But her emails: Justice Department to review Clinton email case... again

Ok maybe this version.

 

"W" accomplished

Giving away the surplus

killing half a million Iraqis

Katrina

Great Recession

In that order on the timeline

Instead of Russians helping him cheat he used the Supreme Court

Saying Trump is worse is ridiculous.

 

Ok ignore the question and specific W comparisons and bring up a bunch of other stuff. Nevermind. Sleepy time.

A Republican congress passed a tax cut without fear of Presidential veto. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

 

Saying someone is worse than W as President isn't defending said subject.

It's pointing out how ridiculous saying that person is worse than W

 

I gave you more choices to make a comparison to

He can't repeal Obamacare and really I don't care about the things like stupid tweets

A Trump stupid tweet has no affect on my life

 

Trump would have handled the cards Bush was handed worse. He would have handled 9/11 worse. Ya, he's that incompetent.

Trump doesn't have a 9/11 under him where he can start pointless ground wars and cause the damage Bush did.

The annual defecit is already estimated to expand by 1.8 trillion by the decade.

It's about the cards handed to you and Trump would have failed even worse in my opinion given how he is even less qualified and more incompetent than Bush Jr.

 

Curious, what color hat does trump wear?

 

If you fail to nail your enemies to the wall, try and try and try again. Doesn't matter that a republican congress found nothing. Doesn't matter that a Republican FBI director found nothing.

It's the most important thing for Republicans. Attack the hated Hillary. Running the country or solving problems can wait.

If Trump should do what needs to be done. He should appoint himself head of the FBI and then he can investigate Hillary and bring charges against her.

 

This one's probably more your style. Trump! Trump!

 

Bobby apparently doesn't know the actual definition of the word "indisputable."

 

By all means kiddo, do your best to dispute it but the evidence is largely public record now. She did mishandle classified information and she did so due to gross negligence......again, what part of that do you think you can dispute?

 

I don't have to dispute a thing, the point is that the "evidence" you are hanging you hat on has been disputed. As such, it does not meet the definition of the word "indisputable."

 

It hasn't been disputed though. A compromised FBI merely swept it under the rug but none of the evidence has been disputed in any way. In fact, they confirmed the evidence before sweeping it under the rug. We know for a fact that there were at least 110 emails on her unclassified server that she unsuccessfully tried to wipe that contained information classified at the time it was sent and that alone is a crime. No one disputes this, and it's indisputable evidence of her guilt. You simply don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion, so it would be best if you just cede the point and bow out gracefully.

 

I love how the most credible law enforcement agency on the planet is now "compromised" in the feeble minds of people like you. If you haven't heard people dispute the "evidence" you're touting, then you just haven't listened, as usual.

 

I’m sure intelligent people have noticed a correlation when another revelation of the Mueller investigation happens, a Hillary item is released soon after.

 

It's pretty obvious that they were compromised politically, that's not to mean that the vast majority of the FBI doesn't do their jobs admirably, it's just pointing out that those at the top are far too political. If the agency wasn't compromised politically, there would have been an indictment, simple as that. The evidence is overwhelming.

Again, though, you say that evidence has been disputed, but you fail to make a case disputing it. You don't even link to anyone actually disputing it. I come to you with facts, you basically just say "nuh uh"....and you think I'm supposed to take you seriously?

It's public record that at least 110 emails contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. By all means, dispute that if you think you can but don't think that saying "nuh uh" like a child is doing so.

 

Only in the minds of biased partisans like yourself.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization."

There are many who are of the opinion that there is "indisputable evidence," but the most credible law enforcement agency on the planet directly disputed that Clinton's actions were worthy of criminal prosecution. You're welcome to your opinion that the evidence is "indisputable," but your opinion doesn't change the definition of that word.

You do realize that this is not "indisputable" evidence of activity worthy of criminal prosecution, right?

 

LOL, you know I did give you a chance to bow out before embarrassing yourself further, but you did so anyway. You cite Comey talking about outside opinions, but when I brought up the absolute fact that at least 110 emails that Hillary unsuccessfully tried to wipe from her unclassified server were classified at the time they were sent.....you do realize that was in the FBI report right?

So you've still failed to show that people actually dispute the evidence. What Comey did in order to try and sweep this under the rug was change the standard for guilt from what the statute actually said to a standard that could allow Hillary to not be guilty.....and that's enough for stupid people or those who simply want to believe but when you are saying something that directly contradicts the statute unbiased people shouldn't buy it.

Again, the evidence gathered against Hillary is indisputable, the only thing in dispute is an interpretation of the statute which directly goes against what the statute says. As the statute is written, there's no way to dispute that Hillary is guilty because the evidence is overwhelming and undisputed. Saying that the law shouldn't say what it says isn't disputing the evidence.

 

I like how the FBI which has been run by conservative Republicans is somehow biased in favor of Democrats.