So if everyone in a town were to start their own business, selling goods and services to each other... they'd all be, by your standard, needing to be restrained by each other and subservient to each other? In your twisted little world, the only people who should able to control others are the ones who don't actually innovate, create anything, hire anyone, or pay the income taxes. Yup, you really are a hungry little tyrant, anxious for an economy full of slaves creating the things you want. You're the king, right, as long as YOU don't do something evil like start your own business... that would be much too offensive, even for you. No, you need a Safe Space where you can order other people to make things for you, and be sheltered from reality while those things are paid for by others and delivered to you by bowing, apologizing business owners who will thank you for controlling them. Wow, you're a real piece of work.
Oh, so you can drive people to another country, and pretend to be for freedom and liberty?
No, I recommended Venezuela as a place where you'd obviously be very happy, since the government there thinks just like you do. The only person here who wants to power to force others to do their bidding, of course, is you. That's just why you'd like it there. You can enjoy all of the prosperity and peace that comes from central control over the people who make things for you. As soon as you can actually find something to eat there, and some toilet paper, you'll be great shape! Nice straw man, though, pretending I'm suggesting you be forced to go live with your kindred spirits. No, I'm just wishing you would go. The "being forced to" thing is your specialty.
Or are you suggesting that outright bribery should be legal and I should be free to offer to pay off the cop, judge and legislator?
Which part of McCain-Feingold was preventing previously existing crime of bribery, and which part of striking down that law's unconstitutional banning of speech suddenly allowed bribery to be legal? Be specific.
As for the 1st Amendment, it is ignored in so many circumstances, what is one more?
Or ten more, or a thousand more, right? We might as well ignore the entire premise that the constitution exists primarily to prevent the government from infringing on personal liberty. If there's any infringement in any form, why, shoot, we might as well go all the way with it, right? Are you even listening to yourself?
I have no burden. Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation on multiple fronts. I didn't make that up, you know it's true. It's simply reality. This reality bothers you because you are shilling for her, and it makes your job harder because it's difficult to explain away her obvious lying, and even harder to explain your own support of it. If there is ANY burden, here, it's on the people who praise her for her lying to explain what it is, exactly, that they find so appealing about it.
and I'd give you an open path
An "open path" to do what, exactly? To observe and mention reality? You seem to think that by someone denying reality, you make it go away. And that as long as you maintain the position that I haven't met your criteria for being able to mention reality, that it makes reality subjective, and you can dismiss it. There are doctors who specialize in dealing with people who are that out of touch with reason. You know you're BSing and making a phony stand, because your real problem isn't actual cognitive denial, it's that you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner and you're angry that someone is pointing out THAT reality, along with the reality of 150 FBI agents working on a criminal investigation that you wish you could characterize as a "witch hunt" in order to distract from the underlying Clinton behavior that brought it about.
all you have to do is name whoever you can identify as your own political associates, and list whatever offenses you want, as long as you support them being prosecuted
Prosecuted for what? What crimes are you talking about? I don't know of any politicians I support that need to be prosecuted under any criminal statutes. This angers you, because the politician you support HAS violated numerous statutes, and is being actively criminally investigated as we speak. So, in a completely disingenuous and childish attempt to distract from that, you're still insisting that I name laws that haven't been broken by people that haven't broken them before you're willing to acknowledge what 150 FBI agents are spending their waking hours doing right now. If it wasn't obvious that you're just faking your way through this phony display of pretending you don't understand the words you're saying, your insistence that someone else describe non-existent crimes before you'll acknowledge real ones would be a cry for help from a shrink. But you know you're making no sense, and are sticking to it because changing your childish, irrational demand would mean admitting that you made a childish, irrational demand in the first place. I'll let you off the hook: we both already know you did, so there's no point continuing to embarrass yourself.
You're a little foggy on the whole part where it's your fellow citizens who do things like start businesses. Never mind, you're just a wannabe totalitarian that wants to demonize your more productive counterparts while still getting them to make stuff for you. You'd probably be a lot happier in the sort paradise that fully embraces your vision. Say, Venezuela. Off you go, then!
OK, I checked them out. They are anti-First-Amendment, just like the law that was struck down by the court for being unconstitutional on the face of it.
So, every single person who actually makes up the millions of incorporated businesses, foundations, charities, and other chartered entities are someone instantly transformed into emotionless, cruel automatons the moment sit down at their desks? Your complete misunderstanding of what it means to form and run a business indicates just how inexperienced you are. Consider actually sitting down with some of your local business owners, looking them in the face, and explaining to them how inhuman they are. Would be interesting to watch.
You're dancing on the essence of why Citizen's United must be reversed.
What? People who want to reverse Citizens United are, just like you, simply those who hate the First Amendment because it allows people they don't agree with to speak their minds. I know, you simply have the usual lefty totalitarian urges, and you're mad that everyone else doesn't feel the same way. Too bad. That's exactly why we have the First Amendment in the first place. McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional on the face of it.
So, you want me to name people that I support politically, and then name crimes that they haven't committed so that they can be falsely prosecuted so you'll feel better about Hillary Clinton being actually criminally investigated right now, for real, by the FBI. Do you grasp how irrational you sound?
So you consider my plainly mentioning the ongoing criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton to be contributing to a witch hunt atmosphere that can only be mitigated if I randomly mention politicians I support and randomly choose criminal statutes under which I think they should be investigated even though I have no indication, whatsoever, that they've done anything wrong? We have ample evidence of Clinton's criminal activity, so I talk about it. I have no indication of criminal activity on the part of any politicians I prefer, but you think I'm under some "burden" to fabricate some some you'll feel better? Are you even listening to yourself?
Never mind, of course you know how ridiculous that sounds. But in order to continue this conversation, I think you need to first call for the criminal prosecution of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. The burden is on you to name the crimes, of course. Why? Because I think you have that burden in order to make your recommendations to me sound less like a witch hunt. Rational, right? No? Right. Of course you know it's nonsense, but your hypocrisy won't let you back down from your phony adoption of self-contradictory premises.
Hilarious! You say, "here it is again," and then promptly once again avoid doing anything. You say there are people who need prosecuting in order to make the ongoing criminal investigation of your candidate legitimate. But you are pretending to be too much of a coward to name the people in question or the laws in question. Why? Because that (cowardice and laziness) is easier to explain away than outright lying. But, that's what you're doing. Why? Because that's exactly what the candidate you're shilling for routinely does, as well. Lie, deflect, pretend that a shrill, condescending display of taking umbrage is anything other than cheap theater... anything to avoid actually backing up what you say.
So: to summarize. You think that your boss's criminal investigation isn't fair because you're sure other people have done other things. In order to deflect non-critical thinkers from parsing that simple sentiment and recognizing how morally vacuous it is, you insist that other people do some other vague things and if they question your vagueness, you chide them for not communicating. Here's the thing: nobody falls for that crap, except perhaps some of the very fellow supporters your candidate has sown up, no matter how many times she looks them in the eye and demonstrably, blatantly lies. All of your theater is wasted on anyone who can think and thus see that you're just posturing and hoping to run out the clock on a conversation that's actually challenging your crappy propagandizing and juvenile attempt to revise history.
I know, it's annoying when people don't get distracted by your hand-waving vagueness, but I do appreciate the entertainment value of you saying you're once again providing detailed information that, in the text that you then type, doesn't mention a single name or statute. Let's try it again - you can just fill in the blanks:
Did you think I forgot that I already provided you with an explanation?
You did no such thing. You're sticking with your deliberately vague "You can't approve of a criminal investigation of my favorite candidate's violation of very specific statutes unless you also call for the sweeping prosecution of everyone you like on whatever non-existent violations that I'm implying they've committed but won't enumerate."
Heck, are you just afraid to have a conversation with me so much that you can't even respond to my post without cutting off a good portion of the words?
What's the point? The entire premise underlying all of your cowardly anonymous blathering is completely nonsensical. Until you acknowledge that and say what you really mean, all of the other attempts you make at sound condescending and finger-wagging are just silly. You've doubled down on that by expressly avoiding any specificity, because you know you can't actually provide any. As a result, you're stamping your feet and still attempting to distract from your central error. Your mistake is assuming that nobody would call you on your BS, and point out that your attempt to imply law breaking where it doesn't exist as a distraction from where it DOES exist is just typical pro-Hillary shillary on your part.
Seriously, are you afraid of what would happen if you did start looking?
If I did start looking at what? Which highly scrutinized public figure's conduct under which specific statute are you referring to? There are two choices: you have specific knowledge, that nobody else has, of lawbreaking along the lines of Hillary's but in some other camp... or, you are perfectly aware that years of public scrutiny, including congressional hearings of all sorts and extensive FOIA disclosures show no such thing, and you're really, really hoping that nobody else remembers that, so you can continue with your disingenuous bit of theater.
Why don't you want to call for the prosecutions of any of your political associates
Let's see if you have yet to muster the intellectual courage to say who, specifically, you mean and which statutes, specifically, you're proposing a prosecution under? Names, and laws. Specifically. No? Right. You're continuing to evade that simple request because you know you're just trying to distract. On the other hand, we know exactly why Clinton is being criminally investigated, and which laws are in question.
you know doing so will be the only way to validate any other charges you make
OK, let's try this on for size: you watch your neighbor break into your car and steal stuff. You call for that person to be prosecuted. They argue that the only way that would be a valid prosecution would be if you also called for the prosecution of your OTHER neighbors, first. Does that pretty well fit your phony model of how criminal investigations should be conducted? No? Why not? That's what you're telling me I should say. For that matter, I suppose it's really not appropriate to prosecute any criminal unless you personally are also prosecuted, right? No? You didn't break any laws, and so that makes no sense? Right.
Are you afraid of what will be revealed
About who, under the investigation of breaking which specific laws? I know, you can't actually answer that question, because you're just practicing lazy, juvenile rhetorical techniques in hopes that someone will somehow fall for your hand-waving vagueness as long as you sound sure enough about it, but carefully avoid ever mentioning any specifics. You do realize how silly you sound, don't you?
You're so cute! You should link to some kitten pictures or something - maybe that will deflect the attention away from the criminal investigation you're trying to pretend doesn't exist.
Is there some reason you're asking about the FBI's conduct? Or Obama's? They're not on subject here, you're getting off tangent.
No, that's what Clinton's PR machine (and you) keep insisting, in an effort to distract from the fact that she's done things that would have already resulted in people who worked for her (and thousands of other government employees) seeing felony convictions. You are so transparently desperate to attempt to make her conduct appear the same as anyone else's (and referring to anyone who points out the enormous gulf between those things as being on a "witch hunt") that you can't even acknowledge that the existence of an FBI criminal investigation of her conduct is an indicator of exactly how much of a fantasy world you're living in.
The rest of your attempts at condescending ad hominem just make you sound like the pompous Clinton shill you are. Hint: more than half the country finds her to be unlikable, untrustworthy, and asked to pick one word to describe her, use "liar." You get that, and it's why you're trying to wish away her criminal investigation and stamping your feet about how unfair it is that people who didn't do what she did should be prosecuted so her failings and criminal activity feel somehow normal enough for her progressives critics to hold their noses and vote for her. You need to attend a better quality deflection seminar, because what you're trying to do is childishly transparent.
How could the conduct of the FBI make this look like a witch hunt? They've been very quiet about it, and their boss, Obama, has repeatedly said that there's nothing to worry about.
you aren't calling it like it is, you just want to believe that you are
Really. In which way have I mischaracterized her criminal investigation by the FBI? Specifically.
You'd do better to just call for the prosecutions, rather than continue to make excuses.
I AM calling for her prosecution, because she's demonstrably violated multiple federal statutes. Or are you thinking I should be calling for the prosecution of somebody else that hasn't violated any? Which person is it you think I should be asking to see prosecuted, and which statutes, specifically, did they violate? There's no confusion here, just your continuing attempt to pretend that there's some equivalency between Clinton's contemporary law breaking and ongoing lying about it, and the actions of someone you won't name breaking some law you can't muster the intellectual honesty to spell out. Nobody's confused, you're just trying to misdirect, exactly like all of Hillary's supporters are doing, knowing now what they know about her.
it's about making the prosecution actually look legitimate
Then all that's required is for a special counsel to get involved, so that Hillary Clinton's political endorsement from Obama doesn't present a conflict of interest with the people who work for him while conducting a criminal investigation of (at the least) her violations of federal records laws.
You make things look more political, not less.
Calling for her criminal investigation to be less under the influence of a politician is making things look more political? Do tell.
making people more inclined to believe it's yet another politically biased witch hunt by your current methods
Which methods are those? Pointing out that the meritless comparisons to past events is in fact politically motivated attempts at distraction by her political supporters is going to somehow make her current criminal investigation look like a witch hunt? How do you figure that? The people who are trying to portray her investigation as "just political," rather than the facts-based criminal investigation that it actually is - THAT is what contributes to the "witch hunt" atmosphere, which is exactly what her supporters, who don't actually care about the facts of her behavior, want. I'm taking the politics out of their disingenuous, false comparisons, and calling it like it is simply is. This annoys you, so you're attempting to pretend the opposite is true. Nobody is falling for that.
Of course you don't have a need, you feel no need to actually show integrity.
So, your idea of "integrity" is to say that something one person did which is not a crime IS a crime, so that the person who has actually committed a crime won't look so bad from your perspective? Are you even listening to yourself?
Yes, the fact of your refusing to prosecute other criminals
OK, Mr. Integrity, please cite the specific crimes you had in mind. Which people violated which statures? Be specific, since you're all about integrity. We already know which of Hillary Clinton's activities are being actively investigated as crimes by people working for a Democrat president and his political appointees through DoJ and the FBI. Which FBI investigation of which crimes were you thinking of on the part of other people? Be specific.
Instead of making claims like what they did was not criminal, call for a full and thorough investigation
Should we also have a full and thorough investigation of your own criminal conduct including murder and rape? No? There's no indication that you've actually done anything criminal and thus no need for such an investigation? I see. That's also the case with the politicians you hate, unlike with your buddy Hillary Clinton - where there is ample evidence of her criminality.
you instead make people even more inclined to believe it's yet another politically biased witch hunt.
What? You're saying that I'm portraying the executive branch's current criminal investigation into Clinton's mishandling of above-top-secret information and her corrupt involvement in getting millions foreign dollars transferred to her family business while conducting the people's business in those countries as SoS... you think I'm the one calling that political? You (as you know) have that exactly backwards. YOU are the one calling her criminal investigation political in an attempt to distract from her behavior.
You're the one who has to call for the prosecution of those criminals for their crimes.
I didn't say the other had committed crimes (they didn't). I said that IF they had, it wouldn't be close to Clinton's abuses. I allowed for the prospect of those other people's actions being criminal as an assumption for the sake of the bogus point I was having to refute. I have no need to call for the prosecution of people who, unlike Clinton, didn't do anything illegal.
My accusation doesn't "fail," with regard to Clinton, because the facts speak for themselves.
Jeb, Colin, Rove, Mitt, et. al. have been known to do problematic things with email and/or computer equipment
Which, taken as a collection together, still don't even begin to rise to the level of deliberate FOIA-avoidance and actual law breaking exhibited by Clinton. Regardless, just for fun, let's assume that the minor levels of "problematic" activity you mention were full-on criminal behavior. OK, please by all means call for prosecution of those crimes. Does that make Clinton's deliberate law breaking and (ongoing!) lying about the matter somehow go away? Or are you really in the mode of "some politicians I hate did it, so that makes it OK for the person I want to be president to lie about doing it"...? Really?
Ah, two laughing days in a row!
BTW, what's "insincere" about describing the DC Flight Restriction Zone and the bulletins that the FAA sends out when there are temporary expansions to those restrictions because of VIP movement? NOTAMs are public records. Your paranoia on the subject is kind of odd.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so you can drive people to another country, and pretend to be for freedom and liberty?
No, I recommended Venezuela as a place where you'd obviously be very happy, since the government there thinks just like you do. The only person here who wants to power to force others to do their bidding, of course, is you. That's just why you'd like it there. You can enjoy all of the prosperity and peace that comes from central control over the people who make things for you. As soon as you can actually find something to eat there, and some toilet paper, you'll be great shape! Nice straw man, though, pretending I'm suggesting you be forced to go live with your kindred spirits. No, I'm just wishing you would go. The "being forced to" thing is your specialty.
Or are you suggesting that outright bribery should be legal and I should be free to offer to pay off the cop, judge and legislator?
Which part of McCain-Feingold was preventing previously existing crime of bribery, and which part of striking down that law's unconstitutional banning of speech suddenly allowed bribery to be legal? Be specific.
As for the 1st Amendment, it is ignored in so many circumstances, what is one more?
Or ten more, or a thousand more, right? We might as well ignore the entire premise that the constitution exists primarily to prevent the government from infringing on personal liberty. If there's any infringement in any form, why, shoot, we might as well go all the way with it, right? Are you even listening to yourself?
It's your burden
I have no burden. Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation on multiple fronts. I didn't make that up, you know it's true. It's simply reality. This reality bothers you because you are shilling for her, and it makes your job harder because it's difficult to explain away her obvious lying, and even harder to explain your own support of it. If there is ANY burden, here, it's on the people who praise her for her lying to explain what it is, exactly, that they find so appealing about it.
and I'd give you an open path
An "open path" to do what, exactly? To observe and mention reality? You seem to think that by someone denying reality, you make it go away. And that as long as you maintain the position that I haven't met your criteria for being able to mention reality, that it makes reality subjective, and you can dismiss it. There are doctors who specialize in dealing with people who are that out of touch with reason. You know you're BSing and making a phony stand, because your real problem isn't actual cognitive denial, it's that you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner and you're angry that someone is pointing out THAT reality, along with the reality of 150 FBI agents working on a criminal investigation that you wish you could characterize as a "witch hunt" in order to distract from the underlying Clinton behavior that brought it about.
all you have to do is name whoever you can identify as your own political associates, and list whatever offenses you want, as long as you support them being prosecuted
Prosecuted for what? What crimes are you talking about? I don't know of any politicians I support that need to be prosecuted under any criminal statutes. This angers you, because the politician you support HAS violated numerous statutes, and is being actively criminally investigated as we speak. So, in a completely disingenuous and childish attempt to distract from that, you're still insisting that I name laws that haven't been broken by people that haven't broken them before you're willing to acknowledge what 150 FBI agents are spending their waking hours doing right now. If it wasn't obvious that you're just faking your way through this phony display of pretending you don't understand the words you're saying, your insistence that someone else describe non-existent crimes before you'll acknowledge real ones would be a cry for help from a shrink. But you know you're making no sense, and are sticking to it because changing your childish, irrational demand would mean admitting that you made a childish, irrational demand in the first place. I'll let you off the hook: we both already know you did, so there's no point continuing to embarrass yourself.
You're a little foggy on the whole part where it's your fellow citizens who do things like start businesses. Never mind, you're just a wannabe totalitarian that wants to demonize your more productive counterparts while still getting them to make stuff for you. You'd probably be a lot happier in the sort paradise that fully embraces your vision. Say, Venezuela. Off you go, then!
OK, I checked them out. They are anti-First-Amendment, just like the law that was struck down by the court for being unconstitutional on the face of it.
Correct. Rich people are Eeeeeevil, unless they are Democrats, in which case they are great. Typical.
No corporation has ever felt shame.
So, every single person who actually makes up the millions of incorporated businesses, foundations, charities, and other chartered entities are someone instantly transformed into emotionless, cruel automatons the moment sit down at their desks? Your complete misunderstanding of what it means to form and run a business indicates just how inexperienced you are. Consider actually sitting down with some of your local business owners, looking them in the face, and explaining to them how inhuman they are. Would be interesting to watch.
You're dancing on the essence of why Citizen's United must be reversed.
What? People who want to reverse Citizens United are, just like you, simply those who hate the First Amendment because it allows people they don't agree with to speak their minds. I know, you simply have the usual lefty totalitarian urges, and you're mad that everyone else doesn't feel the same way. Too bad. That's exactly why we have the First Amendment in the first place. McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional on the face of it.
She is not being hypocritical, since she has also spoken out about the influence of big money on politics.
And then she gets on the stage with the biggest Big Money candidate there is, and shouts, "I'm with her!"
I'm fine with people donating to campaigns. I'm not fine with blatant hypocrisy.
So, you want me to name people that I support politically, and then name crimes that they haven't committed so that they can be falsely prosecuted so you'll feel better about Hillary Clinton being actually criminally investigated right now, for real, by the FBI. Do you grasp how irrational you sound?
So you consider my plainly mentioning the ongoing criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton to be contributing to a witch hunt atmosphere that can only be mitigated if I randomly mention politicians I support and randomly choose criminal statutes under which I think they should be investigated even though I have no indication, whatsoever, that they've done anything wrong? We have ample evidence of Clinton's criminal activity, so I talk about it. I have no indication of criminal activity on the part of any politicians I prefer, but you think I'm under some "burden" to fabricate some some you'll feel better? Are you even listening to yourself?
Never mind, of course you know how ridiculous that sounds. But in order to continue this conversation, I think you need to first call for the criminal prosecution of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. The burden is on you to name the crimes, of course. Why? Because I think you have that burden in order to make your recommendations to me sound less like a witch hunt. Rational, right? No? Right. Of course you know it's nonsense, but your hypocrisy won't let you back down from your phony adoption of self-contradictory premises.
Nope, I did. Here it is again
Hilarious! You say, "here it is again," and then promptly once again avoid doing anything. You say there are people who need prosecuting in order to make the ongoing criminal investigation of your candidate legitimate. But you are pretending to be too much of a coward to name the people in question or the laws in question. Why? Because that (cowardice and laziness) is easier to explain away than outright lying. But, that's what you're doing. Why? Because that's exactly what the candidate you're shilling for routinely does, as well. Lie, deflect, pretend that a shrill, condescending display of taking umbrage is anything other than cheap theater ... anything to avoid actually backing up what you say.
So: to summarize. You think that your boss's criminal investigation isn't fair because you're sure other people have done other things. In order to deflect non-critical thinkers from parsing that simple sentiment and recognizing how morally vacuous it is, you insist that other people do some other vague things and if they question your vagueness, you chide them for not communicating. Here's the thing: nobody falls for that crap, except perhaps some of the very fellow supporters your candidate has sown up, no matter how many times she looks them in the eye and demonstrably, blatantly lies. All of your theater is wasted on anyone who can think and thus see that you're just posturing and hoping to run out the clock on a conversation that's actually challenging your crappy propagandizing and juvenile attempt to revise history.
I know, it's annoying when people don't get distracted by your hand-waving vagueness, but I do appreciate the entertainment value of you saying you're once again providing detailed information that, in the text that you then type, doesn't mention a single name or statute. Let's try it again - you can just fill in the blanks:
ANONYMOUS COWARD'S LIST OF PEOPLE TO PROSECUTE:
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
I'm sure you can come up with four, right?
Did you think I forgot that I already provided you with an explanation?
You did no such thing. You're sticking with your deliberately vague "You can't approve of a criminal investigation of my favorite candidate's violation of very specific statutes unless you also call for the sweeping prosecution of everyone you like on whatever non-existent violations that I'm implying they've committed but won't enumerate."
Heck, are you just afraid to have a conversation with me so much that you can't even respond to my post without cutting off a good portion of the words?
What's the point? The entire premise underlying all of your cowardly anonymous blathering is completely nonsensical. Until you acknowledge that and say what you really mean, all of the other attempts you make at sound condescending and finger-wagging are just silly. You've doubled down on that by expressly avoiding any specificity, because you know you can't actually provide any. As a result, you're stamping your feet and still attempting to distract from your central error. Your mistake is assuming that nobody would call you on your BS, and point out that your attempt to imply law breaking where it doesn't exist as a distraction from where it DOES exist is just typical pro-Hillary shillary on your part.
Seriously, are you afraid of what would happen if you did start looking?
If I did start looking at what? Which highly scrutinized public figure's conduct under which specific statute are you referring to? There are two choices: you have specific knowledge, that nobody else has, of lawbreaking along the lines of Hillary's but in some other camp ... or, you are perfectly aware that years of public scrutiny, including congressional hearings of all sorts and extensive FOIA disclosures show no such thing, and you're really, really hoping that nobody else remembers that, so you can continue with your disingenuous bit of theater.
Why don't you want to call for the prosecutions of any of your political associates
Let's see if you have yet to muster the intellectual courage to say who, specifically, you mean and which statutes, specifically, you're proposing a prosecution under? Names, and laws. Specifically. No? Right. You're continuing to evade that simple request because you know you're just trying to distract. On the other hand, we know exactly why Clinton is being criminally investigated, and which laws are in question.
you know doing so will be the only way to validate any other charges you make
OK, let's try this on for size: you watch your neighbor break into your car and steal stuff. You call for that person to be prosecuted. They argue that the only way that would be a valid prosecution would be if you also called for the prosecution of your OTHER neighbors, first. Does that pretty well fit your phony model of how criminal investigations should be conducted? No? Why not? That's what you're telling me I should say. For that matter, I suppose it's really not appropriate to prosecute any criminal unless you personally are also prosecuted, right? No? You didn't break any laws, and so that makes no sense? Right.
Are you afraid of what will be revealed
About who, under the investigation of breaking which specific laws? I know, you can't actually answer that question, because you're just practicing lazy, juvenile rhetorical techniques in hopes that someone will somehow fall for your hand-waving vagueness as long as you sound sure enough about it, but carefully avoid ever mentioning any specifics. You do realize how silly you sound, don't you?
You're so cute! You should link to some kitten pictures or something - maybe that will deflect the attention away from the criminal investigation you're trying to pretend doesn't exist.
Is there some reason you're asking about the FBI's conduct? Or Obama's? They're not on subject here, you're getting off tangent.
No, that's what Clinton's PR machine (and you) keep insisting, in an effort to distract from the fact that she's done things that would have already resulted in people who worked for her (and thousands of other government employees) seeing felony convictions. You are so transparently desperate to attempt to make her conduct appear the same as anyone else's (and referring to anyone who points out the enormous gulf between those things as being on a "witch hunt") that you can't even acknowledge that the existence of an FBI criminal investigation of her conduct is an indicator of exactly how much of a fantasy world you're living in.
The rest of your attempts at condescending ad hominem just make you sound like the pompous Clinton shill you are. Hint: more than half the country finds her to be unlikable, untrustworthy, and asked to pick one word to describe her, use "liar." You get that, and it's why you're trying to wish away her criminal investigation and stamping your feet about how unfair it is that people who didn't do what she did should be prosecuted so her failings and criminal activity feel somehow normal enough for her progressives critics to hold their noses and vote for her. You need to attend a better quality deflection seminar, because what you're trying to do is childishly transparent.
you aren't calling it like it is, you just want to believe that you are
Really. In which way have I mischaracterized her criminal investigation by the FBI? Specifically.
You'd do better to just call for the prosecutions, rather than continue to make excuses.
I AM calling for her prosecution, because she's demonstrably violated multiple federal statutes. Or are you thinking I should be calling for the prosecution of somebody else that hasn't violated any? Which person is it you think I should be asking to see prosecuted, and which statutes, specifically, did they violate? There's no confusion here, just your continuing attempt to pretend that there's some equivalency between Clinton's contemporary law breaking and ongoing lying about it, and the actions of someone you won't name breaking some law you can't muster the intellectual honesty to spell out. Nobody's confused, you're just trying to misdirect, exactly like all of Hillary's supporters are doing, knowing now what they know about her.
it's about making the prosecution actually look legitimate
Then all that's required is for a special counsel to get involved, so that Hillary Clinton's political endorsement from Obama doesn't present a conflict of interest with the people who work for him while conducting a criminal investigation of (at the least) her violations of federal records laws.
You make things look more political, not less.
Calling for her criminal investigation to be less under the influence of a politician is making things look more political? Do tell.
making people more inclined to believe it's yet another politically biased witch hunt by your current methods
Which methods are those? Pointing out that the meritless comparisons to past events is in fact politically motivated attempts at distraction by her political supporters is going to somehow make her current criminal investigation look like a witch hunt? How do you figure that? The people who are trying to portray her investigation as "just political," rather than the facts-based criminal investigation that it actually is - THAT is what contributes to the "witch hunt" atmosphere, which is exactly what her supporters, who don't actually care about the facts of her behavior, want. I'm taking the politics out of their disingenuous, false comparisons, and calling it like it is simply is. This annoys you, so you're attempting to pretend the opposite is true. Nobody is falling for that.
Of course you don't have a need, you feel no need to actually show integrity.
So, your idea of "integrity" is to say that something one person did which is not a crime IS a crime, so that the person who has actually committed a crime won't look so bad from your perspective? Are you even listening to yourself?
Yes, the fact of your refusing to prosecute other criminals
OK, Mr. Integrity, please cite the specific crimes you had in mind. Which people violated which statures? Be specific, since you're all about integrity. We already know which of Hillary Clinton's activities are being actively investigated as crimes by people working for a Democrat president and his political appointees through DoJ and the FBI. Which FBI investigation of which crimes were you thinking of on the part of other people? Be specific.
Instead of making claims like what they did was not criminal, call for a full and thorough investigation
Should we also have a full and thorough investigation of your own criminal conduct including murder and rape? No? There's no indication that you've actually done anything criminal and thus no need for such an investigation? I see. That's also the case with the politicians you hate, unlike with your buddy Hillary Clinton - where there is ample evidence of her criminality.
you instead make people even more inclined to believe it's yet another politically biased witch hunt.
What? You're saying that I'm portraying the executive branch's current criminal investigation into Clinton's mishandling of above-top-secret information and her corrupt involvement in getting millions foreign dollars transferred to her family business while conducting the people's business in those countries as SoS ... you think I'm the one calling that political? You (as you know) have that exactly backwards. YOU are the one calling her criminal investigation political in an attempt to distract from her behavior.
You're the one who has to call for the prosecution of those criminals for their crimes.
I didn't say the other had committed crimes (they didn't). I said that IF they had, it wouldn't be close to Clinton's abuses. I allowed for the prospect of those other people's actions being criminal as an assumption for the sake of the bogus point I was having to refute. I have no need to call for the prosecution of people who, unlike Clinton, didn't do anything illegal.
My accusation doesn't "fail," with regard to Clinton, because the facts speak for themselves.
Jeb, Colin, Rove, Mitt, et. al. have been known to do problematic things with email and/or computer equipment
Which, taken as a collection together, still don't even begin to rise to the level of deliberate FOIA-avoidance and actual law breaking exhibited by Clinton. Regardless, just for fun, let's assume that the minor levels of "problematic" activity you mention were full-on criminal behavior. OK, please by all means call for prosecution of those crimes. Does that make Clinton's deliberate law breaking and (ongoing!) lying about the matter somehow go away? Or are you really in the mode of "some politicians I hate did it, so that makes it OK for the person I want to be president to lie about doing it" ...? Really?
Yes, because not a single person in the entire world has ever thought about any of those issues until you did, just now.
Yeah, because there's never been a mail truck fire, or a kid running his skateboard behind a backing-up UPS truck.
No wonder intelligent people in the UK want the hell out.
Ah, two laughing days in a row! BTW, what's "insincere" about describing the DC Flight Restriction Zone and the bulletins that the FAA sends out when there are temporary expansions to those restrictions because of VIP movement? NOTAMs are public records. Your paranoia on the subject is kind of odd.
Since you work for the CIA who is this?
Thanks, best laugh I've had all day.