit that hits the fan everytime a married couple that own a business together get divorced. What's more, the fact that they risk going out of business because, as a result of a contract dispute, their hosting provider is disallowing ads on the site (their primary source of revenue) seems to debunk the statement you just made about the site being funded by Soros.

No wait... let me guess... it's all part of the plan, to go bankrupt to trick us into thinking they aren't being funded by Soros. It's the perfect crime!
 

[Straw Man]

Oh boy... what's the problem with Snopes now? Did talk radio tell you they operate out of a falafel shop in Damascus and have sex with baby goats while looking at Obama's original Kenyan birth certificate, issued by the Republic of Ceylon?

LOL

[Nick Danger]

LOL... right... left-wing bias. Is it because they don't agree with the viewpoints your taskmasters dictate to you over the TV and the radio every day? Is it because they called "BULLSHIT" on Orly Taitz, Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo and Jerome Corsi? Is it because they called out the fake birth certificate with the little feetprints? Is it because they hurt your feelings by calling bullshit on the "sweet" lie that you fell for? The one that you couldn't defend on this very forum as I systematically tore it apart over a series of posts.

Left wing bias. That's rich coming from you when you not only can't recognize your own biases but wouldn't know what bias was if it hit you in the head and proceeded to skull-fuck you while yelling "I'M BIAS, BITCH. GOT IT?"


By all accounts, their "financial backers" were the ad-networks whose ads they served.

And what's wrong with refusing to disclose one's financial backers anyways? Plenty of entities refuse to do so, many of which are much more blatantly political and involve themselves in the political process much more actively.

Yes, by most accounts, George Soros paid a couple to start debunking chain e-mails and urban legends over twenty years ago, so that in 2017, they could attack the Donald Trump "agenda".

That's almost as ludicrous as the "Obama was born in Kenya and there's a massive conspiracy to hide that fact and install him as President."

Uhm, that's a dead link. But if you're referring to the legal situation that Snopes finds itself embroiled in, it seems to me the sort of garden variety shit that hits the fan everytime a married couple that own a business together get divorced. What's more, the fact that they risk going out of business because, as a result of a contract dispute, their hosting provider is disallowing ads on the site (their primary source of revenue) seems to debunk the statement you just made about the site being funded by Soros.

No wait... let me guess... it's all part of the plan, to go bankrupt to trick us into thinking they aren't being funded by Soros. It's the perfect crime!
 

[Coach is Back!]

LOL... right... left-wing bias. Is it because they don't agree with the viewpoints your taskmasters dictate to you over the TV and the radio every day? Is it because they called "BULLSHIT" on Orly Taitz, Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo and Jerome Corsi? Is it because they called out the fake birth certificate with the little feetprints? Is it because they hurt your feelings by calling bullshit on the "sweet" lie that you fell for? The one that you couldn't defend on this very forum as I systematically tore it apart over a series of posts.

Left wing bias. That's rich coming from you when you not only can't recognize your own biases but wouldn't know what bias was if it hit you in the head and proceeded to skull-fuck you while yelling "I'M BIAS, BITCH. GOT IT?"


By all accounts, their "financial backers" were the ad-networks whose ads they served.

And what's wrong with refusing to disclose one's financial backers anyways? Plenty of entities refuse to do so, many of which are much more blatantly political and involve themselves in the political process much more actively.

Yes, by most accounts, George Soros paid a couple to start debunking chain e-mails and urban legends over twenty years ago, so that in 2017, they could attack the Donald Trump "agenda".

That's almost as ludicrous as the "Obama was born in Kenya and there's a massive conspiracy to hide that fact and install him as President."

Uhm, that's a dead link. But if you're referring to the legal situation that Snopes finds itself embroiled in, it seems to me the sort of garden variety shit that hits the fan everytime a married couple that own a business together get divorced. What's more, the fact that they risk going out of business because, as a result of a contract dispute, their hosting provider is disallowing ads on the site (their primary source of revenue) seems to debunk the statement you just made about the site being funded by Soros.

No wait... let me guess... it's all part of the plan, to go bankrupt to trick us into thinking they aren't being funded by Soros. It's the perfect crime!
 

I'm going to address the others later but when I posted that link it was a live link. Period.