RE: Hillary Probed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:13:13 AM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Another article today says that the FBI is running into stonewalling at DOJ.


cite please????was it brietbart or stormfront?



bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:15:50 AM)

"Will Hillary get charged, or what?"

By Charles Gasparino (oh no, fox business?)

quote:

FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain that presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private email server, career agents say.

Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term.

With that, agents have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence that Clinton broke the law...

And as FBI director, Comey can only recommend charges to the hacks in the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, many law enforcement officials who know the FBI chief and the bureau’s inner workings believe the evidence would have to be overwhelming for Comey to even recommend charges, much less for DOJ to pursue them.

Still, some FBI staffers suggest the probe’s at a point where Comey might quit in protest if Justice ignores a recommendation to pursue a criminal case against Clinton.

Just how close Comey is to any recommendation — whether to indict or exonerate Clinton — is difficult to know. But agents believe the probe is nearing an end. A State Department staffer who set up Clinton’s email server, for instance, was recently granted immunity from prosecution to provide Comey’s team with evidence.

“You don’t start granting people close to Clinton immunity unless you are seriously looking at charges against your target,” one former official told me...

Another matter for Comey & Co.: whether Clinton comingled her official State Department business with her role at the Clinton Foundation, and whether she wiped clean messages that show her using her office at State for foundation work.

Law enforcement sources also say Comey’s record as a prosecutor shows he has zero tolerance for such abuses.

FBI sources say he has no backing from President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch to recommend charges against the former secretary, since a Clinton presidency may be the best chance to preserve the Obama legacy.

That leaves Comey in a bind: Does he do what is politically expedient and deny the reality that Clinton’s email server activities violated the law, or follow the evidence to wherever it takes him?

Here’s hoping he uses the same standards against Clinton as he used against [Martha] Stewart and [Frank] Quattrone.


http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/



mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:23:28 AM)

When Harry Gowdy, Raphael Cruz and several other nutsuckers come out of the closet, she might get indicted.

Laughable asswipe, for over a year from the slobbering factless nutsuckers. It dont take that long to build a Cray, and still nutsuckers standing around jacking their dicks and-- its gonna............



Aylee -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:25:24 AM)

The DOJ is corrupt. Republican or Democrat government, doesn't matter. It is completely corrupted.



YahooSeriously -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:29:53 AM)

WTH- all this over an email server? it's ridiculous.
It seems that people are freaking out at the possibility of a woman president almost as much as the paranoid survivalist food-and-ammunition hoarding when O'bama was elected.

Id rather they concentrate on absentee votes on bills by representatives at state and federal levels be looked into more- so that state and fed'ral reps and senators didn't have someone else voting for them when they were absent, instead of using a means of voting remotely. Email or text could be tampered with but a brief public statement via the media or internet should suffice. The votes are typically public information- at least afterwards, and there is no reason that someone other than the representative should make their votes.

---

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.



bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:32:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Another article today says that the FBI is running into stonewalling at DOJ.


the gasparino article I just posted mentions that too...



bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:33:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

The DOJ is corrupt. Republican or Democrat government, doesn't matter. It is completely corrupted.


its unfortunate isnt that, because of that suspicion, how difficult it will be to trust the legitimacy of the outcome if Hillary isnt indicted.



mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:44:26 AM)

Not at all. Nobody indicted Rice or Powell, Cheney, Reagan, W, Nixon...........the list goes on and on. Comey is a nutsucker and got to go with the core nutsuckerisms. (which is unfair I suppose) since Comey actually hasnt said it, and he was loud and proud on wiretaps. But he has almost resigned before, and it will be almost a loss, but it wont be an actual one.



Aylee -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:44:56 AM)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-new-hillary-clinton-email-withheld-from-state-department/

Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained State Department documents from February 2009 containing emails that appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com email system until March 2009. The emails also contain more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure Blackberrys.

snip

“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 – because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”



mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 11:49:56 AM)

and there is a credible citation of this somewhere?

as far as I know, there is not.



bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 12:00:01 PM)

given the "under oath" part, one wonders who the legal person would be to follow up on that.

and the quote by fitton you posted, how damning if it can be shown to be the case.



bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 12:07:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and there is a credible citation of this somewhere?

as far as I know, there is not.


unfortunately, from what I can tell, your main metric for "not credible" is any place that contains information with which you disagree.

im sorry comrade---I don't think media matters, alternet, or mother jones will be covering it.



mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 12:11:56 PM)

Nobody but nutsucker slobber blogs cover nutsucker slobber blogs.

No, my bolshevik friend, the nutsuckers are slobbering up there own cocks and felch on this one, and every one. There are knaves that vend, and fools that gulp........and that is nutsuckerism in a swallowing felchgob.



thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 12:25:55 PM)


ORIGINAL: bounty44


unfortunately, from what I can tell, your main metric for "not credible" is any place that contains information with which you disagree.

Those with a three digit iq and a pulse will always disagree with disingenuous prattle.

im sorry comrade---I don't think media matters, alternet, or mother jones will be covering it.

Comrade bounty, just who covers this tripe except you and yours?



thishereboi -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 1:53:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

The DOJ is corrupt. Republican or Democrat government, doesn't matter. It is completely corrupted.



QFT



EmmaDilemma -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 2:18:10 PM)

Quite apart from her email scandal, Hillary Clinton is a crook. She benefitted from selling off US uranium mining rights to the Russians. New York Times article as follows
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.



mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 2:32:08 PM)

Business Insider explains the felching nutsuckisms fairly comprehensively:

CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.

So--- Yeah. No.



bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 5:06:29 PM)

good one---except for that your semi-plagiarized copy/paste in no way touches on, let alone contradicts the charges that emma laid with her ny times reporting, which is, that Hillary benefitted by the sale.

whats more, there is no hint in her posting that hillary "convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale..."

further, her last paragraph contains more or less the same information as in your first real one---which is consistent with my point immediately above.

lastly (still on the top 40 chart):

ineffectual
[in-i-fek-choo-uh l]

djective

1. not effectual; without satisfactory or decisive effect:
an ineffectual remedy.

2. unavailing; futile:
His efforts to sell the house were ineffectual.

3. powerless; impotent.




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 6:08:08 PM)

Not semi-plagiarized. But when you put up slobbering nutsucker blog after slobbering nutsucker blog, there is no plagiarization because its slobbering nutsuckerism.

No, it doesnt. The nutsucker foundationless accusation may be that she benefitted, but nobody has any fact that backs tht up. Speculation thru the jacking off method is not even remotely inciteful.

It is good that you continually remind us that ntucker felching is ineffectual, and we see that most readily when we cast about for Issa, Gowdy, Cruz, and the other effete'intellectuals of the nutsucker felching caucus. No need to continue to the rank and file, their catamites.



Phydeaux -> RE: Hillary Probed (3/24/2016 7:23:56 PM)

I've reported a few months ago about the huge donations to the clinton foundation that followed upon the sale of the uranium to the russians.


Its pretty obvious there was quid pro quo. But forgetting that - I'd just like Hillary to go on the record and explain why the sale of 50% of the US's uranium assets to the russians was a good thing.



Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875