DESERTER BERGDAHL, 6 DEAD AMERICAN MARINES AND 6 TERRORISTS GO FREE....

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What makes you think they "recruited" him .. as in pursued him? I suspect he volunteered, like a lot of others for varying reasons, and they, in need of "fresh faces," enthusiastically signed him up as another stat to their credit.

If you are not "drafted" you sign up at a recruiting office, where they are supposed to check you out to see if you are fit for military duty.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Wrong again, cockbreath

spo·li·a·tion
ˌspōlēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action of ruining or destroying something

If you're going to lie, don't make it something so easy to prove wrong.

No. You are wrong. In the context in which you were discussing it ....

......."spoilation" IS wrong doing. (We're not talking about rotten tomatoes.)

Government employees (which includes the SOS) who have possession of classified documents ARE REQUIRED to return those documents to the possession of the GOVERNMENT ..... and destroying them (or claiming they were destroyed) does NOT satisfy that requirement. The employee with the clearance has the positive duty and obligation to account for the documents by producing them. Hillarious is not even supposed to have possession of them outside a Government Facility, unless in the process of transporting them from one Government Facility to another.....and there are "chain of custody" documents required for release and acceptance of the documents/information.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

If you are not "drafted" you sign up at a recruiting office, where they are supposed to check you out to see if you are fit for military duty.

The "recuiters" don't "check you out"! May be see if you can read and write, and you have a pulse and can come in the door without a cane. Since he was in the GC, which they CAN CHECK he's already been accepted in one branch so he can read and write, and they can see he found his way in and has a pulse. (How much of one is above their pay grade.)

My point is, and was, "we" don't know what was contained in his OMPF and there are "privacy" law requirements that restrict access. Ask bigtits ... he's still trying to get access to mine!!!! HAHA. And it ain't gonna happen. So I can't lay it on any "recruits."

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. You are wrong. In the context in which you were discussing it ....

......."spoilation" IS wrong doing. (We're not talking about rotten tomatoes.)

Government employees (which includes the SOS) who have possession of classified documents ARE REQUIRED to return those documents to the possession of the GOVERNMENT ..... and destroying them (or claiming they were destroyed) does NOT satisfy that requirement. The employee with the clearance has the positive duty and obligation to account for the documents by producing them. Hillarious is not even supposed to have possession of them outside a Government Facility, unless in the process of transporting them from one Government Facility to another.....and there are "chain of custody" documents required for release and acceptance of the documents/information.

+1

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Spoliation is not wrong doing. It's to ruin or destroy.

When it involves a government employee and subpoenaed government documents, it's a crime, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. You are wrong. In the context in which you were discussing it ....

......."spoilation" IS wrong doing. (We're not talking about rotten tomatoes.)

Government employees (which includes the SOS) who have possession of classified documents ARE REQUIRED to return those documents to the possession of the GOVERNMENT ..... and destroying them (or claiming they were destroyed) does NOT satisfy that requirement. The employee with the clearance has the positive duty and obligation to account for the documents by producing them. Hillarious is not even supposed to have possession of them outside a Government Facility, unless in the process of transporting them from one Government Facility to another.....and there are "chain of custody" documents required for release and acceptance of the documents/information.

It's SPOLIATION, not spoIlation you ignoramus. There's no such word as SPOILATION. Go look it up. You could not BE more wrong. You could TRY, but you would not be successful.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

It's SPOLIATION, not spoIlation you ignoramus. There's no such word as SPOILATION. Go look it up. You could not BE more wrong. You could TRY, but you would not be successful.

I know exactly what it is. So I made a fucking typo .... I described precisely what it is ..... and I'm not wrong ... fool. It is the "loss" and/or "destruction" of documents ... so what's your point ....? You don't have one. Is that all you got in response ... a "typo error" of a trnaspositon of a couple of letters?

Go play kindergarten typo errors and enjoy yourself.... and you call me a "moron"?

Your ARE AN IDIOT.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The "recuiters" don't "check you out"! May be see if you can read and write, and you have a pulse and can come in the door without a cane. Since he was in the GC, which they CAN CHECK he's already been accepted in one branch so he can read and write, and they can see he found his way in and has a pulse. (How much of one is above their pay grade.)

My point is, and was, "we" don't know what was contained in his OMPF and there are "privacy" law requirements that restrict access. Ask bigtits ... he's still trying to get access to mine!!!! HAHA. And it ain't gonna happen. So I can't lay it on any "recruits."

You are dumb as a stump lexie he was released from the Coast Guard for psychological issues. Someone either overlooked it or didn't give a shit to fill quota.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I know exactly what it is. So I made a fucking typo .... I described precisely what it is ..... and I'm not wrong ... fool. It is the "loss" and/or "destruction" of documents ... so what's your point ....? You don't have one.

Go play kindergarten typo errors and enjoy yourself.

You DIDN'T make a typo. You wrote SPOILATION and then said we aren't talking about rotten tomatoes, referencing SPOILED vegetables. Why would you mention rotten, spoiled food if the word was SPOLIATION. You've been caught out again you twisted cocksucker.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. You are wrong. In the context in which you were discussing it ....

......."spoilation" IS wrong doing. (We're not talking about rotten tomatoes.)

Government employees (which includes the SOS) who have possession of classified documents ARE REQUIRED to return those documents to the possession of the GOVERNMENT ..... and destroying them (or claiming they were destroyed) does NOT satisfy that requirement. The employee with the clearance has the positive duty and obligation to account for the documents by producing them. Hillarious is not even supposed to have possession of them outside a Government Facility, unless in the process of transporting them from one Government Facility to another.....and there are "chain of custody" documents required for release and acceptance of the documents/information.

You got got!

[shanm]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

He uses $.25 words when a $.05 word would do just fine.

Isn't it amazing how they still can't come up with an opinion worth a penny?

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You DIDN'T make a typo. You wrote SPOILATION and then said we aren't talking about rotten tomatoes, referencing SPOILED vegetables. Why would you mention rotten, spoiled food if the word was SPOLIATION. You've been caught out again you twisted cocksucker.

Don't be too hard on them! Illiteracy runs through the Klan..err Clan like a plague

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by shanm

Isn't it amazing how they still can't come up with an opinion worth a penny?



Don't be too hard on them! Illiteracy runs through the Klan..err Clan like a plague

He almost got away with it, but ironically, it was his need to be a smartass and get that little extra dig in when he mentioned rotten tomatoes.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

He almost got away with it, but ironically, it was his need to be a smartass and get that little extra dig in when he mentioned rotten tomatoes.

Cut LLIdiot some slack! He is at least smart enough to know that by being labeled as a "smartass," the word "smart" will be used in some form to describe him. Even though "smart" is linked directly to "ass."

LLIdiot is willing to take what he can get!

Perhaps next time we should reference LLIdiot as being a dumbass.

Wouldn't that be more appropriate?

[CuteOldGuy]

The destruction of evidence under subpoena is itself a crime. We only have Hillary's word that she only destroyed "personal emails. Her history of lies and corruption does not make her word worth a damn. I have no idea why people are defending this criminal.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The destruction of evidence under subpoena is itself a crime. We only have Hillary's word that she only destroyed "personal emails. Her history of lies and corruption does not make her word worth a damn. I have no idea why people are defending this criminal.

Was it under subpoena when she deleted it? I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her and that ain't far.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

My statement still stands. The absence of evidence is not evidence of wrongdoing. You had to add a stipulation in order to change it and make it mean something else. If it was destroyed, there would be evidence of that and therefore there would not be an absence of evidence. And why not just use the word 'ruined'? You try way too goddamn hard. And it lets me know that you and IBJizzy are the same person too. He uses $.25 words when a $.05 word would do just fine.

Wow. And double wow. Listen fucktard, “spoliation” is not my word and I'm certainly not trying “way too goddamn hard” to impress anyone with my vocabulary, least of all a dipshit like you. I am, however, flabbergasted that you were too goddamn lazy to watch even the first 30 seconds of the youtube video I attached. If you had, you would have seen that the first question out of Trey Gowdy's mouth was “Can you explain what SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE means?” It's Trey Gowdy's word. And no other word will do. It's a legal term with a specific legal meaning. So you're the jackass here.

This isn't the first (or the last) time your sheer fucking laziness has gotten you into trouble. Had you taken the time to watch the video, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself. Then you compounded your error by cutting and pasting the first dictionary definition that popped up, instead of reading through all of them. Had you taken the time to do your homework properly and not been so lazy, you would have discovered the word SPOLIATION has a specific legal meaning that can lead to an inference of wrongdoing. For those who aren't as clueless and lazy as undercunt, here are some links:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictiona...poliation.aspx

Originally Posted by shanm

Isn't it amazing how they still can't come up with an opinion worth a penny?

You two knuckleheads make a great tag team. Maybe you should hire shammyturd as your diligent and conscientious fact checker. He's totally got your back.

.