Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marcus said:
It's my own binary choice I'm thinking of, I suppose. Hillary is odious, but Trump is unthinkable, so I will have to choose between her and Stay Home. At least that way I will be able to say later I didn't vote for her.
Click to expand...

You can vote for someone other than Hillary or Trump.
 
Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails

The release would prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

Reports indicate that the decision as to whether to reveal the intercepts would be made by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it was possible that the release would, if made, be through a third party, such as Wikileaks.

U.S. sources indicated that the extensive Department of Justice probe was more focused on the possibility that the private server was used to protect messaging in which Secretary Clinton allegedly discussed quid pro quo transactions with private donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy.

Read more:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-reportedly-set-release-clintons-193700629.html (June 13, 2016)
Click to expand...


The Clinton Foundation received $17.7 million in donations from foreign governments (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait), while Crooked Hillary was Secretary of State.

And under the Espionage Act (Title 18), any defense related "quid pro quo transaction" with a foreign government can potentially be punishable by death or by imprisonment for life.

Reference:
Cryptic NY Filing Revealed Clinton Foundation Foreign Donations
U.S. Code 18 section 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
The Clinton Foundation received $17.7 million in donations from foreign governments (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait), while Crooked Hillary was Secretary of State.

And under the Espionage Act (Title 18), any defense related "quid pro quo transaction" with a foreign government can potentially be punishable by death or by imprisonment for life.

Reference:
Cryptic NY Filing Revealed Clinton Foundation Foreign Donations
U.S. Code 18 section 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
Click to expand...
Great, now, all you have to do is prove she gave them something for the donations.

Oh, you have no proof and are just throwing **** against the wall. What a shocker.
 
DavidJames said:
Why would people declare HRC guilty while the investigation is still ongoing?
Click to expand...
Because they desperately need to believe?

Marcus said:
Is 16.5 a Trump supporter? He won't answer me, and at least from the posts I have read he hasn't said. There are only two choices as far as I can tell, vote for Hillary, or don't vote.
Click to expand...
Certainly he's a right-wing Republican.

Slings and Arrows said:
"Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange warns more information will be published about Hillary Clinton, enough to indict her in what he predicts will be “a very big year” for the whistleblowing website.

"About 32,000 emails from her private server have been leaked by Wikileaks so far, but Assange would not confirm the number of emails or when they are expected to be published."

Reference:
Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton (June 13, 2016)
Click to expand...
Wow, Russia Today. Got a real source? And some proof that this "evidence" actually exists?

16.5 said:
Who said anyone "judged her guilty"? What a silly straw man.
Click to expand...
So you admit that you accusation of "gross misconduct" was untrue.
 
catsmate said:
Wow, Russia Today. Got a real source?
Click to expand...


Time Magazine:

"Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says that the whistleblower organization will publish more emails Hillary Clinton sent and received on her private email server while Secretary of State.

“'We have emails pending publication, that is correct,' Assange told U.K. television on Sunday."

http://time.com/4365858/wikileaks-publish-hillary-clinton-emails-assange/ (June 13, 2016)​


The Guardian:

"Julian Assange’s comments came in an interview on ITV’s Peston on Sunday. “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct,” Assange said. He did not specify when or how many emails would be published."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...sh-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange (June 12, 2016)​


WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive:

"Searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State.

"The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton."

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ (March 16, 2016)​
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
Because they desperately need to believe?


Certainly he's a right-wing Republican.


Wow, Russia Today. Got a real source? And some proof that this "evidence" actually exists?


So you admit that you accusation of "gross misconduct" was untrue.
Click to expand...

I think it is precious that you think that calling out Hillary's gross misconduct makes anyone a right winger. It is just common sense! Did you google the article about Assange? There are dozens of them regarding her gross misconduct
 
16.5 said:
I think it is precious that you think that calling out Hillary's gross misconduct makes anyone a right winger. It is just common sense! Did you google the article about Assange? There are dozens of them regarding her gross misconduct
Click to expand...

You just doubled down on your double down.

Now, all you have to do is show us where the article says that "there are dozens of them regarding her gross misconduct". That should be easy; it's a short article. Or would you choose to admit that you just made that up, also? Frankly, "Gross Misconduct" doesn't appear to actually be any sort of criminal charge. Maybe you could tell us where you developed this particular train of thought.

Do you want to handle it yourself or wait for one of your progressive Minions to come muddy the water for you by pointing out what a bunch of meanies we are for holding you to standards that have some semblance of honesty to them?
 
16.5 said:
I think it is precious that you think that calling out Hillary's gross misconduct makes anyone a right winger. It is just common sense! Did you google the article about Assange? There are dozens of them regarding her gross misconduct
Click to expand...

I find it utterly amazing that people who would love nothing better than to lynch Assange are now salivating at the thought he might possibly damage Hillary. There must be some very strange dreams happening out there.
 
lionking said:
I find it utterly amazing that people who would love nothing better than to lynch Assange are now salivating at the thought he might possibly damage Hillary. There must be some very strange dreams happening out there.
Click to expand...

Hillary damaged Hillary, Assange is just the messenger.

Hell I hope they throw Assange in jail... he can have the cell right next to Hillary.
 
Fudbucker said:
There's two things that can "finish" Hillary, and they're both future events (election/FBI investigation), so I figure this thread is speculation about the likelihood of either of those events.

But the OP title is horribly phrased.
Click to expand...

Or something like that. You'll note that some folks, like Slings and Arrows, have a rock-solid certainty of Clinton's imminent doom. It's quite enjoyable to watch. I'm happy to take advantage of the silliness for my own entertainment ends.

Thus, on each page, I'll continue to ask the question at least once. Enjoy!:D
 
lionking said:
I find it utterly amazing that people who would love nothing better than to lynch Assange are now salivating at the thought he might possibly damage Hillary. There must be some very strange dreams happening out there.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with Assange. It has everything to do with an apparent treasure trove of emails that are about to be released. It doesn't matter if they're released by Putin, Assange, Snowden, or some hacker. People will read them.
 
RobRoy said:
Or something like that. You'll note that some folks, like Slings and Arrows, have a rock-solid certainty of Clinton's imminent doom. It's quite enjoyable to watch. I'm happy to take advantage of the silliness for my own entertainment ends.

Thus, on each page, I'll continue to ask the question at least once. Enjoy!:D
Click to expand...

I also note some people liken the odds of indictment to Halley's comet crashing through their house.

Thus, on each page, I'll continue to answer your question with: "Is the security review investigation criminal investigation over"?
 
Fudbucker said:
I also note some people liken the odds of indictment to Halley's comet crashing through their house.

Thus, on each page, I'll continue to answer your question with: "Is the security review investigation criminal investigation over"?
Click to expand...

Wait, the odds of indictment can't be estimated until the FBI makes an announcement? By this logic, Halley's Comet can still come crashing through your house, because "Is the Solar System over?"
 
Fudbucker said:
I also note some people liken the odds of indictment to Halley's comet crashing through their house.

Thus, on each page, I'll continue to answer your question with: "Is the security review investigation criminal investigation over"?
Click to expand...
if you don't mind would you also respond with the same quote to each comment claiming HRC broke the law or is guilty?
 
DavidJames said:
if you don't mind would you also respond with the same quote to each comment claiming HRC broke the law or is guilty?
Click to expand...

Why would I go after such low-hanging fruit? The fun is in tweaking people who claim to be non-partisan skeptics, yet exist in a bubble where everything can be (and is) dismissed as part of "a vast right-wing conspiracy" or HDS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom