Politicspolitics

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 08:16 PM

FBI was considering charging clinton until the DOJ flat-out told them "No."




Uh oh.

111 replies, 1447 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply FBI was considering charging clinton until the DOJ flat-out told them "No." (Original post)
Nostrings Mar 12 OP
PrescientWon. Mar 12 #1
Butchie_T Mar 12 #2
oflguy Mar 12 #3
Grumpy Pickle Mar 12 #13
Gamle-ged Mar 12 #4
Grumpy Pickle Mar 12 #14
Pennsylvania Mar 12 #5
batcat Mar 12 #6
357blackhawk Mar 12 #15
quad489 Mar 12 #7
foia Mar 12 #8
Trevor Mar 12 #9
Trevor Mar 12 #10
Carl Mar 13 #18
Trevor Mar 13 #19
Carl Mar 14 #21
Trevor Mar 14 #27
Carl Mar 14 #28
Trevor Mar 14 #40
Carl Mar 14 #44
Trevor Mar 14 #45
Carl Mar 14 #46
Trevor Mar 14 #47
Carl Mar 14 #48
Trevor Mar 15 #51
Carl Mar 15 #53
Trevor Mar 15 #58
Carl Mar 15 #64
Trevor Mar 16 #67
Carl Mar 16 #68
Trevor Mar 16 #79
Carl Mar 16 #82
Trevor Mar 16 #85
Carl Mar 16 #87
Trevor Mar 16 #88
Carl Mar 17 #97
Trevor Mar 17 #98
Carl Mar 18 #105
Trevor Mar 18 #106
Carl Mar 18 #108
Trevor Mar 18 #109
Carl Mar 19 #110
DavesNotHere Mar 15 #55
Trevor Mar 15 #56
DavesNotHere Mar 16 #65
Trevor Mar 16 #80
DavesNotHere Mar 16 #83
Trevor Mar 16 #84
DavesNotHere Mar 16 #86
Trevor Mar 16 #89
DavesNotHere Mar 16 #90
Trevor Mar 17 #91
DavesNotHere Mar 17 #92
Trevor Mar 17 #95
DavesNotHere Mar 17 #96
Trevor Mar 17 #99
DavesNotHere Mar 17 #100
Trevor Mar 17 #101
DavesNotHere Mar 17 #102
Trevor Mar 17 #103
DavesNotHere Mar 18 #104
Trevor Mar 18 #107
Grumpy Pickle Mar 12 #11
Bob the Bilderberger Mar 12 #12
Trevor Mar 12 #16
Carl Mar 13 #17
Trevor Mar 13 #20
Carl Mar 14 #22
Trevor Mar 14 #35
Carl Mar 14 #38
Trevor Mar 14 #41
Carl Mar 15 #54
Trevor Mar 15 #57
Carl Mar 15 #63
Trevor Mar 16 #69
Carl Mar 16 #71
Trevor Mar 16 #74
Carl Mar 16 #75
Trevor Mar 16 #78
Carl Mar 16 #81
Salaam Mar 14 #31
Trevor Mar 14 #36
PrescientWon. Mar 14 #49
Trevor Mar 15 #50
PrescientWon. Mar 15 #52
Trevor Mar 15 #59
PrescientWon. Mar 15 #60
Trevor Mar 15 #61
PrescientWon. Mar 15 #62
Trevor Mar 16 #73
PrescientWon. Mar 16 #76
Trevor Mar 16 #77
PrescientWon. Mar 17 #93
Trevor Mar 17 #94
New Deal Democrat Mar 14 #23
Carl Mar 14 #24
Muddling Through Mar 14 #25
Trevor Mar 14 #26
Carl Mar 14 #30
Trevor Mar 14 #37
Carl Mar 14 #39
Trevor Mar 14 #43
Salaam Mar 14 #29
Carl Mar 14 #32
Salaam Mar 14 #33
Carl Mar 14 #34
KittyCatIdiots Mar 14 #42
Badsamm Mar 16 #66
oflguy Mar 16 #72
oflguy Mar 16 #70
Boston Mar 19 #111

Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 08:19 PM

1. obvious obstruction of Justice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 08:20 PM

2. I have learned not to get my hopes up

She is beyond reach and that just does wash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 08:35 PM

3. Everyone is afraid to touch her

Too many are now six feet under

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:41 PM

13. Yep...she runs her own " Mob ".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 08:41 PM

4. Everyone pretty much could figure that out from the time it was reported that Attorney General...

... Lynch made the curious public statement that she would leave it up to the FBI to determine whether Hillary should be charged or not. This occurred after her 45 minute, unrecorded airfield meeting with Bill Clinton, the ''grandchildren chat.''

THEN she made the statement that she had not had a conversation with Comey about predetermining what the FBI should determine, her ''protest too much'' moment...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:45 PM

14. She was bought off and/or threatened by Bill Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 08:46 PM

5. I cant find a DU thread about this.

Does one exist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pennsylvania (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:00 PM

6. I believe DU rules prohibit criticism of prominent democrats especially Hillary. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to batcat (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:50 PM

15. They do,

or any Democrat for that matter. I wonder if anyone alerted criticism of Fred Phelps or George Wallace?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pennsylvania (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:01 PM

7. It's against the rules to write anything negative about HRC.................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:03 PM

8. Now we know "What Happened"

when Bill met with Lynch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to foia (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:28 PM

9. If looks like the decision was made long before that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:32 PM

10. DOJ was telling them what I told you.

"Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:"

It was up to career people at DOJ to decide and they looked at the law and decided the only way they could.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 05:48 AM

18. Yet this was the same DOJ that wanted to use the Logan Act on Flynn.

Trevor,you really are a joy to engage,it just should not be this easy to humiliate you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:49 PM

19. Your post makes no sense.

I guess that's why you had to throw in the childish insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 05:56 AM

21. Think about it Trevie,dont try to dodge it.

Obungles DOJ wanted to use the Logan Act,an archaic law of dubious Constitutionality to begin investigating Flynn.

Like they gave a shit about what would or wouldn`t hold up in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:20 PM

27. There was consideration of whether there was a violation of the Logan Act.

It went nowhere. Cases that can't be successfully prosecuted usually aren't brought. They weren't with the Logan Act or the charges against Hillary. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:31 PM

28. It was what was used to investigate Flynn.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-in-trump-russia-probe-was-it-all-about-the-logan-act

"At the time, top Justice officials suspected Flynn of violating the Logan Act, the 218-year-old law under which no one has ever been prosecuted, that prohibits private citizens from acting on behalf of the United States in disputes with foreign governments. Starting in the summer of 2016 and intensifying in the transition period, the Logan Act, while mostly unknown to the general public, became a hot topic of conversation among some Democrats. A number of lawmakers, former officials, and commentators called on the Obama administration to investigate the Trump team for a possible Logan Act violations — and to do it while Democrats still controlled the executive branch."


Their worry about the prospects of prosecution was non existent.
It was all politically motivated.

Thanks for trying to play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:03 PM

40. It was also investigated as a threat to national security.

Which it was.

Flynn was investigated. Hillary was investigated. You are trying to compare them but you aren't proving a damn thing.

By the way, the Logan Act is still on the books. So you don't know for certain somebody couldn't be prosecuted under it. You read about the problems with enforcing and repeat what you learned ever since.

Flynn deserved to be investigated. He wasn't just because of politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:12 PM

44. Trevor,you,as alawys,thought your were too clever by half.

The point you attempted to make was that DOJ simply could not prosecute Hillary based on archaic grounds.
Yet exactly 18 months later they kicked off an investigation based on an archaic law that is impossible to prosecute nor is even mildly regarded as Constitutional.

Your attempt at a point is thus rendered moot.
They could not have done the latter if the former you propose was true save for political motivations.
You simply can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:26 PM

45. I don't think I'm that clever

I'm giving you straight up facts. I don't know what you mean by "archaic grounds." The law the FBI was following was from a Supreme Court case, Gorin v United States."

I told you elsewhere that Flynn was also investigated as a national security threat. Flynn was lying about the content of his call. They believed that left him open to blackmail. Let that sink in this time.

I'm not trying to have anything any way at all. I'm just telling you the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:35 PM

46. A 1941 case that has no correlation in any way whatsoever.

Plus your article was simply an opinion piece,show me where anyone at DOJ voiced the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:49 PM

47. From Pages testimony

"The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge."

A case from 1941 still applies unless it is overturned. The case has 100% correlation because its about an all but identical law to the one was being considered at the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:02 PM

48. Yet a twice only prosecuted and lost case dating back to the early 1800s was?

Give it up Trev,you are embarrassing yourself again.

Just admit that Lynch was politically motivated,Comey read it that way himself and again her refusal to recuse was despicable and indefensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #48)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 01:18 AM

51. Lynch did nothing that was politically motivated.

She effectively recused. You are just splitting hairs to try to find something bad to say about her. We're going over ground we've been over many times before. You didn't learn then and there is no reason to believe you will now.

The Logan Act has nothing to do with Hillary's E-mails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #51)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 05:36 AM

53. There is nothing called effectively recused,you are or you are not and she refused to so stop

with that bullshit.

You know damn well what I am referring to about the Logan Act.
Your nonsense about how difficult it would be to prosecute does not wash in the light of the same DOJ grasping that straw to go after Flynn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:21 PM

58. The DOJ didn't go after Flynn for the Logan Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #58)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:52 PM

64. I posted a link showing they did,stop lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #64)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:05 PM

67. To me

going after means charging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #67)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:07 PM

68. They used it to start an investigation which led to unrelated charges for a process crime.

Put the goalposts down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #68)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:27 PM

79. Over and over again

That wasn't the only reason for the investigation. I don't call using a law on the books to investigate "going after" anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #79)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:36 PM

82. What the fuck would it be when you have a law that has not seen attemped prosecution

since 1852.

Keep making a fool of yourself Trev,you do it every time and I am happy to show it for what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #82)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 09:10 PM

85. I only look foolish to you because you don't know about this.

Do you realize that there never was a successful prosecution under the provision you want Hillary charged with either? I doubt you do, since you don't know what you are talking about. Here's something for you to contemplate. Nobody was charged with the questionable law in either case. That's because, as any high schooler should know, cases that can't be successfully prosecuted are seldom brought. Why can't that penetrate? Because this is a game to you and you want to make me lose. Its all you can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #85)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 09:15 PM

87. I am pointing out how you endlessly dance around,move goalposts,spout absolute bullshit

and take completely opposite positions on the same subject.

The bottom line is that you have to do all that nonsense to try to explain away all the inconsistencies.
Hence you back yourself into a corner before you finally run away.

You post crap that is not supported by anything as if it were fact and it always undoes you.
It is a joy to watch it happen every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #87)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 09:49 PM

88. Carl posted this:

81. That is epic bullshit that no one with half a brain would believe.
The highest profile FBI investigation in years and here we go with your usual nonsense.
The AG was fully involved,Comey testified to that and his unease with her actions.
No one at DOJ was making any decisions without the knowledge and approval of Lynch,to suggest otherwise is idiocy beyond imagination.

RE READ HER TESTIMONY
"Ratcliffe asked if the decision not to charge Clinton with gross negligence was a direct order from the DOJ. "When you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: ‘You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to,’” he said.

Page responded: “That’s correct.”

That's completely out of context. If you had read her testimony you would have read:

Day 2 pages 55-56

Q. Are you aware of any instances where senior political leaders at the Department of Justice intervened to counsel or order the FBI not to seek a compulsory process?

A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. So you are not aware of Loretta Lynch or Sally Yates intervening to stop the FBI?.

A. No, not to my knowledge.

Contrary to your insult, I have been completely consistent with what I've told you. I've had to tell you the same thing over and over because nothing can penetrate. I don't "run." Eventually I tire of you and I quit a thread. You say "run" in a childish effort to manipulate me into coming back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #88)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 06:03 AM

97. Are you saying that Lynch and Yates did not run the DOJ?

That they had no knowledge or control over what the department was doing with such a high profile case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #97)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 12:15 PM

98. They would be foolish to get involved

Everybody knew that if the result would be anything less than Hillary getting a long prison sentence the GOP would investigate the investigation eternally. They would blame everyone too. This is what happened anyway.

The IG reviewed the whole investigation and found nothing wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #98)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 05:12 AM

105. Lynch "call it a matter" was not involved?

Trevor,you are too easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #105)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 06:26 PM

106. I've explained that to you at least a half a dozen times.

Are you capable of understanding it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #106)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 08:49 PM

108. Your silly "explanation" aside you just said she was not involved.

So which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #108)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 09:53 PM

109. It wasn't a silly explanation

It was a perfectly logical explanation. That meeting she had with Comey was about the extent of her involvement. She didn't decide whether to charge Hillary or not. She didn't tell Comey how to run everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #109)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 05:23 AM

110. Now wait a minute,first she was not involved but oops we already know that was not the case.

Now she was only involved once regarding your ludicrous parroting of an explanation that requires the FBI director to have been a legal moron.

You don`t know Jack shit about anything regarding her involvement and are just making it up as you go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 08:18 AM

55. I remember when Clinton was president and the CIA director

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2019, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

John Deutch retired. It turns out he had some classified information on his laptop that was misclassified as “unclassified”. The CLINTON justice department was planning to FILE CHARGES against him for that, but Clinton pardoned him just before leaving office to make the whole thing go away. I wonder if those “career people” at the DOJ who were planning to charge Deutch were still there during the Clinton investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:16 PM

56. Interesting question.

If his material was mislabeled he shouldn't have been held responsible. I guess he was willing to cop to a minor charge to make it all go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 01:34 AM

65. Since charges were never actually filed, I suspect

“Mislabeled” might not be an accurate description of what went wrong. I’m sure no one was willing to believe that he didn’t know how to recognize classified material. I guess they’ve gotten more gullible at the FBI and DOJ since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #65)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:30 PM

80. We have instances in both

where material that didn't look classified was later classified on the flimsiest of reasons, that probably only an expert would recognize. I don't know what could be more clear than a label that said unclassified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #80)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:40 PM

83. Actually, we dont. In Clintons case, we have some material that was clearly

Marked classified at the time it was sent and received (We also have other material that was up-classified later).

Clinton stated that she did not understand what the markings were, but had she taken her required training (which would have been required for her time in the Senate and for her time as SoS) then she would have known. It’s possible that someone may not be aware of all the rules governing the handling of classified info, but you aren’t going to convince me that the smartest woman in the world, and a Yale Law graduate, didn’t even know how to recognize that it was marked classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #83)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 09:03 PM

84. I object to the terms "smartest person in the world.'

Right wingers claim Hillary's backers say that but I've never heard a single one. Its a RW smear.

What you are talking about with markings is about 3 E-mails out of 60,000 that had small Cs next to paragraphs. C was for confidential. The documents Hillary was reviewing were for talking points Hillary was to use later in the day, the opposite of classified. They were only confidential until Hillary released them. So its understandable that Hillary wouldn't have suspected the documents were classified.

They don't teach classification markings at Yale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #84)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 09:14 PM

86. Okay, I apologize for overestimating Clinton's intelligence.

As for classified markings, the "class" they offer, that Clinton should have taken more than once, takes about an hour. I know, I've taken the class in the last 6 months.

For classified material, you'll see markings at the beginning of each paragraph that might read something like "U/FOUO". It's annoying but if you don't know what it means, at the top and bottom of every page it also says "UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY". It is at the top and bottom of EVERY page, just in case I didn't know what "U/FOUO" means. If you're not sure what the markings mean, it spells it out at the top and bottom of every page.

Now, I don't need a Yale law degree to be smart enough to figure this out on my own in less than a minute, but if I did have one, I certainly wouldn't be able to convince a reasonably intelligent person that I just couldn't figure out this convoluted thing after having taken a class on it (possibly more than once).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #86)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 09:52 PM

89. It didn't say anything at the top or bottom of the page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #89)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 11:35 PM

90. On a classified doc, if you do not understand what the abbreviation means,

They are required to write it out at both the top and bottom of each page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #90)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 12:20 AM

91. It wasn't a classified doc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #91)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 12:35 AM

92. According to Comey, there were emails containing classified material, that had classified markers

at the time they were sent or received. I just explained to you how classified markers work for docs. They're not subtle, they're not hard to decipher, and they don't attempt to be unobtrusive. Whether it's a classified doc, a classified image, or other marked classified material, with even the slightest bit of training (or no training it all), marked information is easy to recognize.

Keep in mind, though, you are pushing the idea that Hillary couldn't figure out that this MARKED material was classified. It simply isn't believable that someone smart enough to get a law degree from Yale, who had likely been looking at marked documents (classified or unclassified) for more than 20 years, couldn't understand the basic training on classified material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #92)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 01:39 AM

95. She only put maybe three out of 60,000 on her server.

And they weren't clearly marked and once she read them they were no longer classified. Comey never said otherwise. It was an easy mistake to make. Very smart people make mistakes too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #95)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 03:04 AM

96. People do make mistakes. You just did. There were 110 emails in 52 different email chains

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

Here's what Comey actually said, from his statement above:
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

In addition to the ones she turned over...
"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

So we also know she sent or received work related material, a few of which were also classified at the time, that she didn't even turn over as she was required to do.

No one, as far as I can tell, has said they weren't "clearly marked" (anything MARKED is "clearly marked" as I have explained), or that "once she read them they were no longer classified". She would ONLY have the authority to declassify something that was classified by the state department.

Okay, I've linked up my information on this. Please show me where someone said they were no longer classified once she read them, that they were marked but not "clearly marked", or that things that were sent via email to her email server were somehow not actually on her server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #96)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 12:55 PM

99. Let's get it down to the one thing we were talking about. Then more if you want.

We were talking about E-mails that were marked classified, not all those that were determined to be classified later.

Hillary Clinton says none of her emails had classification headers

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/07/hillary-clinton/clinton-says-none-her-emails-were-labeled-top-secr/

Revisiting Clinton and Classified Information

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

"Clinton did not believe the content of the E-mail was classified and questioned the classification determination."

p. 20

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary%20R.%20Clinton%20Part%2001%20of%2030/view

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #99)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 01:10 PM

100. Yes, THOSE are the ones that I'm talking about. I can't blame Clinton for not knowing something

was going to be classified in the future.

Okay, first of all, you're taking Hillary's word here.

"For Clinton’s part, she told the FBI that "she did not know what the "(C)" meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," according to the bureau’s report. She also disputed the need for these particular paragraphs to be classified at all."

THIS IS WHERE I AM CALLING BULLSHIT! Right here. You can't both have a lot of experience dealing with classified material (as she asserted) AND not recognize this. In addition, it does not matter whether SHE thinks they needed to be classified. If the information didn't come from her department, it's not her decision to make. If the decision did come from her department, they why are her own people sending her information they intentionally classified, to a server that they know should not have such information? Even if the labels aren't there (which they SHOULD ALWAYS be) she should have seen the classified markings when she read the material and recognized the problem (and taken the appropriate action of informing the sender that there's a problem).

Comey said that even without the labels on the emails, she should have known:
"Comey has said it’s understandable that Clinton did not realize some of this unmarked information was classified. But he also has said she should have recognized by the topic of discussion that some of these emails did not belong on a non-classified system, given that 36 of these email chains had "secret" information and eight had "top secret" information."

By the way, I'll note that NONE of your links said that they automatically became declassified once she read them. Classification doesn't work that way, and Clinton knows it, even if you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #100)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 04:40 PM

101. She says everything she had before that was classified

had the headers on top and bottom. I know she isn't the most trustworthy person in the world but I don't see any proof she is lying about that. She did use a different system for marked documents.

The information marked C was sent to her by her own people. Its now believed it was classified in error. She should have never set up her own E-mail system in the first place, but should have isn't always what happens.

My link does address the E-mail only being classified until she got it. "The department marks a portion of the call sheets as “confidential” — the lowest level of classified information — UNTIL the secretary makes a decision whether or not to call the foreign leaders. He explained that this is done to give the secretary time to make a decision and to avoid potential embarrassment if it turns out that the secretary decides not to call the foreign leader."

We are back on the other E-mails, those that were unmarked but were later determined to have been classified. Lisa Page testified that they went through a very thorough search of all the E-mails and couldn't find one that was so obviously classified that Hillary had to have known. From the description I've read of what they classified, most of it wouldn't appear to be. They were newspaper articles and things like that.

You hold her to the highest possible standards to declare her guilty. Being imperfect doesn't amount to intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #101)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 10:35 PM

102. "Holding her to the highest possible standard" because I think someone experienced with

classified material should be able to recognize classified markings? That's like saying it's unreasonable to think that a basketball fan would know what the "NBA" is.

Look, I could ask how it seems that you're arguing that both that call sheets are classified until the SoS makes a decision and the classified material she got shouldn't have been classified in the first place (which is it?). I could point out that Clinton's word, without any corroborating evidence, holds as much weight with me as Trumps word probably does for you. I should also mention that Lisa Page opinion of what Clinton should have known doesn't carry much weight either. I could say that since none of the material should be classified anymore, just send me the link to the FOIA request document so that I can actually seem them for myself (surely they've been made public by now) but I don't think any of that is necessary.

By YOUR admission, call sheets are classified, and you explained why (and yes, this seems a reasonable justification). Then those call sheets were sent to, or from, the Clinton email server, BEFORE they were read, and before that decision to make the call was made. Everyone there surely knew these were classified and why. Given what you've told me, someone must have had the job to make sure they were Classified when generated, and declassified when appropriate. If Clinton has to go to her email to read a call sheet and make the decision on whether to call or not, and then declassify, how could she not know she has classified material on her server even if it wasn't marked at all?

In the end, here's what I believe about Clinton's intent... Do I think she wanted to risk exposing classified material to the outside world? No. All things being equal, I'm sure she would have decided not to do that. Do I think she knew with her setup, this was a possibility? I don't see how she could not know, or how the people who set it up could have avoided explaining it clearly. She weighed the risk of exposing classified material against the advantage of having complete control over her emails and the ability to decide what to turn over for archiving at the end (and we know she didn't turn over all her work related content), and decided HER privacy was more important than the possibility that she might expose classified material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 11:40 PM

103. Its not as obvious as a basketball fan not knowing what the NBA is,

But I agree she should have known. I think in general she didn't bother with details and trusted staff to make everything run right. Those are bad habits for an administrator and probably would have led to some trouble if she had won. Nevertheless, those things are apart from the issues that started this. The issues were whether the Justice Department fixed Hillary's case to not be prosecuted when it should have been, I say there wasn't a case. The career staff at Justice thought there wasn't. The FBI director thought there wasn't. The IG reviewed it and found no wrongdoing, So we have to go to conspiracy theories to explain away all that.

I gave you two different takes on the confidential classification for the phone call memo because the article I linked to also did. When reviewing this matter on the web, I've found places that say whether something should be classified isn't as black and white as Hillary's critics say it is. Either way, it wasn't all that apparent that the E-mail was classified. Since it can be hard to tell is something should be classified or not, that explains why the FBI concluded E-mails were classified but weren't obviously classified upon a first look at them with no markings. So E-mails that were described that way wouldn't be available under FOIA.

According to the State Department, it was the job the employee who sent Hillary the E-mail to remove the classification markings. It wasn't Hillary's job. How did Hillary know that classified material wasn't in her system? She didn't think about that. She relied on others to put the markings on.

Her decision to use her own system does raise valid suspicions that she was attempting to evade disclosure requirements. For as long as the Clintons have been around the GOP has subpoenaed everything from their first Bazooka Joe comics to their most recent restaurant checks. And much trouble came in the past over Clintons not having the documents the GOP wanted. So Hillary definitely should have known that it would all be looked at later, and she should have known to keep good records. Its very suspicious. But there isn't proof. Hillary had valid reasons for wanting to set up her own system. The State Department system wasn't suitable. Without proof, she couldn't have been charged with that either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #103)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 01:23 AM

104. I would agree that Clinton isn't the only one here who seems to have had issues.

If she got any emails with missing classification labels, headers, or marks (as clearly, happened here) that's on the originator. IMHO, she SHOULD have recognized some of this material was classified, or at least suspected, and made the necessary inquiries to make sure her staff understood.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens when all these emails are made publicly available (after all, since almost none of them are classified, they should be available with just redacted personal information, right?) Then we can see what the contents were and make a more informed judgement. I know that they officially released the "last batch" in 2016 (and the final total was that over 2000 emails had some sort of classified material, though much of that was up-classified after she sent or received them). There were also the emails that she didn't turn over, though, and ones that were deleted by the IT guy weeks after they were subpoenaed, which we'll probably never see.

I think they won't find much in the FBI investigation of her investigation. In the end, Clinton's team seemed to provide plausible deniability, and the FBI didn't seem very curious to dig any further than absolutely necessary. I think a big reason that people don't have a lot of faith in the integrity of the investigation (other than a dislike for Clinton) is that the Clinton defense hinges on lack of intent, but they started working on the statement clearing her months before they even had her in to talk to her, which they did on, I believe, 7/2/16, less than a week before announcing they weren't recommending charges. When you look at this in comparison to the way many of the same people aggressively pursued the Trump allegations, not to mention Bill's tarmac pop-in with Loretta Lynch who seemed to psuedo-recuse herself suggesting she was awaiting Comey's report, although already knowing what it was going to say, leaves anyone with even a mild distrust of government wandering in a sea of red flags and warning signs.

In the end, I'm sure that nothing is going to happen to Clinton or any of her top people, most of which got immunity anyway. I've never seen so many people get immunity in an investigation in which no charges are file.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #104)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 06:47 PM

107. Indeed to most of that.

Though I think the investigation was very thorough. They worked on it for over a year and put lots of agents on it, including their top people. They knew ahead of time that there probably wasn't a case. They should have dropped it then. Dragging it out was unfair to Hillary and her campaign. All they did months ahead was start working on a statement. They didn't finally clear her until all the evidence was in.

Lynch and the others all knew there was no case by the time of the tarmac meeting.

I'm certain that if Trump is cleared by Mueller there will be many who will say Mueller covered up for Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:32 PM

11. I knew it !

That " secret, casual " meeting on the termac of Lyin' Loretta and Bill Clinton sealed the deal.

Don't know what kind of promises ( or threats ) were made, but the DOJ was shut down.

I'd like to see the whole lot of them indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:35 PM

12. "Your honor, I call Loretta Lynch to the stand"

to testify under oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 10:53 PM

16. The transcript shows

that the decision wasn't as sudden as your Dunleavy makes it sound. Other participants at Discussionist read your post and concluded that the decision not to charge was made at the Lynch / Bill Clinton meeting. In fact, the transcripts shows that's the way everything was headed that way months before the meeting took place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 05:41 AM

17. In other words DOJ never intended to prosecute regardless of findings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 10:54 PM

20. Why don't you read the transcript?

The DOJ informed the FBI that there were hurdles that had to be conquered before a successful prosecution was possible. The FBI had to find an E-mail that would fit the requirements. They looked through all the E-mails and didn't find one.

The law on subject has existed for decades. DOJ has to follow the law. Its that simple. If there was a case I expect they would have filed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 05:59 AM

22. Tell that to others prosecuted for "innocent" breeches of classified info.

No matter how you try to spread your usual bullshit on it,the testimonies of Page,Comey as well as their private conversations show that Lynch was never going tp prosecute regardless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:51 PM

35. Comey couldn't find a case with the same circumstances that was prosecuted ever.

You have zero evidence that Lynch was never going to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:54 PM

38. Outside of Comeys words or now Page?

The minute she allowed Bill into the plane she was officially compromised and should have recused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:08 PM

41. Comey or Page didn't say Lynch was never going to prosecute.

Lynch effectively recused herself. It was an easy call, since everybody involved knew there was no case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 05:38 AM

54. There is no such thing as effectively recusing oneself,you either do or you don't.

More lies Trevor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #54)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:19 PM

57. She promised to accept whatever the career people told her.

That's what would happen with a recusal. No real difference to the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #57)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:51 PM

63. After saying she would not prosecute.

Gee,I wonder what they would do then?

Keep backing into the corner Trev.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #63)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:07 PM

69. She didn't say she wouldn't prosecute

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #69)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:15 PM

71. Your entire attempt at an arguement is that she was justified doing what the thread OP is about.

Now you are saying Pages testimony was false?

Keep backing up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #71)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:28 PM

74. Did Page says Lynch said she wouldn't prosecute?

The way I read it they were dealing with career people at DOJ. They told the FBI the truth about legal hurdles they faced. The FBI wasn't told there was an absolute refusal to prosecute. They were told that for the matter to be prosecuted the FBI would need to come up with evidence that would overcome the hurdles. FBI continued to look and found none. Look at what is there rather than what you wish was there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #74)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:39 PM

75. You make this way too easy Trev.

Her testimony...

Ratcliffe asked if the decision not to charge Clinton with gross negligence was a direct order from the DOJ. "When you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: ‘You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to,’” he said.

Page responded: “That’s correct.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lisa-page-said-fbi-discussed-charging-hillary-clinton-with-gross-negligence-in-2016-and-doj-told-them-no


Lynch was in charge of the DOJ was she not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #75)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:24 PM

78. Lynch wasn't handling the matter

Career people at Justice were. And it you read more they didn't say flat out no prosecution. They said no prosecution unless you can produce evidence of intent.

You keep pretending you are making brilliant moves and winning something but you are just plain wrong. You aren't winning anything, unless its a challenge to prove yourself wrong. I'm not saying this to win. I'm saying it to get you straightened out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #78)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:34 PM

81. That is epic bullshit that no one with half a brain would believe.

The highest profile FBI investigation in years and here we go with your usual nonsense.
The AG was fully involved,Comey testified to that and his unease with her actions.
No one at DOJ was making any decisions without the knowledge and approval of Lynch,to suggest otherwise is idiocy beyond imagination.

Re read her testimony...

"Ratcliffe asked if the decision not to charge Clinton with gross negligence was a direct order from the DOJ. "When you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: ‘You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to,’” he said.

Page responded: “That’s correct.”

They flat out refused to do it no matter what the investigation turned up.
You simply can`t say black is white and it be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:34 PM

31. No fair introducing facts into the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:51 PM

36. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:09 PM

49. How about deleting 30k emails under subpoena?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #49)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 01:12 AM

50. That's a lie. That's how about that.

A topic change at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #50)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 01:19 AM

52. Even the Leftist fact checkers call it half true.

The emails were deleted 3 weeks after subpoena.

Fact.

However they said zhillhag didn't directly order the destruction... Mills did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #52)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:26 PM

59. The FBI concluded nobody from Hillary's operation ordered it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:31 PM

60. That's not accurate...

The original directions given to the It company was to delete after a certain time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:35 PM

61. That was long before the subpoena

When the subpoena came the contractor was told to preserve the records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 09:46 PM

62. Wink wink... Dont delete those emails.

Too bad a thorough investigation never took place.

DoJ ran a cover up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #62)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:18 PM

73. It was no a face to face communication

So winking wasn't possible. The FBI spent about a year investigating the E-mail scandal. You are just coming up with excuses to continue to claim that which has already been disproved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #73)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 01:39 PM

76. Actually just this week we now have the evidence.

Those closed door transcripts all lead back to LoLynch office shortly after the tarmac meeting with Bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #76)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 03:18 PM

77. No. They did not.

Are you talking about Lisa Page? The transcript said that DOJ told the FBI about major hurdles that needed to be overcome before a prosecution could come. That started months before the tarmac meeting. And the conversations were with career people at Justice, not Lynch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #77)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 01:04 AM

93. Not just Page.

And remember.

A "matter" not an investigation.

Strzok was cautious of grilling Hillary as "the future boss"

Gave immunity to key witnesses but didn't extract info.

Allowed lawyers to destroy evidence.

The Obama DOJ was dirty Af and it's all coming out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #93)

Sun Mar 17, 2019, 01:27 AM

94. Little of value in that post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:38 AM

23. You are ruining their fun with your annoying facts.

This makes the second one you've shut down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:55 AM

24. Dream on.

I showed above where the DOJ under barry did not give a shit about whether something was actually prosecute worthy.

Once again Trev was spewing bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:10 AM

25. Heh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:15 PM

26. Thank you :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:33 PM

30. For highlighting how wrong you were again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:52 PM

37. He used the word facts and gave a thumbs up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:54 PM

39. Which I showed was a stupid post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:10 PM

43. You didn't show anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:33 PM

29. LOL

More of that Deep State stuff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:35 PM

32. LOL

More vacant posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:37 PM

33. Referring to the actual original post?

I agree.

No there there.

But it makes a good script.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 07:45 PM

34. No,your typical inane one.

But can only expect so much from a person that thinks Europe is a country I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #34)


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 04:22 AM

66. So why dont they go cuff her and throw her in jail until the trial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #66)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:16 PM

72. Do you understand who you are talking about?

We live under a two-tiered justice system

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2019, 12:13 PM

70. Makes ya wonder, What DID Slick Willie tell Lynch aboard that airplane?

So many have wound up six feet under that have opposed Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 09:48 AM

111. The real collusion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics