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

The best part... the "secret society"...

 

Liberals have to accept that just because there is increasingly ludicrous (and dangerous) rhetoric coming from the far right (and the governing right as well), that doesn't mean that certain people won't lap it up as "truth" (sic). What we need is not snarky condescension, even while it feels appropriate. What we need is calm and clear undercutting of things like a "secret society."

It is very, very hard to argue with intentional nonsense designed to confused and provoke emotional reactions. History doesn't provide a good roadmap for short-circuiting these techniques. It's one reason it is so ****ing depressing to see some of the right wing turning their ridiculousness knob to 11.

 

OK... you have to laugh at the writer tying in the "golden" reference...

Limbaugh Sounds Like An Unhinged Conspiracy Theorist, And He’s Not The Only One

https://www.redstate.com/arbogast/2...-sounds-like-an-unhinged-conspiracy-theorist/

 

Well, this sure looks fishy... I wonder why Congressman Nunes won't provide his white hats/black hats memo to Senate Intelligence Chairman (who btw, is also a republican)?



Perhaps this is why...

A Republican senator just flushed his party’s latest anti-FBI talking point down the drain

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/re...d-partys-latest-anti-fbi-talking-point-drain/

He probably had to try hard to not say "You will have to ask Nutcase about his memo..."

 

True if big.

 

LOL, the "secret society" story crumbling away...

 

trump's own DOJ must know the Nunes memo is fluff... and likely embarrass those attacking Clinton and Obama more than it would help distract from trump's own problems. I reckon better to keep the black hats and white hats in the dreams of trump supporters...

 

Lol, the "secret society" appeared in one text, and as a joke...

 

Oh, and those missing text messages? Happened to thousands of agents, not just the two in question... better go back to "but, her emails!"

 

How very convenient.

 

I don't really see how that's convenient for anyone.

 

You don't see how it's convenient for evidence to missing due to a "technical glitch"? The messages that were already released were pretty bad for the credibility of the FBI, clearly they didn't want any more coming out and it's better to be viewed as incompetent rather than corrupt so the "technical glitch" was the right move to make the rest go away.

 

I blame Hillary.

 

The messages already released don't damage the credibility of the FBI in the slightest. The two people texted each other things that were equally disparaging to Hillary Clinton as they were to Donald Trump.

When you say "Clearly they didn't want..." that just means that is what you think. It isn't really based on any bit of actual evidence. It is nothing more than your guess about what happened.

 

More insults, no substance, no substantiation of claims, as is the usual.

Hint: You're not the one acting like an "adult" in this conversation.

 

Not "my girl," I didn't vote for her and I even provided proof when you tried to call me a liar.

Because of the way that courts have applied and interpreted the law. All you do by ignoring my actual arguments is prove yourself ignorant.

No, I rejected your opinion and you chose not to substantiate that opinion with actual court opinions, but merely with the names of cases which can't even be found on Google.

No, by providing logical and reasonable arguments, something you've been unable to do throughout your tenure on this BBS.

I sure don't expect anything but bullsh!t from you.

 

Well, except that I answered it. All you do by ignoring my answer is further prove your ignorance.

 

No, I was spending time with my family.

Feel free to post links to the opinions in the cases for which you provided titles.

 

They weren't insults, they were accurate descriptions of reasons why you might be failing to follow along in this conversation despite the fact that even children should be able to do so.

How are you still stupid enough to claim this after I sent you court precedent spelling out exactly how they interpret the law in question which directly contradicts your interpretation of the law....hell you were even foolish enough to post a link to yet another judge agreeing with that interpretation.

I mean, I don't doubt this is the best you can muster, but you are really embarrassing yourself by continuing to put your willful ignorance on display.

 

BtG is deeply committed to his ignorance, confusing that with conviction for his beliefs.