Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

FBI expands probe of Hillary's email?

Terry Locke
Terry Locke
Jan 18, 2016
1:08am
Block User
I have no idea whether Clinton is guilty. I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion one way or another.

You're asking me to refute speculation from an European blog that links to Fox News that "suggests" that it's possible the FBI has opened a new investigation and Napolitano stating that the FBI will soon make a recommendation about "whether or not" Clinton will be indicted. And it attributes to the Ron Paul Institute.

That's why I rarely put my toe in these political septic tanks. Not sure what I was thinking by commenting at all.

Continue. I'm headed off to do something productive.

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mushy complains about the source, yet doesn't explain what things he disagrees with. I wish that he would.


Quote
Originally posted by: friedmush
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Even people in Europe now suspect that the FBI will recommend that Hillary be indicted on many charges.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/16012016-fbi-investigating-hillary-clinton-for-using-state-department-to-benefit-clinton-foundation-oped/


An Op-Ed piece linking to a Fox News report and crediting the Ron Paul Institute.

This is why I come to LVA Free for All, to get objective, cutting-edge current events.


LurkerPoster
LurkerPoster
Jan 18, 2016
1:19am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Boiler will not get caught up in Lurkers BS about minutia. The discussion is about Hillary's potential indictment.

Take a stance...............will the FBI recommend Hillary's indictment? I'll expect no straight answer from Lurker


In other words.......you have nothing Boiler. You refuse to answer a simple question and divert and at the same time you can more or less demand I answer your question. Listen dipshit, you are in no position to demand anything. You make completely false statements and blame others for calling you out. How very Republican of you.....

But I'll offer you a sweet deal. I'm willing to throw Hillary under the bus (with the proper evidence) as soon as you're willing to support the prosecution of Bush Jr. and Cheney for war crimes.......Not holding my breath though....
Boilerman
Boilerman
Jan 18, 2016
1:51am
Block User
Thank you for making my point again.


Quote
Originally posted by: LurkerPoster
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Boiler will not get caught up in Lurkers BS about minutia. The discussion is about Hillary's potential indictment.

Take a stance...............will the FBI recommend Hillary's indictment? I'll expect no straight answer from Lurker


In other words.......you have nothing Boiler. You refuse to answer a simple question and divert and at the same time you can more or less demand I answer your question. Listen dipshit, you are in no position to demand anything. You make completely false statements and blame others for calling you out. How very Republican of you.....


LurkerPoster
LurkerPoster
Jan 18, 2016
1:54am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Thank you for making my point again.


And thank you for doing the same....hypocrite! No answers, just crying like a baby!

jatki
jatki
Jan 18, 2016
7:34am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: LurkerPoster
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman

Why don't you learn how to read first and answer my question? Who are those Europeans? I'll keep calling you names (since it obviously hurts you very much) as long as you keep making shit up.



Huh. So you're proud and bragging of calling someone names an internet message bd.? How truly sixth grade of you lurker, your intellect and debate skills continue to defy.

jatki
jatki
Jan 18, 2016
7:37am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: LurkerPoster
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Boiler will not get caught up in Lurkers BS about minutia. The discussion is about Hillary's potential indictment.

Take a stance...............will the FBI recommend Hillary's indictment? I'll expect no straight answer from Lurker


In other words.......you have nothing Boiler. You refuse to answer a simple question and divert and at the same time you can more or less demand I answer your question. Listen dipshit, you are in no position to demand anything. You make completely false statements and blame others for calling you out. How very Republican of you.....

But I'll offer you a sweet deal. I'm willing to throw Hillary under the bus (with the proper evidence) as soon as you're willing to support the prosecution of Bush Jr. and Cheney for war crimes.......Not holding my breath though....


AND NOW you come back with a "you got nothin" response!? UNBELEIVABLE, you two really need to take it to PM, all that's happening here is absolutely nothing, except for clogging the boards.
forkushV
forkushV
Jan 18, 2016
7:52am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mushy complains about the source, yet doesn't explain what things he disagrees with...
Which means that you are only semi-literate, Boilerman. I mean that literally, not figuratively, and it's not at all an exaggeration. It's not even meant that much as an insult - it's just true.

A major part of modern day literacy is to evaluate the source of information. If the source isn't credible or respected, you can stop reading right then. Calling for someone to refute 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, NAMBLA, Code Pink, or claims by General Jack Ripper is just absurd. No literate person believes them in the first place.

And the radical Ron Paul Institute is not a credible source. Of course you don't care about that, do you Boilerman? If it matches your pre-existing beliefs, you believe it, no questions asked.
jatki
jatki
Jan 18, 2016
8:17am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mushy complains about the source, yet doesn't explain what things he disagrees with...
Which means that you are only semi-literate, Boilerman. I mean that literally, not figuratively, and it's not at all an exaggeration. It's not even meant that much as an insult - it's just true.

A major part of modern day literacy is to evaluate the source of information. If the source isn't credible or respected, you can stop reading right then. Calling for someone to refute 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, NAMBLA, Code Pink, or claims by General Jack Ripper is just absurd. No literate person believes them in the first place.

And the radical Ron Paul Institute is not a credible source. Of course you don't care about that, do you Boilerman? If it matches your pre-existing beliefs, you believe it, no questions asked.



And for some to call out a source...well, just because they don't like the subject. Say, for instance a calim about an Obamacare architect who called the American people "stupid". Even if the poster explained where he got the source and later backed it with Snopes?

What of that poster went even further and tried to discredit the original source by claiming one of its' articles was "obamas first gay president" and completely misrepresented such articles?

What if something ;ike that were to happen forkie? You've completely ignored it since I first brought it up, I don't expect you to change now, but I will keep embarrassing you with it forever.

forkushV
forkushV
Jan 18, 2016
8:43am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mushy complains about the source, yet doesn't explain what things he disagrees with...
Which means that you are only semi-literate, Boilerman. I mean that literally, not figuratively, and it's not at all an exaggeration. It's not even meant that much as an insult - it's just true.

A major part of modern day literacy is to evaluate the source of information. If the source isn't credible or respected, you can stop reading right then. Calling for someone to refute 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, NAMBLA, Code Pink, or claims by General Jack Ripper is just absurd. No literate person believes them in the first place.

And the radical Ron Paul Institute is not a credible source. Of course you don't care about that, do you Boilerman? If it matches your pre-existing beliefs, you believe it, no questions asked.
[...] What of that poster went even further and tried to discredit the original source by claiming one of its' articles was "obamas first gay president" and completely misrepresented such articles?...
This may be the dumbest thing you've said yet, which is saying a lot.

I "completely misrepresented" the article in question by - get this - posting a screenshot of THEIR headline. I didn't even comment on the story itself. Some misrepresenting, huh jatki?
chefantwon
chefantwon
Jan 18, 2016
8:44am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: friedmush
I have no idea whether Clinton is guilty. I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion one way or another.

You're asking me to refute speculation from an European blog that links to Fox News that "suggests" that it's possible the FBI has opened a new investigation and Napolitano stating that the FBI will soon make a recommendation about "whether or not" Clinton will be indicted. And it attributes to the Ron Paul Institute.

That's why I rarely put my toe in these political septic tanks. Not sure what I was thinking by commenting at all.

Continue. I'm headed off to do something productive.

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mushy complains about the source, yet doesn't explain what things he disagrees with. I wish that he would.


Quote
Originally posted by: friedmush
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Even people in Europe now suspect that the FBI will recommend that Hillary be indicted on many charges.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/16012016-fbi-investigating-hillary-clinton-for-using-state-department-to-benefit-clinton-foundation-oped/


An Op-Ed piece linking to a Fox News report and crediting the Ron Paul Institute.

This is why I come to LVA Free for All, to get objective, cutting-edge current events.


Mush, you may want to do a bit of googling on the issue of safeguarding classified information for some background.

From what has been reported so far, there's enough there to merit the FBI to seek indictment. All those DOD regs are quite specific when it comes to protecting classified information and anything with Top Secret+ gets a bunch of folks way outta sorts. Reguardless if it is marked or not.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now