Trump still quiet on death of Alexei Navalny

[myata]

Brain dead refluxes, no comprehension needed or possible (because it would need living neurons, at least one). The nature is amazing.

Edited February 20 by myata

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, myata said:

Time to close the experiment: the absolute zero of intelligence, only the dead brain harmonics. Yes, experimental fact now, write it in the journal.

ROFLMAO!!!!!   Hope you had a good sleep little guy    LOL! 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, myata said:

Brain dead refluxes, no comprehension needed or possible (because it would need living neurons, at least one). The nature is amazing.

Wombat knows best! Circle the short blue! Flay otters? Rebate! Rebate! Because we can! What?

Sigh - here you go folks, the mind of the left wing today.  And they were shocked when it was noted that  the left has more mental health problems.

[myata]

Experimental journal: dead brain producing random vibrations! Astounding.

[WestCanMan]

On 2/17/2024 at 11:22 AM, godzilla said:

yep. crickets. he will say nothing.

how has this kinda thing with Trump become the new normal with people?

 

Did Joe Biden kill him when he was committing other terrorist attacks over there (blowing up pipelines).

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, myata said:

Experimental journal: dead brain producing random vibrations! Astounding.

Now that your brain is dead, you should probably stop experimenting on it.  

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Blah blah woof woof...

Comey didn't indict because he said no jury would convict.

^How embarrassing for you. You did miss that, cause it's NOT WHAT COMEY SAID. Try again.

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Brandon has been let off for the same reason. You're such a twit.

You're the "twit" who doesn't KNOW "innocent until proven guilty." 

And arrogant enough to believe you know better. 🤮

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

One pee-on got paroled. You call that justice?

You and I didn't hear the case; THE JUDGE DID.

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lies by pols? Sweetie, the POTUS and his entire administration have been lying for years.

No one documented 30,000+ lies by Biden like they did by Trump.

You OBVIOUSLY don't care about HIS LIES. ONLY Biden's and ONLY cause you don't like his policies.

AKA supreme PARTISAN HYPOCRISY. 🤮

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Surrender what Tweenkie-poo? A dysfunctional and corrupt pseudo-state? You want surrender...Brandon gave you surrender already.

Surrender the freedom of an independent state for 30+ years, doofus.

And as of today, STILL NOT under Putin's JACK BOOTS, not that you care.

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

As for Alex Navalny... https://rumble.com/v4dw53t-theyre-lying-about-alexei-navalny-putins-enemy.html

Rah rah Putin. You're such a pitiful STOOGE.

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^How embarrassing for you. You did miss that, cause it's NOT WHAT COMEY SAID. Try again.

Quote

Although we 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.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

And why? Because by his reasoning, a conviction couldn't be won.

He was dead wrong!

Now...crawl back into your cacoon.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And why? Because by his reasoning, a conviction couldn't be won.

He was dead wrong!

Now...crawl back into your cacoon.

And from far away, drifting over the fields and across the hills it came... the echoing sound of a b*tchslap.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Blah blah woof woof...

Comey didn't indict because he said no jury would convict.

In reality, per your quote, he said:

Quote

no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case

And the reason he said that, is because such a case would be WITHOUT PRECEDENCE. AKA NO ONE had ever been prosecuted for actions similar to Hillary's (unintentional mis-storage of UNMARKED classified documents).

Thanks for posting the evidence YOU WERE WRONG. 

Next time you should find the evidence before posting.

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

In reality, per your quote, he said:

And the reason he said that, is because such a case would be WITHOUT PRECEDENCE. AKA NO ONE had ever been prosecuted for actions similar to Hillary's (unintentional mis-storage of UNMARKED classified documents).

Thanks for posting the evidence YOU WERE WRONG. 

Next time you should find the evidence before posting.

Sorry kiddo - you're just proving him more right.  He never said nobody has ever been prosecuted for that, that's YOUR interpretation. AND that doesn't change what nationalist said in the slightest.

swing and a miss roboCAPS

[Nationalist]

36 minutes ago, robosmith said:

In reality, per your quote, he said:

And the reason he said that, is because such a case would be WITHOUT PRECEDENCE. AKA NO ONE had ever been prosecuted for actions similar to Hillary's (unintentional mis-storage of UNMARKED classified documents).

Thanks for posting the evidence YOU WERE WRONG. 

Next time you should find the evidence before posting.

 

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kiddo - you're just proving him more right.  He never said nobody has ever been prosecuted for that, that's YOUR interpretation. AND that doesn't change what nationalist said in the slightest.

swing and a miss roboCAPS

YAAA...What he said!

giggle...

I think I'm gonna crack a beer now.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

 

YAAA...What he said!

giggle...

I think I'm gonna crack a beer now.

"What he said" is wrong, too. You should insist on SOURCES before believing CdnLIAR. LMAO

Quote

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"What he said" is wrong, too. You should insist on SOURCES before believing CdnLIAR. LMAO

 

I quoted your source kiddo    Sorry roboCAPS - you'd be the liar here  

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"What he said" is wrong, too. You should insist on SOURCES before believing CdnLIAR. LMAO

 

Dude...the damage is already done. 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Dude...the damage is already done. 

Yes, you completely destroyed your credibility long ago, so being wrong again can do no further damage to it.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Yes, you completely destroyed your credibility long ago, so being wrong again can do no further damage to it.

Talking to your mirror again roboCAPS?

[WestCanMan]

On 2/17/2024 at 12:28 PM, robosmith said:

Of course Trump doesn't want the MAGA CULT to know ANYTHING about Putin's latest a$$holery.

When the lefatrds aren't talking about Trump's dick they're talking about Putin's arsehole.

When they talk about Biden they talk about how it's ok to kiss children on the mouth. 

I think we all know what these Uncle Demis are up to. 

Edited February 20 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

On 2/18/2024 at 4:09 AM, Nationalist said:

They have to take every opportunity, no matter how silly, to dump on Trump.

And if Trump did say anything about Navalny the leftards here would be calling it a violation of the Logan Act again. 

You guys laugh when I tell you how many of them are on my ignore list, but honestly, what eyeball says, ExFlyer says, robo says, rebound says, beave says, caswell says, Hodad says, etc, etc. It's redundant to listen to them all. It's like watching the same Rachel Maddow/AOC quote ten times in a row. 

They say that fools seldom differ, but leftards are in lock-step. 

[WestCanMan]

35 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Yes, you completely destroyed your credibility long ago, so being wrong again can do no further damage to it.

You're 9,300 posts deep into that territory.

It's at the point now where if you suddenly told the truth about something that was inconvenient you'd break the field of psychiatry - they'd have to start again from scratch. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

You're 9,300 posts deep into that territory.

It's at the point now where if you suddenly told the truth about something that was inconvenient you'd break the field of psychiatry - they'd have to start again from scratch. 

Although the comedy industry is PRAYING for him to stop - why would anyone pay for laughs when he's giving them away for free ?   

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Yes, you completely destroyed your credibility long ago, so being wrong again can do no further damage to it.

"I want to thank all of you here, including bipartisan elected officials like Rep. McGovern, Sen. Braun, Sen. Booker, Rep. ― Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” the president asked in his opening comments. “She must not be here."

lol...Let's go Brandon!

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

And if Trump did say anything about Navalny the leftards here would be calling it a violation of the Logan Act again. 

You guys laugh when I tell you how many of them are on my ignore list, but honestly, what eyeball says, ExFlyer says, robo says, rebound says, beave says, caswell says, Hodad says, etc, etc. It's redundant to listen to them all. It's like watching the same Rachel Maddow/AOC quote ten times in a row. 

They say that fools seldom differ, but leftards are in lock-step. 

It is interesting to watch. Ever wonder what would happen if Pelosi wondered off a cliff?

[robosmith]

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're 9,300 posts deep into that territory.

It's at the point now where if you suddenly told the truth about something that was inconvenient you'd break the field of psychiatry - they'd have to start again from scratch. 

So you're an expert on psychiatry now, too? LMAO

[robosmith]

17 hours ago, Nationalist said:

"I want to thank all of you here, including bipartisan elected officials like Rep. McGovern, Sen. Braun, Sen. Booker, Rep. ― Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” the president asked in his opening comments. “She must not be here."

lol...Let's go Brandon!

Lots of people erase painful thoughts from their minds. It is a very common defense mechanism. 

Now YOU know.

17 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It is interesting to watch. Ever wonder what would happen if Pelosi wondered off a cliff?

I wonder what would happen if you ever figured out how to wander through spell check. LMAO