Jump to content

'Merica officially becomes Venezuela: Maralogo raided by Biden's goon squad


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Good. Then you'll be silent while the Republicans rake all sorts of Libbie stooges over the coals in public.

Thanks.

Here's an idea: Open that incredibly thick skull of yours to the possibility that, just because somebody decides they're an R, it means they can still break a law and they should be punished if they break a law. 

Steve Bannon was given a Congressional subpoena, and he decided that he was above the law and the law didn't apply to him. Well, now he's a convicted criminal, it's as simple as that.

Trump had four years to prosecute Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or any other Democrat he wanted to, and he couldn't even issue a parking ticket to a single one of them.

Edited by Rebound
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Here's an idea: Open that incredibly thick skull of yours to the possibility that, just because somebody decides they're an R, it means they can still break a law and they should be punished if they break a law. 

Steve Bannon was given a Congressional subpoena, and he decided that he was above the law and the law didn't apply to him. Well, now he's a convicted criminal, it's as simple as that.

Trump had four years to prosecute Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or any other Democrat he wanted to, and he couldn't even issue a parking ticket to a single one of them.

No he couldn't, could he. Gee...seems the FBI and DOJ are bought and paid for Libbie stooges.

I'll expect you'll be silent when the Republicans take both houses and begin their "witch hunt".

Enjoy the show.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

No he couldn't, could he. Gee...seems the FBI and DOJ are bought and paid for Libbie stooges.

I'll expect you'll be silent when the Republicans take both houses and begin their "witch hunt".

Enjoy the show.

 

I notice that the MSM are now trying to 'fact check' that The Donald came down to the WTC site with hundreds of his own people to assist with rescue efforts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2022 at 8:52 AM, WestCanMan said:

The "anyone who's fit to be the leader of a country is able to figure out for themselves whether or not something should be classified "Secret" or higher" statement makes absolute sense.

If that stupid ho became POTUS she'd have had the ability to declassify anything she wanted. What a disaster that would have been.

You're describing Trump ^here to a "T"

And you're right, he HAS BEEN a disaster for national security. He shared classified info at his dinner table at Mar-a-Lago.

I repeat, NO ONE is an expert on ALL the issues involved with classified documents. That's why MOST POTUS LISTEN to their ADVISORS. But not Trump. 

Quote

You try so hard and just keep looking more stupid.

The absence of intent doesn't mean that you aren't guilty of a crime, it's a mitigating factor in sentencing. 

Intent to kill is the difference between what type of murder you committed, not guilt or innocence. The same for injuries caused in a consensual fight, etc. 

Illegal storage and mishandling of classified data is a crime all on its own, regardless of the intent to share it, but having the intent to share it, and especially sharing it willfully, escalates the crime to treason. 

I never said that she committed treason, I said that she illegally stored information, and we don't know how much of it she shared (or even whom she shared it with) because she deleted 33,000 emails and deleted her server (after it was subpoenaed) along with several phones, blackberries, etc. 

You know what really looks stupid? You pretending to be an expert on US law when you're neither a lawyer nor a US citizen and have not a single cite to back up YOUR OPINION. In THIS case, gross negligence is a CRIME and extremely careless is NOT because that's how THE LAW defines it.

Quote

An 'appeal to authority' argument usually falls flat when the 'authority' figure alluded to is ones's self, especially when that person is no more than an anonymous internet poster who's already proven themselves to be a liar with no common sense.

If you actually had a TS/SCI clearance that's bad news for America, because you are clearly not a person who can be trusted, for the exact same reason that I wouldn't trust a cultist who couldn't tie their own shoes. 

Look up the word "synonym" ffs. 

You pretend to have had the highest security clearance possible, yet you display a complete lack of understanding of how to handle such information.

You have no basis for which to accuse me of PRETENSE. IOW, you don't know what you're babbling about.

 

Quote

1) So by your own admission Hillary's lack of intelligence and gross negligence were enough to disqualify her from having a security clearance, which she would absolutely need in order to be the C-in-C.

Stop LYING. I never said ^this. It was COMEY'S judgement that it was "extremely careless, NOT gross negligence.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE VERSUS EXTREME CARELESS

Quote

 

The FBI investigation of Mrs Clinton looked at whether there was evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on her personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. Although the FBI did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

The critical question for the FBI was whether Mrs. Clinton’s  conduct constituted "gross negligence”. The FBI  found that it did not. Instead, the FBI  found that she and the other people in the email chain were "extremely careless." What is the difference?

Gross negligence is a legal term with a specific meaning. It's an objective test. A person acts in a grossly negligent manner if her conduct constitutes a "substantial deviation" from the legal duty to exercise due care when handling classified information compared to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

"Extremely careless" is a subjective test because it's not based on a comparison to the conduct of a reasonable person. What may appear to be extremely careless conduct to one person may not appear to be extremely careless to another. Depending on the circumstances, extremely careless conduct may or may not constitute gross negligent conduct. The relevant circumstances probably include:

  1. The number of people in the email chain who received and transmitted the classified information and whether they were authorized to possess it;
  2. The nature of the information transmitted;
  3. Whether the information was intercepted by unauthorized third parties ; and
  4. How widespread the practice was

The FBI decided against charging Hillary Clinton because her extremely careless behavior did not rise to the level of intentional or grossly negligent behavior.

Quote

Thanks for demonstrating ONCE AGAIN, that you fail to understand the GROSS DIFFERENCES between ^this and Clinton's UNINTENTIONAL storage of UNMARKED classified info.

㊙️ the sailor KNEW it was illegal to take those photos by HIS TRAINING.

 

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

typed something, so of course it's a lie.

Yep.

Quote

To work for someone is to accept pay, to be in their employ.

Stop engaging in semantics to bend the truth.

Clinesmith admitted to altering evidence in order to get a warrant to spy on associates of Hillary's political opponent. That type of FBI bias was rampant throughout the investigation. It was KGB stuff all the way. 

Quote

Mr. Clinesmith worked for the FBI and as far as we know, had not met with or conspired or colluded with Clinton. In other words, as usual, you're completely full of nonsense. 

Hillary's lawyer, Sussman, had a keycard to get into the FBI headquarters, and the FBI and Dems shared an office at Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie was the legal team that secretly paid Christopher Steele to get bogus intel from Russia. 

In fact, the reason that Hillary's lawyer wasn't criminally charged for pretending to be a good samaritan when he turned over bogus Russian intel is that the FBI and Sussman were so well-acquainted with each other.

Quote

You constantly lie because the facts do not support your ideas. You are dissociated from reality.

So, if we're keeping score here, you just told a bunch of lies, and everything I said was true. As usual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yep.

Stop engaging in semantics to bend the truth.

Clinesmith admitted to altering evidence in order to get a warrant to spy on associates of Hillary's political opponent. That type of FBI bias was rampant throughout the investigation. It was KGB stuff all the way. 

Hillary's lawyer, Sussman, had a keycard to get into the FBI headquarters, and the FBI and Dems shared an office at Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie was the legal team that secretly paid Christopher Steele to get bogus intel from Russia. 

In fact, the reason that Hillary's lawyer wasn't criminally charged for pretending to be a good samaritan when he turned over bogus Russian intel is that the FBI and Sussman were so well-acquainted with each other.

So, if we're keeping score here, you just told a bunch of lies, and everything I said was true. As usual. 

Don't let this Tweenkie bother you.

Work to getting the Libbies out of Congress and into the courts.

Hunter, Joe, and his whole fcked up family, Schiff, Pelosi, NUMEROUS FBI agents, NUMEROUS DOJ agents.

Haul them all before the SCOTUS and let the roasting begin!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Trump threatened to sue the Lincoln Project over their ad. The Lincoln Project founder Rick Wilson posted a video reply on Twitter, which in part says:

"You threatened to sue the Lincoln Project this morning. Go For It! Go for it, b**ch! Come at me. I can't wait. We're delighted by the thought that you would try to sue us, Donald. Do it! Do it! I double-dog dare you. 

You aren't going to sue anybody, Donald. You aren't going to do a damn thing. You are weak, you are impotent, you are flabby, you are sitting there in the bridal suite at Mar-a-Lago, wondering why the Lincoln Project keeps coming at you. Wanna know why? Because you are a threat to democracy, you are a threat to America. You are a thief of classified documents, you are a traitor, you tried to overthrow our government. We're here, you're not, we will keep kicking your ass every day. Go f**k yourself. So if you want to sue us, go ahead. You won't do it, because you are completely impotent. Just ask Melania. "

Trump won't sue because he'd be subject to a deposition and HE CAN'T STOP LYING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I notice that the MSM are now trying to 'fact check' that The Donald came down to the WTC site with hundreds of his own people to assist with rescue efforts.

Let the Tweenkies try to distract.

Keep your eye on the ball!

Win both houses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Let the Tweenkies try to distract.

Keep your eye on the ball!

Win both houses!

 

Their official stance at Snopes is 'unproven'...even though we have video of Trump arriving with the first volunteers and him saying more were on the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Their official stance at Snopes is 'unproven'...even though we have video of Trump arriving with the first volunteers and him saying more were on the way.

Nothing more than typical Libbie distraction.

Ignore this chicken kaka. Get the Republicans in Congress and then...we serve revenge cold.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Hillary's lawyer lied to the FBI and gave them false evidence to start a massive witch hunt against a sitting president - no crime because the FBI is so legit.

Kevin Clinesmith might not be 'an associate' per se, but he's definitely Hillary's man because he worked for her, and he altered evidence and provided the newly falsified evidence to the FISA court in order to get a warrant to spy on Trump's campaign. He even pleaded guilty to all of that.

Instead of being in jail he's still a lawyer in good standing at the bar association. 

Clinesmith WAS PENALISED by the bar and the standards were explained. Of course you not even being a US  citizen nor a lawyer are unfamiliar with the standards as well as not knowing how to find them.

Ex-FBI lawyer agrees to one-year bar sanction after conviction

Quote

Clinesmith admitted in Washington, D.C. federal court in August 2020 that he altered an email that was included in information presented in 2017 to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concerning whether or not then-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had been a "source" for the CIA. Clinesmith said he believed he was conveying accurate information to the court and had no intent to deceive it.

The disciplinary counsel's office said it "does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove moral turpitude on the facts." The office pointed to other attorney ethics cases where a lawyer received a one-year bar suspension for the submission of a falsified document to a U.S. agency.

The office also cited Clinesmith's otherwise decade of "distinguished public service" and said he was not driven "by any personal financial, economic or commercial motive." His conduct, the office said, "involves only a single incident, not a pattern of misconduct." Clinesmith met with the disciplinary office and cooperated with the ethics investigation.

As a would-be aggravating factor, bar enforcers said Clinesmith's "misconduct has been used to discredit what appeared otherwise to have been a legitimate and highly important investigation" of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nationalist said:

Nothing more than typical Libbie distraction.

Ignore this chicken kaka. Get the Republicans in Congress and then...we serve revenge cold.

 

I can only watch as a Canadian.

I think it shows the intense level of desperation on their part that they must go full 1984 and change history.

Did Donald experience 9-11? Unproven...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I can only watch as a Canadian.

I think it shows the intense level of desperation on their part that they must go full 1984 and change history.

Did Donald experience 9-11? Unproven...

Anything to take a swipe at Trump.

Let them. I'm Canadian too, but I will do whatever I can to help the Republicans sweep this mid-term.

THAT'S the goal here. These Tweekies can hoot and howl all they like about silly, irrelevant chicken kaka.

Keep your eye on the ball! Once the houses are cleansed...push HARD for unadulterated REVENGE!

Fry all of them in their own oil.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Anything to take a swipe at Trump.

Let them. I'm Canadian too, but I will do whatever I can to help the Republicans sweep this mid-term.

THAT'S the goal here. These Tweekies can hoot and howl all they like about silly, irrelevant chicken kaka.

Keep your eye on the ball! Once the houses are cleansed...push HARD for unadulterated REVENGE!

Fry all of them in their own oil.

 

I volunteered with Diamond & Silk in 2016 and 2020. So I suppose that's helping. It was a lot of fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I volunteered with Diamond & Silk in 2016 and 2020. So I suppose that's helping. It was a lot of fun.

Good. Don't let these Tweenkies distract. They already know how much trouble they're in. Hell this whole raid thing is also...just another distraction. Just another attempt to draw attention away from the abject failure of this admin and its acolytes. Stick to the facts.

1. Biden is a criminal.

2. Biden surrendered to the Taliban.

3. The southern border is wide open and the USA is being invaded and drugged, with full approval of the Democrats.

4. Crime in the big cities is out of control and NOW Biden thinks he can switch horses in mid-stream. FCK BIDEN! He's a liar and this needs to be fashioned into a HUGE club.

5. Biden's energy policy is choking the life out of the American economy.

Without those un-checked mail-in ballots, the Democrats are screwed. Demand FULL PICTURE ID to vote, and no mail-in chicken kaka. Without that cheat available to them...they're doomed.

THEN...we roast the bastards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Good.

THEN...we roast the bastards.

 

You see push-back in odd areas. I was playing a bit of Eve Online the other night and someone had taken the time to spell-out 'F*CK JOE BIDEN' in giant cargo containers and let it sit a few hundred kilometers in front of the docking port of one of the main trade hubs. Thousands would have seen it...heh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You see push-back in odd areas. I was playing a bit of Eve Online the other night and someone had taken the time to spell-out 'F*CK JOE BIDEN' in giant cargo containers and let it sit a few hundred kilometers in front of the docking port of one of the main trade hubs. Thousands would have seen it...heh.

The general public already knows the dumb-assery of this Tweenkie administration.

Let the Tweenkies make their silly accusations. None of them have ever stuck and none of them ever will.

They have trashed the USA and the general public will use their votes to show their anger.

Then it'll be up to the new Republicans to see that anger is satisfied.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You know what really looks stupid?

Yes.

You, the FBI, the Dems, CNN, WashPo, etc.

Quote

In THIS case, gross negligence is a CRIME and extremely careless is NOT because that's how THE LAW defines it.

OMG what a liar. Carelessness is negligence. Gross negligence and extreme carelessness are the exact same thing.

For your edification: https://www.mcminnlaw.com/difference-negligence-gross-negligence/

Quote

What Is Negligence

Negligence is primarily part of tort law (tort is a civil wrong—meaning not a criminal act and must be solved in a civil court—that causes stress or harm to another person and imposes a legal liability). However, many cases of negligence are filed in both criminal and civil courts.

In one word, negligence can be described as carelessness. It’s when a person does not take reasonable care over a situation where a prudent person would have taken that level of care.

You just keep saying dumber and dumber things lol.... This one was awesome:

Quote

You have no basis for which to accuse me of PRETENSE

Just so you're clear on how dumb your comment was, here's the definition of pretense:

Quote

an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.

But in that specific instance I wasn't accusing you of lying, I just commented on your level of usefullness:

Quote

If you actually had a TS/SCI clearance that's bad news for America, because you are clearly not a person who can be trusted, for the exact same reason that I wouldn't trust a cultist who couldn't tie their own shoes. 

Cultists aren't considered liars, just stooges. So I wasn't accusing you of pretext at that moment. Capiche?

Here's another example of you using a link in an attempt to prove something, but you just end up hoisted on your own petard:

Here's your quote, and what follows is from YOUR link:

Quote

Stop LYING. I never said ^this. It was COMEY'S judgement that it was "extremely careless, NOT gross negligence.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE VERSUS EXTREME CARELESS

 

Quote

Gross negligence is a legal term with a specific meaning. It's an objective test. A person acts in a grossly negligent manner if her conduct constitutes a "substantial deviation" from the legal duty to exercise due care when handling classified information compared to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

"Extremely careless" is a subjective test because it's not based on a comparison to the conduct of a reasonable person. What may appear to be extremely careless conduct to one person may not appear to be extremely careless to another. Depending on the circumstances, extremely careless conduct may or may not constitute gross negligent conduct. The relevant circumstances probably include:

Gross negligence is a specific legal term.

Extremely careless is not defined as a specific legal term there. IE, it does not have a different meaning, legally speaking. That means it's not a greater or lesser version of the same offence - it's merely a term without a specific legal meaning which has THE EXACT SAME MEANING as a term that does. 

Try to define the word negligence without using the word carelessness... It's like taking the long way around. It's like you're in Windsor, and you ask someone how to get their car to Detroit, and they say "Go west to BC and south to Arizona, then head northeast." Negligence = carelessness, period.

So when Comey crossed out the words "gross negligence" and exchanged them for "extreme carelessness" he was saying THE EXACT SAME THING, only doing so with a term that is not used in legalese. 

The FBI's "objective vs subjective test" excuse for allowing extreme carelessness might hold water if the presence of top secret information was allowed to be stored on an unsecured server, but it is not. 

The "reasonable person" standard would hold water if Hillary was a layman, but she was not. She was a gov't employee with the highest security clearance possible, so she's not held to the same low standards as a layman. She's held to the standard of "a person with the highest security clearance possible". 

Quote

Thanks for demonstrating ONCE AGAIN, that you fail to understand the GROSS DIFFERENCES between ^this and Clinton's UNINTENTIONAL storage of UNMARKED classified info.

㊙️ the sailor KNEW it was illegal to take those photos by HIS TRAINING.

Hillary KNEW it was illegal to send/receive/store classified information by her training. Pleading ignorance at her level is not a thing. 

If the Sec of State/VPOTUS can plead ignorance when being extremely careless with top secret information then why can't people far below them in the chain of command? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Clinesmith WAS PENALISED by the bar and the standards were explained. Of course you not even being a US  citizen nor a lawyer are unfamiliar with the standards as well as not knowing how to find them.

Ex-FBI lawyer agrees to one-year bar sanction after conviction

 

He was slightly penalized by the bar. He did something that you and I would have gone to jail for and he didn't even lose his job ffs. 

And I'm pretty sure that you said "No one at the FBI was convicted"...

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

No he couldn't, could he. Gee...seems the FBI and DOJ are bought and paid for Libbie stooges.

I'll expect you'll be silent when the Republicans take both houses and begin their "witch hunt".

Enjoy the show.

Why did Trump appoint a “Libbie stooge” to lead the FBI?  After all, the current Director of the FBI was appointed by Donald Trump. 
 

The current investigation into Trump’s theft of highly classified information has nothing to do with who’s in Congress.  

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

Hillary KNEW it was illegal to send/receive/store classified information by her training. Pleading ignorance at her level is not a thing. 

If the Sec of State/VPOTUS can plead ignorance when being extremely careless with top secret information then why can't people far below them in the chain of command? 

The docs were UNMARKED. You have NO EVIDENCE Hillary KNEW the unmarked documents were classified.

Stop lying.

Your juvenile name calling just demonstrates how desperate you are. You clearly don't know the law or you'd be citing the statutes. Or at least an actual EXPERT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...