Law School Discussion

POTUS

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #150 on: October 26, 2015, 10:12:27 AM »
Lmao.

So, where am I wrong again?

Unless you csn prove the FBI are in holloween costumes concealing that they are really Republicans I will continue to enjoy the show.

I think it would be better to ask- where have you been right? You do understand, don't you, that every single one of your statements (pretty much) has been incorrect. Whether it has been a political prediction (fireworks at the Benghazi hearing! Biden will enter the race!) or whether it has been a factual recounting of events (didn't understand that the only candidate that was really under personal investigation had been Christie, didn't know the correct appellation of AUSAs, etc.).

I suggest, in the future, that you stop eating so much popcorn, and start trying to understand things independently of a) what you want to be true, and b) what people keep telling you is true.

And finally, again, I will reiterate- if you keep getting lied to, and are eager to keep swallowing the lies, that fault isn't  with the liars- it is with you.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #151 on: October 26, 2015, 01:13:07 PM »
You are really a funny one. 

If you believe that no candidate is being investigated by the FBI that is fine. 
But the fact is that James Comey, the director of the FBI is following closely  the FBI  investigation of one particular candidate who is running for president.

I bet you have no idea who that candidate is?



 I'll even  you a hint:  he said the persons name out loud and it has been quoted many times.

The FBI investigation into Nixon was very interesting to follow but I'm afraid that my interest into this present day investigation is even better.  The saga continues and it is very popcorn worthy.  And it is not going aww until the FBI finish their investigation.

Sorry to disappoint you but I just broke out the kosher salt for my popcorn.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #152 on: October 26, 2015, 01:20:07 PM »
Chemerinksy for President!


Re: POTUS
« Reply #153 on: October 26, 2015, 10:37:49 PM »
Chemerinksy for President!
Interesting choice.  Gun control?
He reminds me of an old al franken snl character.  That's a very sharp guy but I think he sees himself more as an advisor.  They have longevity in politics over a campaign junkee.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #154 on: October 27, 2015, 06:06:51 AM »
You are really a funny one. 

If you believe that no candidate is being investigated by the FBI that is fine. 
But the fact is that James Comey, the director of the FBI is following closely  the FBI  investigation of one particular candidate who is running for president.


No... I'm a serious one. This was explained to you back on, inter alia, August 18. This *was* a board for legal students and want-to-be legal students. There are 0Ls, law students, and legal practitioners who used this board at one point still ghosting here.

I have no problem with your bizarre political rants and opinions- after all, it helps me know what won't happen. But please stop spreading false "facts" that you've learned from some disreputable new site. There are devoted websites for that, where other misguided people will agree with you, and then you will be shocked when nothing happens, and then forget about it the next day. Oh, I forgot, the obligatory, BENGHAZI!!11!!!! *sigh*

Re: POTUS
« Reply #155 on: October 27, 2015, 07:36:25 AM »
You are not serious. You are a fool. You don't grasp the serious FBI investigation that IS going on.  I have quoted to you how the director of the FBI is following the investigation of Hillary Clinton.  Your August 18 statement is factual incorrect but it appears you drank some propaganda koolaide. And  now you rant about about this board.  You keep bringing up Benghazi????? I dont care about Benghazi. I know Clinton lied to the mothers and fathers of those who died in the Benghazi attack.    Yes, you are dense.

Your in denial about the fbi investigation which has eaten away Clinton's credibility, particularly among independents. 
If you don't want to acknowledge this its okay.

Please, dont harass me, thank you.

So, I say to you, go home Charlie brown.  If you can recognize the interest in a nixonian politician you don't belong in this discussion. There are plenty of other topics you can discuss on lsd.

You not good when it comes to Hillary, sorry my man.

Im not joking. Do not harass me any more.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #156 on: October 27, 2015, 09:00:14 AM »
If you can recognize the interest in a nixonian politician you don't belong in this discussion. There are plenty of other topics you can discuss on lsd.


Here's the funny thing- I do contribute to other conversations on LSD. And I have for years and year- pretty much since the board started. Because I did the whole "applying to law school, going to law school, working in BigLaw" type of thing. And it is my understanding that a board called "Law School Discussion" is primarily about law school, and discussions thereof.

You, near as I can tell, have only posted on this board regarding political topics. Which, you know, I suppose is fine and all, although there are probably at least one million more appropriate sites than that. That said, if you have actual substantive things to write about politics it would be nice. Instead of the same old tired things anyone can see in the comment threads of a local Idaho newspaper. In addition, when you are corrected on the legal issues you wish to bring up (which are few and far between, as opposed to your invariably incorrect "popcorn" predictions), it would be nice if you would drop them.

As was explained to you, the initial leaked reports that Clinton was being investigated were incorrect. That the FBI is conducting an investigation into the overall matter is correct, but she is not the target of an investigation; that was a retracted story. I realize that you don't have the time or energy to get these basic facts correct, even when it was explained to you over five weeks ago, but it is what it is.

And, as I explained to you before, I am not a fan of Clinton. I am not a fan of any of the people currently running. I do try to keep abreast of current events, and I do try to keep my opinions based on observable facts. You may find that you will be less disappointed with reality when you base your opinions on what is occurring, as opposed to what you want to believe.

If you want to dislike Clinton, more power to you. That's fine! Heck, if you want to rant and rave about how you dislike Clinton, go right ahead- you can certainly join others in doing so. But if you would like to use a law school discussion forum to rant and rave about politics, please expect some pushback when you are stating facts that aren't true. I will again refer you back to the prior discussion. That should've settled. I suggest going back to your popcorn.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #157 on: October 27, 2015, 05:19:09 PM »
Chewbacca for President 2016!

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #158 on: October 28, 2015, 07:33:48 AM »
Chewbacca for President 2016!

Chewie is fine. But I'm all in for Emperor Palpatine.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #159 on: October 28, 2015, 03:05:30 PM »
I watched hillary clinton's testimony about benghazi and think that it should have been held in private and not a public session just like all of the others.  And,  get depositions privately.  This should not have been done before the cameras, since, number one it has been a bone of contention for democrats who claim that the whole thing is fabricated to make clinton look foolish or incompetent so that it affects her ability to run for office. It has been a bone of contention for Republicans in that Americans had been killed in an attack and repeated security  requests went unattended by someone.  Also,  someone began an idiotic rumor that a YouTube video provoked an obvious, calculated military attack.

I'm an independent and some of us dont care which party is in power--- we look at the lowest common denominator.  Occam's razor, so to speak.  A. Security requests were not heeded but the system failed and perhaos not one individual is to blame.   The buck stops with the one at the top--that would be Clinton-- but she doesn't subscribe to that whole  heartedly since she still seeks higher office.  She admits to the letters and the dictionary meaning of the word "responsibility" and that is fine, too because she was not hands on responsible for the lack of security.

  But her email to her daughter marked against her words vibrating over the metal caskets of our murdered Americans into the ears of Chris Stevens mother and father and the other family members also SHAMEFULLY RESONATES with this Independent as hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister.



I read this great article, by Ben Shapiro, which while I don't agree with all of it, the tone, however of the piece is dead on reflective of Clintons character .  More importantly he rightfully points out her disgracefully cold and disingenuous behavior and words with the brave victims families.

In another universe she might have been an effective politician but she ultimately gets in her own way.

I think like Nixon, the FBI has finally caught up with her and she'll get the restraint she needs.

By Ben Shapiro
No, it  looks like Hillary Clinton Didn't Care About Chris Stevens

Oct. 28, 2015

Last week, the media hailed Hillary Clinton's supposed political triumph at a hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi concerning the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2012 that ended in the murder of four Americans, including American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. Clinton appeared calm and collected, even as she lied repeatedly: She said that she believed a YouTube video still bore some responsibility for the terrorist attack, despite the fact that she told the Egyptian prime minister the day after the attack that the video had nothing to do with the attack; she insisted that political hack Sidney Blumenthal didn't act as an advisor, even though he routinely emailed with her about policy; she stated that she'd been transparent about her emails, although that nonsense has been rejected by the State Department.


Most of all, Clinton suggested that Stevens had been responsible for his own murder. She said that he "felt comfortable" on the ground, and that he was merely joking when he emailed about whether the Benghazi compound would be closed. "Chris Stevens had ... a really good sense of humor," Clinton laughed. "And I just see him smiling as he's typing this." Stevens' State Department team in Libya sent requests for additional security 600 times. They were rejected.

After Clinton finished lying, she went home and hung out with her entire team. She partied. "I had my whole team come over to my house and we sat around eating Indian food and drinking wine and beer," Clinton told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "That's what we did. It was great. ... They did a terrific job, you know, kind of being there behind me and getting me ready, and then, you know, just talk about what we're going to do next."

As an apparent afterthought, she added to Maddow, "The point is, what are we going to do both honor and the people that we lost, and try to make sure this doesn't happen again."

Chris Stevens was always an afterthought to Clinton, despite her crocodile tears at the hearing, where she complained, "I would imagine I've thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I've lost more sleep than all of you put together." She didn't give Stevens her private email address, though Blumenthal had it. She couldn't remember holding a single conversation with Stevens after he was appointed ambassador to Libya. The night of his death she sent an email with the subject line "Chris Smith," mixing up his name with that of fellow diplomat Sean Smith. She spoke to survivors only days later. The night of the attack, she didn't speak with the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey.

Clinton's aggressive case for the invasion of Libya led to the overthrow and killing of dictator Moammar Gadhafi -- an event for which Clinton was happy to take credit, laughing, "We came, we saw, he died." She then completely ignored Libya as it turned into a terrorist hellhole, because that inconvenient fact undercut her narrative of strength and purpose. Her State Department refused to grant additional security requests because doing so would have implicitly recognized the failure of her war. Then, after Stevens died, Clinton and her team lied to the American people and the families of the slain, pinning the murders on an unforeseeable YouTube video-driven attack, rather than an utterly foreseeable terrorist attack.

Clinton is a coldly manipulative, deeply ambitious politician willing to say and do anything to achieve power. She was always that person, which is why she lied to Americans from in front of the flag-draped caskets of the murdered men in Benghazi. And she is that person now, too, as she laughs and eats Indian food hours after maintaining her lies once again before the American people.