Scandalous new proof utterly debunks the Russia hoax, let's review the Democrat lies

Oh my


This one worked out badly for fox huh


They shut the fuck up about it quick huh



Just like they clamped up about the voting machine company “stealing elections”



News proffering LIES as news has consequences


Big fat lawsuit consequences


Even Durham blasted these fucking lies
 
evince said:
I don’t trust Durham


I bet it’s bull shit
Click to expand...

It IS bullshit. Durham even said so. He said FoxNews's report was filled with lies. FoxNews has stopped reporting it because of lawsuit threats from the Clintons.

I guess FoxNews threw it against the wall and it didn't stick so they stopped reporting on it. What a bunch of fucking morons. At one point, they said it was '...bigger than Watergate'. If that's true, then why did they stop reporting on it? I smell Bullshit. They've done this many times before. Throw a bullshit story out there and see if it has legs.
If it doesn't, stop talking about it and move on.
They are not a news source. They are a propaganda source. And their viewers swallow it whole. Thaddeus picked the wrong story to post about.
This one's already dead.

iu
 
evince said:
Hilary is now a private citizen

She can sue them for libel


They no doubt got told that
Click to expand...

Anyone can sue anyone but she's also a public figure just like Sarah Palin.

Still, she can hook up with the voting machine guys and help press a case of irresponsible lying.
 
They stopped this shit on a dime after blasting it 24/7


They did the same when dominion had lawyers tell them they were being sued


They forgot


You can’t slander a private citizen or company with out the risk of paying a fuck ton of money in courts lawyers and restitution


They were so used to screaming her name when they needed a distraction they did a very stupid thing
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Anyone can sue anyone but she's also a public figure just like Sarah Palin.

Still, she can hook up with the voting machine guys and help press a case of irresponsible lying.
Click to expand...

They stopped on a dime dude


You can not just lie about someone who’s not running or holding office


She has been a private citizen for years now


No recent office held


They made up an obvious lie about her that has NO BASIS in fact


They lied about what was in the Durham filing


FLAT OUT LIE THAT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT



news can’t do that


It’s illegal to report a flat out lie as fact that harms a private person or entity



That is why Durham responded publically


He was likely asked by lawyers if he had the goods Fox reported or lied to fox about the filing


He of course did all he could to make it clear he was putting a continent between himself and fox immediately
 
Fox is desperate


I think they may be in some BIG legal trouble


Wouldn’t it be amazing if they lost a suit so BIG that someone like Hilary ended up OWNING THE STATION



what a great turn of events that would be


They had to hand all assets over to Dominion, Hilary and others for them to sell of or whatever
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure



A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society.[1]






The claim was a flat out baseless lie about what the Durham filing contained
 
evince said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure



A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society.[1]






The claim was a flat out baseless lie about what the Durham filing contained
Click to expand...



In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth.[2] The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.
 
evince said:
They stopped on a dime dude


You can not just lie about someone who’s not running or holding office


She has been a private citizen for years now


No recent office held


They made up an obvious lie about her that has NO BASIS in fact


They lied about what was in the Durham filing


FLAT OUT LIE THAT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT



news can’t do that


It’s illegal to report a flat out lie as fact that harms a private person or entity



That is why Durham responded publically


He was likely asked by lawyers if he had the goods Fox reported or lied to fox about the filing


He of course did all he could to make it clear he was putting a continent between himself and fox immediately
Click to expand...

Are you saying I can't bitch about Nixon or Bush the Lesser because they are no longer in office? I disagree. She was the Secretary of State and a nominee for President yet she's a liar and guilty of multiple crimes including, like Trump, mishandling of classified material.

Speaking of which; how can Biden or any Democrat push to have Trump hammered for mishandling classified material in Mar-a-Lago yet they gave Hillary a pass because she was the DNC nominee?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Anyone can sue anyone but she's also a public figure just like Sarah Palin.

Still, she can hook up with the voting machine guys and help press a case of irresponsible lying.
Click to expand...
Dominion can show actual monetary damages.

Not sure what damages Clinton can offer?

The malicious intent by Fox is obvious, which is what Palin was missing
 
Althea said:
Dominion can show actual monetary damages.

Not sure what damages Clinton can offer?

The malicious intent by Fox is obvious, which is what Palin was missing
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's why, if she wants to take down Fox, she should support Dominion's case instead of pursuing one that will end up like Palin's.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Are you saying I can't bitch about Nixon or Bush the Lesser because they are no longer in office? I disagree. She was the Secretary of State and a nominee for President yet she's a liar and guilty of multiple crimes including, like Trump, mishandling of classified material.

Speaking of which; how can Biden or any Democrat push to have Trump hammered for mishandling classified material in Mar-a-Lago yet they gave Hillary a pass because she was the DNC nominee?
Click to expand...
Simple:

The FBI found that unlike trump, Clinton didn't destroy documents that should have been preserved. Nor did she have any malicious intent when she used her own server. It was grossly careless, but not malicious or criminal.

trump stole classified documents from the White House. Unlike Clinton, he does indeed have a questionable relationship with our fiercest adversaries.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. That's why, if she wants to take down Fox, she should support Dominion's case instead of pursuing one that will end up like Palin's.
Click to expand...
So just join their lawsuit?

I suppose she could claim that Fox's libel has made it impossible for her to run for office again?
 
Althea said:
Simple:

The FBI found that unlike trump, Clinton didn't destroy documents that should have been preserved. Nor did she have any malicious intent when she used her own server. It was grossly careless, but not malicious or criminal.

trump stole classified documents from the White House. Unlike Clinton, he does indeed have a questionable relationship with our fiercest adversaries.
Click to expand...

As Comey's testimony bears out; she deliberately mishandled classified information by using an unsecure and unauthorized server to transmit classified information....then she covered it up by adding several thousand "wedding" emails or whatever the fuck it was and deleted them all.

First, who deletes emails except to hide evidence?

Second, she clearly got a free pass on censure for the violation. Doing the same to Trump will be met with the exact argument I mentioned. This is why I am against the fucking morons who chip away at the rule for political expediency and then try to bring them back when the opposition is in charge.
 
Althea said:
So just join their lawsuit?

I suppose she could claim that Fox's libel has made it impossible for her to run for office again?
Click to expand...

She'd be a character witness against Fox speaking about their habit of broadcasting lies as facts.

Remember when Fox dodge responsibility by saying no one takes Tucker Carlson seriously? LOL

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9
Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously
 
Dutch Uncle said:
As Comey's testimony bears out; she deliberately mishandled classified information by using an unsecure and unauthorized server to transmit classified information....then she covered it up by adding several thousand "wedding" emails or whatever the fuck it was and deleted them all.

First, who deletes emails except to hide evidence?

Second, she clearly got a free pass on censure for the violation. Doing the same to Trump will be met with the exact argument I mentioned. This is why I am against the fucking morons who chip away at the rule for political expediency and then try to bring them back when the opposition is in charge.
Click to expand...
Your Cliff Notes version of Clinton leaves quite a bit out of the equation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...rges-for-hillary-clinton-in-email-server-case

Given their massive foundation with thousands of global contacts, Clinton chose to use her established server out of expediency. Not a great idea in retrospect, but you can't make the argument that the impetus for both actions (Clinton/trump) are exactly the same.
 
Althea said:
Your Cliff Notes version of Clinton leaves quite a bit out of the equation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...rges-for-hillary-clinton-in-email-server-case

Given their massive foundation with thousands of global contacts, Clinton chose to use her established server out of expediency. Not a great idea in retrospect, but you can't make the argument that the impetus for both actions (Clinton/trump) are exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Dude, it was never a good idea to pass classified data over a private server. I know better and she knew better even if most people do not.


So now motivation to break the law is factor in determining guilt? I'd agree when discussing the severity of a crime but not the difference between guilt and innocence.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
As Comey's testimony bears out; she deliberately mishandled classified information by using an unsecure and unauthorized server to transmit classified information....then she covered it up by adding several thousand "wedding" emails or whatever the fuck it was and deleted them all.

First, who deletes emails except to hide evidence?

Second, she clearly got a free pass on censure for the violation. Doing the same to Trump will be met with the exact argument I mentioned. This is why I am against the fucking morons who chip away at the rule for political expediency and then try to bring them back when the opposition is in charge.
Click to expand...

As were many people then and after doing it


The entire trump family uses personal phones in this way during their stint


That is why the archives are missing documents


The technology was new enough then that lots of hacks were happening


Her choice wasnt much of a threat


Nothing was well protected


all the Russian hacking incidents


The republicans flat out SHARED stuff with the Russians

Then got hacked anyway

It wasn’t just the DNC that got hacked



Then the republicans screamed about “lock her up”


Then did everything she did and more


AFTER and during their screaming


Continued after the insecurity was made clear to all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top