All Boards => Moved Hot Topics => Topic started by: wxzyw on 04 03, 16, 11:26:19:AM



Title: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 03, 16, 11:26:19:AM

Hillary: FBI Hasn't Contacted Me Yet


Sunday, April 3, 2016 10:46 AM


Hillary Clinton says FBI investigators have not yet requested an interview about her email practices at the State Department.

“No, no, they haven’t,” Clinton said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “But, you know, back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that.”

Investigators have started setting up interviews with some of Clinton’s “longtime and closest aides.” At least one report said Clinton and her top aides could be questioned by FBI officials within the next few days.

But the former secretary of state has said she maintained a private email server out of convenience, describing the decision as a “mistake” she would not repeat again.

Asked on Sunday if she was concerned the inquiry would drag into the Democratic presidential nominating convention this summer, Clinton said she was not.

“I don’t think anything inappropriate was done,” she said. “And so I have to let them decide how to resolve their security inquiry, but I’m not at all worried about it.”


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: KensanIV on 04 03, 16, 11:33:33:AM
Would not surprise me.  She has always gotten away with her lies and denial.  For some reason her supporters do not care.  They would probably vote for her even if she was in jail.

I doubt that she would really take the 5th.  She and Bill are experts in "I can't recall or I just don't remember." 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: a777pilot on 04 03, 16, 12:00:54:PM
She and Bill are experts in "I can't recall or I just don't remember."


This ^


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: takncarabizniz on 04 03, 16, 12:10:17:PM
Precisely...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 03, 16, 12:57:26:PM

She and Bill are experts in "I can't recall or I just don't remember."


She can't claim selective memory problems, if she does, then she's too mentally incapacitated to lead... look how she led her staff closest to her.

She has made too numerous public statements... and each one of those questions will be challenged.

Ie... "why did you change your claim from, I never sent classified emails" to "I there are no emails on my server marked classified"... and so forth. FBI Dir. Comey will be directly questioning her, I hear-tell he's no slouch at cornering and squeezing.

The only way 0bama stops the indictment is if Hillary either has something on 0bama OR she donated tens of millions from her foundation to his library.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: chuck_curtis on 04 03, 16, 01:05:26:PM
Only a shyster seeks the exclusive use of a private server for official, state email communications.  Of course it's convenient.  Dur.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sunshine on 04 03, 16, 02:30:46:PM
I did not have textual relations with that server.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 03, 16, 02:32:37:PM
http://therighttobear.com/Polls/hillary/?utm_source=GoogleHillaryPoll&utm_campaign=GoogleHillaryPoll2016


         
            "I was responsible for quite a lot." - Hillary Clinton


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Jim on 04 03, 16, 02:33:48:PM
 
 I don't care if she downs 2 Fifths, this lady is going to jail sober or drunk....       <tic>
 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 03, 16, 03:00:58:PM
wow, a right wing circle jerk lying about hillary with two supposed females in the mix.  well, why not?  most right wing females are more manly than wimpy right wing teabagger males anyway. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 03, 16, 03:06:03:PM

It's all in the "COVERUP"!

She should know, she tried to excoriate Nixon for his... but she was fired from the investigation team for being unethical.

OBTW: she did not have textual relations with that server. Do we know this for a fact? LOL!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 03, 16, 03:08:47:PM
no, liar.  another right wing lie.  she was never fired from any legal team investigating tricky dick.  another lie you have fallen for, dumbass.  do you have no sense of shame?  YOU HAVE NEVER POSTED ANYTHING TRUE ON THIS BOARD YET, BOY!!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 03, 16, 03:13:06:PM
Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss

Dan Calabrese’s new column on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up. Zeifman wrote at his website:

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: dont-blameme on 04 03, 16, 03:26:46:PM
What did you just claim hodaddyscott?


Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss



Dan Calabrese’s new column on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up. Zeifman wrote at his website:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hillary-fired-lies-unethical-behavior-congressional-job-former-boss (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hillary-fired-lies-unethical-behavior-congressional-job-former-boss)


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Byteryder on 04 03, 16, 03:30:44:PM
I did not have textual relations with that server.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAH..  Thats the best one I've seen in ages!!  Good shot!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Truman62 on 04 03, 16, 03:32:51:PM
"I can't recall or I just don't remember." 

Noooo, that is Ronnie Raygun's response.

Of course, if it was good enough for him, then it should be good enough for Hillary!  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Excerpts from Reagans sworn testimony:

Q. Do you recall having any discussion with Admiral Poindexter about having him try to get people together to kind of reconstruct
what had happened so that if the time came to make certain disclosure, you would have some kind of a story together? . . .

A. I don't recall. I don't recall that.

Q. Did there come a time at all when you and Admiral Poindexter met with other Administration officials or members - as well as
members of Congress and try to relate to them what had gone on?

A. I don't recall anything having to do with the Congress in that sense.

Q. Do you recall in 1986 meeting at all with Mr. Meese and asking him if he can lend a hand in straightening out the recollections
of various people?

A. No. My memory of Mr. Meese's participation was when, after all of that thing had broken, that he was the one who located a
piece of paper in some office that indicated that there was additional money. And that was - his participation was as Attorney
General in case there was something untoward that was waiting there to haunt us. And that was where I got the knowledge about
the extra money, and that is the only thing that I remember about from him.


Q. Let me ask you this question based on your role as Chief Executive of this nation, Sir. If the information that Robert McFarlane
provided to Congress in 1985 was false, contained lies, and deceived and obstructed Congress, would it still be your belief that John
Poindexter should readopt those false statements in responding to Congress on July 21, 1986?

A. Well, I simply - no, I did not have this information, but I have a great deal of confidence in the man who was quoted as sending
these letters, McFarlane. . . .

Q. I understand. But I am just asking you, as I understand it - am I correct, Mr. President, that the letter that you are looking at
there from John Poindexter dated July 21, 1986, you, yourself, actually did not approve and authorize those letters at the time that
they were sent; is that correct?

A. I have no recollection of doing so.

Q. O.K.

A. But that could be my memory. I don't remember.

Q. . . . My question to you is, Sir: If you knew that the previous information provided to Congress by Mr. McFarlane was false, would
you authorize John Poindexter to reaffirm that false information in these letters?

A. No.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/23/us/excerpts-from-reagan-s-testimony-on-the-iran-contra-affair.html?pagewanted=3


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 03, 16, 03:34:35:PM
davik, do you really think(sic) the dragon-lady will get off?  Really?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Truman62 on 04 03, 16, 06:01:01:PM
I don't know of any law that she has broken.

But Reagan did it and got away with it.
Nixon did it and got away with it.
Scooter Libby did it and got away with it.
All those Iran Contra Law Breakers got away with it.

So why does Hillary NOT get a pass?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 03, 16, 06:05:00:PM
Hillary is guilty as sin.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Jim on 04 03, 16, 06:10:55:PM
But Reagan did it and got away with it.

Did what?


Nixon did it and got away with it.
 
Ended up Impeached.
 
 
 
Scooter Libby did it and got away with it.
 
Ended up in Jail.
 
 
 
 
All those Iran Contra Law Breakers got away with it.
 
Eventually Lost their Jobs.
 
 
 
So why does Hillary NOT get a pass?
 
Why are you asking that she gets a "Pass?"

 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: chuck_curtis on 04 03, 16, 06:16:41:PM
I don't know of any law that she has broken.

So.  Lots of things that are legal are wrong, so what is that statement supposed to mean?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 03, 16, 07:10:15:PM
Hillary was not fired from any job.  you are repeating easily debunked lies from your usual right wing sources (you believe dan calabrese?  hilarious!!).  as usual.  here ya go, lying, easily played sheep...

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

But as noted above, Zeifman had no authority to "terminate" Hillary. They were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked. (That authority rested with Special Counsel John Doar and, ultimately, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.) Quite tellingly, Zeifman made absolutely no mention of having "fired" or "terminated" Hillary Rodham, nor of telling her that he "could not recommend her for any further positions," in his 1995 book; he only started claiming so much later. Back in 1995 he noted that Hillary had remained with the inquiry staff up until the end, leaving only when President Nixon's August 1974 resignation made the issue of impeachment moot and the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff was therefore disbanded:

Zeifman: Hillary was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. The next morning she took a train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. She moved in with Bill Clinton and they eventually married.

They also noted that the Washington Post's reviewer found (as we did) much of Zeifman's book to be mere repetition of speculation with little or no evidence to substantiate it:

[The book] will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

The lack of evidence makes his theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source — his diary — contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 03, 16, 08:17:51:PM
If her boss, Jerry Zeifman, says she was fired, then I will believe him anytime over you.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 03, 16, 08:20:27:PM
Hillary will have to take the fifth or say "I don't recall" to every question asked!

If she tries to mix it up and actually answer a few questions the FBI will trip her up and she will be indicted for lying to the FBI at the very least!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: KensanIV on 04 03, 16, 10:33:11:PM
HMMMMM?  Davik, Without a doubt, Reagan at that time had the beginnings of dementia.  He probably did not really recall. 

Hillary on the other hand is telling as usual an outright lie.  A shame she has never been tested. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 04, 16, 06:01:00:AM
name the lie, bitch, or go fuck yourself, you punk.  always running your huge gaping piehole without any facts to back your hummingbird ass up.  what a little bitch. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 04, 16, 06:07:43:AM
douche john proved once again he cannot read when he drooled:

If her boss, Jerry Zeifman, says she was fired, then I will believe him anytime over you.

first off, i didn't say it, the facts say it.  zeifman was never her boss, idiot.  he has admitted it in an earlier book.  yes, he did not like her.  he did not like her boss.  but he is a lying asshole who writes one thing in one book and then other shit in other books, and all of them are based on his own diary!!  that is not proof, that is a lying chickenshit trying to write books that fox and other right wingers will endorse and have him on as a guest because it lies about hillary...HE CLAIMED IN HIS SECOND BOOK SHE WANTED TO KEEP EVIDENCE, SHE LIED ABOUT THIS OR THAT, AND ALL SHE WAS IN THAT INVESTIGATION WAS AN INTERN FOR TWO OTHER BIG TIME LAWYERS!!  AND ACCORDING TO HIM, SHE WAS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO AND MAKING DECISIONS FOR THEM!!  AND YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID AND BIASED YOU BELIEVE THAT SHIT, YOU MORON. 

Hillary was not fired from any job.  you are repeating easily debunked lies from your usual right wing sources (you believe dan calabrese?  hilarious!!).  as usual.  here ya go, lying, easily played sheep...

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

But as noted above, Zeifman had no authority to "terminate" Hillary. They were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked. (That authority rested with Special Counsel John Doar and, ultimately, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.) Quite tellingly, Zeifman made absolutely no mention of having "fired" or "terminated" Hillary Rodham, nor of telling her that he "could not recommend her for any further positions," in his 1995 book; he only started claiming so much later. Back in 1995 he noted that Hillary had remained with the inquiry staff up until the end, leaving only when President Nixon's August 1974 resignation made the issue of impeachment moot and the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff was therefore disbanded:

Zeifman: Hillary was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. The next morning she took a train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. She moved in with Bill Clinton and they eventually married.

They also noted that the Washington Post's reviewer found (as we did) much of Zeifman's book to be mere repetition of speculation with little or no evidence to substantiate it:

[The book] will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

The lack of evidence makes his theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source — his diary — contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 04, 16, 07:01:42:AM
Fuck off, asshole.  All we get is more shit from scott toilet paper.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 04, 16, 07:36:02:AM
you shitstained teabaggers hate facts, douche.  admit it, and then go outside and fuck yourself. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 04, 16, 09:33:19:AM
Still fantasizing about sex with men, scott toilet paper.  Keep your fantasies to yourself.  Your doggie blow up doll might get jealous.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 04, 16, 09:45:35:AM
Even though she destroyed all the evidence by wiping the server afterward, she assured the public that everything related to her conduct of official business had been kept and turned over, as the law requires.

It turns out that this is not true. Not only did Clinton fail to turn over work-related emails, but she or her staff also edited some of those emails before submitting them.

The missing materials, which the State Department says it does not have, came to Congress by other means. They include writings about the jockeying for oil contracts in Libya after President Obama engaging in a war without congressional approval to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. This comes among her back-and-forth emails with Sidney Blumenthal, a former staffer who had been barred from employment in the Obama administration, to continue offering his insight and advice on Libya.

But the proof of intent to deceive comes in the fact that Clinton or her staff actually edited some of the emails and turned over censored versions to State before destroying her copy of the originals.

One of Clinton's emails to Blumenthal, for example, arrived at State missing a description of a telephone call she had with Libya's new president. She also tampered with Blumenthal's words in some cases. For example, she removed his admonition that "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy," and his warning that Libya could soon be ruled by Islamic law.

What was the motive for these excisions? Perhaps the motive was to spare Clinton some embarrassment, because surely she did not expect anyone to know about her reliance on Blumenthal as a source of intelligence.

There is no way to put a good face on this one: Hillary Clinton lied about her emails. She had something to hide, and she hid it. She deliberately deceived Congress, which asked for her communications on Libya, and she spoke falsely to the public.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-clinton-lied-about-her-emails/article/2567368


Comey and the FBI are not easily fooled...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 04, 16, 10:03:40:AM
Hillary and her minions feel they've won in the court of public opinion, and to her, that's all that matters.  However, she's a lawyer and she has to face the law for her misdeeds.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 04, 16, 10:14:22:AM
Republicans have been investigating the Clintons for more than 30 years and have come up with bupkis.

Now today the GOP thinks they have something on her?  The same exact "problem" that her two predecessors had?

That dog didn't hunt then, and it won't hunt now.

All the while, Republicans will demonstrate to America that they don't know how to govern.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 04, 16, 10:20:40:AM
if having a server was against the law she would already had been charged.  i know teabaggers are stupid.  i know teabaggers are easily played chumps and dickheads.  i know teabaggers like to bend over so fox can fill them up with more bullshit to believe and repeat like the gullible stooges they are- BUT CAN YOU NOT AT LEAST GRASP THAT ONE CLEAR FACT BEFORE YOU REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME?  IF HER HAVING A SERVER WAS AGAINST THE LAW SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED BY NOW.  PERIOD.  the other bullshit you believe is almost as easily debunked but until the "investigation" is concluded with no charges, which will be the obvious outcome, you clownish dickheads can try to believe the opposite. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 04, 16, 10:57:48:AM
Why do the leftwing nutjobs defend Hillary's crimes? Are they on Hillary's payroll?

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 04, 16, 11:04:16:AM
Comey and the FBI are not easily fooled...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 04, 16, 11:06:12:AM
Not easily fooled?

That is an understatement the left doesn't want to know.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 04, 16, 11:11:52:AM
Hillary already obstructed justice by wiping the server.   That was the only charge Nixon faced when he erased several minutes of his tapes.    Hillary is in deeper than that.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 04, 16, 11:16:49:AM
She also schemed and acted to deceive by having a private server (which no other Secretary of State ever had) with which she decided what information the public should know...

Comey dealt with her and her deceit before and he isn't likely to let her get away this time.

This is the election issue of our lifetime... Hillary's crows are circling the roost to land!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 04, 16, 11:34:44:AM
xyz123 says: Why do the leftwing nutjobs defend Hillary's crimes? Are they on Hillary's payroll?

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see!


What CRIMES?  Has she been charged with anything?  Where are the CRIMES?
Shirley you can come up with ONE example of her "criminal activity" where charges have been brought up against her.



She also schemed and acted to deceive by having a private server (which no other Secretary of State ever had) with which she decided what information the public should know...

Do you mean BESIDES the previous two secretaries Condi Rice and Colin Powell? They all ran private email servers too, but that's ok because they were republicans.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 04, 16, 12:08:58:PM

lefty, I'm glad you are finally seeing the light and agree with me that Hillary has committed felonies.

If you're going to lie and twist and spin someone else's posts, you should read what you're going to lie and twist and spin about, right?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 04, 16, 01:22:30:PM
The FBI, led by Director James Comey, has now finished examining Clinton’s private emails and home server. And the sources add that Comey’s FBI team has been joined by the Justice Department prosecutors. Together, they are now examining the evidence, analyzing relevant laws, and attempting to arrange interviews with key figures in the investigation.

Those interviews, according to attorneys, will include former State Department aides Philippe Reines, Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton herself.


Soon after those interviews — in the next few days and weeks — officials expect Director Comey to make his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges.


Thus, the closing chapter in a year-long FBI probe could likely end in the FBI’s “recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges.” With Bryan Pagliano’s immunity deal and interviews of Clinton and her associates scheduled at the end of the investigation, criminal indictments seem imminent.


Get ready for a Bernie Sanders nomination and presidency, since Sanders beats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton. I explain in the following appearance on CNN International that Clinton faces FBI indictment, and in another CNN International appearance that Bernie Sanders is the best hope against Donald Trump.


For Democrats to search anywhere else other than Bernie Sanders, if Clinton eventually faces criminal indictment, would be yet another criminal act by the establishment.


Also, remember that President Obama benefits just as much from potential FBI and DOJ indictments.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/fbis-interview-clinton-save-obamas-legacy-nominate-sanders_b_9589334.html


cont...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 04, 16, 01:26:21:PM
Without a clear resolution to this FBI investigation, President Obama’s legacy might eventually be linked to the future political and national security repercussions (stolen intelligence hacked (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5ad0f6bb57eb487f84e98fe9a74a08b1/clinton-subject-hack-attempts-china-korea-germany) by foreign nations, etc.) of Clinton’s private server. As of now, the Affordable Care Act and other achievements have been the hallmarks of his years in the Oval Office, but the longer this controversy persists (without a clear delineation between Obama and Clinton), the greater the likelihood that someone in the president’s administration will be lured into the political storm.

If any of the 22 Top Secret  (http://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464811045/as-iowa-caucuses-near-clinton-email-probe-persists)emails on Clinton’s private server were sent to the Oval Office, then the president, or a member of his inner circle, could quickly become part of the FBI’s investigation. Furthermore, if any of the more than 1,200 classified emails (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/state-dept-to-miss-target-in-clinton-email-release-217255) on Clinton’s server were sent to President Obama, or officials within his administration, then this story would continue to cause headlines.


In January, The Huffington Post stated (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-emails-top-secret_us_56abc28fe4b00b033aaf0c6d) “The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails that contained material requiring one of the highest levels of classification.”

As of now, the president has evaded any direct connection to the controversy. However, POLITICO  (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-classified-release-215359)wrote in October that “President Barack Obama found himself drawn into Hillary Clinton’s email controversy Friday as the White House acknowledged the State Department is withholding a set of messages Obama and Clinton exchanged during her four years as secretary of state.”


The president could easily find himself “drawn into Hillary Clinton’s email controversy” once again, especially because the nature of the scandal revolves around classified data on an unguarded private server. This dilemma is highlighted in an AP article (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9160a25f39e14507ab90c977d300dc8b/6000-more-pages-clinton-emails-be-published-wednesday) titled Emails: Russia-linked hackers tried to access Clinton server:




WASHINGTON (AP) — Russia-linked hackers tried at least five times to pry into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account while she was secretary of state, emails released Wednesday show.



Is there any way that these hackers would have stopped at only five attempts? Furthermore, Clinton’s server faced hacking attempts from China, Germany, and other nations (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5ad0f6bb57eb487f84e98fe9a74a08b1/clinton-subject-hack-attempts-china-korea-germany).

Since former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates already thinks Iran, China, or Russia (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266674-former-defense-secretary-says-clinton-server-may-have-been-compromised) have possession of Clinton’s emails, then Obama’s legacy on foreign policy could already have a well-publicized blemish.


If, for example, any of today’s threats or national security hurdles is linked in any way to Clinton’s security breach (let’s say one of 22 the Top Secret emails being withheld  (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/)by the State Department pertained to Putin and Syria), then Obama’s administration is the next in line to take the blame.

cont...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 04, 16, 01:31:01:PM
Again, if Clinton did nothing wrong storing Top Secret emails on her private server, then the American public should be able to view these emails. We are not able to see any of this intelligence, especially since CNN states (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/) State Department will not release 22 ‘top secret’ Clinton emails.


It’s not a stretch of the imagination to say that Clinton broke at least one law pertaining to the storing of classified information by a government official. There are already eight laws  (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)that could have been broken, and Americans still don’t know the extent of the FBI’s investigation.


If the FBI fails to indict Hillary Clinton, then the public, as well as the intelligence community, will start pointing fingers.


When NPR publishes a headline (http://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464811045/as-iowa-caucuses-near-clinton-email-probe-persists) titled 22 Hillary Clinton Emails Dubbed Top Secret, it’s difficult to claim negligence, or over-classification.

NPR also writes (http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465688707/hillary-clintons-emails-5-questions-answered) that “She did, however, sign paperwork at the State Department that said she understood that information could be classified even if it weren’t marked that way.” Therefore, there’s no way Clinton can circumvent responsibility, legally, from at least acknowledging that Top Secret intelligence should never have been anywhere other than government servers.


Richard Nixon’s Watergate gave us a glimpse into the mind of a politician obsessed with secrecy, power, and political containment. On the subject of political containment, and its morality, Nixon once made the following statement (http://lybio.net/tag/richard-nixon-interview-with-david-frost-transcription/):

My motive was pure political containment, and political containment is not a corrupt motive.




We saw with Watergate that containment leads to cover-ups, and cover-ups implicate presidents. In politics, political containment can be linked not only to one person, but to many people. This fact alone highlights why a Clinton indictment would benefit the Obama administration.

The most damaging aspect of Clinton’s email server is the fact most Americans believe that if they were in Clinton’s shoes, they’d already be in jail. There’s a widespread viewpoint that Hillary Clinton is above the law, and this mentality has spread to Democrats as well as Republicans. I explain in this CNN New Day (https://www.facebook.com/hagoodman.journalist/posts/219016788450444?notif_t=like) appearance why Hillary Clinton’s actions epitomize white privilege.

Thus, in 2016, Bernie Sanders will have the Democratic nomination handed to him by the FBI, despite a DNC beholden to Hillary Clinton and her political allies.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/fbis-interview-clinton-save-obamas-legacy-nominate-sanders_b_9589334.html



Published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon, The Jerusalem Post


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 04, 16, 01:44:47:PM

What the left doesn't want to accept is that Bryan Pagliano's "Immunity" was granted by a Federal Judge after criminal evidence in Hillary's case was presented!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Jw2 on 04 04, 16, 01:52:59:PM
poor kenyan, incapable of understanding much of anything...

kenyan: Would not surprise me. - only facts and the truth actually surprises you.




She has always gotten away with her lies and denial. - How about presenting a list?  Be specific.  One, two or three instances would do it.




For some reason her supporters do not care.  -   so says you.  you don't seem to care that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Iraq War conspirators plunged the nation into an unnecessary, illegal (unconstitutional) invasion of another sovereign nation. 




They would probably vote for her even if she was in jail.    more ignorant right wing hyperbole

I doubt that she would really take the 5th.  She and Bill are experts in "I can't recall or I just don't remember."  -  Like Bush and Cheney were when they were interviews by the 9/11 Commission?




poor kenyan...ain't got nothing despite all your rhetoric.  the sign of a loser.







Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 04, 16, 01:55:52:PM
Also, remember that President Obama benefits just as much from potential FBI and DOJ indictments.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/fbis-interview-clinton-save-obamas-legacy-nominate-sanders_b_9589334.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/fbis-interview-clinton-save-obamas-legacy-nominate-sanders_b_9589334.html)


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 04, 16, 03:11:36:PM
lefty, I'm glad you are finally seeing the light and agree with me that Hillary has committed felonies..

No, I'm not.  You seem to have some pretty pathetic comprehension skills!

You claim she has multiple felonies. I'm asking you to produce ONE actual piece of evidence that she committed ANY crime at all.  Where is an arrest record? Where has there been any convictions of any sort? Where has she received any judgments against her?

Just because you wish and want to believe that she is guilty of committing felonies, it doesn't make it factual in the real world.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 04, 16, 03:14:06:PM
Child we have been providing you and all liberals here plenty of evidence but you turn a blind eye to it!

Hillary is guilty of mishandling classified information, fraud, theft, perjury, etc.!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 04, 16, 07:03:08:PM

keep-left gets confused at times.

You may to ask if he/she is high before answering him... he has comprehension problems seeing the reported facts in Hillary's case, as criminal.

The main felony... Hillary failed to secure and keep secure classified and top secret information. Espionage is something difficult for leftists to comprehend, it involves treason.... as we know  the left thinks they deserve medals for treason instead of prison.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: KensanIV on 04 04, 16, 09:57:00:PM
JW2, You are beginning to sound like a clone to Wvit, expecting everyone to prove ever word of obvious charges... There is NOT ROOM on this board to list all of the things that the Clintons have gotten AWAY WITH SINCE WHITEWATER AND THE BILLING RECORDS. 

To quote GWB... You can use the Googles.  Look it up or shut up!!!!

We are telling you that THE CLINTON'S have gotten away with the same shit for years... And it is time that it ends.   The dame should not be allowed to be in the same Zip code as the WH.. must less be elected to live there. Both of them and perhaps all 3 should be tried in a court of law... and I hope to God I am on the jury.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 04, 16, 10:21:47:PM
DeeDeeDee says: Child we have been providing you and all liberals here plenty of evidence but you turn a blind eye to it!

Hillary is guilty of mishandling classified information, fraud, theft, perjury, etc.!


You have presented NOTHING!
ALSO, it is not possible to take a document, classify if AFTER THE FACT and then claim that is was classified!
You've got nothing, else she would have been arrested at some point already.

Same goes for your buddy xyz. "Reported facts"? WTF does that mean?  How about some reported PROOF?

(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b179/norcalsketch/deedeedee.gif)


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 04, 16, 10:31:06:PM

Same goes for your buddy xyz. "Reported facts"? WTF does that mean?  How about some reported PROOF?


PROOF eludes you as much as intelligence does.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/major-court-ruling-clinton-emails/


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 04, 16, 10:36:44:PM
A lot of accusations there.  Not much in empirical evidence.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 05, 16, 02:16:03:AM
Keep responds with nothing but mindless puerile invective and denial!


Title: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: BOBRI123 on 04 05, 16, 08:29:19:AM
The Fifth ?

She has a Quart every Day before Breakfast Wild Turkey I hear !



BOB   RI    123


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 05, 16, 01:01:23:PM
you half witted slugs are actually worried about emails?  not classified emails, just emails?  why?  you don't give a fuck about torture, about senseless lying wars, don't care if trump says we should track down and kill the wives and children of ISIS members and bring back torture, including waterboarding AND WORSE....and make muslims here wear special IDs....but you care about how non-classified emails were read or written?  HOW ARE YOU SO STUPID YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT SOMETHING SO TICKY TACK?  and say something about it may not be illegal but it is wrong, wrong I say...WHAT IS?  READING EMAILS?  why do you think there is something wrong about emails? if they are not classified, which they were not, THEN WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT NON-CLASSIFIED EMAILS?

and her private email and even the open internet state.gov email account ARE NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR ANY CLASSIFIED EMAILS OR INFO...DUH...she had an exclusive closed super secure email account for ALL, 100%, OF ANY AND ALL CLASSIFED EMAILS AND INFO.  DUH.

There are restrictions on how classified documents can be shipped. Top Secret material must go by special courier. Secret material can be sent within the U.S. via registered mail, and Confidential material by certified mail. Electronic transmission of classified information largely requires the use of National Security Agency approved/certified "Type 1" cryptosystems utilizing NSA's unpublished and classified Suite A algorithms. The classification of the Suite A algorithms categorizes the hardware that store them as a Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI) under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. CCI equipment and keying material must be controlled and stored with heightened physical security, even when the device is not processing classified information or contain a cryptographic key. NSA is currently moving towards implementing what it's calling Suite B which is a group of commercial algorithms such as Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA), Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman (ECDH). Suite B provides protection for data up to Top Secret on non-CCI devices. This is especially useful in high risk environments or operations needed to prevent Suite A compromise. These less stringent hardware requirements stem from the device not having to "protect" classified Suite A algorithms.

Specialized computer operating systems known as trusted operating systems are available for processing classified information. These enforce the classification and labeling rules described above in software. However, as of 2005, they are not considered secure enough to allow uncleared users to share computers with classified activities. So if one creates an unclassified document on a secret device, the resultant data is classified secret until it can be manually reviewed. Computer networks for sharing classified information are segregated by the highest sensitivity level they are allowed to transmit, for example, SIPRNet (Secret) and JWICS (Top Secret-SCI).

 "NSA Suite B Cryptography – NSA/CSS". Nsa.gov. Retrieved 2013-07-04.

THE MOST PERTINENT FACT FROM THIS ARTICLE-


How did Clinton receive and consume classified information?


The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.


A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Truman62 on 04 05, 16, 01:16:28:PM
How can she be convicted of anything when no laws were broken?

Why would she take the fifth, when no laws were broken?

Why are we even talking, you have no evidence of foul play...

You guys are in some fantasy land.

Wait... a... minute... are you OFF your dementia meds?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 05, 16, 02:12:34:PM
How can she be convicted of anything when no laws were broken?

The FBI is investigating Hillary for the sheer fun of it.  Idiot.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 05, 16, 06:30:48:PM
I have repeatedly listed the violations of law Hillary has committed!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 05, 16, 07:09:36:PM

The FBI is investigating Hillary for the sheer fun of it.  Idiot.


Congressional republicans via the FBI have been investigating the Clintons for more than 30 years.
There can be no other reason than investigating them "for the sheer fun of it."  Idiot.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 05, 16, 07:12:18:PM
Really?

Now you are saying the FBI conducts in politically motivated investigations?

Are you away the FBI is part of the Executive branch of government and under the command of the chief of that branch, Obama?

Do you now realize how stupid your comment was?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 05, 16, 07:19:13:PM
D2D, it is unlikely a leftie will ever realize how stupid they sound.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 05, 16, 08:34:37:PM

Really?

Now you are saying the FBI conducts in politically motivated investigations?

Are you away the FBI is part of the Executive branch of government and under the command of the chief of that branch, Obama?

Do you now realize how stupid your comment was?


Really? To YOU!
WTF are you talking about?  Who do you think does the investigations that congress orders?  Such as GOP congressional committees?

Besides, I knew an FBI agent who had to go to Little Rock all the time to investigate Whitewater DURING the time Clinton was in office.

Damn! It sure was a waste of perfectly good cement by using it to fill your head!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 05, 16, 10:33:56:PM
Child the Congress cannot order the FBI to do anything!

Don't you know what separation or powers and the three separate branches of government are for or do?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 06, 16, 07:01:49:AM
The FBI was called into investigate security questions concerning State Department emails of Clinton, Powell and Condi, and their email system in general at the request of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee, who was responding to testimony delivered in one of the 28,325 republican investigations into Benghazi.  Here is what the Inspector General said in his official announcement of the investigation:

July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails
Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a
congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG
support to the State Department IG (attached).
The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security
officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security
officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive
that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The
IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to
the appropriate IC security officials.


https://oig.state.gov/whats-new/9811


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:03:52:AM
Child the Congress cannot order the FBI to do anything!

Don't you know what separation or powers and the three separate branches of government are for or do?

Why are you so ignorant of the Constitution?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 06, 16, 08:52:29:AM
child, go play with yourself.  read what i said.  i never claimed congress told the FBI to do anything.  why are you focusing on such an irrelevant point anyway?

II. Legislative Control and Supervision -- General Observations
 In the U.S., the legislative control and supervision function does not reside only
in one committee. In each chamber, there are three committees that have some
responsibility for FBI oversight. There is some rivalry among these committees, but that
can be a good thing.
 (1) The Judiciary Committees in each chamber write the federal criminal statutes.
They define the rules for intrusive techniques such as wiretapping. They could change
the structure of the FBI or the Justice Department. They could also participate in setting
the budget of the FBI, although they have not exercised that power.
 (2) The Appropriations Committees set the budget for the FBI, and can use the
power of the purse to control what the FBI does.

 (3) The Intelligence Committees oversee the foreign counterintelligence activities
of the FBI. These are the activities of the FBI within the United States directed against
the intelligence activities of foreign governments and international terrorist
organizations.
 Under the U.S. system, there are three key principles of legislative control and
supervision: (1) The Congressional committees responsible for supervision are entitled
to complete access to information from the FBI, with only very narrow exceptions in
practice. (2) The committees, and individual members of the committees, have
opportunities to expose illegal or inappropriate behavior by the agencies. (3) The
legislature defines the missions and authorities of the FBI by statute and by control over
its budget. The FBI cannot operate except pursuant to a Congressional grant of
authority and funding.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/criminal-justice/fbi.pdf


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Jw2 on 04 06, 16, 09:14:58:AM
the right wing is so upset at losing...

by now, I thought youse people would get used to it.


face the facts ... there will be no indictment of Secretary Clinton.


your people had 8 - count them EIGHT - Congressional hearings.  One included 11 hours of televised live personal testimony from Secretary Clinton.  Any your people got NOTHING.

Which is what they keep promising you, nothing.

And they keep delivering you nothing.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 09:22:44:AM
Jw2 is proud America has lost the rule of law!

Proud connected criminals are above the law!

Jw2 wants America to be just another banana republic!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 06, 16, 09:59:09:AM
Hillary already obstructed justice by wiping the server.   That was the only charge Nixon faced when he erased several minutes of his tapes.    Hillary is in deeper than that.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 10:05:13:AM
Not to mention Hillary is guilty of theft of Government services!

She use government employees, on government hours, with government property to run her foundation!

She could be going away for a very long time!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wvit1001 on 04 06, 16, 10:25:01:AM
Dream on d2, it's all you're good at.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 10:25:53:AM
Her emails prove it!

She incriminated herself!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wvit1001 on 04 06, 16, 10:30:15:AM
Proves what?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: keep-left on 04 06, 16, 11:19:36:AM

Proves what?


Evidently... NOTHING!

Which is all that the rabid right usually has.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 06, 16, 11:35:19:AM
Hillary already obstructed justice by wiping the server.&nbsp;&nbsp; That was the only charge Nixon faced when he erased several minutes of his tapes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hillary is in deeper than that.


jerkwater doesn't even know what happened in watergate!!  he was not charged with erasing 18 minutes of tape, you idiot.  do you think even teabaggers would impeach a president for that?  besides, his secretary took the fall for that, Mrs. Woods, I believe. 

here ya go, clueless assclown:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 06, 16, 12:01:35:PM

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

On August 5, 1974, the long sought after audio tapes provided the "smoking  gun" which revealed President Nixon had been deeply involved in the coverup.

That revelation resulted in a complete collapse of support for Nixon in Congress. On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 06:52:13:PM
Citing indications of wrongdoing and bad faith, a federal judge has overruled government objections by declaring that a conservative group is entitled to more details about how Hillary Clinton's private email account was integrated into the State Department recordkeeping system and why it was not searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000153-c30e-d9f0-a173-f7efb4660000) Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012.
Lamberth is the second federal judge handling a Clinton email-related case to agree to discovery, which is unusual in FOIA litigation. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Judicial Watch the go-ahead (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-staff-questioned-email-219678) to pursue depositions of Clinton aides in a lawsuit for records about former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.
"Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases," Lamberth wrote in a three-page order. The judge noted that State argues it had no legal duty to search Clinton's emails when Judicial Watch's request arrived because her emails were not in the agency's possession and control at that time. It was not until December 2014 that Clinton turned over a portion of her email archive to State at the agency's request.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338)


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 06:54:38:PM
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 276 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772/) of internal State Department documents revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”  The meeting between the Libyan president and Bill Clinton had not previously been disclosed.  The documents also show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.
The Judicial Watch documents were obtained as a result of a federal court order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-court-order-00772/) in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dos-hillary-ethics-compliance-00772/) (No. 1:13-cv-00772)).
In September 13, 2012 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/), al-Magariaf advisor Dr. Fathi Nuah (http://www.abf.ba/medbasin/dr-fathi-nuah) wrote to the Clinton Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Amitabh Desai:  “Dr. Almagariaf will be addressing the United Nations this September in New York as the Libyan Head of State, and he expressed a wish to meet President Clinton and to participate at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting for New York as well.”
Four hours later, Desai emailed (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/) Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills asking, “Would USG [U.S. Government] have concerns about Libyan President being invited to CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]? Odd timing, I know.” Mills emailed back: “We would not have issues.”
Four days later, on September 17, Desai emailed (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/) Mills again, saying, The Libyan president is “asking for a meeting with WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] next week.” Desai asked, “Would you recommend accepting or declining the WJC meeting request?”
The State Department apparently had no objection to the meeting, because on September 26, Desai emailed Mills (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-36/), “He had a v good meeting with Libya …” Hillary Clinton and al-Magariaf did not have a meeting (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2012/09/197194.htm) until September 24.
An August 2009 email chain (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/) including Hillary Clinton’s then- Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”  Mills asks Desai for a “list of commitments during whole session so she can reference more than those just around her speech.”
Caitlin Klevorick (https://www.linkedin.com/in/cklevorick), Senior Advisor to the Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State who previously worked (https://www.propublica.org/article/state-department-finally-releases-list-of-special-government-employees) at the Foundation, notes (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/):  “one question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”
The State Department material includes background information made by Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries.  Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 06:55:24:PM
The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech (http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/09/129644.htm) on the State Department Internet site confirms that then-Secretary of State did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:

And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI [Clinton Global Initiative].  I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons.  (Applause.)  And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world.

The documents also point to a chain of emails (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-34-35/) that show Haim Saban, a top Clinton donor, sought to entice Bill Clinton into to travelling to Damascus in 2009 to meet with a high-level Syrian delegation. The meetings were part of the Saban Forum. Evidently, the trip never took place.
As previously reported (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-sought-state-department-paid-speeches-related/story?id=33369277), a June 2012 email chain (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-14-17/) discusses a “firm invitation for President Clinton” to speak at a Congo conference, hosted in part by the controversial Joseph Kabila (http://www.newsweek.com/dr-congo-how-do-you-solve-problem-kabila-428152). Bill Clinton is offered $650,000 in fees and expenses, concerning which, as Desai emails Mills and others, “WJC wants to know that state [sic] thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation.”
This lawsuit had previously forced (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-conflict-of-interest/) the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-approved-215-bill-clinton-speeches-controversial-consulting-deal-worth-48m/article/2551428) that led to at least $48 million in speaking fees for the Clintons during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-reveal-concern-about-bill-clintons-activities-with-saudi-entities/), China and Iran, among others (https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-state-department-documents-raise-more-questions-on-clinton-conflict-of-interest-reviews/).
Judicial Watch’s litigation to obtain these conflict of interest records is ongoing.  The State Department has also yet to explain why it failed to conduct a proper, timely search in the 20 months between when it received Judicial Watch’s request on May 2, 2011, and the February 1, 2013, date Secretary Clinton left office.
“These new State Department documents show Hillary Clinton and her State aides were involved in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation.  It is also incredible that the Libyan president would call and meet Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation before meeting Hillary Clinton about Benghazi,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hand in glove with the Clinton Foundation on fundraising and foreign policy.  Despite the law and her promises to the contrary, Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into the DC office of the Clinton Foundation.”
Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit has become particularly noteworthy because it has been reported that the Clinton Foundation, now known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, accepted millions of dollars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-reveals-up-to-26million-in-additional-payments/2015/05/21/e49da740-0009-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html) from at least seven foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State.  The Clinton Foundation has acknowledged that a $500,000 donation it received from the government of Algeria while Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State violated a 2008 ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration.  Some of the foreign governments that have made donations to the Clinton Foundation include Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman, have questionable human rights records.
Links to the full production of documents can be found here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/research/clinton-archive/).
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-documents-raise-questions-on-benghazi-clinton-foundation/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20-%20Template%202%20%2814%29&utm_content= (http://javascript:void(0))


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 06:56:37:PM
Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.
Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks, all but guaranteeing that the investigation will continue to dog Clinton’s presidential campaign through most, if not all, of the remaining presidential primaries.
No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.
The interviews by FBI agents and prosecutors will play a significant role in helping them better understand whether Clinton or her aides knowingly or negligently discussed classified government secrets over a non-secure email system when she served as secretary of State.
The meetings also are an indication that much of the investigators' background work – recovering deleted emails, understanding how the server operated and determining whether it was breached – is nearing completion.
“The interviews are critical to understand the volume of information they have accumulated,” said James McJunkin, former head of the FBI's Washington field office.  “They are likely nearing the end of the investigation and the agents need to interview these people to put the information in context. They will then spend time aligning these statements with other information, emails, classified documents, etc., to determine whether there is a prosecutable case."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html)


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 06:58:22:PM
Judicial Watch Reveals More Benghazi, Clinton Foundation Corruption
This has been an important week in our continuing investigation of Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.  We are uncovering critical links between her official duties and the private interests of her family’s foundation.
The 276 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772/) of internal State Department documents we released this week reveal that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”
The meeting had not previously been disclosed.
The documents also show that Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.
We obtained those documents as a result of a federal court order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-court-order-00772/) in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dos-hillary-ethics-compliance-00772/) (No. 1:13-cv-00772)).
Here’s the incredible back story:
In September 13, 2012 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/), al-Magariaf advisor Dr. Fathi Nuah (http://www.abf.ba/medbasin/dr-fathi-nuah) wrote to the Clinton Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Amitabh Desai:

“Dr. Almagariaf will be addressing the United Nations this September in New York as the Libyan Head of State, and he expressed a wish to meet President Clinton and to participate at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting for New York as well.”

Four hours later, Desai emailed (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/) Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills asking,

“Would USG [U.S. Government] have concerns about Libyan President being invited to CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]? Odd timing, I know.” Mills emailed back: “We would not have issues.”

Four days later, on September 17, Desai emailed (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/) Mills again, saying,

“The Libyan president is “asking for a meeting with WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] next week.” Desai asked, “Would you recommend accepting or declining the WJC meeting request?”


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 06:58:49:PM
The State Department apparently had no objection to the meeting, because on September 26, Desai emailed Mills (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-36/), “He had a v good meeting with Libya …” Hillary Clinton and al-Magariaf did not have a meeting (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2012/09/197194.htm) until September 24. .
Don’t you find it incredible that the Libyan president would call and meet Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation before meeting Hillary Clinton about Benghazi!
The illicit partnership between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and her family foundation extended even to fundraising.
An August 2009 email chain (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/) including Hillary Clinton’s then-Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, and then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton was to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”
Caitlin Klevorick (https://www.linkedin.com/in/cklevorick), senior advisor to the counselor and chief of staff to the secretary of state who previously worked (https://www.propublica.org/article/state-department-finally-releases-list-of-special-government-employees) at the Foundation, notes (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/): “One question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”
The State Department material includes background information about Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries.  Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.
The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech (http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/09/129644.htm) on the State Department Internet site confirms that the then-secretary of state did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:

And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI [Clinton Global Initiative].  I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons.  (Applause.)  And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 06:59:30:PM
As previously reported (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-sought-state-department-paid-speeches-related/story?id=33369277) elsewhere, a June 2012 email chain (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-14-17/) discusses a “firm invitation for President Clinton” to speak at a Congo conference, hosted in part by the controversial Joseph Kabila (http://www.newsweek.com/dr-congo-how-do-you-solve-problem-kabila-428152), president of that nation. Bill Clinton is offered $650,000 in fees and expenses, concerning which, as Desai emails Mills and others, “WJC wants to know that state [sic] thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation.”
This questionable activity is part of a pattern.
Our lawsuit had previously forced (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-conflict-of-interest/) the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-approved-215-bill-clinton-speeches-controversial-consulting-deal-worth-48m/article/2551428) that led to at least $48 million in speaking fees for the Clintons during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-reveal-concern-about-bill-clintons-activities-with-saudi-entities/), China and Iran, among others (https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-state-department-documents-raise-more-questions-on-clinton-conflict-of-interest-reviews/).
We are continuing our litigation to obtain these conflict of interest records. The State Department has yet to explain why it failed to conduct a proper, timely search in the 20 months between when it received our request on May 2, 2011, and the February 1, 2013, date that Clinton left office.
Here’s why this is important.
Hillary Clinton and her State Department aides were involved in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hand in glove with the Clinton Foundation on fundraising and foreign policy. Despite the law and her promises to the contrary, she turned the State Department into the DC office of the Clinton Foundation.

Our lawsuit has become particularly noteworthy because it has been reported that the Clinton Foundation, now known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, accepted millions of dollars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-reveals-up-to-26million-in-additional-payments/2015/05/21/e49da740-0009-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html) from at least seven foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state.
The Foundation has acknowledged that a $500,000 donation it received from the government of Algeria while Mrs. Clinton was in office violated a 2008 ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration. Some of the foreign governments that have made donations to the Clinton Foundation – Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman – have questionable human rights records.
The public reaction to these latest JW findings was one of outrage.  As one opinion writer at The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/23/deceit-and-power-work-in-hillary-clintons-favor/) observed:

And, Clinton’s State Department was apparently coordinating meetings for Bill Clinton with foreign heads of state.  If any other employee at the State Department had arranged such meetings for their spouse and actively thanked contributors to their spouse’s foundation, they would likely go to jail. No lawyer would even let it go to trial, because the sentencing guidelines would guarantee years behind bars.  Another way to think about what was going on is to imagine that another country’s foreign minister’s spouse or family ran a foundation that American companies were caught giving to. Those American companies would certainly be vulnerable to prosecution by the Justice Department under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
It’s only because Hillary’s last name is Clinton and because she is the Democratic front-runner for president that she isn’t already being prosecuted for something or another. For anyone else at the State Department, their conviction and sentencing would produce only a matter-of-fact, back-page reference in The Washington Post.
You can find the full set of documents here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/research/clinton-archive/).

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-foundation-corruption-news/ (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-foundation-corruption-news/)


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:01:00:PM
https://www.youtube.com/v/TeIyCVEjv_Q


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:01:46:PM
https://www.youtube.com/v/svRJ_3pEx78


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:04:27:PM
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 276 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772/) of internal State Department documents revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”  The meeting between the Libyan president and Bill Clinton had not previously been disclosed.  The documents also show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.
The Judicial Watch documents were obtained as a result of a federal court order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-court-order-00772/) in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dos-hillary-ethics-compliance-00772/) (No. 1:13-cv-00772)).
In September 13, 2012 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/), al-Magariaf advisor Dr. Fathi Nuah (http://www.abf.ba/medbasin/dr-fathi-nuah) wrote to the Clinton Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Amitabh Desai:  “Dr. Almagariaf will be addressing the United Nations this September in New York as the Libyan Head of State, and he expressed a wish to meet President Clinton and to participate at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting for New York as well.”
Four hours later, Desai emailed (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/) Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills asking, “Would USG [U.S. Government] have concerns about Libyan President being invited to CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]? Odd timing, I know.” Mills emailed back: “We would not have issues.”
Four days later, on September 17, Desai emailed (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-37-38/) Mills again, saying, The Libyan president is “asking for a meeting with WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] next week.” Desai asked, “Would you recommend accepting or declining the WJC meeting request?”
The State Department apparently had no objection to the meeting, because on September 26, Desai emailed Mills (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-36/), “He had a v good meeting with Libya …” Hillary Clinton and al-Magariaf did not have a meeting (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2012/09/197194.htm) until September 24.
                                                                              
               


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:05:13:PM
An August 2009 email chain (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/) including Hillary Clinton’s then- Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”  Mills asks Desai for a “list of commitments during whole session so she can reference more than those just around her speech.”
Caitlin Klevorick (https://www.linkedin.com/in/cklevorick), Senior Advisor to the Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State who previously worked (https://www.propublica.org/article/state-department-finally-releases-list-of-special-government-employees) at the Foundation, notes (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/):  “one question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”
The State Department material includes background information made by Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries.  Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.
The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech (http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/09/129644.htm) on the State Department Internet site confirms that then-Secretary of State did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:

And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI [Clinton Global Initiative].  I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons.  (Applause.)  And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-documents-raise-questions-on-benghazi-clinton-foundation/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20-%20Template%202%20%2814%29&utm_content= (http://javascript:void(0))

Proving Hillary used government funds and government personnel for her private benefit!

That is fraud and theft!

A new scandal is born!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:07:08:PM
Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today filed a plan for “narrowly tailored discovery (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hillary-email-discovery-01363/)” into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email matter with a federal court.  Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano, and Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department:  Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.  Judicial Watch’s plan says that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary” but would only occur with permission by the Court.
During a court hearing (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-transcript-01363/) on February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-order-discovery-01363/) Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-56-d-motion-01363-2/) into whether the State Department and Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years.  The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit (https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/citing-misconduct-and-misrepresentation-by-hillary-clinton-and-state-department-judicial-watch-asks-federal-court-to-reopen-lawsuit-seeking-information-on-top-clinton-aide-huma-abedin/) that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened (https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-aide-huma-abedin/) because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/huma-employment/) (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
Judicial Watch seeks testimony from:

Stephen D. Mull (Executive Secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012 and suggested that Mrs. Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests);
Lewis A. Lukens (Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011 and emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Smith about setting up a computer for Mrs. Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account);
Patrick F. Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management since 2007 and the Secretary’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services);
Donald R. Reid (Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003 and was involved in early discussions about Mrs. Clinton using her BlackBerry and other devices to conduct official State Department business);
30(b)(6) deposition(s) of Defendant [designated witness(es) for the State Department] regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Plaintiff’s FOIA request, for emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin both during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and after;
Cheryl D. Mills (Mrs. Clinton’s Chief of Staff throughout her four years as Secretary of State);
Huma Abedin (Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years as Secretary of State and also had an email account on clintonemail.com); and
Bryan Pagliano (State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State four years as secretary).


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:07:43:PM
With respect to testimony of Clinton, the Judicial Watch court filing states:

Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.  If [Judicial Watch] believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time.

Judicial Watch also seeks court approval of written questions requiring answers under oath by the State Department:

Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office of the Secretary;
Who was responsible for the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails, records, and information;
Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff’s FOIA request from the date of submission to the present; and
Which State Department officials and employees had and/or used an account on the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business.

Judicial Watch also seeks testimony from a 30 (b)(6) witness or witnesses who can provide testimony on behalf of the State Department on the following issues:

the creation or establishment of the clintonemail.com system as well as any maintenance, service, or support provided by the State Department of that system;
the knowledge or awareness of State Department officials and employees about the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system;
any instructions or directions given to State Department officials and employees about communicating with Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin via email;
any inquiries into Mrs. Clinton’s use of the clintonemail.com system as well as any discussions about responding to such inquiries or publicly revealing the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system to the public; and
the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s email upon their departure from the State Department.

The Judicial Watch plan requests only eight weeks to conduct the requested depositions.  Judge Sullivan will rule on Judicial Watch’s proposed discovery plan after April 15.
“This discovery will help Judicial Watch get all of the facts behind Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama State Department’s thwarting of FOIA so that the public can be sure that all of the emails from her illicit email system are reviewed and released to the public as the law requires,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-presents-federal-court-with-proposed-witness-list-discovery-plan-in-clinton-email-matter/ (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-presents-federal-court-with-proposed-witness-list-discovery-plan-in-clinton-email-matter/)
                                                                              
               


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:13:03:PM
The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (LCPGV), a handful of San Francisco-based lawyers who draft gun control legislation for anti-gun politicians, has added its voice to Hillary Clinton’s perverse campaign against law enforcement officers and the criminal justice system. Like Clinton, the anti-gun group is trying to gain the support of far-left-of-center voters who increasingly constitute their respective political bases.
In a new document (http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Healing-Communities-in-Crisis.pdf) that essentially contends that inner city criminals are victims of society’s neglect—it takes a village, Clinton might say—LCPGV says “gang members, thugs, or predators” should henceforth be referred to as “clients, individuals, and fellow community members—terms that convey a sense of dignity, respect and belonging.” Similarly, it says that gangs—such as the Crips, the Bloods, MS-13, and the Aryan Brotherhood—should be referred to as “groups.” Lost upon LCPGV, apparently, is that such an ambiguation would add new meaning to “anti-gun group,” the generic term long used for activist organizations that promote gun control.
While LCPGV is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the pro-criminal campaign, Clinton has been at it for nearly a year. Last April, in a speech at Columbia University, Clinton decried (http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-gave-a-major-speech-on-racial-discrimination-2015-4) what she called the “unmistakable and undeniable” pattern of deaths of criminal suspects at the hands of police officers. In January, at the Democratic Foundation Forum, Clinton said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv2ZtOSXP2w) (at 1:37:15) “when you have police violence that terrorizes communities, that doesn’t show the respect that you’re supposed to have from (sic) protecting people in your authority, that can feel also (sic) terrorizing.”
A week later, during a Democratic Party presidential debate, Clinton said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bcFqc0Vr3Y) (at 13:34), “There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. And that requires a very clear agenda for retraining police officers.” On her website, Clinton says (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/) that if she’s elected president, she will “end the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory minimum sentences, and end private prisons.” A clear insult to law enforcement officers, Clinton calls for “transformational reform” of police departments. And to reward people who commit crimes repeatedly, she calls for “reducing the mandatory penalty for second- and third-strike offenses.”


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:13:35:PM
In addition to coddling criminals, LCPGV’s new manifesto recommends 10 gun control restrictions, many of which are also supported by Clinton, including:
  • “Universal background checks,” a step toward gun registration
  • “Permit to purchase and gun licensing,” which gun control supporters have previously said shouldn’t be available to people who want guns for self-defense
  • “Minimum age restrictions,” usually meaning limiting handguns to people at least age 21
  • “Prohibiting ‘junk guns,’” previously defined to mean all concealable handguns
  • “Better regulating firearms dealers to reduce gun trafficking,” including the videotaping of customers buying guns
  • “Limiting bulk purchases of handguns,” meaning a 30-day waiting period between handgun purchases and/or a limit to two handguns per year
  • “Requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms,” placing gun owners in jeopardy of prosecution for failing to know that a firearm has been stolen
  • “Prohibiting large capacity magazines,” limiting the use of firearms for self-defense
  • “Encouraging ‘smart gun’ technology that prevents unauthorized use,” and that would also allow for guns to be remotely disabled and their locations GPS-tracked, and
  • “Microstamping bullets to assist in solving gun crimes,” which hasn’t shown that benefit and which would require ammunition purchases to be registered.
Though these anti-gun and pro-criminal viewpoints are being featured prominently together now because America is in the middle of a presidential campaign, the two have gone hand-in-hand for a long time. A quarter century ago, another anti-gun group, Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI, since renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), introduced a school curriculum designed to brainwash young children against guns and the criminal justice system all at once, with language similar to that being used by Clinton and LCPGV today.
The curriculum, called Straight Talk About Risks (STAR), encouraged students to believe that the “gun lobby” creates “a climate in which people feel there is no way to be a real person, somebody who is respected and feared, without a gun.” Gun owners were described as “insecure, frightened, angry people, at the mercy of their impulsive feelings.” STAR urged teachers to “emphasize the urgency of these messages: Guns kill. Guns cause devastating injuries.”
                                                                              
               


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 07:14:29:PM
STAR simultaneously encouraged students to adopt the Left’s hatred of capitalism, with the idea that “the prison system has become big business. A great many people profit from ‘the punishment business’—architects, construction companies, unions and people who sell equipment and goods to prisons, as well as all the people who actually work in the prison—and they are all afraid of change. . . . They want, they need, a high crime rate! Nobody resists good rehabilitation programs like prison guards! It might be the end of their jobs! . . . Whoever’s getting all that money doesn’t want to give it up!”
The following two decades proved that HCI was as wrong about the criminal justice system as it always has been about guns. From 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, to 2013, the most recent year for which data are available for incarceration and violent crime, as the incarceration rate for violent crimes increased 366 percent, the nation’s violent crime rate decreased 51 percent.
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1508621/graph-0318.png?width=481&height=333)
Sources: Violent crime, FBI. Incarceration, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
However, Clinton and LCPGV are resurrecting the failed ideologies of the past, in part because they know that today there are millions of voters who were not old enough to have followed the gun control and incarceration debates of the previous generation. Let’s hope that a majority of voters will uniformly reject the Left’s attempt to blame the nation’s police, courts, and law-abiding gun owners for the deliberate misdeeds of “gang members, thugs, and predators.”

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160318/anti-gun-group-joins-clintons-pro-criminal-campaign (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160318/anti-gun-group-joins-clintons-pro-criminal-campaign)


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Baretta19 on 04 06, 16, 07:19:11:PM
This is a fine example of Granny's incompetence, Not the server in the bathroom but the simple FACT that the Secretary of State lacked enough intelligence to determine if an email was secret, sensitive, or confidential


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 06, 16, 07:40:31:PM
She is such a dummy that she claimed to depend on people much lower in the chain of command to tell her about information's sensitivity.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 08:16:47:PM
(http://www.gorrellart.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Gorrell02.23.16.jpg)

http://www.gorrellart.com/cartoon/page/4/


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 06, 16, 10:47:16:PM
(http://www.gorrellart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Gorrell09.28.15.jpg)

http://www.gorrellart.com/cartoon/page/15/


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Truman62 on 04 07, 16, 01:00:14:AM
Soooo what laws were broken?

Doesn't look like a problem to me.

If there were a problem, then she would already be in jail or impeached.

Seeing as all this came from BIASED, Hard-Right, Conservative, Grouchy Sites, I don't give it much veracity...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 07, 16, 01:21:10:AM
See above!

I have many sources and most link to actual emails violating the law!

There is plenty of evidence against Hillary !

Too bad you are too blind to see it!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Truman62 on 04 07, 16, 02:05:04:AM
If that were true, she would be in jail.

She is NOT in jail, so you are obviously wrong.

Which also means you are using rumor and innuendo to smear her.

Hillary should sue you and your sources for slander and libel!

Do you get paid by the GOP for defaming people?

how do you sleep at night after lying so much?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 07, 16, 02:43:48:AM
Davik repeat after me:  Investigation, trial, conviction and finally sentencing!

Investigation means just that, the collecting of evidence and determining motive!

The evidence at present indicates Hillary is guilty of a great many crimes!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: duke_john on 04 07, 16, 05:05:06:AM
Look how davik defends Hillary, yet he is guilty of defaming Bush.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 07, 16, 07:01:50:AM
hillary has broken no laws, is not even under investigation for breaking any laws. bush has been found guilty of war crimes in many countries around the world, and lied us into the senseless war in Iraq and did authorize torture.  Lying us into Iraq could be a war crime and authorizing torture certainly is. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 07, 16, 07:10:13:AM
Hillary already obstructed justice by wiping the server.

She has admitted to destroying subpoenaed evidence after she was on notice of the existence of the subpoena. That's known as obstruction of justice, as well as destruction of the documents.

She destroyed evidence after it was subpoenaed.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 07, 16, 07:14:42:AM
no, she has not.  do you really think anyone can admit doing something clearly against the law and not be charged?  why are you so obviously stupid?  if it was against the law for her to use her own discretion in deciding what was personal email and business email on her own server, which her using was not against the law, of course, she would have been charged by now.  she admits she did not turn over personal emails from the get go, chickenshit.  she and the state department and everybody else knew she had a private server with her own email account from the get go- HER EMAIL ADDRESS PROVED IT!!  do you even understand how gullible and stupid and easily played you are?


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 07, 16, 07:30:43:AM
The charges are pending the FBI criminal investigation, clown boy.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 07, 16, 07:50:35:AM
there is no criminal investigation, idiot.  google it.  see, that is why people laugh at you.  you have no idea what you are lying about. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 07, 16, 09:55:52:AM
FBI agents continue to examine Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target.

FBI: Yes, Our Probe Into Hillary's Email Scheme is a Criminal Investigation.

Lie after provable lie (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/07/28/video-hillarys-email-lies-destroyed-bymsnbc-n2031092) has been exposed (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/07/24/wsj-despite-denials-hillary-did-send-classified-material-through-private-server-n2029971) over recent weeks, with Team Clinton deflecting, distorting and lashing out with each development. Their latest hobby horse has been flogging the New York Times for 'erroneously' reporting that the Inspectors General-referred federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton's unsecure email scheme is criminal in nature.

 She ordered the secret server to be set up.  She ordered it to be culled.  Her inner circle destroyed evidence without supervision.  And she's personally made demonstrably false claims (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/07/02/five-lies-about-hillarys-secret-emails-n2020062) about the entire imbroglio at every step. 

The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe.

One last point on the Clinton campaign's "the FBI investigation isn't criminal".  FBI spokesman:

https://youtube.com/v/AEAL0fENAdg


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: scott_free on 04 07, 16, 11:45:57:AM
no matter how many times you keep repeating right wing lies they still are lies, pigboy.  the FBI is not investigating hillary clinton for any crimes.  period.  having a private server while she was secretary of state was not a crime.  having her own personal email account which she also used for routine state dept. emails was not against any law or any regulations.  deleting her server and computer of personal emails was not against any law or regulation.  she never received any emails that were marked classified on her personal email account.  there are no crimes involved.  was it the best way to do her personal and business related emails, in hindsight, the same way Colin Powell did?  no.  she has admitted that.  but there was no crime, there was no cover up, HER OWN PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS THAT EVERYONE USED TO EMAIL HER PROVES SHE WAS NOT TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING, YOU MORON. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 07, 16, 11:49:00:AM
Lie after provable lie (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/07/28/video-hillarys-email-lies-destroyed-bymsnbc-n2031092) has been exposed (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/07/24/wsj-despite-denials-hillary-did-send-classified-material-through-private-server-n2029971) over recent weeks, with Team Clinton deflecting, distorting and lashing out with each development. Their latest hobby horse has been flogging the New York Times for 'erroneously' reporting that the Inspectors General-referred federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton's unsecure email scheme is criminal in nature.
 
What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation according to the FBI.


And you lie as well, hooty.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Truman62 on 04 07, 16, 01:12:49:PM
ONLY guilty of obstruction IF you can prove there was something to be guilty of on the server.

Good luck with that choir boy.

You have nothing.  No laws have been broken, or she would already be arrested.

Just more unicorns and magical thinking on the GOPpers' part.  :P


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: wxzyw on 04 07, 16, 01:28:02:PM

Lie after provable lie has been exposed over recent weeks


There are none so blind...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 07, 16, 01:49:50:PM
Hillary already obstructed justice by wiping the server.

She has admitted to destroying subpoenaed evidence after she was on notice of the existence of the subpoena. That's known as obstruction of justice, as well as destruction of the documents.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: KensanIV on 04 07, 16, 02:22:39:PM
Loser, no crimes so far.  What are the FBI agents doing... Looking for recipes in her deleted emails?

They are doing an INVESTIGATION for wrong-doing? 

They have not finished.  You cannot say that she has done no wrong.  Oh I will agree that the Clintons have avoided jail several times as the need for stones in congress have not had them when it got down to doing it.  And Bill did work a deal where he avoided serious jail time for lying to congress by turning in his license to practice law.

Of course, you would never remember that.


They actually deserve each other...Both are among the most adroit liars I have ever heard of.

I'd bet being married to either of them must be magic. 


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: Truman62 on 04 07, 16, 02:59:43:PM
Both are among the most adroit liars I have ever heard of.


And yet you haven't been able to convict them of lying, ever!  :P

Trump has told more lies in his short political career than Hillary and Bill put together.

Cruz is second...


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: sweetwater5s9 on 04 07, 16, 03:02:11:PM
The charges are pending the FBI criminal investigation findings as the FBI has stated over and over again, clown boy.   You will have to wait for their report on Hillary like everyone else.   If she was free of any crimes it would have been already released.


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: D2D on 04 07, 16, 11:56:45:PM
Further proof liberals will deny all evidence even if they see it with their own eyes!

You cannot educate the willfully ignorant!


Title: Re: 2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...
Post by: KensanIV on 04 28, 16, 07:21:05:PM
Another VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRICY.