Hillary Clinton

or we can vote for a sexual predator that would put you to death in a heartbeat for not agreeing with him.

 

Who are you referring to? Bill Clinton?

None of these women who say Donald Trump touched them 20-30 years ago said anything, filed a police report, or filed a lawsuit. But now, in October surprise season, they come forward to tell their story? Guys as rich as Donald get sued for looking at a woman the wrong way because they are an easy target to get a settlement so they can keep quiet.

 

Is that why a court date is set for him in December.....?...way after the election, too....for rape.

 

It wasnt a fly, it was Republican nanotechnology

 

NO! it was a tiny drone....

 

The 13 year old (wel, 13 at the timr)who is pressing charges is able to get around the statute of limitations due to an exception allowed in the case of a legitimate reason for not coming forward sooner.

In her case she alleges that Donald Trump threatened her life and her family's life

 

You've been shown over and over again that gross negligence is a crime in Clinton's case. But you don't want to admit it. You have a problem! You've even been show the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed, stating that she received proper training in the handling of classified material, and that she understands her legal obligations under that agreement. But you don't want to see that for what it is. You have a problem! You've also been shown that FBI Director Comey does not have any authority to inject an "intent clause" into the U.S. Code concerning gross negligence. But you didn't want to admit it. You have a problem!

You've also been shown that Bryan Nishimura was prosecuted for gross negligence for the same type of . . . gross negligence as Clinton has done. But you don't want to see it.

Did you know that a computer specialist deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them and was then given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account? And did you know that I speculate that you will not want to see that for what it is either?
_________________________________________________________________________________________

So you do believe that Comey had the authority to inject an "intent clause" into the U.S. Code concerning gross negligence. He has no such authority. You need to show something indicating that he has that authority. Otherwise I will interpret your LOL as simple nervous laughter.

You must also believe that Bryan Nishimura's situation is fictional. You need to show something indicating that that is the case. Otherwise . . .

You must also believe that a computer specialist did not delete Clinton's emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them, and that he was given immunity. You need to show something showing that that is not true. Otherwise . . .

LOL is the next progressive step in the process of denial when faced with facts. Did you know that?

 

She might be truthful. But at this point it seems to me the Clintons are trying to match Trump's mud slingings.

"You have a rapist husband and ruined the lives of his victims including a 13 year old girl"
"Nuh-uh, you're the rapist and you touched a 13 year old."

 

I think at the time he wanted to focus on the actual issues and not just mud sling which is all Hillary and Trump do now. It's not about what they can do it's about the things the other person has done. That is what I respected about Sanders let's get down to the things that matter. No doubt the emails were something she be held accountable for. And there is big movement to sweep it under the rug though.

 

With supporting your doubts concerning the facts with anything like something real? Yes you do! As it turns out Congress has subpoenaed the FBI.
____________________________________________________________________________________

The House Oversight Committee on Monday night issued a subpoena to the FBI for more documents related to the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) demanded an unredacted copy of the FBI’s report of its investigation, as well as the summaries of key interviews done during the course of the probe, known as 302s.

“Will the FBI provide to Congress the full file with no redactions of personally-identifiable information?” Chaffetz asked Jason Herring, the FBI's acting assistant director for congressional affairs, during a late afternoon hearing on the documents.

“I can’t make that commitment,” Herring replied.

“Then I’m going to issue a subpoena and I’m going to do it right now,” Chaffetz said, pulling out the document. "We want all the 302s and we would like the full file. You are hereby served.”

Chaffetz, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and others repeatedly pressed Herring on the justification for blacking out some personally-identifiable information in the unclassified copy of the FBI's report that was provided to Congress.

According to Herring, the decision was made at the highest level of the bureau and took into account whether the person in question was already in the public eye.

“Can you cite any legal case, any precedent that says that Congress cannot look at personally-identifiable information?" Chaffetz asked.

Herring said he could not, but argued that exposing individuals unnecessarily could have a chilling effect on public cooperation with future investigations.

“Where I have a problem is when [the FBI] redact information that is not deemed classified. It makes no sense. I believe that Congress should be able to see that,” Chaffetz insisted.

"While I understand there is an argument to withhold information under the Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), neither of those apply to Congress or any other committees.”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/295541-house-oversight-subpoenas-fbi-for-clinton-investigation-documents
_________________________________________________________________________________

“In his statements before Congress, Director Comey repeatedly assured us that the FBI investigated whether charges of obstruction of justice and intentional destruction of records were merited,” the chairmen of three House committees and a Senate committee complained last week in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “The facts of this investigation call those assertions into question.”

Congress has now obtained letters detailing unprecedented immunity agreements and side deals with multiple witnesses in the case — including one in which Comey agreed to prevent his investigators from reviewing any emails from Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills to Clinton’s server administrator Paul Combetta generated in late 2014 and early 2015. The off-limits correspondence, the chairmen point out, could reveal information “directing the destruction or concealment of federal records.”

Astonishingly, before Comey agreed to the June side deal with Mills’ attorney, he “already knew of the conference calls between Secretary Clinton’s attorneys and Mr. Combetta, his use of BleachBit, and the resulting deletions, further casting doubt on why the FBI would enter into such a limited evidentiary scope of review.”

In other words, Comey never really investigated Clinton and her aides for obstruction of justice, as he claimed. Lacking access to key evidence, he couldn’t have explored the possibility, though the circumstances were beyond suspicious.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/did-the-fbi-chief-lie-to-congress-about-the-hillary-email-probe/

 

When? After the election?

 

The Clinton Foundation took money from Saudi Arabia and Quatar. Saudi Arabia and Quatar fund ISIS. Is she going to return the money or does her foundation accept money from terrorists?

Fine, you condone a country that funds ISIS. Your choice. Maybe we should give Russia some nukes to shoot at us, eh?

I find it incredible that you're so subservient to a system that is dead set against your personal best interests. Do you think you're a part of the team or something? You're not. Maybe you're just covering your own ass in case they start cracking down on us dissenters.

Wikileaks has covered issues from the east as well.

Okay, please tell us all in what context it was appropriate for Bill Ivey to say what he said? Explain the context in which it's okay to say you've been conspiring to create an unaware, compliant citizenry. And...go!

 

She has been let off the hook. Nothing's going to come of this Judiciary Committee probe. And I can't say I'm impressed with your news source.
Fuck it, I'm not too concerned now. After Pussygate Trump is toast. I might even write in my vote for Bernie Sanders.

 

What, you don't believe there's a Judiciary Committee probe because you're not impressed with the source? You think this is made up? That doesn't make any sense at all.

https://www.scribd.com/document/326263616/100316-Goodlatte-Letter-to-AG-Lynch#from_embed

Or are you saying that you don't believe that the FBI has been subpoenaed because Congress has found some questionable facts about the investigation? If that's the case, you should see my last post.

 

Yeah, i think there is some truth to it but it allegedly happened when he was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton was a friend of his too

Why is this happening. Worst.election.ever

 

I didn't say I don't believe there's a Judicial Committee probe, I said nothing's going to come of it. It will all fade into oblivion. If you can't let it go then don't vote for her. Then when she's elected you can always hope she's assassinated by a disgruntled Trump supporter.

 

Apparently America's best and brightest aren't interested in political careers. And look at what we're left with.

 

They are too smart for that...

 

I don't wish to see anyone die.

And just so we're clear, you believe that the Judicial Committee is calling for the FBI to answer some unanswered questions concerning side-deals and immunity from prosecution for some players in the Clinton scandal, and you believe that Congress has subpoenaed the FBI for the purpose of discovering why they are withholding evidence and giving side-deals and immunity for some players in the Clinton email scandal, but you're not impressed with my sources. What sense does that make?

 

Large Crowd of supporters waiting for Hillary to speak:

 

I recognize the one in the front row, third from the left. It's Davey Hansen, all grown up. But they made him leave his dog, Goliath, outside. It was later discovered that some lurking Trump supporters kicked the shit out of Goliath, leaving Davey in a conundrum concerning whether to blame Clinton because her staff wouldn't allow Goliath to come in with him, or blaming Trump because his supporters have little regard for the wellbeing of Christian dogs.

 

Who would want the job to start with? Considering the problems this country and the world faces there has to be something fundamentally wrong with anyone seeking any position beyond the job of dog catcher.

 

It's the only set of answers she can make. Anything else would be a provable lie. Nobody can prove she's having memory lapses except her. And yet, people see no problem with voting for someone who admits to forgetting crucial shit. Why? Because it's Hillary's "turn" to be president? Because Hillary's a woman and we absolutely MUST "make history" NOW!!!! Or are so many willing to let an addled grandma run the country because Trump said nasty man things about women?

Not that I'm a fan of Trump mind you. I just think all these recent allegations about his big sexist mouth are too little too late. They're a distraction and hard to take seriously when the alternative is to move an actual rapist back into the white house. But again, I never said politics was in any way logical.