FBI launches new Clinton Foundation investigation

[TSA]

The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.

FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.

The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.


One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as "extremely professional and unquestionably thorough" and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.

The witness discussed his interview solely on the grounds of anonymity. He said the agents were from Little Rock and their questions focused on government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary Clinton led President Obama's State Department.

The FBI office in Little Rock referred a reporter Thursday to Washington headquarters, where officials declined any official comment.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, and Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the Foundation, did not immediately return calls or emails seeking comment Thursday evening. But the Foundation and Merrill have previously told The Hill that the Clintons never traded any government policy decisions for donations and that the continued focus on the issue was solely designed as a conservative distraction from President Trump's Russia election probe.


Former Clinton White House aide Bruce Lindsey, who oversees the Foundation, also did not respond immediately to an email seeking comment.

The Wall Street Journal reported late last year that several FBI field offices, including the one in Little Rock, had been collecting information on the Clinton Foundation for more than a year. The report also said there had been pushback to the FBI from the Justice Department.

A renewed law enforcement focus follows a promise to Congress late last year from top Trump Justice Department officials that law enforcement would revisit some of the investigations and legal issues closed during the Obama years that conservatives felt were given short shrift. It also follows months of relentless criticism on Twitter from President Trump, who has repeatedly questioned why no criminal charges were ever filed against the "crooked" Clintons and their fund-raising machine.

For years, news media from the New York Times to The Daily Caller have reported countless stories on donations to the Clinton Foundation or speech fees that closely fell around the time of favorable decisions by Hillary Clinton's State Department. Conservative author Peter Schweizer chronicled the most famous of episodes in a book called Clinton Cash that gave ammunition to conservatives, including Trump, to beat the drum for renewed investigation.

Several GOP members of Congress have recently urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel to look at the myriad of issues surrounding the Clintons. Justice officials sent a letter to Congress in November suggesting some of those issues were being re-examined, but Sessions later testified the appointment of a special prosecutor required a high legal bar that had not yet been met.

Officials also said the Justice Department was re-examining whether there are any unresolved issues from the closed case into Hillary Clinton's transmission of classified information through her personal email server. Former FBI Director James Comey in 2016 concluded Clinton was "extremely careless" in handling that classified information and that there was some evidence of legal violations but he declined to recommend charges on the grounds that he could not improve Clinton and her top aides intended to break the law.

His decision was roundly criticized by Republicans, and recent revelations that his statement was watered down by edits and that he made the decision before all witness interviews were finished have led to renewed criticism.

A senior law enforcement official said Justice was exploring whether any issues from that probe should be re-opened but cautioned the effort was not at the stage of a full investigation.

One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most federal felonies is five years and Clinton left office in early 2013.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/367541-fbi-launches-new-clinton-foundation-investigation?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Reck]

This is your next obssesion that will lead to yet another dissapointment for you.

[Spurminator]

I always question anonymous sources

[Spurtacular]

This is your next obssesion that will lead to yet another dissapointment for you.

Because Hillary is clean?

[DarrinS]

Personally, I’m not interested in the Clintons anymore.

[Will Hunting]

Oh look, another thread where people who claim to hate HRC continue to give her more attention and keep her relevant.

[Spurtacular]

One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most federal felonies is five years and Clinton left office in early 2013.

This among other reasons why nothing too likely to go down. She was dead to rights and has been and nothing has happened other than elites running out the clock.

[Spurtacular]

Personally, I’m not interested in the Clintons anymore.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04du_OG_r80

[DMX7]

One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most federal felonies is five years and Clinton left office in early 2013.


Another challenge is that the allegations against her (like in BENGHAZI!) have been fabricated bullshit.

[Spurtacular]

Another challenge is that the allegations against her (like in BENGHAZI!) have been fabricated bullshit.

The enforceable allegations against her haven't centered around Benghazi as much as the Clinton Foundation / pay for play. But if it helps you to move the goalpost, then okay.

[AaronY]

The enforceable allegations against her haven't centered around Benghazi as much as the Clinton Foundation / pay for play. But if it helps you to move the goalpost, then okay.
Basically its just throwing shit at them over and over and hoping something sticks tbh

[Spurtacular]

Basically its just throwing shit at them over and over and hoping something sticks tbh

I pity you if you believe that. There is so much sh** on Clinton. The Clintons are quite sloppy.

[Spurminator]

I don't even think it's about anything sticking anymore from a legal sense. It's a desperate but somewhat effective tactic to give their diminishing base something to get excited about and discuss ad nauseam in their Trump echo chambers of choice.

[Chris]

I pity you if you believe that. There is so much sh** on Clinton. The Clintons are quite sloppy.

I respectfully disagree. The Clinton Cartel is more slippery then sloppy. Seth Rich died for exposing them.

[Spurtacular]

I respectfully disagree. The Clinton Cartel is more slippery then sloppy. Seth Rich died for exposing them.

I think they operate on a basis of elitist immunity; my point would be that they would go down in a thunderous flash in a more moralistic setting.

[Chris]

I think they operate on a basis of elitist immunity; my point would be that they would go down in a thunderous flash in a more moralistic setting.

Absolutely agree with you here.

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSuoXh7W0AErtCH.jpg:large

[TSA]

Convenient time to “lose” stuff in a fire

Fire breaks out at Hillary and Bill Clinton's compound in Chappaqua, New York

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/03/fire-reported-bill-and-hillary-clintons-new-york-house/1001184001/

[Spurtacular]

Convenient time to “lose” stuff in a fire

Fire breaks out at Hillary and Bill Clinton's compound in Chappaqua, New York

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/03/fire-reported-bill-and-hillary-clintons-new-york-house/1001184001/

Even got shadow government actors to take the blame.

[AaronY]

Convenient time to “lose” stuff in a fire

Fire breaks out at Hillary and Bill Clinton's compound in Chappaqua, New York

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/03/fire-reported-bill-and-hillary-clintons-new-york-house/1001184001/
There are no coincidences in life and if you believe in coincidences you're a gullible rube

[AaronY]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/524/tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg

[Chris]

Fire and Church of Satan a coincidence?

948749998874877953

[ElNono]

:lmao

[Pavlov]

:lol Trump supporters have completely lost their shit.

[Mark Celibate]

Just lie mock deny

[AaronY]

Fire and Church of Satan a coincidence?

948749998874877953
:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Mark Celibate]

It’s funny!

[AaronY]

That "follow the white rabbit" hashtag in there is some pretty good right wing nutter stuff imo https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/FollowTheWhiteRabbit?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spurstalk.com%2Fforums%2F showthread.php%3Ft%3D271791%26p%3D9239573%23post92 39573

[AaronY]

Got the whole NWO roster in this bish

948598397547802631

[AaronY]

The guys got a point..that ring does look like a triangle

946845169545920512

[AaronY]

I noticed some triangles in my girlfriend's parents house last time I went there.

Maybe I should check their basement to be real sure

[boutons_deux]

No defense (possible) of Trash, so attack the opposition as just as bad

Sessions is tiny little political hack, way in over his low-slung head

[AaronY]

Faarrrk man even the ancient Egyptians knew

https://cdn2.list25.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/www.digital.bg-2c3affdc20eabf13db93ea162ef0bcf1.jpg

[Chucho]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/524/tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg


Pepe Silvia was deported two weeks ago, FYI.

[AaronY]

Pepe Silvia was deported two weeks ago, FYI.
I don't even know who that is lol

I watched that Sunny show few times and it's pretty good but I never got too into it

[spurraider21]

I don't even know who that is lol

I watched that Sunny show few times and it's pretty good but I never got too into it
Then you should watch the episode where that pic is from. Believe it’s called Dee has a heart attack

[Chucho]

I don't even know who that is lol

I watched that Sunny show few times and it's pretty good but I never got too into it


Oh. That pic is about a conspiracy that Charlie conjured up that revolves around a dude named Pepe Silvia.

Great show. Seasons 2 thru the Fat Mac season were the best comedy on TV at the time. Then it went thru a phase where it was too over the top, then it jumped the shark and I stopped watching. But seasons 2-6, 7ish, are fucking great stuff.

[Chucho]

Then you should watch the episode where that pic is from. Believe it’s called Dee has a heart attack


A top 10 episode.

[TSA]

This is your next obssesion that will lead to yet another dissapointment for you.

Thankfully for me there are 3 investigations into the Clintons right now:

Uranium One
Clinton emails
Clinton Foundation

Thankfully the Clinton's don't have the DOJ/FBI to protect them anymore.

[Reck]

Thankfully for me there are 3 investigations into the Clintons right now:

Uranium One
Clinton emails
Clinton Foundation

Thankfully the Clinton's don't have the DOJ/FBI to protect them anymore.

:lmao

You really do live in shit land. But fear not. I will be here to remind and shit on you when nothing happens..per the usual with you.

[TSA]

This among other reasons why nothing too likely to go down. She was dead to rights and has been and nothing has happened other than elites running out the clock.

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

[spurraider21]

Oh. That pic is about a conspiracy that Charlie conjured up that revolves around a dude named Pepe Silvia.

Great show. Seasons 2 thru the Fat Mac season were the best comedy on TV at the time. Then it went thru a phase where it was too over the top, then it jumped the shark and I stopped watching. But seasons 2-6, 7ish, are fucking great stuff.
dont forget Carol from HR

[Chucho]

Thankfully for me there are 3 investigations into the Clintons right now:

Uranium One
Clinton emails
Clinton Foundation

Thankfully the Clinton's don't have the DOJ/FBI to protect them anymore.


I'd really like to believe something is going to happen, but I'd bet dollars to pesos nothing happens to them.

[TSA]

I'd really like to believe something is going to happen, but I'd bet dollars to pesos nothing happens to them.

It's the first time these three issues will be investigated honestly :bobo

[Reck]

It's the first time these three issues will be investigated honestly :bobo

Can we fast forward..say to summer or there about when charges aren't brought up. What will your excuse be?

Might as well do it now because we all know you're gonna whine that the FBI is still tainted and biased. :lol

[Pavlov]

Can we fast forward..say to summer or there about when charges aren't brought up. What will your excuse be?

Might as well do it now because we all know you're gonna whine that the FBI is still tainted and biased. :lol:crymuh bet:cry incoming

[TSA]

Can we fast forward..say to summer or there about when charges aren't brought up. What will your excuse be?

Might as well do it now because we all know you're gonna whine that the FBI is still tainted and biased. :lol

FBI is already being cleaned up from the top down. Comey is out, Strzok is in HR, and McCabe is retiring in shame.

[Blake]

Fire and Church of Satan a coincidence?

948749998874877953

Lollllll crazy conspiracies

[TSA]

:crymuh bet:cry incoming

:lol reduced to nothing but an anklebiter

[Reck]

Strzok is in HR, and McCabe is retiring in shame.

But still getting paid and getting retirement benefits.

Can I sign up for that shaming program? :lol

[Pavlov]

:lol reduced to nothing but an anklebiter:lmao that has been your entire existence in the Flynn thread, dumbass.

And FBI investigation leaks good now?

Oh, I forgot -- NOQUESTIONSMUHBET

[hater]

:lmao holy shit this crooked liar bitch Shitlery was more corrupt than previously thought

KkklintonFoundation being investigated by FBI

:lmao breaking news on CNN. Finally :lol

Doing political favors for donors :wow

50 years to that bitch minimum

:lmao we dodged a bullet

[Mark Celibate]

Take her down fbi, YEAH

[Green Man]

FBI good now.

[hater]

949364633273536512

Shes going down hard

Ghaddafis revenge tbqh

Nigga cursed her from the depths of hell

[hater]

Apparently that “fire” they had at the Kkklinton home yesterday was a bunch of hard drives and documents


Bitch was so drunk on Chardonnay she forgot to put it out

Sickening

[monosylab1k]

949364633273536512

Shes going down hard

Ghaddafis revenge tbqh

Nigga cursed her from the depths of hell

Oh, well if Newt Fucking Gingrich is calling for it then it MUST be legit!

[Spurminator]

lol FLASHBACK

[hater]

Damn James Woods going balls d


949328537890074624

[hater]

:lol ducks in a barrell

[hater]

:lmao

Damn

949363281399111680

[spurraider21]

which offices?

[Spurminator]

Are we sure James Woods is even still alive? It's incredible how much he sounds like an alt-bot now.

[koriwhat]

I don't even know who that is lol

I watched that Sunny show few times and it's pretty good but I never got too into it

ASIP is a great show.

[hater]

Are we sure James Woods is even still alive? It's incredible how much he sounds like an alt-bot now.

As incredible as how much you sound like a snowflake?

[monosylab1k]

As incredible as how much you sound like a snowflake?

https://i.imgur.com/E8mqYHc.gif

[spurraider21]

https://i.imgur.com/E8mqYHc.gif
aww lucky! you still get the gorilla channel

[Splits]

https://i.imgur.com/E8mqYHc.gif

Yes! The way you hit that other gorilla was good.

[Spurminator]

I liked The Gorilla Channel until they inexplicably started filling the schedule with shows about pawn shops.

[Chris]

949344052671107074

[Mikeanaro]

Demtardism...
949145807374045184

[Mikeanaro]

Are we sure James Woods is even still alive? It's incredible how much he sounds like an alt-bot now.
Sure, and all those late night bozos dont sound like bots with wired up asses saying the same things time after time...

[Pavlov]

:lol still pretending it's 2016.

[Chris]

:cry stop living in the past! (except when it comes to muh Russia collusion) :cry


:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

Chris what should she be charged with?

[Pavlov]

:cry stop living in the past! (except when it comes to muh Russia collusion) :cry


:lmao:lmao Benghazi memeboy

[Green Man]

Sure, and all those late night bozos dont sound like bots with wired up asses saying the same things time after time...
Argentina TV must suck ass if you have to hate-watch American late night.

[Mikeanaro]

Argentina TV must suck ass if you have to hate-watch American late night.
It does, thank god most people have cable, Euro TV sucks too.

[koriwhat]

Chris what should she be charged with?

smh at you trolls and your dipshit merrygoround line of questioning... shouldn't you be in some sweatshop piecing together a new iPhoneX instead of asking your bs "entitled" questions here?

[djohn2oo8]

smh at you trolls and your dipshit merrygoround line of questioning... shouldn't you be in some sweatshop piecing together a new iPhoneX instead of asking your bs "entitled" questions here?

I asked Chris. He's a big boy he can answer by himself.

[Chris]

Chris what should she be charged with?

Throw the book at her. Charge her with everything, and see what sticks. I'm not a prosecutor or a lawyer, maybe you should ask one djohn.

[DMC]

Just like all these other "after the fact" investigations, just a sinkhole for taxpayer money. They won't find anything. When the head of the FBI changes "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless", the cart is before the horse. Don't expect anything more from it.

[Chris]

Just like all these other "after the fact" investigations, just a sinkhole for taxpayer money. They won't find anything. When the head of the FBI changes "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless", the cart is before the horse. Don't expect anything more from it.

Comey also decided not to press charges. Comey gets fired. Comey good now. Comey looks to Lebron for leadership.

[djohn2oo8]

Throw the book at her. Charge her with everything, and see what sticks. I'm not a prosecutor or a lawyer, maybe you should ask one djohn.

The book? Which charges? Or do you not know? You can't even name what she could be prosecuted for that she committed a crime.

[spurraider21]

Just like all these other "after the fact" investigations, just a sinkhole for taxpayer money. They won't find anything. When the head of the FBI changes "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless", the cart is before the horse. Don't expect anything more from it.
the right needs a punching bag to deflect from any negative story. they're going to keep going back to the clinton well until it runs dry. and then they'll go back to it again

[djohn2oo8]

949427723419578369
:lol

[spurraider21]

The book? Which charges? Or do you not know?
if internet poster is not familiar with the US Code, then the whole investigation is a farce!

[djohn2oo8]

if internet poster is not familiar with the US Code, then the whole investigation is a farce!

Internet poster cannot even explain what he thinks she did wrong. In his own words.

[Mikeanaro]

949427723419578369
:lol
You libs make her look clean, but also very stupid.

[djohn2oo8]

You libs make her look clean, but also very stupid.

Grandma got you all riled up.

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSz47h1WAAAzEq7.jpg:large

[Splits]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSz47h1WAAAzEq7.jpg:large


ahhhhaaahhaa

ohhhhaoooohhahhhhaaaaaa

ommmggggllloooolllll

[hater]

Yes! The way you hit that other gorilla was good.

“Kill the fucking girilla ya ape!”

[hater]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSz47h1WAAAzEq7.jpg:large

Why did they make her look good? She usuqlly looks like a horse

[Green Man]

Why did they make her look good? She usuqlly looks like a horse

https://media.giphy.com/media/12OqFaUF0nD560/200w.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

This fucking forum is a nothingburger buffet.

[Chris]

https://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/leftist-screaming256.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

Case in point.

[Chris]

949440084197199873

[Blake]

This fucking forum is a nothingburger buffet.

Extra cheese meme fries

[DMC]

the right needs a punching bag to deflect from any negative story. they're going to keep going back to the clinton well until it runs dry. and then they'll go back to it again

Do you consider the FBI to be the "right"?

This isn't solely a partisan witch hunt. It's also a department trying to lick its wounds.

[hater]

President Gorilla not Klinton

[Trainwreck2100]

Trump president not Clinton

[AaronY]

All this Hillary stuff is good for the Dems since she is not running anymore. Let the Rs waste their time with that tbh

[Xevious]

Surely there will be an indictment then right?

[Xevious]

All this Hillary stuff is good for the Dems since she is not running anymore. Let the Rs waste their time with that tbh
Absolutely. Democrats are going to have to move as far away from Hillary as they can... as they should have before. Regardless if there is any validity to these endless accusations, she is not likeable in any way.

[AaronY]

Absolutely. Democrats are going to have to move as far away from Hillary as they can... as they should have before. Regardless if there is any validity to these endless accusations, she is not likeable in any way.
Nixon was thrown out in 74 (?) or maybe 75 and Reagan won like 40 states in 1980 after Carter shat the bed. I can't believe people would think her being bad would hurt us in 2018 and 2020 considering Trump is about as popular as Carter or maybe even less so. And he's unpopular now when the economy is doing mostly good (inequality and wages of the bottom half of earners are still pretty lousy compared to historical levels) imagine if the economy tanks in like 2019 or 2020 oh lawd lol

[Splits]

Out of government for 5 years.

Team Red controls at least one house of Congress for all 5 of those years.

Investigated endlessly during those 5 years.

But now, she's going to be found guilty of something.

Uh huh.

[Spurtacular]

Nixon was thrown out in 74 (?) or maybe 75 and Reagan won like 40 states in 1980 after Carter shat the bed. I can't believe people would think her being bad would hurt us in 2018 and 2020 considering Trump is about as popular as Carter or maybe even less so. And he's unpopular now when the economy is doing mostly good (inequality and wages of the bottom half of earners are still pretty lousy compared to historical levels) imagine if the economy tanks in like 2019 or 2020 oh lawd lol

Yea, I read that on madeupmonkeyshit.com too.

[Splits]

Yea, I read that on madeupmonkeyshit.com too.

How 'bout this one Jimmerfan: in the history of approval polling starting with FDR, no President has ever failed to reach a high of 66% (Nixon) or higher (all except Trump). Trump's high is 46%

[AaronY]

Yea, I read that on madeupmonkeyshit.com too.
I know you think only brainwashed people dont like him. But the media didn't make him mock a cripple, brag about grabbing vaginas or moving in on married women like a bitch, nor make fun of Ted Cruz's wife, Carly Fiorina's face etc As much as you may be in denial about it he's done a lot of shit to turn people off. God help you if we get an inspirational, effective candidate like a Democratic version of Reagan. Maybe we'll nominate some other turd like we did with Clinton and he could stand a chance of winning again. Then you could feel justified in ignoring every poll even the ones from ultra-right wing Fox News which are showing him to be doing horrible

[AaronY]

lol liberal MSM is making it all up!

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/08/30/fox-news-poll-voters-mood-sours-56-percent-say-trump-tearing-country-apart/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-7/embed_image_0/image.img.jpg/612/344/1504123297752.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/08/30/fox-news-poll-voters-mood-sours-56-percent-say-trump-tearing-country-apart/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-9/embed_image/image.img.jpg/612/344/1504123494578.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

only libtards are falling for it!

940998614293401600

[Spurtacular]

I know you think only brainwashed people dont like him. But the media didn't make him mock a cripple, brag about grabbing vaginas or moving in on married women like a bitch, nor make fun of Ted Cruz's wife, Carly Fiorina's face etc As much as you may be in denial

All that stuff before the election, amirite? You should come to terms with the fact that the smear campaign didn't work.

[AaronY]

All that stuff before the election, amirite? You should come to terms with the fact that the smear campaign didn't work.
Yeah, Carter won in 1976. So thats why I used him as an example. Didn't help him much in 1980 though since that was a different election which is what we're talking about here.

Lol smear campaign. They smeared him by playing clips of things he said and did and by using his own words

[Spurtacular]

Yeah, Carter won in 1976. So thats why I used him as an example. Didn't help him much in 1980 though since that was a different election which is what we're talking about here.

Lol smear campaign. They smeared him by playing clips of things he said and did and by using his own words

It was a smear campaign relative to the felonious sh** Hillary did and was not called out for.

[AaronY]

It was a smear campaign relative to the felonious sh** Hillary did and was not called out for.
Clinton's emails were the most covered story of 2016

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/files/2017/08/clintonscandals-1024x718.png

[AaronY]

The fact that Trump voters won't acknowledge all the dumb shit he's said and done to turn people off and instead act like the genuine hatred of him is all some kind of liberal conspiracy is how you know its a cult or cult like. They could find some less objectionable guy to do the same agenda. Like a Tom Cotton or something. Maybe they will in the future and sadly for me it will make the whole agenda easier to implement

[Spurtacular]

Clinton's emails were the most covered story of 2016

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/files/2017/08/clintonscandals-1024x718.png

And yet, breaking the law and bleaching 33K subpoena'd e-mails wasn't enough to undo her. Where's the disconnect in your logic?

[AaronY]

And yet, breaking the law and bleaching 33K subpoena'd e-mails wasn't enough to undo her. Where's the disconnect in your logic?
Lol I read a ton of the emails and it was mostly innocuous bullshit and some of it was her doing good stuff. You guys start with the premise she's evil and then work backward its why its so hard for you to pinpoint exact crimes

This is gonna be like Democrats continually bringing up Nixon in 1980 if we have a good candidate in 2020.

[Spurtacular]

Lol I read a ton of the emails and it was mostly innocuous bullshit and some of it was her doing good stuff.

So, Hillary committed obstruction of justice (a felony) for no reason? Yea, that makes sense.

[AaronY]

So, Hillary committed obstruction of justice (a felony) for no reason? Yea, that makes sense.
She didn't know the russians were hacking her emails so its not like the ones that got released were the ones she let get released lol

There musta been some huge smoking guns there though! I mean she's evil and we know it! We just need to find the evidence!

[Spurtacular]

She didn't know the russians were hacking her emails so its not like the ones that got released were the ones she let get released lol

There musta been some huge smoking guns there though! I mean she's evil and we know it! We just need to find the evidence!

Why the dismissive sarcasm if your case is so strong? You think that committing felonies for no apparent reason is logical?

[AaronY]

Why the dismissive sarcasm if your case is so strong? You think that committing felonies for no apparent reason is logical?
She didn't know the emails taken by the hackers would be taken and they showed nothing so why would you assume the ones deleted were all smoking gun ones lol makes no sense

[Spurtacular]

She didn't know the emails taken by the hackers would be taken and they showed nothing so why would you assume the ones deleted were all smoking gun ones lol makes no sense

First off, we agree that this was a felony as many of the e-mails deleted were work-related / subpoena'd. So if there was no "smoking gun" then why would she obstruct justice?

[AaronY]

First off, we agree that this was a felony as many of the e-mails deleted were work-related / subpoena'd. So if there was no "smoking gun" then why would she obstruct justice?
No, of course not. Comey said they didn't appear to be deleted for hiding anything just normal deletions like anyone else would. This is a guy who's been a Republican his entire life but now he's like a shrieking libtard because his unbiased findings don't fit your narrative lol. This is why no good talking to you because if someone gives you the facts on something you won't believe them anyway

[Spurtacular]

No, of course not. Comey said they didn't appear to be deleted for hiding anything just normal deletions like anyone else would. This is a guy who's been a Republican his entire life but now he's like a shrieking libtard because his unbiased findings don't fit your narrative lol. This is why no good talking to you because if someone gives you the facts on something you won't believe them anyway

You're conflating events. I just read about that, which is why I know he was speaking of 60K e-mails in total and that some had naturally been deleted in the course of time. He was not speaking of the 33 K e-mails that were deleted after they were court ordered to be preserved. So, we agree that this felonies; destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice? Or do you have any more lies you'd like to tell me?

[AaronY]

You're conflating events. I just read about that, which is why I know he was speaking of 60K e-mails in total and that some had naturally been deleted in the course of time. He was not speaking of the 33 K e-mails that were deleted after they were court ordered to be preserved. So, we agree that this felonies; destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice? Or do you have any more lies you'd like to tell me?
Its a bunch of nothing bro
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

They had nothing in them just like all the other ones the hackers took without her knowledge and which showed nothing

[Spurtacular]

Its a bunch of nothing bro
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

They had nothing in them just like all the other ones the hackers took without her knowledge and which showed nothing

That's not what we were debating just now. Is deleting 33K e-mails that are court ordered to be preserved a crime?

Yes or no.

[AaronY]

That's not what we were debating just now. Is deleting 33K e-mails that are court ordered to be preserved a crime?

Yes or no.
"However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.""

priceisrightlosinghorn.mkv


"Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own."

priceisrightlosinghorn.mkv

[Spurtacular]

"However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.""

priceisrightlosinghorn.mkv


"Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own."

priceisrightlosinghorn.mkv

That's not an answer to the question. Do you think it's a crime to delete e-mails that have been court ordered to be preserved?

Yes or no.

[AaronY]

That's not an answer to the question. Do you think it's a crime to delete subpoenaed e-mails?

Yes or no.
If they were inadvertently deleted no. And if anyone committed a crime it was the employee who deleted them w/o clinton's knowledge. It doesn't matter anyway since you're are going to believe she's a criminal to you and you'll keep saying that just like you did in that one thread even when you couldn't name a crime despite being asked 75 times to name one lol

[Spurtacular]

If they were inadvertently deleted no. And if anyone committed a crime it was the employee who deleted them w/o clinton's knowledge. It doesn't matter anyway since you're are going to believe she's a criminal to you and you'll keep saying that just like you did in that one thread even when you couldn't name a crime despite being asked 75 times to name one lol

Okay. Is it a crime to non-inadvertently delete e-mails that have been court ordered to be preserved?

Yes or no.

[AaronY]

Start with the premise that shes evil and work backwards lol

Then mock anyone or anything that contradicts it as being naive or lies lol. Hope this continues honestly my premise of this being like Carter supporters sticking Nixon in Reagan's face in 1980 is gonna look pretty prescient if we get a good candidate then. Lol no one will give two shits outside of the hardcore retard thats watched 13 hours a hundred times and cried while the terrorists fired slo mo bullets into the American flag

[Spurtacular]

Start with the premise that shes evil and work backwards lol

Then mock anyone or anything that contradicts it as being naive or lies lol. Hope this continues honestly my premise of this being like Carter supporters sticking Nixon in Reagan's face in 1980 is gonna look pretty prescient if we get a good candidate then. Lol no one will give two shits outside of the hardcore retard thats watched 13 hours a hundred times and cried while the terrorists fired slo mo bullets into the American flag

I'm not mocking anything, or I haven't been for some # of posts.

Is it a crime to non-inadvertently delete e-mails that have been court ordered to be preserved?

Yes or no.

[AaronY]

Is it a crime to non-inadvertently delete e-mails that have been court ordered to be preserved?

Yes or no.

Yes, if this happened it would be a crime. Evidence was it didn't happen which is what I showed you. Ergo no crime.

[Spurtacular]

Yes, if this happened it would be a crime. Evidence was it didn't happen which is what I showed you. Ergo no crime.

You were disputing the nature of the e-mails, not whether or not they had been deleted contrary a court order. You seriously bull shit about stuff that was just written. Ergo, given that there was a court order to preserve the e-mails and that they were not inadvertently deleted, a crime has occurred.

773692221237268480

[Chucho]

This is gonna be like Democrats continually bringing up Nixon in 1980 if we have a good candidate in 2020.

Nixon was a really, really good, and truly progressive President. He'd be a Demo God by today's Demo beliefs.

[AaronY]

Nixon was a really, really good, and truly progressive President. He'd be a Demo God by today's Demo beliefs.
Dude started the EPA tbh. Policy wise I don't hate him. his problem was he was paranoid if he had just said "some dumb phags on my team broke into that hotel without anyone asking them to" could have just skated plus he took LBJ's advice about recording everything which was retarded

[Spurtacular]

AaronY (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=27732)

What evidence do you have to suggest/prove that e-mails were not deleted while under court order to be preserved? I'm calling you on your bull shit. You have no evidence in that regard.

[AaronY]

AaronY (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=27732)

What evidence do you have to suggest/prove that e-mails were not deleted while under court order to be preserved? I'm calling you on your bull shit. You have no evidence in that regard.
Bro, the employee Comey questioned said he deleted them because they looked unimportant and I backed that up by saying nothing the Russians found was really important which makes it plausible.

[Spurtacular]

Bro, the employee Comey questioned said he deleted them because they looked unimportant and I backed that up by saying nothing the Russians found was really important which makes it plausible.

"The employee's" reason doesn't have a damn fucking thing to do with deleting them while under court order. There is no leeway when it comes to a court order to preserve evidence. You don't have to be a first year law student to get this. But now having this explained to you, did a crime occur?

Yes or no.

[AaronY]

You'd have to prove he was lying.

Or you could do the retard strategy of assuming the Clintons must be evil then rolling your eyes and mocking anyone who doesn't connect the retard dots like you and Chris do

[Spurtacular]

You'd have to prove he was lying.

Or you could do the retard strategy of assuming the Clintons must be evil then rolling your eyes and mocking anyone who doesn't connect the retard dots like you and Chris do

Hillary Clinton was legally bound to preserve the e-mails. A crime occurred in the non-preservation of those e-mails. The only thing that can be question is what party or parties are ultimately liable for breaking the court order.

[Spurtacular]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrzSTOaWEAA7cBc.jpg

[AaronY]

Don't think memes are accepted in a court of law lol

"Your honor what I'd like to do is talk directly to the jury. Mock them and call them sheeple over and over. Then roll my eyes a bunch of times when they ask for direct evidence and post memes. I have no real evidence maybe I can lock up that one intern for deleting emails on his own but I know she should be locked up so I'm going to be mean and condescending to the jury till they throw her in jail if you'll allow it"

"Your honor I'd like permission to call juror #7 a retard over and over until he breaks if you'll allow it"

[Pavlov]

Nixon was a really, really good, and truly progressive President. He'd be a Demo God by today's Demo beliefs.:lol Dude committed treason to get elected.

[Spurtacular]

Don't think memes are accepted in a court of law lol

"Your honor what I'd like to do is talk directly to the jury. Mock them and call them sheeple over and over. Then roll my eyes a bunch of times when they ask for direct evidence and post memes. I have no real evidence maybe I can lock up that one intern for deleting emails on his own but I know she should be locked up so I'm going to be mean and condescending to the jury till they throw her in jail if you'll allow it"

"Your honor I'd like permission to call juror #7 a retard over and over until he breaks if you'll allow it"

Oh, are you done taking your recess, then?

You do understand that a crime(s) was unequivocally committed?

[Pavlov]

So you're going to lock up the employee who deleted the emails?

Pretty anticlimactic tbh.

[Spurtacular]

So you're going to lock up the employee who deleted the emails?

Pretty anticlimactic tbh.

The employee should be charged if he is going to obstruct the investigation. He should be looking at facing maximum jail time unless he wants to cut a deal and give up the bigger fish in this. That's how this routinely works.

[Pavlov]

The employee should be charged if he is going to obstruct the investigation. He should be looking at facing maximum jail time unless he wants to cut a deal and give up the bigger fish in this. That's how this routinely works.Give them up for what? You just said the employee committed the crime.

[AaronY]

Give them up for what? You just said the employee committed the crime.
Clintons are evil so they ordered him to do it obviously.

See the deleted emails were filled with smoking guns unlike the ones the russians got which showed nothing. See they uh, they I think gave the russians the ones showing nothing so uh...something something..man theyre just fucking evil so lets lock em up already

[AaronY]

LOCK HER UP!!

BENGHAZI!!

INSIDE JOB!!

WHITEWATER!!

BLACKWATER!!

REDWATER!!

[AaronY]

Start with the premise that shes evil and work backwards lol

Then mock anyone or anything that contradicts it as being naive or lies lol. Hope this continues honestly my premise of this being like Carter supporters sticking Nixon in Reagan's face in 1980 is gonna look pretty prescient if we get a good candidate then. Lol no one will give two shits outside of the hardcore retard thats watched 13 hours a hundred times and cried while the terrorists fired slo mo bullets into the American flag
Incidentally would love to meet that 13 hours crowd that made that such a streaming hit and have the opportunity to sell them a reverse mortgage or two if at all possible. Can't believe how hilarious that movie was.

[Chucho]

:lol Dude committed treason to get elected.

So that negates his accomplishments in office?

[AaronY]

Nixon didn't know what those idiots were doing and he won both elections in a landslide iirc. should have just thrown them under the bus but he covered up and thats what did him in that and the audio tapes

[Spurtacular]

Give them up for what? You just said the employee committed the crime.

You really don't know the answer to that question? You aren't very smart.

[dabom]

Fast forward 6 months.

":lmao :lmao"

[Spurtacular]

Clintons are evil so they ordered him to do it obviously.

You've been holding hard to this schtick. Even when we were just going over basic non-partisan concepts, you had these ideological outbursts. Do you really think the Clinton machine isn't behind this? Do you think the IT wasn't appraised of the court order? And why wouldn't the employee cooperate with the feds? What could possibly drive him to independently act, even including bleaching the e-mails? Do you really believe the Clintons could have acted scrupulously? When we start asking practical questions, you don't have good answers for them, so it's easier to do your little whoa is me dance. And in all fucking honesty, what happened to you in your life that you want to sperm shield this hard for the Clintons in the first place? Do you ever ask yourself that?

[Pavlov]

So that negates his accomplishments in office?Yes tbh.

[Pavlov]

You really don't know the answer to that question? You aren't very smart.
You can't answer it. :lol

[Spurtacular]

You can't answer it. :lol

I can't answer my own implied answer? You're really not that smart.

[Pavlov]

I can't answer my own implied answer? You're really not that smart.The question is "Give them up for what?" you idiot.

[Reck]

The question is "Give them up for what?" you idiot.

Regard the fucking question, son.

:lol

[Pavlov]

:cryI said I implied an answer because I can't actually answer the question:cry

[spurraider21]

Unlawful evilness

[Spurtacular]

The question is "Give them up for what?" you idiot.

Yes, I implied the answer in the first place. You're just not that smart, apparently. You really don't know how it works?

[AaronY]

Unlawful evilness
"Sir we're gonna have to ticket you. We caught you going a hundred percent evil in an 80% evil zone. Did you not see the signs posted back there?"

[Pavlov]

Yes, I implied the answer in the first place. You're just not that smart, apparently. You really don't know how it works?Give them up for what?

IOW -- which crimes?

You know, the question that makes you shit yourself and roll around in your soiled pants during the resulting tantrum.

lol

[AaronY]

I mean she is pure evil that's why it's plausible she was running a pedophile ring in a pizzeria basement. Can't blame us for falling for det one. I mean it was in character

[Pavlov]

I mean she is pure evil that's why it's plausible she was running a pedophile ring in a pizzeria basement. Can't blame us for falling for det one. I mean it was in characterTHE SYMBOL WAS IN THAT BAND'S VIDEO

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

[Spurtacular]

I mean she is pure evil that's why it's plausible she was running a pedophile ring in a pizzeria basement. Can't blame us for falling for det one. I mean it was in character

I don't give a fuck if you believe she's pure evil or not; I just know that you're willing to run from simple truth in front of your face.

[Reck]

I don't give a fuck if you believe she's pure evil or not; I just know that you're willing to run from simple truth in front of your face.

What truth? Provide evidence. Back up your faggotry.

[Pavlov]

I don't give a fuck if you believe she's pure evil or not; I just know that you're willing to run from simple truth in front of your face.It might help if we knew what crimes you are accusing her of committing.

[Spurtacular]

Give them up for what?

IOW -- which crimes?

You know, the question that makes you shit yourself and roll around in your soiled pants during the resulting tantrum.

lol

Give up the higher co-conspirators for less jail time or maybe even immunity. It's okay that you're not that smart. Sperm shields don't need too much in the way of brains.

[Pavlov]

Give up the higher co-conspirators for less jail time or maybe even immunity. It's okay that you're not that smart. Sperm shields don't need too much in the way of brains.What crimes are you saying they conspired to commit?

[Spurtacular]

What truth? Provide evidence. Back up your faggotry.


It might help if we knew what crimes you are accusing her of committing.

It might help if you actually read the thread.

[Pavlov]

It might help if you actually read the thread.I did. What crimes are you accusing her of committing?

[Spurtacular]

I did. What crimes are you accusing her of committing?

Actually read it.

[Pavlov]

Actually read it.I did. What crimes are you accusing her of committing? Not the thread. You.

[koriwhat]

I know you think only brainwashed people dont like him. But the media didn't make him mock a cripple, brag about grabbing vaginas or moving in on married women like a bitch, nor make fun of Ted Cruz's wife, Carly Fiorina's face etc As much as you may be in denial about it he's done a lot of shit to turn people off. God help you if we get an inspirational, effective candidate like a Democratic version of Reagan. Maybe we'll nominate some other turd like we did with Clinton and he could stand a chance of winning again. Then you could feel justified in ignoring every poll even the ones from ultra-right wing Fox News which are showing him to be doing horrible

it's funny because you trolls do that same shit daily here on ST and yet yall hate hate hate on djt. fucking look in the mirror for once.

yall leftys are just pussies though. more gorillas! channel 17 stat!

[koriwhat]

I did. What crimes are you accusing her of committing? Not the thread. You.

i answered your same loser question in another thread but keep on asking... yall fucks play dumb but reality is yall are dumb.

[Reck]

more gorillas! channel 17 stat!

:lol Tats falling for more fake shit.

[koriwhat]

You've been holding hard to this schtick. Even when we were just going over basic non-partisan concepts, you had these ideological outbursts. Do you really think the Clinton machine isn't behind this? Do you think the IT wasn't appraised of the court order? And why wouldn't the employee cooperate with the feds? What could possibly drive him to independently act, even including bleaching the e-mails? Do you really believe the Clintons could have acted scrupulously? When we start asking practical questions, you don't have good answers for them, so it's easier to do your little whoa is me dance. And in all fucking honesty, what happened to you in your life that you want to sperm shield this hard for the Clintons in the first place? Do you ever ask yourself that?

:tu

[koriwhat]

:lol Tats falling for more fake shit.

and dumbass tranny thinking i fell for anything... what a dipshit you are. go tuck that 1 inch dick of yours between them legs and gtfo of here.

[koriwhat]

https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Michael-Wolff.jpg

that gorilla bs would be closer to the truth than the dipshit weirdo michael wolf could ever fabricate.

[dabom]

Lets believe Liar in Chief. :lol

[dabom]

Dude lies every time he opens his mouth. That's how you know the truth. :lol

[koriwhat]

Lets believe Liar in Chief. :lol

or better yet, a known fiction writer like wolf, right? a dude you can just look at and know he's into some sick shit himself.

[dabom]

or better yet, a known fiction writer like wolf, right? a dude you can just look at and know he's into some sick shit himself.

That book has more truth than Trump has his whole life. :lol

[koriwhat]

That book has more truth than Trump has his whole life. :lol

yeah doubtful... very doubtful. btw, you read? doubtful... very doubtful.

[Reck]

and dumbass tranny thinking i fell for anything... what a dipshit you are. go tuck that 1 inch dick of yours between them legs and gtfo of here.

Calf tats riggered hard.

[koriwhat]

That book has more truth than Trump has his whole life. :lol

we're taking back jobs... get over it! just be happy you won't have to glue the soles on my nikes anymore young buck.

[dabom]

yeah doubtful... very doubtful. btw, you read? doubtful... very doubtful.

Yeah I read. Trump lies about stupid shit like crowd sizes. :lmao

[koriwhat]

Calf tats riggered hard.

triggered? that would is reserved for faggots like you and your ilk. boohoo russia, russia, russia!

[Reck]

yeah doubtful... very doubtful. btw, you read? doubtful... very doubtful.

The non conservative sucking and slubbering all over Trump's dick just for show.

:lol Pale whitey with tube socks and hideous Spurs tats. :lol

[koriwhat]

Yeah I read. Trump lies about stupid shit like crowd sizes. :lmao

and the left lies about everything else like progressive ideals and working for their constituents not their deep pockets.

[dabom]

we're taking back jobs... get over it! just be happy you won't have to glue the soles on my nikes anymore young buck.

I'm an engineer. I don't have to worry about my job. :lol

[dabom]

and the left lies about everything else like progressive ideals and working for their constituents not their deep pockets.

I'm not into world depressions is all. :lol

[koriwhat]

The non conservative sucking and slubbering all over Trump's dick just for show.

:lol Pale whitey with tube socks and hideous Spurs tats. :lol

it's just hilarious i can take a step back and judge this whole mess with a clear head while yall stumble over every little bs story out there because your hatred for a man yall loved just a couple yrs back has poisoned yalls fucked up minds.

[koriwhat]

I'm an engineer. I don't have to worry about my job. :lol

you don't need to flowchart gluing soles on shoes shortround.

[dabom]

you don't need to flowchart gluing soles on shoes shortround.

I don't know what that means. Guess that's a good thing. :lol

[Spurtacular]

I did. What crimes are you accusing her of committing? Not the thread. You.

Is it likely that Hillary did not commit any crimes for Whitewater?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Is it likely that Hillary did not commit any crimes for Whitewater?

Yes or no.What crimes are you accusing her of committing?

If you can't name any, you are just semen shielding for her.

[Chucho]

I'm an engineer. I don't have to worry about my job. :lol

LOL. No you're not.

[Spurtacular]

What crimes are you accusing her of committing?

If you can't name any, you are just semen shielding for her.

Okay name some, or you're just semen shielding for her, according to you.

[Pavlov]

Okay name some, or you're just semen shielding for her, according to you.So you admit to semen shielding for Hillary.

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

So you admit to semen shielding for Hillary.

CHECKMATE

:lmao Calling checkmate on yourself after you checkmated yourself.
:lmao You called yourself a sperm shielder.
:lmao Image below.

https://csolsqs.com/checkmate/image_20170927_202401_51778.jpg

[Pavlov]

:lmao Calling checkmate on yourself after you checkmated yourself.
:lmao You called yourself a sperm shielder.
:lmao Image below.

https://csolsqs.com/checkmate/image_20170927_202401_51778.jpgToo late.

It's your standard.

You're semen shielding for Hillary.

Bigly.

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

Too late.

It's your standard.

You're semen shielding for Hillary.

Bigly.

CHECKMATE


What crimes are you accusing her of committing?

If you can't name any, you are just semen shielding for her.

:lmao Saw you checkmated yourself and tried to play it off the other way!
:lmao Today's Hillary sperm shield!

[Pavlov]

:lmao Saw you checkmated yourself and tried to play it off the other way!
:lmao Today's Hillary sperm shield!:lmao admitting you're today's Hillary sperm shield
:lmao still can't name any crimes

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

:lmao admitting you're today's Hillary sperm shield
:lmao still can't name any crimes

CHECKMATE

You just said that if you cannot name some Hillary crimes, then you are a Hillary sperm shield.

So, name her crimes or you've defined yourself as a Hillary sperm shield.

:rollin

[spurraider21]

You just said that if you cannot name some Hillary crimes, then you are a Hillary sperm shield.

So, name her crimes or you've defined yourself as a Hillary sperm shield.

:rollin
right back at you :lol

[Pavlov]

You just said that if you cannot name some Hillary crimes, then you are a Hillary sperm shield.

So, name her crimes or you've defined yourself as a Hillary sperm shield.

:rollinThat's rich coming from you, the biggest Hillary sperm shielder here who wouldn't name a Hillary crime even if he could.

:rollin

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

:lmao admitting you're today's Hillary sperm shield
:lmao still can't name any crimes

CHECKMATE

:lmao Knew the checkmate call was coming.
:lmao Salivating for it like Pavlov's dog (You ain't no Pavlov)
:lmao Just defined himself as a Hillary sperm shield.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Knew the checkmate call was coming.
:lmao Salivating for it like Pavlov's dog (You ain't no Pavlov)
:lmao Just defined himself as a Hillary sperm shield.:lmao still checkmated
:lmao still won't name any of Hillary's crimes
:lmao just defined yourself as a Hillary sperm shield

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

Pavlov

You can name Hillary crimes?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Pavlov

You can name Hillary crimes?

Yes or no.:lmao too late, admitted Hillary semen shielder

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

That's rich coming from you, the biggest Hillary sperm shielder here who wouldn't name a Hillary crime even if he could.

:rollin

CHECKMATE

:lmao Doubling down...
:lmao on your definiton,
:lmao and your Hillary sperm shielding.

[Spurtacular]

:cry Too late for meh. Hillary sperm shielders like me can't come back from the abyss. :cry

[Pavlov]

:cryToo late for meh. Confessed Hillary sperm shielders like me can't come back from the abyss.:cryCHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

:cry

Not willing to clear yourself of being a Hillary sperm shielder! What dedication!

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

[Pavlov]

:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:cryNot willing to clear yourself of being the original and biggest Hillary sperm shielder! What dedication!

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

Not willing to clear yourself..

If I explicitly defined what a Hillary sperm shielder was, I would not do my best to fulfill the definition like you've done. :lmao

[Pavlov]

If I explicitly defined what a Hillary sperm shielder was, I would not do my best to fulfill the definition like you've done. :lmaoYou did define it and you did fulfill your definition of it. You made yourself the original and worst Hillary sperm shielder :lmao

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

You did define it and you did fulfill your definition of it. You made yourself the original and worst Hillary sperm shielder :lmao

CHECKMATE

You've designated yourself as a Hillary sperm shielder; that apparently ain't changing no matter how much you want to deflect.

[Pavlov]

:cryYou've designated yourself as THE Hillary sperm shielder; that definitely ain't changing no matter how much you want to deflect.

CHECKMATE

[Spurtacular]

You've designated yourself as THE Hillary sperm shielder; that definitely ain't changing no matter how much you want to deflect.

CHECKMATE

How is this to change your self-appointed Hillary sperm shielder status?

[Pavlov]

:cryHow is this to change your self-appointed #1 original Hillary sperm shielder status?

[Spurtacular]

949403921390407680

[Chris]

Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted

New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.


From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.

These emails must have involved some classified information, given the nature of consultations between presidents and secretaries of state, the broad outlines of Obama’s own executive order defining classified intelligence (see EO 13526, section 1.4), and the fact that the Obama administration adamantly refused to disclose the Clinton–Obama emails. If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled on both ends of these email exchanges.

If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges. That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen.

The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point. For the moment, I want to put aside the latest controversy — the FBI’s failure to retain five months of text messages between Strzok and Page, those chattiest of star-crossed lovers. Yes, this “glitch” closes our window on a critical time in the Trump-Russia investigation: mid December 2016 through mid May 2017. That is when the bureau and Justice Department were reportedly conducting and renewing (in 90-day intervals) court-approved FISA surveillance that may well have focused on the newly sworn-in president of the United States. (Remember: The bureau’s then-director, James Comey, testified at a March 20 House Intelligence Committee hearing that the investigation was probing possible coordination with Trump’s campaign and Kremlin interference in the election.)

The retention default has been chalked up to a technological mishap. Assuming that this truly was an indiscriminate, bureau-wide problem — that lost texts are not limited to phones involved in the Trump-Russia investigation — it is hard to imagine its going undetected for five months in an agency whose business is information retention. But it is not inconceivable. Attorney General Jeff Sessions maintains that an aggressive inquiry is underway, so let’s assume (for argument’s sake, at least) that either the texts will be recovered or a satisfactory explanation for their non-retention will be forthcoming.

For now, let’s stick with the Clinton–Obama emails. We now know that Comey’s remarks had been in the works for two months and were revised several times by the director and his advisers. Only July 5, 2016, Comey held the press conference at which he delivered a statement describing Mrs. Clinton’s criminal conduct but nevertheless recommending against an indictment. We now know that Comey’s remarks had been in the works for two months and were revised several times by the director and his advisers. This past weekend, in a letter to the FBI regarding the missing texts, Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) addressed some of these revisions. According to Senator Johnson, a draft dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days before Comey delivered the final version), contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email exchange between Clinton and Obama. (I note that the FBI’s report of its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic reference to a July 1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s email address. See report, page 2.) The passage in the June 30 draft stated: We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries.

That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account. On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.” This effort to obscure Obama’s involvement had an obvious flaw: It would practically have begged congressional investigators and enterprising journalists to press for the identification of the “senior government official” with whom Clinton had exchanged emails. That was not going to work. Consequently, by the time Comey delivered his remarks on July 5, the decision had been made to avoid even a veiled allusion to Obama. Instead, all the stress was placed on Clinton (who was not going to be charged anyway) for irresponsibly sending and receiving sensitive emails that were likely to have been penetrated by hostile intelligence services.

Comey made no reference to Clinton’s correspondent: We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. The decision to purge any reference to Obama is consistent with the panic that seized his administration from the moment Clinton’s use of a private, non-secure server system was revealed in early March 2015. I detailed this reaction in a series of 2016 columns (see, e.g., here and here). What most alarmed Obama and Clinton advisers (those groups overlap) was not only that there were several Clinton–Obama email exchanges, but also that Obama dissembled about his knowledge of Clinton’s private email use in a nationally televised interview. On March 4, just after the New York Times broke the news about Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, John Podesta (a top Obama adviser and Clinton’s campaign chairman) emailed Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s confidant and top aide in the Obama State Department) to suggest that Clinton’s “emails to and from potus” should be “held” — i.e., not disclosed — because “that’s the heart of his exec privilege.” At the time, the House committee investigating the Benghazi jihadist attack was pressing for production of Clinton’s emails. As his counselors grappled with how to address his own involvement in Clinton’s misconduct, Obama deceptively told CBS News in a March 7 interview that he had found out about Clinton’s use of personal email to conduct State Department business “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”

Perhaps he was confident that, because he had used an alias in communicating with Clinton, his emails to and from her — estimated to number around 20 — would remain undiscovered. His and Clinton’s advisers were not so confident. Right after the interview aired, Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin emailed Jennifer Palmieri and other senior campaign staffers, stating: “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it on the news.” Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Mills. Shortly afterwards, an agitated Mills emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.” (That is, Obama had emails from Clinton, which he had to know were from a private account since her address did not end in “@state.gov” as State Department emails do.) So how did Obama and his helpers ‘clean this up’? So how did Obama and his helpers “clean this up”? Obama had his email communications with Clinton sealed. He did this by invoking a dubious presidential-records privilege.

The White House insisted that the matter had nothing to do with the contents of the emails, of course; rather, it was intended to vindicate the principle of confidentiality in presidential communications with close advisers. With the media content to play along, this had a twofold benefit: Obama was able (1) to sidestep disclosure without acknowledging that the emails contained classified information and (2) to avoid using the term “executive privilege” — with all its dark Watergate connotations — even though that was precisely what he was invoking. Note that claims of executive privilege must yield to demands for disclosure of relevant evidence in criminal prosecutions. But of course, that’s not a problem if there will be no prosecution. The White House purported to repair the president’s disingenuous statement in the CBS interview by rationalizing that he had meant that he learned of Clinton’s homebrew server system through news reports — he hadn’t meant to claim unawareness that she occasionally used private email. This was sheer misdirection: From Obama’s standpoint, the problem was that he discussed government intelligence matters with the secretary of state through a private email account; the fact that, in addition, Clinton’s private email account was connected to her own private server system, rather than some other private email service, was beside the point. But, again, the media was not interested in such distinctions and contentedly accepted the White House’s non-explanation. Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered Comey to use the word “matter” rather than “investigation” to describe the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s email practices.

This ensured that the Democratic administration’s law-enforcement agencies were aligning their story with the Democratic candidate’s campaign rhetoric. If there was no investigation, there would be no prosecution. In April 2016, in another nationally televised interview, Obama made clear that he did not want Clinton to be indicted. His rationale was a legally frivolous straw man: Clinton had not intended to harm national security. This was not an element of the felony offenses she had committed; nor was it in dispute. No matter: Obama’s analysis was the stated view of the chief executive. If, as was sure to happen, his subordinates in the executive law-enforcement agencies conformed their decisions to his stated view, there would be no prosecution. Within a few weeks, even though the investigation was ostensibly still underway and over a dozen key witnesses — including Clinton herself — had not yet been interviewed, the FBI began drafting Comey’s remarks that would close the investigation. There would be no prosecution.

On June 27, Lynch met with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, on an out-of-the-way Arizona tarmac, where their security details arranged for both their planes to be parked. Over the next few days, the FBI took pains to strike any reference to Obama’s emails with Mrs. Clinton from the statement in which Comey would effectively end the “matter” with no prosecution. On July 1, amid intense public criticism of her meeting with Bill Clinton, Attorney General Lynch piously announced that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI director and career prosecutors made about charging Clinton. As Page told Strzok in a text that day, “This is a purposeful leak following the airplane snafu.” It was also playacting. Page elaborated that the attorney general already “knows no charges will be brought.” Of course she did: It was understood by all involved that there would be no prosecution. Knowing that, Lynch had given the FBI notice on June 30 that she’d be announcing her intention to accept Comey’s recommendation. Fearing this just might look a bit choreographed, the FBI promptly amended Comey’s planned remarks to include this assertion (which he in fact made on July 5): “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.” But they did not need to participate in drafting the statement, and they did not need to know the precise words he was going to use. It was not Comey’s decision anyway.

All they needed to know was that there would be no prosecution. All cleaned up: no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no disclosure of Clinton-Obama emails. On July 2, with the decision that she would not be indicted long since made, Mrs. Clinton sat for an interview with the FBI — something she’d never have done if there were a chance she might be charged. The farce was complete with the Justice Department and FBI permitting two subjects of the investigation — Mills and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson — to sit in on the interview as lawyers representing Clinton. That is not something law enforcement abides when it is serious about making a case. Here, however, it was clear: There would be no prosecution. All cleaned up: no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no disclosure of Clinton–Obama emails. It all worked like a charm . . . except the part where Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency and the problem is never spoken of again. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455696/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary

[Chris]

956020606503456774

[spurraider21]

956020606503456774
brian haney, tim sabel, william barkley, and scott reynolds died in a helicopter crash in 1993. how is that part of some clinton body count?

[Chris]

brian haney, tim sabel, william barkley, and scott reynolds died in a helicopter crash in 1993. how is that part of some clinton body count?

Are you saying their deaths weren't suspicious?


On the morning of May 19, 1993, Staff Sergeant Brian Haney, Marine Sergeant Tim Sabel, Major William Barkley and Captain Scott Reynolds died in a US Marine Corps helicopter crash in Blossom Point, Maryland. The helicopter was one of a small fleet that transported the president. Archaeologist Frank Owens and his assistant witnessed the helicopter flying over them. Thirty minutes later, they discovered the crash site in a clearing. The local authorities arrived within minutes. The wreckage was scattered across an acre of forest. Within an hour, a heavily armed unit of Marines secured the area. Three months later, the Marines issued its final report on the crash. They concluded that the crash had been caused by mechanical failure due to faulty maintenance.
When Frank Owens read the report, he felt that something was not right. In the weeks following the crash, he had spent time at the crash site erecting a memorial for the crew. The report stated that all debris and jet fuel had been cleaned up from the site. Frank, however, claims that he found and collected forty-three pounds of wreckage from the site. He decided to start his own investigation into the crash. As a result, he attracted the attention of several military and weapons researchers.
Journalist James Pate felt that it was very suspicious that the military did not collect all of the wreckage from the crash site. He noted that with the crash of TWA Flight 800, investigators spent weeks picking up wreckage from the ocean floor in order to re-assemble the plane as best as possible. This was not done with the helicopter crash.
According to the official report, the crash was caused by improperly installed roll pins. The pins are two-inch metal rods that connect the transmission with the engine. Frank spoke with the workers who installed the roll pins and they claimed that they properly installed them. An investigator noted that, if the roll pin had been improperly installed, the helicopter would have not been able to fly in the first place.
After studying the flight path of the helicopter, Frank and electronics specialist Craig Coley noticed that the pilot made an extreme u-turn. This meant that the pilot realized that something was wrong with the helicopter and was trying to turn around to make an emergency landing. Despite the fact that there was an open field in front of him, the pilot kept flying and crashed into the woods. Craig wonder if the pilot's vision was impaired by an unknown force.
James Pate believes that the helicopter crashed due to exposure from microwave radiation. Allegedly, a system was developed during the 1980s that used microwave energy. It was designed to disrupt electronic equipment in aircraft and missiles. The helicopter would have been far more susceptible to a microwave weapon because it would directly interfere with the flight control electronics. Tests with microwave energy have shown that a person's vision would most likely be affected first because it heats the fluid in one's eyes.
The Army has apparently experimented with high-power microwave technology. However, most experts say that an actual delivery system is not yet a reality. According to James Benford, president of Microwave Sciences, there are no high-powered microwave weapons in existence yet. The only testing done has been to see if military technology is affected by microwave energy. However, some believe that microwave weapons do exist and were tested at a facility in Blossom Point. The facility was five miles from the crash site.
Frank Owens believes that a high-powered microwave is the only way to explain unusual burn marks on each of the victims' bodies. A burns specialist examined the burn marks and could not say what caused it. The military attributed the marks to chemical burns from spilled fuel. However, the burns specialist does not believe that the fuel could have caused the marks.
Recently, Frank Owens indefinitely suspended his investigation out of respect for the victims' families. The Marine Corps considers the case closed.
Suspects: A government cover-up is suspected in the crash. Some believe that a high-powered microwave weapon accidentally caused the helicopter to crash.

[spurraider21]

Are you saying their deaths weren't suspicious?
i asked you what it had to do with clinton

[TSA]

Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted

New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.

That was a beautiful wall of text, one of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen.

[Chris]

That was a beautiful wall of text, one of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen.

You should have seen it before I edited it :lol It copy pasted into a blob.

[RandomGuy]

...

[RandomGuy]

TSA Conflict of interest important now?

I thought you didn't give a shit about conflicts of interest?

[TSA]

TSA Conflict of interest important now?

I thought you didn't give a shit about conflicts of interest?

Clinton Foundation Uses Unseen Transactions for Influence Peddling

Huge, unregulated transnational charities provide unique cover for moving money and other considerations as illegal favors

The evolution of the Clinton Foundation since Oct. 23, 1997, proves that gigantic frauds, spread across the globe under the harsh glare of public attention and in the media, are tough to grasp — and tougher still to police.

Who would imagine, for example, that a former president, an aspiring president and a highly educated only child would work together, purposefully gaming controls at supposed “charities,” produce false and misleading public filings, and do so for more than two decades using a bevy of outside professional advisers and world-renowned directors?

Yet close examination of available facts demonstrates the Clinton Foundation and its network of false-front charity “initiatives” and affiliates remains the largest set of unprosecuted charitable frauds in American history.

In a sad sense, international charities are perfect vehicles for such questionable activities. After all, who can check effectively how much money is in truth raised and where discrete portions of these revenues are disbursed in far-flung corners of the world?

And, as you will see, unregulated and unaudited “charities” allow donors to send much more money towards politicians clandestinely than is allowed under national laws concerning political campaigns.

Meanwhile, international charity also provides cover to disguise payoffs that might unlock mining and energy concessions, telecommunications and other licenses, and largesse (grants and subsidized loans, for example) from multilateral organizations, including the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, among others.

Though such frauds began escalating in 2002, it is helpful to begin examining the thread illustrating the internationalization of the Clinton Foundation in 2009. Note that was during the first year of the Obama presidency.

What really was happening with the Russia “reset” starting in 2009? Large contributions to political campaigns come with strings attached.

Evidence already in the public domain shows that certain Russians found common cause with green investors, as Peter Schweizer’s work for the Government Accountability Institute explained in “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism.”

Under Obama’s leadership, Hillary Clinton’s role in improving America’s relations with Russia started on the wrong foot in March 2009 in Geneva.

Despite this inauspicious beginning, tensions with Russia started to ease. To the consternation of many, the U.S. announced in September 2009 that it would abandon plans to provide a missile defense shield to Poland and other Eastern Europe nations.

By May 2010, Russia surprisingly joined with the U.S. and China to impose fresh sanctions on Iran over that rogue nation’s nuclear programs.

So, after a rocky start, Obama’s rapprochement with Russia seemed to bear tangible fruit. However, the real “gains” likely were occurring for political contributors who also were active investors and financiers for capital projects inside Russia, especially those involving transfers of technology.

Americans deserve to know how assiduously — or not — the IRS carried out its work as the 2016 presidential campaign entered its closing days.

Only now that the Trump administration has won confirmation for key appointments within America’s federal law enforcement agencies will the public begin to learn just how extensively the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) may have been used as a clearinghouse — one in which to trade cash for political favors and access at Skolkovo in Russia, and more broadly around the world.

Starting in July 2016, the Dallas office of the IRS finally began an investigation into Clinton Foundation public filings, prodded by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and other congressional Republicans.

Missing disclosures concerning donations from foreign governments, and other glaring discrepancies, should have been resolved and should have triggered payment of substantial fines, penalties, and interest to government treasuries long ago.

The American public has an absolute right to learn how charities are abused by politically connected bureaucrats. Congress, the FBI and the Department of Justice must expose what really happened with monies sent towards the Clinton family and their foundation, especially including the Clinton Global Initiative.

For good measure, Americans deserve to know how assiduously — or not — the IRS carried out its work as the 2016 presidential campaign entered its closing days.

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-foundation-uses-unseen-transactions-for-influence-peddling/

[RandomGuy]

TSA Conflict of interest important now?

I thought you didn't give a shit about conflicts of interest?




[wall of text about Clinton foundation]

whataboutism dodge

Either conflicts of interest are important, or they aren't.

You seem to have double standards for when they are important and when they aren't, which is pure sophistry.

Are conflicts of interest important?

[TSA]

:rollin trying to call out whataboutism in a thread dedicated to the Clinton Foundation investigation :rollin

[Chris]

:rollin trying to call out whataboutism in a thread dedicated to the Clinton Foundation investigation :rollin

RandomNonsenseGuy :lol

[Blake]

That was a beautiful wall of text, one of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen.

Lol

[Chris]

Hillary lying her ass off.

956138518731948035

[koriwhat]

Hillary lying her ass off.

956138518731948035

https://m.popkey.co/acaf16/JLjak.gif

[Chris]

https://m.popkey.co/acaf16/JLjak.gif

on it


Wall Street Whistleblower: Clinton Foundation is the ‘Largest Charitable Fraud in American History’

Former investment banker and self-styled Wall Street whistleblower Charles Ortel is one of the foremost experts on Clinton Foundation corruption. According to Ortel, “examination of available facts demonstrates the Clinton Foundation and its network of false-front charity “initiatives” and affiliates remains the largest set of unprosecuted charitable frauds in American history.”

956248463804481541

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-bill-1050x700-600x400.jpg


Everything from the charity’s structure to pay-to-play schemes in relation to the ill-fatted Russia “reset,” tell a tale of corruption and cronyism that would make Al Capone blush.

Charles Ortel writes in Lifezette:

In a sad sense, international charities are perfect vehicles for such questionable activities. After all, who can check effectively how much money is in truth raised and where discrete portions of these revenues are disbursed in far-flung corners of the world?

Meanwhile, international charity also provides cover to disguise payoffs that might unlock mining and energy concessions, telecommunications and other licenses, and largesse (grants and subsidized loans, for example) from multilateral organizations, including the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, among others.

What really was happening with the Russia “reset” starting in 2009? Large contributions to political campaigns come with strings attached.

Evidence already in the public domain shows that certain Russians found common cause with green investors, as Peter Schweizer’s work for the Government Accountability Institute explained in “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism.” […]

To the consternation of many, the U.S. announced in September 2009 that it would abandon plans to provide a missile defense shield to Poland and other Eastern Europe nations. […]

Starting in July 2016, the Dallas office of the IRS finally began an investigation into Clinton Foundation public filings, prodded by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and other congressional Republicans.

Missing disclosures concerning donations from foreign governments, and other glaring discrepancies, should have been resolved and should have triggered payment of substantial fines, penalties, and interest to government treasuries long ago.

According to recent reports, the FBI is investigating millions of “mishandled taxpayer” dollars funneled to the dubious non-profit from Australian taxpayers.

Zerohedge reports via LifeZette:

The FBI has asked retired Australian policeman-turned investigative journalist, Michael Smith, to provide information he has gathered detailing multiple allegations of the Clinton Foundation receiving tens of millions of mishandled taxpayer funds, according to LifeZette.

“I have been asked to provide the FBI with further and better particulars about allegations regarding improper donations to the CF funded by Australian taxpayers,” Smith told LifeZette.

Of note, the Clinton Foundation received some $88 million from Australian taxpayers between 2006 and 2014, reaching its peak in 2012-2013 – which was coincidentally (we’re sure) Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s last year in office.

The news comes amid a recent report by The Hill’s John Solomon alleging the FBI is launching a new investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Is this the probe Solomon was referring to?

As The Gateway Pundit‘s Cristina Laila reports, one witness, who spoke on the condition of anonymity has already been interviewed by the FBI. The witness described the interview to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision.

One report after another from various media outlets have shown strange coincidences involving the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation would receive huge donations from donor X only to have donor X magically get favorable decisions by Hillary Clinton’s State Department around the same time.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/wall-street-whistleblower-clinton-foundation-largest-charitable-fraud-american-history/

[Pavlov]

Yeah, there's no way Canada would've gotten an arms deal with the United States otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, there's no way Canada would've gotten an arms deal with the United States otherwise.

That tweet is pretty much the definition of "post hoc propter hoc" fallacy.

[RandomGuy]

TSA Conflict of interest important now?

I thought you didn't give a shit about conflicts of interest?




[wall of text about Clinton foundation]


whataboutism dodge

Either conflicts of interest are important, or they aren't.

You seem to have double standards for when they are important and when they aren't, which is pure sophistry.

Are conflicts of interest important?


:rollin trying to call out whataboutism in a thread dedicated to the Clinton Foundation investigation :rollin

If they were important, you could have easily said so.

You didn't.

The only reasonable conclusion is that you don't think conflicts of interest are important.

This thread is about a conflict of interest.

Therefore, you don't care about this thread. You have provided easy proof that you don't even believe your own bullshit. :lol

QEDMF

[Pavlov]

THE UNITED STATES WOULD NEVER SELL ARMS TO THEIR ALLIES UNLESS THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS BRIBED WITH CHARITY DONATIONS