• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oama knew that Hillary was using her private email account for business

Vern said:
Humbolt, I see you ignored that I was simply posting what I'd seen in legitimate news sources. By your delicate standard of "dishonest" aren't you being dishonest? And you're ignoring that you're simply posting your opinion as proof of my dishonesty. Again, by your delicate standard of "dishonest" aren't you being dishonest?

Oh look, you simply repeated your opinion. that proves your point this time for sure.
Click to expand...

You could've asked yourself if a prosecutor had been appointed. No, one hasn't been appointed, and therefore there are no targets, subjects or witnesses. You could read, but you have chosen not to, so if I repeat myself, it's because you disregard the relevant facts that determine if a target, subjects or witnesses are named.


Federal Criminal Attorney :: Targets, Subjects, And Witnesses In Federal Investigations :: Washington DC Criminal Defense Lawyer
 
Vern said:
Humbolt, I see you ignored that I was simply posting what I'd seen in legitimate news sources. By your delicate standard of "dishonest" aren't you being dishonest? And you're ignoring that you're simply posting your opinion as proof of my dishonesty. Again, by your delicate standard of "dishonest" aren't you being dishonest?

Oh look, you simply repeated your opinion. that proves your point this time for sure.
Click to expand...

Vern, humbolt is specifically referring to post #11.
 
humbolt said:
You could've asked yourself if a prosecutor had been appointed. No, one hasn't been appointed, and therefore there are no targets, subjects or witnesses. You could read, but you have chosen not to, so if I repeat myself, it's because you disregard the relevant facts that determine if a target, subjects or witnesses are named.


Federal Criminal Attorney :: Targets, Subjects, And Witnesses In Federal Investigations :: Washington DC Criminal Defense Lawyer
Click to expand...

You know humbolt, I don't know what to say. I said based on an NYT article that "Hillary was not a target of the investigation" and you pretty much called me dishonest. And now you post a link that says if there is no prosecutor assigned then there is no target. it looks like you are proving me right. based on your link, Hillary is only a witness. Do you even know what you posted?

And again, you ignore that I'm simply stating what I read in an NYT article. So how am I "conveying something dishonest" if your link agrees with me? maybe you should try to understand what you post before you go around "conveying" I'm a liar.

And Humbolt, I have to point out that you had to blow past the documented falsehoods that the thread is based on to post your opinion about my honesty. And now you hilariously post a link that backs me up not you.
 
Vern said:
You know humbolt, I don't know what to say. I said based on an NYT article that "Hillary was not a target of the investigation" and you pretty much called me dishonest. And now you post a link that says if there is no prosecutor assigned then there is no target. it looks like you are proving me right. based on your link, Hillary is only a witness. Do you even know what you posted?

And again, you ignore that I'm simply stating what I read in an NYT article. So how am I "conveying something dishonest" if your link agrees with me? maybe you should try to understand what you post before you go around "conveying" I'm a liar.

And Humbolt, I have to point out that you had to blow past the documented falsehoods that the thread is based on to post your opinion about my honesty. And now you hilariously post a link that backs me up not you.
Click to expand...

No, you simply repeated the lie in the NYT because it serves your interests. I have no idea what you think you read in the link, but the point was that a prosecutor assigned by the Justice department determines targets, subjects, and witnesses, and therefore in a federal case those terms have specific meanings which should not be confused with common understanding. This purposeful confusion is a meme offered by the Obama administration, the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and it's repeated by left wing partisan nuts posting on the internet. If a prosecutor is assigned, then targets, subjects and witnesses will be identified. Therefore, to say there is no subject or target in an investigation is a falsehood. There are, but they will not be formally named because the FBI does not have that responsibility because the FBI does not prosecute. Now, continue with your blathering.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Vern, humbolt is specifically referring to post #11.
Click to expand...

I get that. I was able to deduce he had no problem with the "thread topic" only my reference to "Hillary not being a target of an investigation". I'm just not following his logic of calling me a liar. He's finally clearing that up. It doesn't look good.
 
humbolt said:
No, you simply repeated the lie in the NYT because it serves your interests. I have no idea what you think you read in the link, but the point was that a prosecutor assigned by the Justice department determines targets, subjects, and witnesses, and therefore in a federal case those terms have specific meanings which should not be confused with common understanding. This purposeful confusion is a meme offered by the Obama administration, the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and it's repeated by left wing partisan nuts posting on the internet. If a prosecutor is assigned, then targets, subjects and witnesses will be identified. Therefore, to say there is no subject or target in an investigation is a falsehood. There are, but they will not be formally named because the FBI does not have that responsibility because the FBI does not prosecute. Now, continue with your blathering.
Click to expand...

Oh, its a lie in the NYT and that makes me a liar. I'm sorry but I'm not seeing how you've proven that the NYT is lying. If there is no targets then there are no targets. Of course you went off on conservative rant (or as you would say "blathering"). If I posted this, would you call me a liar

" has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target."

Hillary Clinton: The criminal investigation keeps moving forward | Fox News

that seems like a lie because as you said if there is no prosecutor there is no target. Instead of blathering, can you explain how there being no target makes the NYT saying Hillary is not a target is a lie.
 
Vern said:
Oh, its a lie in the NYT and that makes me a liar. I'm sorry but I'm not seeing how you've proven that the NYT is lying. If there is no targets then there are no targets. Of course you went off on conservative rant (or as you would say "blathering"). If I posted this, would you call me a liar

" has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target."

Hillary Clinton: The criminal investigation keeps moving forward | Fox News

that seems like a lie because as you said if there is no prosecutor there is no target. Instead of blathering, can you explain how there being no target makes the NYT saying Hillary is not a target is a lie.
Click to expand...

White House Toes ?Clinton Is Not a Target? Line
 
humbolt said:
White House Toes ?Clinton Is Not a Target? Line
Click to expand...

and out come the mindless posting of editorials. I say mindless when cons just post a link with no explanation. But at least I learned that you think the NYT is lying and therefore I'm a liar because of a Nat'l review editorial. Er uh Humbolt. an editorial doesn't prove the NYT is lying. and it clearly doesn't prove I'm a liar for posting what the NYT said. Even by your delicate standards of dishonesty.

I'm sorry humbolt, you've ignored the documented lies of the thread to claim the NYT and I are liars because a Nat'l review editorial. Oh and you've ignored an editorial from Fox that Hillary is the probable target of a criminal investigation. where's that delicate standard of dishonesty you've been applying to my posts? And Humbolt, tomorrow I'm going to post links to conservatives posting the vile and disgusting stand down lies. You wont need your delicated standard of dishonesty to call them liars.
 
Vern said:
and out come the mindless posting of editorials. I say mindless when cons just post a link with no explanation. But at least I learned that you think the NYT is lying and therefore I'm a liar because of a Nat'l review editorial. Er uh Humbolt. an editorial doesn't prove the NYT is lying. and it clearly doesn't prove I'm a liar for posting what the NYT said. Even by your delicate standards of dishonesty.

I'm sorry humbolt, you've ignored the documented lies of the thread to claim the NYT and I are liars because a Nat'l review editorial. Oh and you've ignored an editorial from Fox that Hillary is the probable target of a criminal investigation. where's that delicate standard of dishonesty you've been applying to my posts? And Humbolt, tomorrow I'm going to post links to conservatives posting the vile and disgusting stand down lies. You wont need your delicated standard of dishonesty to call them liars.
Click to expand...

Vern, you live in a unique world. The National Review article is from a U. S. Attorney who explained exactly what's going on with the language. You just don't like the truth here and having your little role in disseminating BS exposed. Now carry on with your usual rants. I'm not interested.
 
humbolt said:
No, you simply repeated the lie in the NYT because it serves your interests. I have no idea what you think you read in the link, but the point was that a prosecutor assigned by the Justice department determines targets, subjects, and witnesses, and therefore in a federal case those terms have specific meanings which should not be confused with common understanding. This purposeful confusion is a meme offered by the Obama administration, the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and it's repeated by left wing partisan nuts posting on the internet. If a prosecutor is assigned, then targets, subjects and witnesses will be identified. Therefore, to say there is no subject or target in an investigation is a falsehood. There are, but they will not be formally named because the FBI does not have that responsibility because the FBI does not prosecute. Now, continue with your blathering.
Click to expand...

So it impossible that the FBI is investigating whether anyone at the State Dept. broke laws by sending classified e-mails of unsecure servers? The meme that it is only Hillary who might have broken laws is a GOP lie. The fact that there are "leaks" and not indictments is quite telling about the outcome. It reeks of Benghazi all over again.
 
iguanaman said:
So it impossible that the FBI is investigating whether anyone at the State Dept. broke laws by sending classified e-mails of unsecure servers? The meme that it is only Hillary who might have broken laws is a GOP lie. The fact that there are "leaks" and not indictments is quite telling about the outcome. It reeks of Benghazi all over again.
Click to expand...

Benghazi just exposed this other problem. You and the rest of your political cadre just snicker in the background realizing that it's the Obama administration and the political left that have stalled and attempted to whitewash the entire Benghazi investigations - all of them - from the start. The Obama administration continues the same tactics now, releasing emails in tranches only by order of a federal judge ruling on an FOI suit. Right this second the investigation remains with the FBI, so I'm afraid you'll have to wait until that's complete before you can make a definitive statement that the FBI found nothing or not.
 
Vern said:
Nono, thanks for showing that conservative narratives flailing at Hillary are just a mish mosh of lies, spin and delusion. Her private email server was not "unauthorized". The secretary of State can still have his/her own server. And the info she got was not labeled "Top Secret". that's why she's not a target of the FBI investigation.
Click to expand...




When did it end?
 
humbolt said:
Vern, you live in a unique world. The National Review article is from a U. S. Attorney who explained exactly what's going on with the language. You just don't like the truth here and having your little role in disseminating BS exposed. Now carry on with your usual rants. I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

Oh humbolt, don't cut and run now. Why do cons always want to cut and run from their own posts? Cons do that whenever their narratives get the slightest scrutiny. Anyhoo, you called the NYT a liar and then me because you read a Nat'l review editorial. It told you a convenient narrative and magic presto, you think the word “target” cant be used at this point and anyone who does is a liar. I think the word “target” could have a more general meaning and not just the super specific meaning you now obediently believe. I think it can be used in a general sense to say she’s not a target.

But humbolt, instead of proving I’m a liar, you’ve only proven you’re a hypocrite. Using your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target”, anybody who says she is or is not a target is a liar. But you only seem to be upset at people who says she’s not a target. What about the people telling you she is a target. Where is your concern for that?

And don’t forget the lie that the thread is based on.
 
Vern said:
Oh humbolt, don't cut and run now. Why do cons always want to cut and run from their own posts? Cons do that whenever their narratives get the slightest scrutiny. Anyhoo, you called the NYT a liar and then me because you read a Nat'l review editorial. It told you a convenient narrative and magic presto, you think the word “target” cant be used at this point and anyone who does is a liar. I think the word “target” could have a more general meaning and not just the super specific meaning you now obediently believe. I think it can be used in a general sense to say she’s not a target.

But humbolt, instead of proving I’m a liar, you’ve only proven you’re a hypocrite. Using your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target”, anybody who says she is or is not a target is a liar. But you only seem to be upset at people who says she’s not a target. What about the people telling you she is a target. Where is your concern for that?

And don’t forget the lie that the thread is based on.
Click to expand...

It's not cutting and running. It's scraping the dirt off my boots.
 
humbolt said:
It's not cutting and running. It's scraping the dirt off my boots.
Click to expand...

call it what it you want but it's allowing you to avoid applying your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target” to anybody but me. Or the lies the thread is based on. And Humbolt, next time you call me a liar, make sure its not based on your opinion. As a conservative, you've been fed lies and spin non-stop so you're unable to discern fact from fiction. Let me give you a tutorial on Lying

Here Conservative says something that is factually wrong

Conservative said:
GW Bush never had a 500 billion dollar deficit .
Click to expand...

Bush had 7. I could have called him a liar for saying that (by your delicate standards of dishonesty) but I think he really believed it. he may been lying but it only proves he's not smart. This is one of the examples where I prove he's lying

Conservative said:
Never said Bush didn't have an Afghanistan supplemental only that Obama had one outside the Bush spending bills which you claim caused the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Then you shouldn't have any problem posting a quote from me where I said that Bush didn't have war supplementals. He had none in 2009 because he had the continuing resolutions. Where is that war supplemental for Bush in 2009?.
Click to expand...

Conservative;1062349126[B said:
]……….There was no Bush Afghanistan Supplemental[/B].
Click to expand...
Conservative said:
the Bush budget didn't have Afghanistan supplementals in it.
Click to expand...

See how he's contradicting himself. that's a good example of proving someone a liar. "wah wah, national review told me something and I obediently believe it" is a poor example of proving someone a liar.
 
Vern said:
call it what it you want but it's allowing you to avoid applying your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target” to anybody but me. Or the lies the thread is based on. And Humbolt, next time you call me a liar, make sure its not based on your opinion. As a conservative, you've been fed lies and spin non-stop so you're unable to discern fact from fiction. Let me give you a tutorial on Lying
Click to expand...

Oh, bull crap. You aren't in a position to give anybody a tutorial on anything at all. The message was from a U.S. Attorney, as well as others who understand the meanings and procedures involved. You and Josh Earnest understand those meanings and definitions, and inappropriately use those terms to convey a conventional meaning which doesn't apply. That's lying Vern, and you're up to your ears in it. Go peddle that crap to the LIV that are your base.
 
humbolt said:
Oh, bull crap. You aren't in a position to give anybody a tutorial on anything at all. The message was from a U.S. Attorney, as well as others who understand the meanings and procedures involved. You and Josh Earnest understand those meanings and definitions, and inappropriately use those terms to convey a conventional meaning which doesn't apply. That's lying Vern, and you're up to your ears in it. Go peddle that crap to the LIV that are your base.
Click to expand...

Oh humbolt, I'm flattered you think I was aware of the very specific uses of the word "target, subject and witness" before I read the NYT article. But you are only posting that I knew because it helps your opinion based narrative to call me a liar. Oh and it also helps that you only see me and NYT not meeting your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target.” Read this slowly Humbolt. I don't think its wrong to say she's not a target by the general sense or even your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target”. It clearly violates your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target” to say she is a target. And that you don't see. So humbolt, you should focus on your hypocrisy before applying your delicate and hypocritical standard of dishonesty to anyone.
 
humbolt said:
Benghazi just exposed this other problem. You and the rest of your political cadre just snicker in the background realizing that it's the Obama administration and the political left that have stalled and attempted to whitewash the entire Benghazi investigations - all of them - from the start. The Obama administration continues the same tactics now, releasing emails in tranches only by order of a federal judge ruling on an FOI suit. Right this second the investigation remains with the FBI, so I'm afraid you'll have to wait until that's complete before you can make a definitive statement that the FBI found nothing or not.
Click to expand...

er uh humbolt, you should be confused and hypocritical about one issue at a time. There has been no stalling or whitewashing of the 8 Benghazi investigations. that's just your confused and gullible conservative brain telling you what you want to believe. So humbolt, don't whine about me, don't cut and run, back up the "stalling and whitewashing" narrative.
 
Vern said:
Oh humbolt, I'm flattered you think I was aware of the very specific uses of the word "target, subject and witness" before I read the NYT article. But you are only posting that I knew because it helps your opinion based narrative to call me a liar. Oh and it also helps that you only see me and NYT not meeting your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target.” Read this slowly Humbolt. I don't think its wrong to say she's not a target by the general sense or even your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target”. It clearly violates your super special “national review editorial” standard of the word “target” to say she is a target. And that you don't see. So humbolt, you should focus on your hypocrisy before applying your delicate and hypocritical standard of dishonesty to anyone.
Click to expand...

Please note that I didn't claim you were lying until you actually did lie. I'd go through it all again for you, but you've bought into the narrative repeated by the NYT and Josh Earnest and others because it serves your dishonest and narrow partisan interest. But that narrative doesn't serve the truth, and you know it. It doesn't matter in the end. Hillary's goose is likely already cooked, and the false narrative will die on the vine. Your credibility will likely not suffer as it appears you have none.
 
humbolt said:
It's not cutting and running. It's scraping the dirt off my boots.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you engage Vern. He is a classical case of an apologist for Clinton. No truth is too big to deny.
 
Vern said:
er uh humbolt, you should be confused and hypocritical about one issue at a time. There has been no stalling or whitewashing of the 8 Benghazi investigations. that's just your confused and gullible conservative brain telling you what you want to believe. So humbolt, don't whine about me, don't cut and run, back up the "stalling and whitewashing" narrative.
Click to expand...

Vern, don't change the subject. I'll refresh your memory for you. We weren't talking about Benghazi. You are, because you can't defend the other junk.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I don't know why you engage Vern. He is a classical case of an apologist for Clinton. No truth is too big to deny.
Click to expand...

I don't know either. In my defense, it only rarely happens. Con. I had to throw the "Con" in just because...well, my medulla oblongata demanded it. I don't know what that is. Sounds Italian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom