Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Gutfeld: Democrats, it's time to move on" video.

  1. Fred Freddy10 hours ago "Wow. The denials from the right are getting crazy." Denying what?
    5
  2. "We learned that there has to be intent to pass information for the negligent email handling to be criminal. It was in the news ages ago and all manner of pundits backed the claim. I also don't know Clinton lied. It's not that big of a deal." This is a lie. "I think there is a world of low-information right wingers who are hyper-partisan and don't see the perspective of things very well. We saw this with Gowdy's Benghazi BS. It was designed for you, not a discerning crowd." You rely on talking points. I rely on facts. You are a hypocrite and an ignoramus. Did you know that originally ignoramus was someone admitting they did not know something? You're worse. You don't even know what your own blind spots are. "You might also note H Clinton's email server showed no signs of hacking, unlike the State Department emails, Podesta's emails, and DNC emails. Intelligence officers have reported thousands of US government employee emails have been hacked by the Russians and can be used to blackmail. Ted Cruz was hacked a month or so ago." Idiot, that's because the Clinton server's audit trail was destroyed/hidden and unavailable to the investigators. "We are in a lot of trouble. The Russians pulled the most successful covert operation of their entire spying history, and you are still hyping Clinton email infractions. Nice" You're a gullible moron. You don't know how to read the evidence. You employ mere talking points with a dose of inappropriate arrogance. And even if "the Russians" did orchestrate all of the embarrassing hacks that you refer to it would not be their most successful, you lunatic. You must be joking. You did not seriously study history. More like pontificating about "history" probably from stupid dope-smoking revisionists. You should be embarrassed. You're not familiar enough with reality to feel shame over your inane assertions.
    2
  3. It is actionable. You misunderstood what Comey said. In the fuller context, especially now that we know that even Comey justified his actions out of distrust of Lynch, that "no reasonable prosecutor" meant under those circumstances, including who was running the DOJ when he said it.
    2
  4. Fred Freddy1 week ago +theauklet, "How did she commit perjury? Let's get started on the clause too." She testified before Congress and lied. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/15/house-gop-lays-out-perjury-case-hillary-clinton/
    1
  5. You're an idiot.
    1
  6. Moron, She violated the Espionage Act and ignored the entire FISMA framework that she voted on as a Senator in 2002.
    1
  7. Moron, Comey only said "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the case at Lynch's DOJ. And no, you do not need to prove "intent." The minimal charge is gross negligence, which Comey described precisely. Lynch is gone. Sessions is just getting the place up to speed. She can still be charged. Comey was excoriated for opening his mouth. You just have no idea at all what you're talking about.
    1
  8. You're the same nutjob that thinks Hillary did nothing illegal.
    1
  9. All you know are Democratic Party talking points. It's sad.
    1
  10. More circular logic from a talking points idiot.
    1
  11. Moron, I followed the evidence as it was published from the IG and FOIA lawsuits.
    1
  12. Nice job burning down that straw man. The analyst's value systems determine how facts are handled and prioritized. That's if they're good at it. If group A presents factoids to promote their own worldview and group B says, no, those are not the facts we care most about, this "alternate' narrative is our view, it doesn't actually require anyone to be promoting anything that is demonstrably "false." The second group might even do a better job mustering relevant facts. So no, it doesn't imply alternative logic but different value systems. Also, WRT Hillary's crimes, we happened to score crucial wins on FOIA lawsuits. We don't have to wait for X number of years for material to just be rotated in to the Library of Congress. What we have to wait for is more evidence about motives and specific actions taken by Huma and Hillary with regard to CGI and the Muslim Brotherhood. But that might come sooner than you seem to think. We don't need to wait for "historians" to find out relevant facts about criminals that are caught and prosecuted.
    1
  13. She's a delusional leftist. Her father was a conservative. She became pals with Saul Alinsky and never looked back. Stop lying through omission, fake historian.
    1
  14. Her father was conservative and overbearing. She went along with it for a while and then totally rejected it all when she had the courage to.
    1