• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Department of Justice investigating Comey's actions before election

jhmd2000 said:
Many things that are true are not responsive to the question.

Did she lose because she was the person she was, or did she lose because people were finally confronted with incontrovertible evidence that she was the person she was?
Click to expand...
I refuse to debate the issue with you until you acknowledge the importance of how the damning knowledge was acquired.
 
RJKarl said:
It's COMEY'S actions not what a dirtbag Hillary is. He dramatically broke precedent and protocol.

What you are saying is, "Nobody likes my neighbor. He's an asshole. So, I can justify fucking his wife and telling the world about it."
Click to expand...

No. Not even close. What I'm saying is if HRC wasn't corrupt, then there wouldn't have been an investigation in the first place. And if there wasn't an investigation in the first place then Comey doesn't need to choose between updating his testimony that the investigation was closed without a finding of wrongdoing (knowing the pubs on the committee would likely release the info) and being accused of concealing the fact that they had potentially found new evidence.

Comey was covering his ass. That's all there is to it. He was in a lose-lose situation. And he wouldn't have been in the situation if she wasn't corrupt to begin with.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I refuse to debate the issue with you until you acknowledge the importance of how the damning knowledge was acquired.
Click to expand...

The truism that Russians spy on Americans? We fought a Cold War with them for half of a century. Why are we acting like this is new information? You've recently acquired a distaste for it because it finally impacted you.

But have it your way: would you rather the Russians know more about the heavy favorite to win the Presidency than the American people?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Many things that are true are not responsive to the question.

Did she lose because she was the person she was, or did she lose because people were finally confronted with incontrovertible evidence that she was the person she was?
Click to expand...

People who weren't sure about Hillary but were swayed by Wikileaks has to be a pretty damn small %
 
TownieDeac said:
People who weren't sure about Hillary but were swayed by Wikileaks has to be a pretty damn small %
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Whose mind wasn't made up on her at some point during in the first 29.8 years of her public life?

Ph counters with "Yeah, but the polls moved when the re-investigation kicked off."
 
These boards were a good example. People who already hated Hillary pointed to any accusation as proof she was evil. People who were going to vote for her said "meh" to just about everything, myself included.
 
TownieDeac said:
These boards were a good example. People who already hated Hillary pointed to any accusation as proof she was evil. People who were going to vote for her said "meh" to just about everything, myself included.
Click to expand...

The Republicans certainly did their best to make her look attractive by comparison.
 
wfumike02 said:
No. Not even close. What I'm saying is if HRC wasn't corrupt, then there wouldn't have been an investigation in the first place. And if there wasn't an investigation in the first place then Comey doesn't need to choose between updating his testimony that the investigation was closed without a finding of wrongdoing (knowing the pubs on the committee would likely release the info) and being accused of concealing the fact that they had potentially found new evidence.

Comey was covering his ass. That's all there is to it. He was in a lose-lose situation. And he wouldn't have been in the situation if she wasn't corrupt to begin with.
Click to expand...

BS! If that's all it was there wouldn't be an IG investigation. There wouldn't have been the across the board outrage at what he did.

Your own words show how politically based this was "potentially found new evidence". It was his duty to FIND the new evidence BEFORE opening his mouth. At all times, he could "potentially find new evidence".

He HAD evidence on Russian hacking but said nothing citing its potential impact on the election.
 
TownieDeac said:
These boards were a good example. People who already hated Hillary pointed to any accusation as proof she was evil. People who were going to vote for her said "meh" to just about everything, myself included.
Click to expand...

agreed...i hated that Hillary was the Dem representative. i felt comfortable that it would be a close election until i saw Trump and his rhetoric. i was wrong that people wouldn't see through his shtick. i would have voted libertarian again but then Johnson talked (not sure if i had see him discuss issues, or lack of knowledge of them) and realized that he was a fool.

it was a painful election and choosing between the two...voting for either felt dirty.
 
RJKarl said:
BS! If that's all it was there wouldn't be an IG investigation. There wouldn't have been the across the board outrage at what he did.

Your own words show how politically based this was "potentially found new evidence". It was his duty to FIND the new evidence BEFORE opening his mouth. At all times, he could "potentially find new evidence".

He HAD evidence on Russian hacking but said nothing citing its potential impact on the election.
Click to expand...

this is true, Comey made it seem like the new emails would implicate Hillary to the assassination of JFK (sorry that Cruz shit was funny) - front page news! then back page clearing of any wrongdoing. they should have gone through the emails prior to him opening him mouth to the press. he wanted his 15 minutes.

you can't un-yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
 
wfumike02 said:
No. Not even close. What I'm saying is if HRC wasn't corrupt, then there wouldn't have been an investigation in the first place. And if there wasn't an investigation in the first place then Comey doesn't need to choose between updating his testimony that the investigation was closed without a finding of wrongdoing (knowing the pubs on the committee would likely release the info) and being accused of concealing the fact that they had potentially found new evidence.

Comey was covering his ass. That's all there is to it. He was in a lose-lose situation. And he wouldn't have been in the situation if she wasn't corrupt to begin with.
Click to expand...

So now having a private server = corrupt?

Poor Colin Powell.
 
yeah, seriously

do you guys want your wife to find all your golden shower porn or what?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
77 thousand from 3 swing states is a pretty damn small %
Click to expand...

as someone else pointed out, you can play this math game with some states hillary won by a pretty narrow margin as well

her not campaigning those three states probs cost her a lot more
 
TownieDeac said:
as someone else pointed out, you can play this math game with some states hillary won by a pretty narrow margin as well

her not campaigning those three states probs cost her a lot more
Click to expand...
Yes, but you don't need to play that math game the other way because Trump's campaign wasn't illegally interfered with. There are numerous things that caused Hillary to lose, including Wikileaks, change any one of those things and Hillary probably wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top