VPs
- Thread starter roadblock19
- Start date
If I were Hillary, I think I'd ask Bernie. Terry McAuliffe. Julian Castro.
For Trump, Barbara Comstock or Elise Stefanik or Marco Rubio.
For Trump, Barbara Comstock or Elise Stefanik or Marco Rubio.
Hildog? Who is Hildog?
And republicans wonder why they have Trump.
Grow up. Quit being a name calling child.
But it's funny right? Screwing with a name blows the dog whistle the rest of the Fox crowd. They all get a kick out of it.
Edit: holy smokes I don't even know what I was saying there.
Last edited:
I'm going to enjoy watching folks on here utterly confused at what's coming.
It's the Democrats who will be utterly confused...What will you do if Hillary is indicted?
Lol what will I do if hit by lightning? Or if I win the lottery? Or Selma Hayek shows up naked?
All things I find equally likely. But I know, you want to hold onto the dream as long as you can.
Laugh it off as usual.
It remains to be seen what will happen with the HRC email stuff. There is evidence that the FBI has extradited the Romanian hacker "Guccifer" and has deposed him. He claims that he hacked into Clinton's email server and around 10 others also did that he knows of. This can't be good for her. The FBI has also deposed some of her closest aides. Some in the media are claiming that there is enough evidence now to indict HRC. This remains to be seen, but once again, the trend is not in her favor and regardless will continue to hang over her campaign for the foreseeable future. You've been saying the same line for months, yet this issue never seems to die. Why is that? Maybe its because she might actually be guilty? The Clintons think they're above the law. With this current criminal investigation by the FBI, run by James Comey, perhaps there's only so much that Obama and Loretta Lynch can do for HRC.
I'd love to see Selma Hayek naked, but would actually prefer Melania Trump. She is quite fine. LOL
lol Go to CNN, type in Guccifer and see exactly what the "evidence" is on that. Spoiler alert, his claims are bs. "Some in the media?" There is no "trend." Literally nothing has happened to move things one inch closer to anything other than this going away despite your fever'd dreams otherwise.
CNN (5/5/2016): In addition, this week, a notorious hacker awaiting trial claimed he infiltrated Clinton's server but law enforcement officials said the FBI investigation into Guccifer found no sign he got into the Clinton server according to law enforcement sources.
Meanwhile, one of the two nominees has a trial for fraud allegations with a date set of 28 Nov. Which one could that be? Rhymes with Drumpf.
Right, and CNN is a non-biased, authoritative source. They quote "unnamed" officials. Your source is no better than mine. The only difference is that mine actually talks about some of the facts related to HRC's predicament. Yours just denies that there is a problem for her (hmmm, sounds like something her campaign might write...)
You realize the Republican nominee is going to court in a class-action lawsuit against him over fraud...3 weeks after the election?
I am aware of that. Trump says he will win the lawsuit and that the lawsuit is inspired by politics more than anything else.
They quote the FBI. They aren't the only ones. CNN would LOVE to be able to be the first ones to report the breaking news that Hillary is being indicted, or might be indicted, or ANYTHING that would move clicks and views other than, ho-hum, nothing going on. No yours involves dream wish fulfillment by Fox News (or rather by the folks who watch/read Fox News). Nothing gets views/clicks on Fox News more than "Hillary about to be indicted!" She's been "about to be indicted" on there for about six months now. I'd think folks like you would maybe start to see there's no there there...but, you keep getting sucked in.
Meanwhile an actual court sets an actual date for an actual fraud trial while another court in a different state isn't that far off from doing the same for the other guy, and your response is eh, Trump says he'll win and it's all political. (which is interesting since these lawsuits started before he started running, and Trump U dissolved before he started running). But when Hillary says she'll "win" and "it's all political" and various news outlets source the FBI as saying there's no evidence there? You seem more, how shall I say...skeptical.
That's fine, we all have dreams we hold onto.
Regardless of whether HRC is indicted or not there will be a huge negative fallout for here, especially if this drags on into the Fall. Even if she is "cleared" of any wrongdoing Trump will continue to make hay with his attacks. This election will come down to the economy. HRC has the Demo and Media machine but Trump will trump her on jobs, jobs, jobs. Time will tell
We shall see in both "controversies". Even IF the FBI did OFFICIALLY say that about Guccifer (which they haven't as of yet), that still doesn't mean they don't have other evidence of wrongdoing against her.
I hear that Vince Foster murder is getting a second look.
So you'll buy that, but when Hillary says that she will win in the end and be vindicated, you cry foul?
That right there clearly exposes the depth of your bias.
Guccifer is not really a hacker. Not a technically talented one anyway. He used some social engineering techniques to get into some trouble, but I have serious doubt about his ability to remotely penetrate a server. Now he could have found out about the server and told some people who do have the ability...but I basically guarantee Guccifer has no evidence he hacked the Clinton server, because he's just not that good.
Hillary: "These charges are bogus, I did nothing illegal."
You: "AAHHHHHHHH! INDICT INDICT INDICT CRIMINAL!!!"
Trump: "These charges are bogus, I did nothing wrong."
You: "Trump says it so it must be true!"
Hello, bias.
Well i guess i don't KNOW it, but it seems pretty clear by his exploits. I don't remember him doing anything overly technical. Some of us grew up with this stuff and follow it pretty closely due to the nature of our work. You gotta know what's out there to defend it. We can place bets though, if you like.
As a lawyer, you should realize why what CNN reported is actually bad news for Clinton.
Oh, and another minor thing, the hacked emails were from Blumenthal to Clinton and published back in 2013.
Anyway, pretty interesting that CNN just reported what the Clinton campaign stated but Reuters, NYT, and WaPo did not report that.
lol As a lawyer, I know when a crime requires malicious intent, and the FBI says we haven't found any evidence of that, it's not "bad news" at all. Heck, I don't even have to be a lawyer to know that. CNN reported sources in the FBI. It's literally in the part I quoted.
"unnamed sources". Is this like the days when the press quoted politicians in Iraq who "desired to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak to the press?" How do you these people have any credibility?
If those unnamed sources were wrong, the FBI would have said, whoa, wait a minute, we haven't finished our investigation or made any decisions on the state of the evidence yet.
They didn't. Or did you expect the folks who worked closely with Clinton to say, yeah she totally willfully intended to violate the law, she was pretty adamant about that part?
Of course they don't have that evidence. Clinton didn't do any acts to suggest that, and she hasn't said anything to suggest that.
-If you are referring to 18 USC 793, "malicious intent" is not even in there. Either is the word "classified". One does not have to have malicious intent to be be "grossly negligent" which is in there.
-For myself, what is most troublesome with Clinton at least in this issue, is that she keeps changing her story.
At first or near the beginning she tried to compare herself to Powell, when that did not work she said she did not have any classified info, then the the claim was she never sent it, then the claim was there was somehow a debate over if information was classified or not which is completely bogus, then tags might or might not have been removed, all while her personal attorneys deleted emails and she sent the server to some non-security clearance IT company who had it in a garage or a bathroom to be scrubbed. Now all of a sudden the phrase is there is malicious intent on her part which seems to be pulled from thin air. And all of this ignores the fact she sent guarded material to Sidney Blumenthal who had no clearance.
Now all of a sudden, in an investigation which supposedly not even the President knows anything or much about, CNN has FBI sources that says she is clear. Interesting. One should be able to see that if the DoJ does not prosecute, the House will obtain a special prosecutor just due to the story changing(lying)/leaks going on.
For the record, while I think it is clear as day she is guilty, I do not expect anything more than a few of her aides to be thrown under the bus. Which is exactly why they all asked for immunity if they to testified.
-
1. The FBI did not say "she is clear" they said thus far they have found minimal evidence that she willfully committed any acts. Implied in that is that they also did not find "gross negligence" or recklessness. They still have to talk to her. I suppose it's possible that she will say something to incriminate herself. I doubt it.
2. Malicious intent is not pulled from thin air. There are multiple laws and regulations involved.
3. This is not "all of a sudden" this is the end of a long and detailed investigation.
4. Good luck with a "special prosecutor" when the FBI says there's nothing there. She doesn't currently hold office, and last time I checked, the House is not a criminal justice body. No one is going to charge her with a crime when the FBI says there's nothing there.
5. It's pretty clear you think she's guilty clear as day.
I was pretty sure the House could assign a special prosecutor if the AG decides not to pursue anything-if they chose.
Sure malicious intent may or may not be involved. It is not needed under every law and statute though which is why I specified the one I did. Malicious intent and gross negligence can occur without the other. Her sending protected information to Blumenthal who had no clearance nor was government employee is gross negligence. Malicious intent? Only if she knew he was giving it to enemy I suppose.
It has been a long and detailed investigation, one that people in office have said they are not informed of. Which is why it is peculiar that leaks are coming out from FBI to news sources, or one news source. Skeptical at best.
Is she guilty? Pretty obviously yes. Will she get in trouble? No. Will her aids? Likely-which is why they are all asking/bargaining for immunity.
The better question is why did Pagliano seek (and get) immunity? Pretty funny for a case where everyone is SO SURE there was no criminal wrong doing, eh? Really it doesn't matter. She will just give a few more speeches to goldman sachs at 225k a pop. What's paying a little fine and being on probation mean to a demigod?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Edey Combine Grade A , 1st Round Coming Baby!!!!!- Latest: DwaynePurvis00
