Re: Comey Out

[MNMikeW]

Moderate wrote:
> Good Riddance.
>
> Trey Gowdy would be a good choice.

Damn right!

[Carbon]

As long as the Russians approve it.

[Dene]

text -

Better them than our resident Canadians. ;-)

[Carbon]

Well no, that wouldn't be fair. We didn't buy the election.

[B...@onramp.net]

I'm sure that the replacement will be qualified. Trump HAS to make
up for some of his appointments.
What's more important is that Congress continues the Russian
investigation with a bipartisan appointment of an independent counsel
to take over..

[John B.]

I'm bit sure of that at all. Trump will look for someone who
will shut down the Russia investigation.

[Carbon]

The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.

It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down the
Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most likely be
Trump's next step.

This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.

It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down the
Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most likely be
Trump's next step.

This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.

So essentially Comey was incompetent when investigating the Democrats but competent investigating the Republicans.

The hypocrisy of Chuck Schwarmy is beyond belief.

[Carbon]

On 05/10/2017 10:04 AM, Dene wrote:
>
>> The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
>> investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
>> current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.
>>
>> It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down
>> the Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most
>> likely be Trump's next step.
>>
>> This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.
>
> So essentially Comey was incompetent when investigating the Democrats
> but competent investigating the Republicans.

The excuse for firing Comey was an investigation that is ancient history
at this point. I'm sure even a zealot like yourself can see that this is
completely ludicrous, and that the real reason is to attempt to derail the
ongoing Russian collusion investigation.

Every time someone from Trump's team claims to have no contact with the
Russians, evidence appears to contradict it. The intelligence community
already has the goods. This is not going away.

Trump's only chance is to allow an independent commission to do an
investigation and then try to survive the fallout. But in firing Comey he
has again shown that he is too stupid to get through this thing in one
piece.

As I've been predicting for some time, I think Trump will quit once it
dawns on him that impeachment is inevitable.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 9:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

>>
>> The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
>> investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
>> current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.
>>
>> It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down the
>> Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most likely be
>> Trump's next step.
>>
>> This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.
>>
>

> The timing of the firing makes perfect sense. According to CNN the
> Russian influence case has already gone to the Grand
> Jury.

Cite, please...

>
> Comey's new boss was confirmed about two weeks ago. Obama should
> have fired Comey.

When should he have done that?

>
> I posted again last month that Comey overstepped his authority.

Cite, please...

> It is always satisfying to be proven correct.
>
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 8:19 AM, Carbon wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 10:04 AM, Dene wrote:
>>
>>> The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
>>> investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
>>> current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.
>>>
>>> It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down
>>> the Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most
>>> likely be Trump's next step.
>>>
>>> This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.
>>
>> So essentially Comey was incompetent when investigating the Democrats
>> but competent investigating the Republicans.
>
> The excuse for firing Comey was an investigation that is ancient history
> at this point. I'm sure even a zealot like yourself can see that this is
> completely ludicrous, and that the real reason is to attempt to derail the
> ongoing Russian collusion investigation.

This sums it up fairly well:

'Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote the memo articulating the
argument for why James Comey should be fired. I was just speaking to one
of my colleagues who said that in isolation, Rosenstein’s memo was not
totally off base. Comey has made a number of big mistakes as FBI
Director. (You can see the memo at the bottom of this article.) But that
is really beside the point. As an argument in the abstract to justify
why Comey could be fired, it’s an interesting argument. As an
explanation of why Comey was in fact fired it is flatly ridiculous.'

<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/into-the-abyss-trump-fires-comey>

[Carbon]

Yup.

[John B.]

What's beyond belief is that anyone would defend this action.
Comey was fired three days after asking the Justice Dept. for
more money and resources for the Russia investigation. Trump's
reasoning, that he fired Comey for botching the Clinton
investigation, is preposterous. He expects people to believe
that he waited four months to fire him?

[John B.]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-05-10 9:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
> > Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
> >>
> >> The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
> >> investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
> >> current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.
> >>
> >> It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down the
> >> Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most likely be
> >> Trump's next step.
> >>
> >> This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.
> >>
> >
> > The timing of the firing makes perfect sense. According to CNN the
> > Russian influence case has already gone to the Grand
> > Jury.

I doubt seriously that CNN said that because the investigation is
not finished. Three days before being fired, Comey asked DOJ to
give him more money for it.

>
> Cite, please...
>
> >
> > Comey's new boss was confirmed about two weeks ago. Obama should
> > have fired Comey.
>
> When should he have done that?
>
> >
> > I posted again last month that Comey overstepped his authority.
>
> Cite, please...
>
> > It is always satisfying to be proven correct.
> >
> >

How would you know?

[Alan Baker]

Well... ...he's heard it said somewhere...

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 11:08 AM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Fake news.
>

What is fake about it?

'Senior White House and Justice Department officials had been working on
building a case against Mr. Comey since at least last week, according to
administration officials. Mr. Sessions had been charged with coming up
with reasons to fire him, the officials said.

— Michael S. Schmidt'

<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/comey-trump-fbi-live.html>

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 11:12 AM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>>> On 2017-05-10 9:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The timing of the firing makes perfect sense. According to CNN the
>>>> Russian influence case has already gone to the Grand
>>>> Jury.
>>
>> I doubt seriously that CNN said that because the investigation is
>> not finished. Three days before being fired, Comey asked DOJ to
>> give him more money for it.
>

> Of course you do. It doesn't align with your preconceived
> conspiracy theory.
>
> That doesn't detract from CNN'S reporting of subpoenas to the
> Grand Jury.

It can't detract from what you've never actually show is happening...

>
> The request for more money was fake news.

No... ...it really wasn't:

'Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director,
asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in resources for
the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the
presidential election, according to four congressional officials,
including Senator Richard J. Durbin.'

<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html>

Just to help you out in the understanding of citations, that's not an
anonymous source.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 11:23 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>> ? Michael S. Schmidt'
>>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/comey-trump-fbi-live.html>
>>
>
> It is from the NY times with no named sources. Sarah Flores from
> Justice said it was 100% false.
>

Sarah Flores is a political appointee.

[Carbon]

Morons like immoderate will believe anything, but Trump has truly stirred
the hornet nest with this one. There is no way he's getting away with
this. It's going to get pretty rowdy before the inevitable train wreck.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 12:10 PM, Welcome to Trumpton wrote:
> Moderate wrote:
>
>> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>>>> On 2017-05-10 9:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The timing of the firing makes perfect sense. According to CNN
>> the >> > Russian influence case has already gone to the Grand
>>>>> Jury.
>>>
>>> I doubt seriously that CNN said that because the investigation is
>>> not finished. Three days before being fired, Comey asked DOJ to
>>> give him more money for it.
>>

>> Of course you do. It doesn't align with your preconceived
>> conspiracy theory.
>>
>> That doesn't detract from CNN'S reporting of subpoenas to the
>> Grand Jury.
>>
>

> Lol, your are such an obvious fraud. One moment you are claiming the
> case has gone to the GJ the next it's "reporting of subpoenas".
>
> It's difficult to tell whether you are just FAKE news or that you
> really don't have a clue WTF you are talking about.

>
>> The request for more money was fake news.
>

> Trump has you thinking FAKE is just another word for something you
> don't want to hear.
>

Oh, no.

He thought that long before Trump...

:-)

[John B.]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:02:09 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-05-10 12:10 PM, Welcome to Trumpton wrote:
> > Moderate wrote:
> >
> >> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >>>> On 2017-05-10 9:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The timing of the firing makes perfect sense. According to CNN
> >> the >> > Russian influence case has already gone to the Grand
> >>>>> Jury.
> >>>
> >>> I doubt seriously that CNN said that because the investigation is
> >>> not finished. Three days before being fired, Comey asked DOJ to
> >>> give him more money for it.
> >>
> >> Of course you do. It doesn't align with your preconceived
> >> conspiracy theory.
> >>
> >> That doesn't detract from CNN'S reporting of subpoenas to the
> >> Grand Jury.

Can't you read? "The case" has not gone to a grand jury. The FBI has issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn as part of their
investigation, which is still underway.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

> >>
> >
> > Lol, your are such an obvious fraud. One moment you are claiming the
> > case has gone to the GJ the next it's "reporting of subpoenas".
> >
> > It's difficult to tell whether you are just FAKE news or that you
> > really don't have a clue WTF you are talking about.
> >
> >> The request for more money was fake news.

Horseshit.

[Dene]

So you believe that the firing of Comey will serve to inhibit the FBI investigation? That's an insult to the FBI.

Truth is that Comey was incompetent and if you/libs weren't such Trump-haters, you'd see this action as badly needed. Obama should have done it.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 2:29 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:11 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>> - show quoted text - The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling
>>> of the Clinton email investigation last year is beyond absurd.
>>> Comey was fired to derail the current investigation into the
>>> Trump administration's ties to Russia.
>>>
>>> It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut
>>> down the Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this
>>> will most likely be Trump's next step.
>>>
>>> This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.
>>>
>>>
>>> So essentially Comey was incompetent when investigating the
>>> Democrats but competent investigating the Republicans.
>>>
>>> The hypocrisy of Chuck Schwarmy is beyond belief.
>>
>> What's beyond belief is that anyone would defend this action. Comey
>> was fired three days after asking the Justice Dept. for more money
>> and resources for the Russia investigation. Trump's reasoning, that
>> he fired Comey for botching the Clinton investigation, is
>> preposterous. He expects people to believe that he waited four
>> months to fire him?
>
> So you believe that the firing of Comey will serve to inhibit the FBI
> investigation? That's an insult to the FBI.

It can be an attempt to do so without being necessarily a success...

...and then, a lot will depend on which partisan hack they appoint as
the new director...

>
> Truth is that Comey was incompetent and if you/libs weren't such
> Trump-haters, you'd see this action as badly needed. Obama should
> have done it.

You didn't seem to think he was incompetent when he was saying what you
wanted to hear about Clinton...

[Carbon]

If Comey really were incompetent Trump wouldn't have fired him.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 14:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:11 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>> > - show quoted text -
>> > The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
>> > investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
>> > current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.
>> >
>> > It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down the
>> > Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most likely be
>> > Trump's next step.
>> >
>> > This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.
>> >
>> > So essentially Comey was incompetent when investigating the Democrats but competent investigating the Republicans.
>> >
>> > The hypocrisy of Chuck Schwarmy is beyond belief.
>>
>> What's beyond belief is that anyone would defend this action.
>> Comey was fired three days after asking the Justice Dept. for
>> more money and resources for the Russia investigation. Trump's
>> reasoning, that he fired Comey for botching the Clinton
>> investigation, is preposterous. He expects people to believe
>> that he waited four months to fire him?
>
>So you believe that the firing of Comey will serve to inhibit the FBI investigation? That's an insult to the FBI.

It's not what John, nor anyone else other than Congress believes. It's
just wise to have this investigation done by a bipartisan appointment
of an independent counsel under the circumstances.
to take over..

>
>Truth is that Comey was incompetent and if you/libs weren't such Trump-haters, you'd see this action as badly needed. Obama should have done it.
>

I don't particularly care about Comey, but if it was so badly needed
why did Trump wait over four months to do it?
Maybe because he was getting closer to Trump's Russian dealings?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:48:50 -0400, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>On 05/10/2017 05:29 PM, Dene wrote:
>

.(clip)

>> Truth is that Comey was incompetent and if you/libs weren't such
>> Trump-haters, you'd see this action as badly needed. Obama should have
>> done it.
>
>If Comey really were incompetent Trump wouldn't have fired him.

Well put! LOL.

[Dene]

Why? Why not let the FBI and the Congressional committees finish the investigation and be done with it?

> >Truth is that Comey was incompetent and if you/libs weren't such Trump-haters, you'd see this action as badly needed. Obama should have done it.
> >
> I don't particularly care about Comey, but if it was so badly needed
> why did Trump wait over four months to do it?
> Maybe because he was getting closer to Trump's Russian dealings?

Because of due process. DAG Rosenstein was just recently appointed and Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein needed time to study the file.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 2:57 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>

>> You didn't seem to think he was incompetent when he was saying what you
>> wanted to hear about Clinton...
>>

> I previously posted that he overstepped his authority.
>

Sadly, if you said it, you never provided any proof this was so.

[Alan Baker]

You mean an FBI now run by a loyal Trump appointee and by committees of
Republicans who want to investigate everything BUT the actual links
between Russia and the Trump campaign?

>
>>> Truth is that Comey was incompetent and if you/libs weren't such
>>> Trump-haters, you'd see this action as badly needed. Obama
>>> should have done it.
>>>
>> I don't particularly care about Comey, but if it was so badly
>> needed why did Trump wait over four months to do it? Maybe because
>> he was getting closer to Trump's Russian dealings?
>
> Because of due process. DAG Rosenstein was just recently appointed
> and Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein needed time to study the
> file.
>

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Please, Greg.

Trump went to Sessions and his other appointed hacks and said, "Find me
an excuse".

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 3:04 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2017-05-10 12:10 PM, Welcome to Trumpton wrote:
>>>> Moderate wrote:
> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you do. It doesn't align with your preconceived
>>>>> conspiracy theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't detract from CNN'S reporting of subpoenas to the
>>>>> Grand Jury.
>>
>> Can't you read? "The case" has not gone to a grand jury. The FBI has issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn as part of their
>> investigation, which is still underway.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html
>>
>

> How does one issue a grand jury subpoena to before a grand jury is
> assembled? They send a subpoena and tell the witness they must
> appear at some unknown date?
>
> Don't be so dense.
>
>

'At the same time, the grand jury has an important investigative
function, as it has the authority to subpoena documents and witnesses.
In any complex or long-term criminal investigation, therefore, federal
prosecutors will go to the grand jury to compel the production of
documents or records, or if they want to force witnesses to testify
under oath, which a grand jury subpoena requires unless the witness has
a valid privilege not to testify. Grand jury investigations can last for
months or even years, as prosecutors chase down evidentiary leads and
amass the documentary and testimonial evidence.'

<https://www.justsecurity.org/40790/significance-grand-jury-subpoenas-flynn-investigation/>

'In this regard, it is unexceptional that the prosecutors would seek
documents pertaining to Flynn’s activities before he became National
Security Advisor. Assuming the Justice Department continues to be
committed to a thorough investigation of all allegations of wrongdoing
by Flynn and other Trump administration officials, now put into question
by FBI Director James Comey’s firing, it is likely that the grand jury
will continue to seek documentary and testimonial evidence to fill out
the whole evidentiary picture. At this point, though, all that can be
said is that the subpoenas indicate that the investigation is not going
to go away anytime soon, and is serious, but not necessarily where it
will lead or how it will end.'

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Because the FBI investigation has been compromised by Comey's
dismissal. If the ongoing investigation is done by committees no
matter what the outcome there will be partisanship blamed for it.
McConnell may keep the independent counsel idea from happening though.
Now THAT would be partisan.

[John B.]

I'm saying it very well could. Comey said
they needed more money for the investigation
and it appears now that they're not going to
get it. That's why he got fired -- that and the
"mildly nauseous" remark. You're very
naive if you think it was because of
principle.

[John B.]

Congressional committees controlled by
Republicans can't be counted on to
carry out an impartial investigation of a
Republican president. The FBI is
subject to meddling by the Justice Dept.
An independent counsel is the only way to
go.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:24:22 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Why? Why not let the FBI and the Congressional committees finish the investigation and be done with it?
>>
>> Because the FBI investigation has been compromised by Comey's
>> dismissal. If the ongoing investigation is done by committees no
>> matter what the outcome there will be partisanship blamed for it.
>> McConnell may keep the independent counsel idea from happening though.
>> Now THAT would be partisan.
>>>
>

>Why would you think Comey was working on the case? Directors
> don't do investigations.

I never implied that at all. If the FBI is working on a case, they
are doing it under the Director's orders.

>The case is already at the grand jury.

No it isn't. The Justice Department has issued subpoenas to Flynn
associates who will be called when the grand jury meets on this
investigation. The Grand Jury isn't in session yet.

> How much investigating is left?

LOL.
It's really just begun. Issuing of subpoenas is the first step in the
Fed's case. Indictments are a ways away. Then there's the trial.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:25:31 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>No way an independent counsel is justified. Trump isn't under
> investigation.

That has nothing to do with it. The independent counsel would just
continue the investigation of Trump associates.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>Fake news.

That's become an idiotic statement and has no meaning. Just a moronic
comeback from a real bozo.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:58:53 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

>On what authority did they issue subpoenas?
>
>Ans: Grand Jury.

You really don't know squat do you. The authority to issue subpoenas,
in this case the prosecutorial side, the Justice Department.
>
>Subpoenas aren't issued for interviews.

In fact that's exactly what they're for. But they call it appearing
before the Grand Jury, where the prosecutor gives his reasoning for
indictment. The defense offers their side. After the Grand Jury has
heard both sides, which include "interviews" of those subpoenaed, it
decides who has the case for or against indictments. The ones
subpoenaed can claim the 5th and there wouldn't be interviews but most
probably indictments.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 21:00:20 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>It is at the grand jury already.

No it isn't doofus.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 6:24 PM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why? Why not let the FBI and the Congressional committees finish the investigation and be done with it?
>>
>> Because the FBI investigation has been compromised by Comey's
>> dismissal. If the ongoing investigation is done by committees no
>> matter what the outcome there will be partisanship blamed for it.
>> McConnell may keep the independent counsel idea from happening though.
>> Now THAT would be partisan.
>>>
>

> Why would you think Comey was working on the case? Directors

> don't do investigations. The case is already at the grand jury.

> How much investigating is left?
>

You mistake the issuing of grand jury subpoenas with the case being
delivered to the grand jury, but that's okay...

...you mistake pretty much everything.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 6:25 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> No way an independent counsel is justified. Trump isn't under
> investigation.
>

In what way does your second sentence provide support for your first?

[Alan Baker]

> On what authority did they issue subpoenas?
>
> Ans: Grand Jury.
>

> Subpoenas aren't issued for interviews.
>

They are issued for records.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-10 7:00 PM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> It is at the grand jury already.
>

No. It is not.

[John B.]

There is no grand jury.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-11 2:47 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> The story has been debunked. It is false.

You repeatedly claiming it's false has debunked anything.

>
> You are the idiot.
>

[Alan Baker]

To be fair, there is a federal grand jury in Virginia that is involved.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-11 8:54 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Moderate <nos...@noemail.com> Wrote in message:

>> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:11 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>>> - show quoted text -
>>>> The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
>>>> investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
>>>> current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.
>>>>
>>>> It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down the
>>>> Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most likely be
>>>> Trump's next step.
>>>>
>>>> This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.
>>>>
>>>> So essentially Comey was incompetent when investigating the Democrats but competent investigating the Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> The hypocrisy of Chuck Schwarmy is beyond belief.
>>>
>>> What's beyond belief is that anyone would defend this action.
>>> Comey was fired three days after asking the Justice Dept. for
>>> more money and resources for the Russia investigation. Trump's
>>> reasoning, that he fired Comey for botching the Clinton
>>> investigation, is preposterous. He expects people to believe
>>> that he waited four months to fire him?
>>>
>>

>> Fake news.
>> --
>>
>
> McCabe also denied this claim.
>
> Fake news.
>

Quote and source, please...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-11 9:32 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> McCabe debunked it. Just assume everything from the MSM with
> anonymous sources is a lie.
>

Quote and source, please...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-11 9:30 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> No shit.
>

They've just not been presented any case, yet. They're just issuing
subpoenas for records and documents at this point.

[Matt Busby]

"Moderate" wrote in message news:oevl77$som$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> On 2017-05-10 9:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The timing of the firing makes perfect sense. According to CNN the
>> > Russian influence case has already gone to the Grand
>> > Jury.
>
> I doubt seriously that CNN said that because the investigation is
> not finished. Three days before being fired, Comey asked DOJ to
> give him more money for it.

>Of course you do. It doesn't align with your preconceived
> conspiracy theory.

>That doesn't detract from CNN'S reporting of subpoenas to the
> Grand Jury.

>The request for more money was fake news.

Good that you are not responding to Shit Stain.

The little shit is eating IT'SELF up alive.

See how desperate IT"S getting?

Keep up the good work.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-11 10:42 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-05-11 9:30 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>

>>>> To be fair, there is a federal grand jury in Virginia that is involved.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No shit.
>>>
>>
>> They've just not been presented any case, yet. They're just issuing
>> subpoenas for records and documents at this point.
>>
>

> Right. Those people just sit on their ass all day like you.

I'm sorry you're so very ignorant of how this process works, but it's
not my fault.

They are issuing subpoenas for records and documents and such. All that
requires is that they occasionally meet.

>
> The stupidity of the left never disappoints.
>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:42:11 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-05-11 9:30 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>

>>>> To be fair, there is a federal grand jury in Virginia that is involved.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No shit.
>>>
>>
>> They've just not been presented any case, yet. They're just issuing
>> subpoenas for records and documents at this point.
>>
>

>Right. Those people just sit on their ass all day like you.
>

>The stupidity of the left never disappoints.

Yours certainly doesn't. A grand jury isn't left or right, and if it
doesn't have a case presented why meet? Doofus strikes again.

[Dene]

How? Anything factual to substantiate this?

[Carbon]

Factual? You serious?

[Dene]

Dead serious.

[Carbon]

I have a serious question: Do you think Comey was fired for his handling
of the Clinton email investigation, which went a long way towards getting
Trump elected? Hmmm?

I'm not going to bother with cites, because you don't care. Trump wanted
loyalty from Comey, like support for his laughable claim that Obama bugged
his phones. So that didn't happen, and then Comey had the temerity to ask
for more resources to broaden the Russia investigation.

I think at this point Trump decided this Comey fellow is too independent
for his own good. Better to replace him with a compliant stooge who'll do
what he's told and back off on all this Russia crap, and who'll support
whatever alternative truths Trump dreams up without always demanding that
they be backed by "facts".

This is a genuine Constitutional crisis--like Watergate, only dumber.
Trump is going to fail, just like Nixon did. He is an embarrassment to the
office of the president.

[B...@onramp.net]

Only my opinion, and common sense.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 05:16:14 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>You said repeatedly there was no grand jury. Now you change your
> story.

Where did you see me change that. Above I say, "if it (a grand jury)
doesn't have a case presented why meet?" They haven't met.
>
>Don't doubt me, liar.

You're a lamebrain, and have no common sense, why shouldn't your
idiocy about Trump's administration and policies be doubted?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 09:23:14 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Thu, 11 May 2017 20:15:15 -0700, Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>How? Anything factual to substantiate this?
>>>
>> Only my opinion, and common sense.
>>
>

>You have no common sense. You think grand jury subpoenas are
> proof that no grand jury has been assembled.

Wrong. That's not what I think at all. That's ridiculous.
>
>Since the case IS at the grand jury common sense would dictate the
> investigation was not impacted by Comey's firing.

But show me where you've seen that the grand jury is in session. I've
stated that the fact that the Justice Dept has issued subpoenas
doesn't mean that it is. Prove otherwise.
>
>Common sense has nothing to do with your claims. They are simply
> lies from a crazy person.

[B...@onramp.net]

Here's an update for you Doofus. Their are Two grand juries being
assembled for the Russia issue. One is almost ready. They are
staffing. Once staffed they can act on the subpoenas, dumb fuck.

https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/report-two-grand-juries-now-underway-in-trump-russia-investigation-one-nearly-complete/2497/

[Alan Baker]

Because when the top man can be fired by the president, then every other
employee of the agency has to worry about his or her job, Greg...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-12 9:09 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> Your cite completety contradicts your claims that the
> investigation was going on because the grand juries haven't been
> assembled.

That wasn't his claim.

>
> Completely validates my statements. Good job moron.
>

Nope.

Your claim is that the existence of a grand jury means the investigation
is over.

That's just not so.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:09:01 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>Your cite completety contradicts your claims that the
> investigation was going on because the grand juries haven't been
> assembled.

Your brain is fried. I never made such a claim. NEVER.

>Completely validates my statements. Good job moron.

On the contrary. There is no grand jury in session yet...just like
the link states. You are an mirror image of Trump. Wild ideas, lies,
statements that defy sensibility and just plain whacked out.

[Dene]

I think there are many factors, including loyalty. However, subversion
of an ongoing investigation makes no sense.

I also think the Left is being hypocritical.

[Alan Baker]

Then why are the immediately looking to replace McCabe?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-12 11:43 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>> On 2017-05-12 9:09 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>
>> That wasn't his claim.
>

> It was his claim. He made just it again. He did not read his own
> cite that said two have covened and one is nearly
> complete.

No. It wasn't his claim. Weird how you always snip out what you just
said when you do this, huh?

>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Your claim is that the existence of a grand jury means the investigation
>> is over.
>>
>> That's just not so.
>>
>

> My claim was that Comey being fired does not compromise an
> investigation that is already at the grand jury.

That's the point: the investigation ISN'T at the grand jury.

The grand jury is being used to FACILITATE the ongoing investigation by
the issuance of subpoenas.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-12 1:39 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> $700,000 from Hillary obviously.
>
> Need a cite? Bwaahaahaa.
>>
>
>

Yes.

Provide an actual authoritative cite.

[Alan Baker]

> Bwaahaahaa Cite.
>

I can...

...and I will...

...after you provide a few first.

:-)

[David Laville]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:48:50 -0400, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>On 05/10/2017 05:29 PM, Dene wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>

>>> What's beyond belief is that anyone would defend this action. Comey was
>>> fired three days after asking the Justice Dept. for more money and
>>> resources for the Russia investigation. Trump's reasoning, that he
>>> fired Comey for botching the Clinton investigation, is preposterous. He
>>> expects people to believe that he waited four months to fire him?
>>
>> So you believe that the firing of Comey will serve to inhibit the FBI
>> investigation? That's an insult to the FBI.
>>

>> Truth is that Comey was incompetent and if you/libs weren't such
>> Trump-haters, you'd see this action as badly needed. Obama should have
>> done it.
>
>If Comey really were incompetent Trump wouldn't have fired him.

Funny thing is I remember several months ago you democrats implying
how incompetent Comey was when the FBI was investigating Hillary and
her emails.

Harry Reid: Comey Should Resign

Charles Schumer: I've lost confidence in FBI director

Maxine Water: The FBI director has no credibility

Hank Johnson: My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this
agency has been shaken

Steve Cohen: For the sake of the FBI, Comey should resign

Nancy Pelosi: Maybe he's not right for the job

[David Laville]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:44:53 -0400, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>Morons like immoderate will believe anything, but Trump has truly stirred
>the hornet nest with this one. There is no way he's getting away with
>this. It's going to get pretty rowdy before the inevitable train wreck.

Unlike you he didn't believe Hillary was going to win the election.

[David Laville]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:19:58 -0400, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> So essentially Comey was incompetent when investigating the Democrats
>> but competent investigating the Republicans.
>

>The excuse for firing Comey was an investigation that is ancient history
>at this point. I'm sure even a zealot like yourself can see that this is
>completely ludicrous, and that the real reason is to attempt to derail the
>ongoing Russian collusion investigation.

So back in October when the democrats were screaming for Comey's head
that was an attempt to derail the investigation into Hillary and the
email scandal?

[David Laville]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 08:41:23 -0400, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>On 05/09/2017 10:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 9:43:08 PM UTC-4, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 May 2017 17:10:15 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Moderate wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Good Riddance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trey Gowdy would be a good choice.
>>>>
>>>> Damn right!
>>>
>>> I'm sure that the replacement will be qualified. Trump HAS to make up
>>> for some of his appointments. What's more important is that Congress
>>> continues the Russian investigation with a bipartisan appointment of an
>>> independent counsel to take over..
>>
>> I'm bit sure of that at all. Trump will look for someone who will shut
>> down the Russia investigation.

>
>The idea that Trump fired Comey his handling of the Clinton email
>investigation last year is beyond absurd. Comey was fired to derail the
>current investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.
>
>It would be an act of complete idiocy to install a stooge to shut down the
>Russia investigation, so I agree with John that this will most likely be
>Trump's next step.
>
>This ongoing saga is going to be the end of this administration.

What next, Tiger is going to shatter Jack's major record....oh wait...

[David Laville]

On Tue, 9 May 2017 20:18:14 -0400, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>On 05/09/2017 08:13 PM, Dene wrote:

>>> On 05/09/2017 06:10 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> Moderate wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Good Riddance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trey Gowdy would be a good choice.
>>>>
>>>> Damn right!
>>>

>>> As long as the Russians approve it.
>>
>> Better them than our resident Canadians. ;-)
>
>Well no, that wouldn't be fair. We didn't buy the election.

Hillary must have bought it since she got 3,000,0000 more votes.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

Because the investigation was over.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-12 2:16 PM, David Laville wrote:

And note that the then sitting president DIDN'T fire him.

Obama let him do his job.

Simple question, David:

Do you accept Trump's stated rationale for firing Comey?

Even considering all the contradictory statements that Trump and his
staff have made?

[Alan Baker]

And what happened?

Did Obama fire him?

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 15:34:19 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-05-12 11:43 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2017-05-12 9:09 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't his claim.
>>>
>>> It was his claim. He made just it again. He did not read his own
>>> cite that said two have covened and one is nearly
>>> complete.

Liar. Go back and read it. I never said they had convened, I said
that they were beginning to set up.

>>
>> No. It wasn't his claim. Weird how you always snip out what you just
>> said when you do this, huh?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Your claim is that the existence of a grand jury means the investigation
>>>> is over.
>>>>
>>>> That's just not so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My claim was that Comey being fired does not compromise an
>>> investigation that is already at the grand jury.

Correct...unless the FBI is in charge. Then it would be questionable
to some.

>>
>> That's the point: the investigation ISN'T at the grand jury.
>>
>> The grand jury is being used to FACILITATE the ongoing investigation by
>> the issuance of subpoenas.
>>
>>
>

>Bwaahaahaa Cite.

Why? You'd just reply, after modifying it, and deny it.

[Alan Baker]

Oh, I can and will cite it...

...if doofus comes across with some of the ones he's been asked for.

:-)

[Carbon]

The FBI is an independent agency, such that it is not subservient to the
Executive branch of government. They do have Civics class here, right?

I agree that only an idiot would try to subvert an ongoing investigation
in such a way. Any fool could have seen that it would backfire and fan the
flames even more. So I suppose it must have made sense to Trump.

[David Laville]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 19:18:14 -0400, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> I think there are many factors, including loyalty. However, subversion
>> of an ongoing investigation makes no sense.
>
>The FBI is an independent agency, such that it is not subservient to the
>Executive branch of government. They do have Civics class here, right?

They sure do and since you're obviously an expert on our civics can
you point me to the clause in our constitution that says we have a
right to government paid healthcare or a right to have other people
pay for our healthcare?

[Alan Baker]

Why the pivot, David?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-12 7:48 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>

>> And note that the then sitting president DIDN'T fire him.
>>
>> Obama let him do his job.
>

> He didn't do his job. He Lynch's job.

Lynch recused herself by saying she'd accept the recommendation of the FBI.

[John B.]

Can you tell me who ever claimed such a right?

[Alan Baker]

> Lynch did not recuse herself you lying fuck.
>

'Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting
with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the
federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said
Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors
and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.

Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the
recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a
political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case
would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with
Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she
said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to
put the concerns to rest.'

<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html>

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-13 11:11 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-05-13 3:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> Lynch did not recuse herself you lying fuck.
>>>
>>
>> 'Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting
>> with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the

>> federal investigation of Hillary Clinton?s personal email account, said

>> Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors
>> and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.
>>
>> Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the
>> recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a
>> political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case
>> would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with
>> Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she
>> said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to
>> put the concerns to rest.'
>>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html>
>>
>

> Just admit you don't know what recusal is.
>

Just admit she didn't participate in the decisions regarding Hillary
Clinton's emails.

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:11:08 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-05-13 3:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> Lynch did not recuse herself you lying fuck.
>>>
>>
>> 'Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting
>> with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the

>> federal investigation of Hillary Clinton?s personal email account, said

>> Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors
>> and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.
>>
>> Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the
>> recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a
>> political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case
>> would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with
>> Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she
>> said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to
>> put the concerns to rest.'
>>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html>
>>
>

>Just admit you don't know what recusal is.

LOL.You're the one that doesn't know it.
He just laid it out for a fourth grader to understand.
Keep showing how uneducated you are, it's entertaining.
_----------------------------------------
Merriam Webster says:

Definition of recuse
recused
recusing
transitive verb

to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly
to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest



—
recusal
play \-'kyü-z?l\ noun :

[B...@onramp.net]

>She made the final decision you ass wipe.

Which was to recuse herself, shit-for-brains.

[Alan Baker]

> She made the final decision you ass wipe.
>

No. She did not.

You have nothing.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 13 May 2017 14:08:55 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

He's showing a smidge of realization though. He's decided not to
argue with a dictionary. Surprised me!!!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-13 2:48 PM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> You two don't haven't two brain cells between you.
>
> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hi
> llary-clinton-email-server.html
>

As usual, you provide a cite, but not the text you claim makes your point...

But I'll provide the text:

'Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the

recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a
political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case
would raise questions of a conflict of interest.

...

“The case will be resolved by the team that’s been working on it from
the beginning,” [Lynch] said in Aspen'

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 13 May 2017 14:57:47 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

What Dumb Fuck is alluding to is that it was said that she couldn't
recuse herself because she was the head of the department and it was
her duty to adjudicate this. Plus, she never used the term recuse. But
it's a stupid person that can't see that she did everything that one
does to recuse themselves from making the final judgment...that was
left to Comey. Mod has very limited comprehension of overt details.
He just can't quite understand some things, like the English language.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-13 3:43 PM, Welcome to Trumpton wrote:

> Moderate lies all the time; when you do likewise he thinks he is just
> as honest as you.
>
> You lose.
>

I'm not lying.

Did she utter the word, "recusal"?

No.

Did he leave the investigation to others in her agency and in the FBI?

Yes.

[Dene]

Irrelevent votes.
Libs were certain that the Dems were going to take over Congress too.
Why didn't that happen?
Answer...Republicans have a have realistic agenda.

[B...@onramp.net]

It certainly hasn't shown, unless you're talking about gerrymandering.
We'll see at the mid-terms if the voters think so.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-13 6:24 PM, Dene wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 2:16 PM, David Laville wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 May 2017 20:18:14 -0400, Carbon
>> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/09/2017 08:13 PM, Dene wrote:
>>>>> On 05/09/2017 06:10 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>> Moderate wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Riddance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trey Gowdy would be a good choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damn right!
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as the Russians approve it.
>>>>
>>>> Better them than our resident Canadians. ;-)
>>>
>>> Well no, that wouldn't be fair. We didn't buy the election.
>> Hillary must have bought it since she got 3,000,0000 more votes.
>
> Irrelevent votes.

Nope. The fact is that more voters wanted Clinton than wanted Trump.

And it would be even more so today.

> Libs were certain that the Dems were going to take over Congress too.

They did gain ground...

> Why didn't that happen?
> Answer...Republicans have a have realistic agenda.

And that's why the lost the popular vote for president and lost seats?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-13 7:58 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>

>> I'm not lying.
>>
>> Did she utter the word, "recusal"?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Did he leave the investigation to others in her agency and in the FBI?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>

> She refused to recuse herself as the NY TIMES reported.
>
> You two special needs children can't remember shit or even read.
>

She left the decision to the FBI and career prosecutors.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 13 May 2017 21:58:54 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>

>> I'm not lying.
>>
>> Did she utter the word, "recusal"?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Did he leave the investigation to others in her agency and in the FBI?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>

>She refused to recuse herself as the NY TIMES reported.
>
>You two special needs children can't remember shit or even read.

She never officially used the word recusal, but any idiot...and that
certainly includes you, that doesn't realize that her actions WERE of
recusal should be committed.

Only you constantly pick fly shit out of pepper, but it is
entertaining and sad at the same time.

[B...@onramp.net]

>You and Booby said she recused herself. Retards.

In essence she did, specifically stated, no. So who's the retard?
You are.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 14 May 2017 11:12:23 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>In fact she did not. She made the final determination. The essence
> of your argument is fantasy. You've lost touch with
> reality.

Snore. You're like Trump. The more times you say something wrong the
more you believe it.

Go Away.

[David Laville]

Here's one leftist saying it:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/health-care-is-a-right-not-a-privilege

But I expect you to claim the link doesn't work.......

[Alan Baker]

It works fine...

...but it doesn't answer the question of who IN THIS GROUP ever claimed it.