President Trump

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
P.S. On what exactly has she been investigated for since the 90's? I remember Whitewater. The commodities trading thing. Since she and Bill left the White House what has she been investigated for? She had a hearing over Benghazi but that wasn't about possible criminal charges. What else? You can't call Comey's looking into the "matter" a real investigation. Y'all keep saying she's been investigated forever so how about listing all the things they went after her for.
From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
P.S. On what exactly has she been investigated for since the 90's? I remember Whitewater. The commodities trading thing. Since she and Bill left the White House what has she been investigated for? She had a hearing over Benghazi but that wasn't about possible criminal charges. What else?

Well the FBI did investigate the Clinton Foundation, and she could have been found financially responsible for Benghazi if there was a thread of truth in that. Then there was the FBI investigation into her emails, but let's forget about that.
You can't call Comey's looking into the "matter" a real investigation. Y'all keep saying she's been investigated forever so how about listing all the things they went after her for.
Read Comey's book. No matter what you and your buddies say, he has been consistent, and likely truthful.

As an afterthought, instead of listing something you can look up yourself, how about I ask you why Donny John's health wasn't an issue while he made Hillary's a yuge issue? Why did he send his guys to illegally take his doctor's medical records?

I have dozens more unanswered questions, and Donny John comes up with life in prison in more than one scenario. Since we don't do that to president's, he will get off lucky, but disgraced. So much for rebuilding the brand. @floridays can fill you in on the legal repercussions of ill gotten gains. I think they might call it forfeiture or something, I'm just a retired Teamster, not a make believe lawyer, so idunno.

He should have just stayed a con man money launderer. He never read about the son of Daedalus. He's never really read at all.

Sad.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I didn't see anything new but tell me, what was she investigated for out of all of that? Y'all keep saying she's been continuously investigated since the 90's. Accusations are one thing. In the last twenty or so years name all of the investigations. Accusations don't count.
Read closely. Many of the inquiries into her actions came when investigating something else, just like Manafort.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Well the FBI did investigate the Clinton Foundation, and she could have been found financially responsible for Benghazi if there was a thread of truth in that. Then there was the FBI investigation into her emails, but let's forget about that.
Read Comey's book. No matter what you and your buddies say, he has been consistent, and likely truthful.

As an afterthought, instead of listing something you can look up yourself, how about I ask you why Donny John's health wasn't an issue while he made Hillary's a yuge issue? Why did he send his guys to illegally take his doctor's medical records?

I have dozens more unanswered questions, and Donny John comes up with life in prison in more than one scenario. Since we don't do that to president's, he will get off lucky, but disgraced. So much for rebuilding the brand. @floridays can fill you in on the legal repercussions of ill gotten gains. I think they might call it forfeiture or something, I'm just a retired Teamster, not a make believe lawyer, so idunno.

He should have just stayed a con man money launderer. He never read about the son of Daedalus. He's never really read at all.

Sad.
Actually the Clinton Foundation is currently an ongoing investigation. Financially responsible for Benghazi? How does that work? Sued in court? Was she put on trial for it? And if there was anything that would've put Trump away for life it would've come out during the campaign.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Read closely. Many of the inquiries into her actions came when investigating something else, just like Manafort.
When and where? When was she investigated? She needs to be for enriching herself while putting national security at risk. But of course we have much more important concerns like Stormy Daniels.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I believe I know what you think it means. That Mueller can do whatever he pleases.
What do you believe it means?

You keep saying he’s overstepping his bounds but never explain what his bounds are in the context of the authorizing document.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
What do you believe it means?

You keep saying he’s overstepping his bounds but never explain what his bounds are in the context of the authorizing document.
According to the judge yesterday the authorizing document is redacted so how do you know what his bounds are? But the judge said he was going way beyond the scope of the initial investigation, which was to determine if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
Actually the Clinton Foundation is currently an ongoing investigation. Financially responsible for Benghazi? How does that work? Sued in court? Was she put on trial for it? And if there was anything that would've put Trump away for life it would've come out during the campaign.

When and where? When was she investigated? She needs to be for enriching herself while putting national security at risk. But of course we have much more important concerns like Stormy Daniels.

I believe I know what you think it means. That Mueller can do whatever he pleases.

According to the judge yesterday the authorizing document is redacted so how do you know what his bounds are? But the judge said he was going way beyond the scope of the initial investigation, which was to determine if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election.
I don’t know who is controlling you, but they’re not getting their money’s worth.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
According to the judge yesterday the authorizing document is redacted so how do you know what his bounds are? But the judge said he was going way beyond the scope of the initial investigation, which was to determine if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Did you notice that the judge didn’t throw the case out?
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
@vantexan @newfie

What does that phrase mean?

hope this helps :


phrase
frāz/
noun
noun: phrase; plural noun: phrases
  1. 1.
    a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit, typically forming a component of a clause.
    synonyms: expression, group of words, construction, locution, term, turn of phrase; More
    idiom, idiomatic expression;
    saying, tag
    "familiar words and phrases"
    • an idiomatic or short pithy expression.
      "his favorite phrase is “it's a pleasure.”"
    • Music
      a group of notes forming a distinct unit within a longer passage.
    • Ballet
      a group of steps within a longer sequence or dance.
verb
verb: phrase; 3rd person present: phrases; past tense: phrased; past participle: phrased; gerund or present participle: phrasing
  1. 1.
    put into a particular form of words.
    "it's important to phrase the question correctly"
    synonyms: express, put into words, put, word, style, formulate, couch, frame, articulate, verbalize
    "how could I phrase the question?"
    • divide (music) into phrases in a particular way, especially in performance.
      "original phrasing brought out unexpected aspects of the music"
Origin
upload_2018-5-5_18-40-32.png

mid 16th century (in the sense ‘style or manner of expression’): via late Latin from Greek phrasis, from phrazein ‘declare, tell.’

Translate phrase to

Use over time for: phrase
upload_2018-5-5_18-40-32.png

Translations, word origin, and more definitions
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
What do you believe it means?

You keep saying he’s overstepping his bounds but never explain what his bounds are in the context of the authorizing document.

this is the typical BS you spin here. to make the counter argument you demand an explanation that would require his having a law degree and an inside working knowledge of what occurred in the courtroom.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
Did you notice that the judge didn’t throw the case out?

another useless argument. the judge gave them two weeks to provide the unredacted information. Bro you are desperately trying to save this.

the fact is that this case is a fishing expedition against Manifort and its so transparent that a seasoned judge with 35 years of experience just called out Bullschat on it.
 
Top