Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
We're going from accusations that Hillary Clinton used an unsecured email server that could've been hacked to that now she was selling classified information to other nations in exchange for payments to the Clinton Foundation? Obviously if there was ever any credible evidence a sitting Secretary of State had been selling classified information it would be one of the biggest scandals ever. I would think the FBI guys just might give that a tad more priority than Clinton using a private server.

As for there being an actual investigation, I found what look like right wing sites that are urging the FBI to investigate Clinton to see if she "sold intel." However, I don't find any news stories by Fox or anyone else that the FBI is seriously looking at Clinton for selling classified information.

I did find that a House Republican named Marsha Blackburn is urging the FBI, the IRS and the Federal Trade Commission to "investigate" the Clinton Foundation, idea being, I guess, to see if they can come up with anything. Does Hillary Clinton have any civil rights? What's Blackburn's "probable cause" for these investigations being legal? "Reports in the media." How much you want to bet you can trace those "reports" to various Republicans? USA Today article

As Linda Ellerbee used to say, "And so it goes." :(
 
It is hard to describe how pathetic it is that Republicans are still holding on to hope that Hillary is going get thrown in prison. Thus time over the Clinton Foundation or perjury.

Not going to happen and they are going to look even more moronic than usual (if that is possible) when it doesn't.
 
Tony Stark said:
It is hard to describe how pathetic it is that Republicans are still holding on to hope that Hillary is going get thrown in prison. Thus time over the Clinton Foundation or perjury.

Not going to happen and they are going to look even more moronic than usual (if that is possible) when it doesn't.
Click to expand...


We'll just have to wait until January, when Trump is sworn in as President. Topping his agenda will be replacing the Attorney General and the FBI Director with Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich (my selections). It's highly doubtful these two will share Loretta Lynch and James Comey's cavalier attitudes towards enforcing the law.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
We'll just have to wait until January, when Trump is elected President. Topping his agenda will be replacing the Attorney General and FBI Director with Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich (my selections). It's highly doubtful these two will share Loretta Lynch and James Comey's cavalier attitudes towards enforcing the law.
Click to expand...
LOL.

Your credibility has proven to be negative. Clearly the opposite of what you believe is what is likely to happen.

LMAO.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
We'll just have to wait until January, when Trump is sworn in as President. Topping his agenda will be replacing the Attorney General and the FBI Director with Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich (my selections). It's highly doubtful these two will share Loretta Lynch and James Comey's cavalier attitudes towards enforcing the law.
Click to expand...

Naturally, none of this will happen.
 
Newt Gingrich as FBI Director? What a complete freaking joke. I don't know how Slings and Arrows expects normal people to take him seriously.
 
Tony Stark said:
Newt Gingrich as FBI Director? What a complete freaking joke. I don't know how Slings and Arrows expects normal people to take him seriously.
Click to expand...

This thread used to mean something. People used to come in swinging about how Clinton was done and done. Now, look at what its become. Such a shame.
 
Tony Stark said:
Newt Gingrich as FBI Director? What a complete freaking joke. I don't know how Slings and Arrows expects normal people to take him seriously.
Click to expand...

So now the righties (that means Slings and Arrows) are admitting they want the FBI to be partisan hacks?

Damn that Comey and his FBI, being all independent and stuff.
 
pgwenthold said:
So now the righties (that means Slings and Arrows) are admitting they want the FBI to be partisan hacks?

Damn that Comey and his FBI, being all independent and stuff.
Click to expand...

Not sure that Slingd and Arrows is a righty so much as mindlessly Anti Establishement.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Oops. Thought this was a big announcement that was known.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/87186452/?client=ms-android-verizon#


Link trouble from phone. Announced she was advocating a CU amendment.
Click to expand...

So in your mind, overturning Citizen's United equates to, an amendment to allow her government to punish people whose only crime was advertising a film about her.

That's one distorted view of the world you have there. The issue was hiding a campaign donation by calling it producing a movie. From Wiki:
In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA".[4]
Click to expand...

You seem to think regulating campaign finance equates to "punishment". "Only Crime" was skirting campaign finance laws.

And I remind you the court was split, it was not unanimous.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So in your mind, overturning Citizen's United equates to, an amendment to allow her government to punish people whose only crime was advertising a film about her.

That's one distorted view of the world you have there. The issue was hiding a campaign donation by calling it producing a movie. From Wiki:

You seem to think regulating campaign finance equates to "punishment". "Only Crime" was skirting campaign finance laws.

And I remind you the court was split, it was not unanimous.
Click to expand...

The laws come with punishment for violating them.

Campaign finance laws are clearly a violation of the first amendment. They have no place in our society.
 
Last edited:
A very curious fact about the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The part of the act that Hillary: The Movie ran afoul of -- banning broadcasts of certain kinds of electioneering within thirty days of a federal primary or sixty days of a federal election (I may have that reversed) -- was that it was not a part of the original act. It was an amendment offered by a Senator from Montana and championed in the Senate by Mitch McConnell.
 
16.5 said:
what a hypocrite. There has been no candidate ever who has exploited that ruling more than Hillary. Look at her working with Brock's shady organizations hand in glove.

Gross.
Click to expand...

Except no evidence of anything shady or them working together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom