say the line bart! simpsons

Yep truthAnd the sheep all want protection from (and by) the wolves

Even if they say 2+2=4 it should be considered a lie from them.

Trump will be the about the 2600th to go, after the insane amount of death row criminals that is rapidly increasing from the republicans

Yeah, ur right but my point still stands. Trump is a bad person and there are way to many death row inmates

I think there's a much bigger picture you might not be aware of. If you like JFK, you're going to love Trump when the Truth finally prevails. And when it does, you're not going to ask not how others knew, you're going to ask how you didn't.

Democrats have complete disassociated themselves with reality. They'll never let a thing like the truth ever get in the way of their fairy tales. Even if Obama, Hillary and Biden got on TV and said, "Yep. You caught us. The Trump-Russia collusion story was completely false and we made it up" they'll still argue that they have facts that prove they are right.

The sad thing is that Democrats are never right. They believe what the TV tells them to believe.

I said in fairy tale land Democrats are always right. In the real world Democrats are always wrong.

It's 100% true

Plus Dems are real big into guilt transference. Every hateful thing Dems say about other people is what Dems are guilty of.

Democrats might say racism is bad but they don't mean it.

Does the Durham report say it was a hoax?

Can you point to that part?

Because after reading the report, I think it's interesting that on page 17 Durham says, " This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out."

And how on subsequent pages (19 -21) he says that the FBI should have followed the President's directions to use the "Least Intrusive Means of Investigation" first before opening a full investigation.

So what you have here is 4 years and millions of dollars spent on an opinion piece that amounts to "They should have followed Obama's directive to do the least intrusive means first and then opened a full investigation."

Which I think is interesting. He doesn't dispute any of the criminal prosecutions that happened as a result of the investigations. He doesn't say that the investigations shouldn't have happened. He doesn't recommend any changes at the FBI.

He's just like, "yeah, they should have done a preliminary investigation first."

That's it.

What a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer money.

i have to admit the arguments in the beginning were compelling,but .....

Paying for opposition research is neither unusual or illegal.

In fact, Nixon started a process in the RNC of keeping files on politicians to use in elections that's in place to this day. Does the DNC do the same thing?

I'd be shocked if they didn't.

The Republican Paul Singer paid for the first portion of the Steele Dossier. The AP had once reported that the Free Beacon had funded it, but that was not the case. If you haven't used up your free NYT articles this month, you can read about it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

When the money dried up because Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS offered to continue the work for the Clinton campaign, who picked up the bill.

So, saying that Clinton set to create a hoax to frame Trump with is just straight out wrong. In fact, Durham says in his report that she and her campaign did nothing wrong.

Durham doesn't make the claim that the Russia investigation was a hoax.

He spent millions of dollars and spent years to complain that the FBI didn't do a preliminary investigation before going to a full investigation.

After committing so much time and energy into this hoax, those that pushed it have no recourse but to go all the way to the end, ignoring all evidence contrary to their preconceived biases and agenda, regardless of what irregularities and outright political hackery was involved. Realizing Trump isn't guilty of the million things they accused him of would collapse their worldview and probably invoke PTSD.

"Neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," Durham wrote. Crossfire Hurricane is the FBI codename for the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign in case you were wondering.

Yes. He says that. It's a part of his conclusion that the FBI should have done a preliminary investigation before going to a full investigation.

Not that it was a hoax.

He doesn't say it was a hoax.

He doesn't dispute any of the criminal prosecutions the Mueller team brought to court.

He doesn't say there was a political bias in the FBI against Trump.

He doesn't say there was a 'conspiracy' between intelligence services.

In the 2 cases he brought to court (which he lost) he didn't claim the FBI lied. He claimed that the defendants lied about the nature of their sources, not the information itself.

Which he failed to prove in court. Twice.

4 years. Millions of tax payer money. 300 pages.

To say that the FBI should have done a preliminary investigation first before going to a full investigation.

"He says that. It's a part of his conclusion that the FBI should have done a preliminary investigation before going to a full investigation."

it's not like they just skipped a procedural step mid-process here, right? The very first step that's supposed to be completed, and have a particular conclusion drawn based on EVIDENCE was not done. So yeah, going ahead without doing that is not just a hoax, it's unethical and if not illegal, should be.

And now, with the benefit of hindsight, we know it was a manufactured situation. Right? HRC paid for it all. Knowing what she had paid for, she then brought it up during the 2016 presidential debates, and the propaganda wing of the DNC (aka the media) and their enforcement arms (aka the FBI and DOJ) ran with it.

Is it Durham not explicitly using the word "hoax" that is somehow convincing you it wasn't a hoax?

Would you feel better if Durham had used words like:

trick
fool
deceive
hoodwink
delude
dupe
lead on
cheat
fraud
swindle
fool
misguide
etc...

So. Clinton only paid for part of the dossier.

The first part was paid for by Paul Singer, a republican donor who planned to publish it via the Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet. But once Trump clinched the nomination, he stopped paying.

Fusion GPS then sold the dossier to the Clinton campaign. They used it as part of their political opposition research.

A thing every campaign does.

So, Hillary didn't "manufacture" the situation. The situation was already happening.

This is an investigation that found and successfully prosecuted people for actual crimes.

AG Jeff Sessions (remember him?) he directed the Inspector General to investigate the FBI for poltical bias.

Want to know what that Trump appointee Jeff Sessions investigation found?

No political bias.

You can read it here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

They even talk about how there was a lot of discussion between senior members about going straight to a full investigation.

A conclusion that the IG does not say was wrong. The report offers a lot of other criticism about the investigation.

But not that it was a hoax.

A hoax would be something like what Jordan or Comer is running in the House right now.

Remember Comer claimed he couldn't call any witnesses because they were 1) in jail 2) in court right now or 3) just missing.

That is a hoax.

"The first part was paid for by Paul Singer, a republican donor who planned to publish it via the Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet. But once Trump clinched the nomination, he stopped paying."

Without double-checking, I recall something like this being true. Maybe not the specifics, but I do recall that HRC didn't provide the initial funding. There's so much more to it than that though.

"So, Hillary didn't "manufacture" the situation. The situation was already happening."

Here's where you may be stating the truth to a certain degree, but certainly not the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. President Obama knew about HRC's illegal server, so he either approved of it, or gave implicit approval by doing nothing about it. Once it became clear that it might be a problem for HRC's 2016 candidacy (never fear that though, with that lying weasel Comey running interference) they knew they had to cook up a story big enough to distract attention away from not only her unsecure server trafficking in classified email and documents, but also the fact that she had destroyed 30K email housed on the illegal server *after* receiving a congressional subpoena to produce them.

The rest of what you wrote is interesting, but I won't refute, not confirm it, other than...

"A hoax would be something like what Jordan or Comer is running in the House right now."

Here's where our relative partisanships will take this conversation into the ditch, because Comer is doing nothing more than investigating bank records that have already been flagged as suspicious. I will admit to ignorance about what Jordan is up to, but I tend not to pay a lot of attention to him anyway.

btw, thanks for your calm and non-raving reply. Don't see a lot of that on imgflip these days, so I wanted to make sure and reply, even though I was pretty slow in doing so.

Her Emails? Really?

Okay.

You say that the email server was illegal. Can you reference that law? I ask because I've never been able to find it. The best I've found is that she was supposed to notify the State Dept that she was using a private email server.

Which is a policy and not a law. I get why she didn't because she never setup a [email protected] email address. She only used the one on her server.

So I bet she figured out that they knew.

Which is also why I don't think it's a big deal that Obama knew. Because anyone who had to send her an email would notice they were sending to that private email address rather than a [email protected].

She wasn't hiding it. It wasn't on the side. It was the way to email her.

Interesting side note: John Kerry was the first Sec of State EVER to setup the @statedept.gov email address.

Also interesting side note: Colin Powell ran his through a gmail account.

Also, the Bush II administration ran their emails through a private server as well. And, fun fact, they didn't use a backup system so of course there was a failure and they lost 22 million emails.

22 million emails that were supposed to be kept for government records.

Gone.

So. When you look at the context of government email setups. Hilllary having a private server is within the bounds of normal.

"Her Emails? Really?"

Yes, really. Let me ask you 3 simple questions, with a preface.

The preface being the outrage those on the left felt when they found out that Donald Trump had many classified documents in his personal possession, which when compared to HRC were quite secure, would still objectively have to be deemed as unsecure.

The first question being, why don't those on the left feel the same sort of outrage when they found out that Hillary Clinton had a personal, unsecure server used to house and transmit classified documents, AND that she deleted 30K of the email on that server AFTER having received a congressional subpoena to turn them over?

None of that is in dispute. Liberals can deflect and engage in whataboutism all they want, but none of that is in dispute. Those are facts.

Questions two and three are: as such, this illegal activity of hers clearly happened on president Obama's watch, did it not? So, why did she delete those emails?

So yeah, really.

"You say that the email server was illegal. Can you reference that law? "

Well, if it was illegal for Trump to have them unsecured, and he is a former POTUS, it's certainly illegal for her to have them unsecured, and she was never (and thank God will never be) a POTUS.

To answer your question: 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

"(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

"Which is also why I don't think it's a big deal that Obama knew.

If he knew, and it's starting to appear certain that he did, then he is also in violation of the same code. Unless the buck doesn't stop with the POTUS. Different rules for BHO than DJT?

IF the rest of what you say is true, those people should also be held accountable, imo. Otherwise, it's nothing more than whataboutism. (again, imo)

Having an email server for your job is not illegal. Even if that job is being the secretary of state.

Again, Collin Powell ran his out of his gmail account. His personal gmail account.

Google has access to that email address. As in they scan the text of any and every email you send or receive.

They have access to everything. That's why it's free.

Hiring people who did a mediocre job of securing that email server is not illegal.

Neither of those qualify for prosecution under 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information.

It's that operative phrase- "knowingly and willfully communicates .... to an unauthorized person"

Let's use Powell again. Let's say he had emails that were confidential/secret/top secret. If he'd been notified by the State Dept or the FBI that Google had access to his email address that Google had access, and he continued to use that email address then you could probably get him for violating Code 798.

Because he'd been told they had access and he continued to use it anyway.

If there were emails where she was specifically sending top secret/secret/classified information to specific people who weren't authorized to see it- THAT would be willfully and knowingly.

Having mediocre security is not willfully and knowingly supplying that information to anyone.

She even supplied it when a subpoena from the FBI came in (not Congressional). She had the personal emails removed. (there was a problem with the IT Admin not removing that personal stuff when it was brought online as the Sec of State server).

Were some of those business emails? Yeah, looks like.

Were any sent to unauthorized persons willfully and knowingly?

There's no evidence to support that.

What about a destruction of government records because she deleted some work emails?

Maybe. But you'd have to show that she knew they were work emails and that she deleted them deliberately because of their contents.

It's the same reason Pence & Biden aren't being investigated for the stuff at their homes.

And that's why Trump is being investigated- he knew. By his own admissions on CNN, he knew. He was told by NARA that he had it and had to give it back. He was running dress rehearsals on hiding that stuff. He hid it from NARA when they came to search. He hid it from his own lawyers when they searched the place.

So we have the Willful and Knowing parts covered by observable evidence. That investigation is looking into the Transmission part.

"Having an email server for your job is not illegal. Even if that job is being the secretary of state."

Of course not. Having one that houses classified documents is. You asked me for the law, I gave it to you. Did you not read it?

"Hiring people who did a mediocre job of securing that email server is not illegal."

Correct. Hiring them is not illegal. What they do may very well be.

"Neither of those qualify for prosecution under 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information."

So on what level of reality, is it not disclosing classified information in an environment akin to the one you described as "...they scan the text of any and every email you send or receive." not in violation of that law? That's like waving a classified document around in a crowed bar and claiming it's not illegal to do so. Please...

"Having mediocre security is not willfully and knowingly supplying that information to anyone."

Good grief. First of all, she had no security. I would be thrilled if she had enough love of our country to have security that rose to the level of mediocre. Much like your failed point about hiring people who make classified documents available to anyone who wants to find them, this point also fail based on the same logic.

"She even supplied it when a subpoena from the FBI came in (not Congressional)."

What does this mean? What do you mean by "it"? The server? Yeah, too little, too late. People who hate Trump don't like this, and it's absolutely not whataboutism (imo) to ask legitimately, how would those who defend HRC react if Trump had done the same thing. I think any objective person would have to admit that they'd have a MELTDOWN.

"She had the personal emails removed."

That statement is like saying the rat who guarded the cheese didn't eat any because the rat said so. Under what system of checks and balances is the person who is accused of doing something, allowed to say that they removed evidence of what they were accused of doing, and that's okay because they say so? Please, this conversation is devolving pretty quickly.

"Were any sent to unauthorized persons willfully and knowingly?"

Willfully and knowingly is not the standard. Just admit it, she received preferential treatment because she's a queen bee in the swamp. If you or I had done anything similar, and there are plenty of examples of ordinary folk doing something similar, we'd be in jail right now as they are. But she's not.

I know you need her to be guilty of something. I get that.

But Willfully and Knowingly is literally the standard.

It's right there. In the law. It's literally 2 of the first 4 words.

It's why that discord kid will be held accountable. He did it on purpose. He knew what he had. He knew the people viewing those documents were not authorized to see them.

It's why there is an investigation into Trump over the documents. How did he get them? What was he doing with them? Who saw them?

Let's say you're a prosecutor. How do you prove that Clinton intended to transmit classified/secret/top secret information to unauthorized persons?

If you say "oh, she had trash security on her servers."

The easy answer is "even trash security shows she had no intention of transmitting this information to unauthorized persons."

How would you prove that she meant to get that information out to people who weren't authorized?

There's no obvious intent. That is why they didn't make a criminal referral after finding emails that had classified/secret/top secret info in them.