Remember when Hillary said that the FBI had not contacted her?
Asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether she had been interviewed by the FBI yet, the former secretary of state replied, “No.”
That, as they say, is no longer operative. Clinton is going to be interviewed by the FBI.
Somehow Clinton knows ahead of time that she is not going to face an indictment:
The FBI is investigating Clinton’s unconventional email server and use of a personal email account, and some Republicans are speculating it will lead to an indictment.
Clinton said there’s no chance of that happening.
And in that same time, someone has gotten to Ron Fournier. Someone seems to have reminded him what can happen to those who run afoul of the Clinton’s. Previously, Fournier has been tough on Hillary Clinton, calling her secretive, unaccountable and dishonest. Out of nowhere, Fournier now asserts that the bar to prosecute Clinton should be higher than it is for the car thief or, for that matter, a man. A man like John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake and David Petraeus.
(In case you missed it, Drake had his life destroyed for “one count of exceeding the authorized use of a government computer.” He was trying to expose illegal activities. Candidate obama was all for whistle blowers but President obama has waged a war on whistle blowers.)
“Legally, though, there’s a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who’s running for president, and as critical as I’ve been of Hillary Clinton, and I am very critical of Hillary Clinton, I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar you have to get over, because we can’t have a system in which we’re constantly charging people who are running for president with a crime.”
Fournier inexplicably asserts that running for President acts as an immunity against all crimes.
Host Joe Scarborough was astonished:
“Actually, the bar is ‘reckless [disregard]’ of classified information….”
And Scarborough went on:
Scarborough went on to provide a handful of examples of what would happen to regular people, or even a congressman, if they left out a single piece of classified material outside of a secure area, much less sent or received over 2,000 e-mails containing classified information.
“The scale of this is so remarkable, I do not know how James Comeydoesn’t do something definitive, election year or not,” Scarborough said.
Clinton’s actions parallel the Petraeus case closely. Petraeus pleaded guilty to one count of “removing and retaining classified information.” He shared classified information with Paula Broadwell, who at the time had the security clearance level to view the documents.
Hillary Clinton gave full access to her documents to one Bryan Paglilano, who had no security clearance or experience. Twenty two of Clinton’s communications contained “top secret” information.
Now Fournier believes she should not face the same fate as Petraeus because she’s a girl. It would be one heck of a message to to give anyone a pass on crimes because he or she is running for President. That would confirm the existence of a multi-tiered justice system- one for the Clinton’s and one for the rest of us.
Bonus:
Hillary incessantly claims that she never sent or received anything marked “classified.” Neither does anyone else. Nothing is marked “classified.”
“It is marked ‘confidential,’ ‘secret’ or ‘top secret,'” Judge Napolitano said, adding that Clinton signed an oath her first day in office, in which she said she understood her legal obligation to know what is secret whether it’s labeled so or not.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
ahhhh Dr J i see another in a long list of misguided hopes about to disintegrate right before your eyes
Those hopes and dreams you once had as a younger man
Scottie Walker as POTUS (the man the Democrats fear the most) gone, disappeared over the rainbow.
Rafael Cruz, now with British bookies giving looooong shot odds of 30-1 for POTUS
And now your unfortunate Donald just now a grandfather to a grandson that his daughter chose to name after the man challenging him to be the next defeated GOP candidate
And you had such high hopes for an indictment of Hillary
SADZ
The fact that Obama has been telling donors that it’s time to start uniting behind Hillary should tell you something. The pressure on the FBI not to recommend indictment will be immense because if they do and the DOJ doesn’t indict, there will be enormous damage done not just to her but Obama as well although the MSM and the Party will do their best to bury it and cover for her. We will soon find out if we are a republic or an oligarchy. We have definitely been heading down the path of the latter the last seven years.
I suspect that Bryan Paglilano the man hired by Hillary to set up her server will be indicted, tried, convicted, spend years in prison and released for “accessing classified material” long before Hillary is indicted. Long as in an eternity.
@J. L. Jaudon:
Pagliano has already been offered immunity
@another vet: the FBI never “recommends” prosecution, they are simply an investigative
organization, they investigate then present evidence
The DOJ decides if prosecution is warranted
The FBI never gives an opinion on whether to prosecute
I believe the case should be considered carefully and judiciously. Obviously, I think Hillary is as guilty as guilty can be. Obviously, the information we have already available shows beyond any reasonable doubt that, intentionally or not, she had government classified information on the personal server she ordered set up.
However, obvious appearances and what can be proven in court are two different matters, especially when dealing with the type of people who hang their innocence on what the definition of “is” is. The last thing I would want is for the government to rush into this and fail due to incompetence. The bar IS higher, not becaus it should be but because this is a Clinton Democrat Presidential candidate and anything but a successful conviction will be deemed the work of the “vast right wing conspiracy”… which it will in any case.
It would be a judicial miracle of Biblical proportions if this President allowed this DOJ to pursue a case against Hillary. But should it (though I sincerely doubt it) I want all the I’s dotted and T’s crossed.
@J. L. Jaudon: I am sure that the bar is not higher because she is a woman? Maybe the bar should be higher because she is a liberal!
Beyond his 2 years’ probation, Gen. Petraeus was threatened with a lowering of his retirement pension via a lowering of his rank in retirement.
Perhaps Hillary, a 60 times over millionaire, could accept that level of punishment?
Of course, she’d have to admit to giving secret document access to many people unauthorized to see it.
Blumenthal, for one, comes to mind.
At least Paula had legal clearance to read what the General had on his computer.
I am sure someone will go to jail just like they did in the White Water scandal, The Clintons will pay off others who will take their blame..
They could walk in on her murdering someone covered in blood weapon in hand cackling and this admin wouldn’t prosecute and her followers would say it was a VRC.
All the eye witnesses would die in unfortunate accidents and suicides.
You can keep hoping for a Hillary Clinton take down. Meanwhile, the GOP still has to decide between the two remaining contestants that hopped out of their presidential clown car.
Clinton knows she won’t be facing indictment because she knows there’s nothing actually there to indict her over. Did someone think there would be an investigation of her server without interviewing the person who had it set up in the first place? An interview was always going to happen.
And what if she were to be indicted? Say hello to Bernie Sanders. The GOP should try to find a viable presidential candidate. They can do far better than appear to be doing at present.
@Greg: Neither of the Republicans are pathological liars, corrupt, failed administrators or criminal, as Hillary most assuredly has proven herself to be.
She assumes she won’t be indicted because she is her party’s front runner and she knows Obama puts politics before all else.
@Bill, #11:
Are you trying that out as a comedic one-liner? Donald Trump pretty much illustrates the old joke about how you can tell when a politician is lying.
From Mr. Cruz, we have assertions such as the following:
Uh… What? The agreement in question is actually the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances of 1994. Read it, Ted. You’re a lawyer. It’s very short. No commitment to militarily defend Ukraine is in there.
Regarding S.744 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
No, it didn’t. Syrian refugees were not an issue at the time. ISIS did not yet exist in Syria.
This is a ridiculous statement. There’s nothing identical about Obamacare, which Clinton supports, a single-payer system, which Sanders supports, and whatever the hell Donald Trump might have in mind.
And by the way, what sort of situation is it when you want to give the government authority over women’s personal reproductive decisions, and establish laws that would throw doctors in prison who believe such matters should be private business between women and their doctors? Whatever you want to call that sort of totally unconstitutional governmental intrusion into the most private area of a person’s life, Mr. Cruz is definitely for it.
A preemptive strike against PolitiFact has already been attempted for making a list of Cruz’s b.s. statements, linked to in depth documentation supporting their calls. I suppose it’s easier to attempt to discredit a source than to argue with their presentation of inconvenient but verifiable facts.
@Greg: Tell me something, Greg….
Did Hillary actually dodge sniper bullets in Kosovo?
Did Hillary claim the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was because of a video?
Did Hillary lie about having a private, secret, unsecured email server because she didn’t want to carry two devices?
Did Hillary lie about having classified information on her private, secret, unsecured server?
Did Hillary lie about gun deaths in a debate?
http://downtrend.com/71superb/surprise-hillary-clinton-lied-about-guns-in-democratic-debate?utm_source=fnot2&utm_medium=facebook
Did Hillary lie when she said 90 to 95% of her emails were automatically saved on State Department servers?
Did Hillary lie about being subpoenaed by the Senate committee?
Did Hillary lie about turning all her Benghazi related emails over to the State Department?
Did Hillary lie about being broke when they left the White House?
Did Hillary lie about her grandparent’s immigration?
Did Hillary lie about how she came to be named Hillary?
Did Hillary lie (under oath) about signing off on security cuts at Benghazi consulate?
Did Hillary lie about never lying?
More comprehensive lists of her lies:
Top 50 Hillary Benghazi lies
http://conservativeamerican.org/top-50-hillary-clinton-benghazi-lies/
Hillary’s lies list
http://conservativeamerican.org/the-hillary-clinton-lies-list/
The fact remains that the Democratic Party is offering a choice between two well informed, level-headed, highly experienced elder statesmen, while the GOP is offering a choice between a narcissistic populace loudmouth and a Canadian-born Christian dominionist who might be better suited to a career in televangelism.
No amount of anti-Clinton propaganda is going to overcome the problem republicans are setting up for themselves. What they need is a candidate that a lot of people other than republicans will vote for. I don’t think either Trump or Cruz is that guy. Neither can get the support of even a majority of republicans.
@Greg:
My God, you ARE a comedian, aren’t you? Neither are statesmen by any stretch or definition. “Well informed”? Neither seems informed of the fact that we live under a crushing debt and they both aim to make it far worse. Hillary, the “level headed statesman” handed Libya over to ISIS and got four Americans killed there. Her level headed reasoning told her keeping Top Secret security information in her bathroom was a good idea. Bernie thinks Greece and Spain offer an admirable economic model for the US and that women just LOVE to be gang raped.
Bernie is a proven socialist and his “statesmanship” is apparent through his support for government healthcare and an example of what he finds acceptable in his oversight of the VA.
Either Cruz or Trump would be superior to both these socialist proven failures put together.
@Bill: There were many taking LSD in the 60s. How else can you get these replies from Greg?
We have heard that Donald Trump has said that the Justice Department would prosecute Hillary Clinton for Crimes associated with her Unsecured Private and Highly Secretive Email Server if the FBI recommended that she be prosecuted, if he becomes the President.
That is what a majority of Honest Americans would want, and it is Correct Policy to Prevent a Dictatorship in America, because it has to do with Honesty and Integrity in Government, and Respect for the Law, and Equality before the Law for All Americans.
There are Super Delegates of the Democratic Party who do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party nomination for Presidential Candidate.
This is because they think that Donald Trump or any Republican nominee can easily win against the Corrupt and Incompetent Hillary Clinton, and that the Republican nominee would find it difficult in a campaign with Senator Sanders, or another Democratic Party Candidate.
These Democratic Party Super Delegates want a Clinton Trial, but they do Not want Hillary Clinton to Plead not Guilty in a Trial in a Court of Law before or after the Election, because Many of them may be Secretly receiving Clinton Foundation Money, and they may be Subpoenaed, and have to give Evidence under Oath in a Court of Law with Media Scrutiny, and they do Not want this, even if many of those Clintonite Super Delegates are Not accomplices to the Clinton Emailgate Crimes.
These Democratic Party Super Delegates would Prefer that Hillary Clinton pleads Guilty before the Election, so that the Judge can sentence her before the Election, and Obama can Pardon her after the Election.
There could be some People who think that there are ways of avoiding a Clinton Trial, and they would be if Senator Sanders becomes President, because he has said that he is not interested in Clinton’s Highly Secretive Secretary of State Emails, but he may have to act more honestly on this very serious matter if he becomes President.
Barack Obama would Pardon Hillary Clinton after the Election if there is a speedy Trial where Hillary Clinton pleads Guilty, and spends a short time in jail until after the Election, even though Barack Obama may keep saying that he thinks that it might be better to leave the matter of a Clinton Pardon to the next President.
This would help Senator Sanders or any other Democratic Party nominee in the Election, because Hillary Clinton’s Crimes and who Pardons her would no longer be an issue for the Democratic Party nominee for the Election.
There could be People who think that if Clinton does not spend even a little time in jail for her Crimes, then they may wait until February of 2017 before they File Criminal Charges against Clinton, so that it would be the next President either Democrat or Republican who will have to decide whether to pardon Hillary Clinton.
There are Democrats who would prefer that Barack Obama Pardons her, because it will help the Democratic Party for the Election if Hillary Clinton has spent some time in prison, because the Voters Know that at least some justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to have been done.
If Hillary Clinton pleads Guilty, then she does not need to say much to the Court except for saying what she thinks are the extenuating circumstances, and that she did not know what she was doing was risky and wrong, and that she is sorry for what she has done, and in matters of National Security, it is a Crime to break those Laws either knowingly or unknowingly, and regardless of any extenuating circumstances, but the Judge will consider extenuating circumstances, but Hillary Clinton has only said that her Only extenuating circumstance was that of Convenience, and there are People who do Not think that that Convenience for All of her Secretary of State work on an Unsecured Private Secretive Email Server to Evade the Law and Congressional monitoring is an extenuating circumstance.
The Judge can then sentence Hillary Clinton much faster, because there will be no need to involve and question other People in Court under Oath, and she will Not spend much time in a special comfortable prison, and Obama can Pardon her after the Election.
It will be a real issue for the American Social Democrats, regarding that of Not showing favoritism, or of Overlooking such Serious Crimes and Derelictions of Duty, or if Hillary Clinton has Not yet been tried and convicted, or of a Precedent being set that Government High Officials can put American Citizens and American Security at Risk by using their own Unsecured Private and Highly Secretive Email Server, and if they have Clinton Foundation Money to Bribe Fellow Corruptocrats, then it can be swept under the carpet, but this is Not Accountable Democratic Government, and those who do Not agree with this could be called by artificially invented words like Crimophobe, and say that Law Abiding People are suffering from Crimophobia, because of being Crimophobic, with regards to Hillary Clinton’s Crimes.
If Senator Sanders becomes President, and if he Ignores Hillary Clinton’s Crimes, and the Unsustainable Precedent that Government Officials can use Unsecured Private and Highly Secretive Email Servers, and use their own Flawed Human Nature Self Interest ‘discretionary judgment’ to Delete Emails that they Deliberately Lie and Wrongly say are Personal in the Entirety of those Emails, then the American Social Democrats are No better than the Corruptocrats that they Pretend to criticize.
The Clintons have Rigged Many of the Primaries, with Dirty Tricks and Slanders against Senator Sanders, and the Vote Rigging was more Obvious in Arizona, at http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/voters_accuse_arizona_of_election_fraud_as_phoenix_mayor_requests_federal_investigation/ , and Senator Sanders should have approximately equal numbers of Pledged Delegates and Pledged Super Delegates as Hillary Clinton has, but the system is Rigged against honest Democrats.
Treasonous Content in an Email is what a Traitor wants to keep Private and can Parse words with the claim that they are Personal Emails, and even if most of it is does Not contain Top Secret Sensitive Information.
However, if it contains even a few words of Top Secrets in a long Email, then this makes it a Criminal Offense, but where that Email is claimed by a Hardened and Compulsive Liar to be Personal, and this is like the Mockery of a Defendant in a Court Trial who is also the Judge and Jury at his own Trial, and that is Not Accountable Democratic Government.
We have seen how Hillary Clinton has said that she is refusing to Debate with Senator Sanders, because he mentions her Wall Street Donors.
This is just a continuation of the pattern of Unaccountability that is the Trade Mark of the Clintons, and the Clintons have Always been Unaccountable and would Always want to be Unaccountable as were the Dictatorial Kings and Queens of ancient days.
There are some in the Democratic Party who do Not want a Clinton Trial, and they will put Great Pressure on the FBI to sweep this matter under the carpet, and this Proves that they are Dictators and Traitors to America.
There are other Americans who think that Hillary Clinton should go on Trial to Prove to the World that America is a Good Example of an Accountable Democracy, and the Democrats could try to win the Presidential Election and avoid a Clinton Trial using the method that is described.
If the Democrats look like they will lose the Election with Hillary Clinton as Presidential Candidate, then they may Fake an automobile accident, which the Public thinks is real because of Lying to the Public, and where Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are said to have died in that accident, and to be the only People to have been involved in that Fake accident.
It will be claimed that the bodies of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are burnt beyond recognition, and where animal flesh is used and then cremated to prevent any investigation, and certain People including the family will have to Pretend that there was an accident, but Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton will be alive with New Identities with their Private Mansions.
The scheme would want Hillary Clinton’s running mate to gain sympathy votes from the Voters, and the Clintonite Corruptocrat faction of the Democratic Party hope that it will be enough to win the Presidential Election.
If such a scheme is needed to avoid a Clinton Trial and to Prevent the Clintons from Selling more American Secrets to Foreigners for Money to the Clinton Foundation, so that the Clintons have More Money to Bribe their Fellow Corruptocrats, then Americans should Know that the accident will be a Fake, because it should Not be allowed to influence how Americans Vote, and this is because there could or would or should be People who will discuss these matters on Talkback Radio Shows and write comments at Websites.
If Hillary Clinton can win the Presidential Election, then the Democrats will wait for after the Elections with that Fake automobile accident of the Clintons, to avoid a Clinton Trial, and to set up their Dictatorship, because they Know that a Clinton Trial would prevent a Dictatorship in America, and it would prevent WW 3.
We Know that People can write a phone number from business cards or Internet into their book of phone numbers, and People can be Bribed to Lie with Money or with a lighter sentence from a Court, and that Fake evidence can be manufactured to Wrongly incriminate People, and that Innocent People can be set up, but that does Not mean that Unprincipled People will Not use Unprincipled methods for their Unprincipled purposes, but these things regarding certain attitudes against what is Natural Behavior, which is Naturophobia, with the Naturophobe Bill Naturophobic Clinton and the Naturophobe Jeffrey Naturophobic Epstein who is the Good Friend of the Naturophobic Clintons are Proven Facts at http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065 , and at
.
There are People who do Not think that the Clintons should Usurp the Democratic Party nomination for Presidential Candidates, and if Donald Trump becomes the Republican Presidential nominee, they may want to use the Civil Case method that is described in this comment, and so it is better to be aware of these things, and where such a Civil Case it is only meant to last for the duration of the Election Campaign to try to influence how People Vote at the Election.
These Democrats would rather avoid any need to create a Third Party, and we have read in News Articles how there are Republican Voters who said that they will not vote for Donald Trump, and they might think to use that method, and we may not know who exactly is supporting that Civil Case, and this is why there are People who think that Anyone But Clinton has the better chance for Many Reasons to win the Presidential Election for the Democratic Party.
There are some Americans who do not want Hillary Clinton to be nominated as Presidential Candidate, because then they could more readily bring a Civil Case against Donald Trump if he is the Republican nominee for Presidential Candidate, and some Americans could do that even if Hillary Clinton is the nominee for Presidential Candidate.
The following scenario might apply if either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are in the Election, and if one or both of them are their Party’s nominee for Presidential Candidate, or if there is one or more Third Party Candidates or Independent Candidates, or if someone leads the American Social Democrats because Senator Sanders decides to be just another Corruptocrat, by endorsing Hillary Clinton if she manages to Usurp the Democratic Party nomination for Presidential Candidate.
There are People who think that a Civil Case regarding certain matters associated with Jeffrey Epstein’s Island could be Backed and Funded by George Soros, because he may have copies of Secret Films of some Epstein Democrats and some Epstein Journalists while they were on Epstein’s Island.
We Know that George Soros has said that he likes America to be a Democracy, and he may Not want People who have been to Jeffrey Epstein’s Island to be President, and because Soros does Not know if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or even possibly Senator Sanders has been to Epstein’s Island, and a Civil Case even if it is flimsy and based on matters that are impossible to prove or disprove, but are good enough to be granted a Civil Case whose Secret purpose is to discover how many times Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or even possibly Senator Sanders have been to Epstein’s Island, while others may think that perhaps the Capitalist Michael Bloomberg may be behind it, because he does Not want Senator Sanders to be the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, and Michael Bloomberg Knows that both Jeffrey Epstein and Senator Sanders are Jewish at http://www.gossipextra.com/2016/03/29/jeffrey-epstein-lawsuit-settled-good-news-hillary-clinton-5804/ .
It would not be surprising if the Clintons were behind it, because that News Article said that the Epstein Lawsuit is good for Hillary Clinton, because the Clintons have All of their excuses made up years ago, and because most Americans think that only men could have a problem in that regard, and Hillary Clinton will claim that Donald Trump is biased towards women, but the Facts are that there is a saying that patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel, and this is for the low information voter, and Hillary Scoundrel Clinton who has No Patriotism wants her gender to be her refuge, because Hillary Emailgate Clinton Cannot be recognized or commended for patriotism, honesty, or trustworthiness.
However, the very serious Crimes and a Clinton Trial and the actions of Bill Epstein Clinton can be made to be ignored because of the inappropriate behavior of a Political opponent or even a possible Blackmailed Clinton Puppet or even a possible Secret Clinton Ally for Big Money with Government Contracts under a Clinton Presidency, and men and women Know that there is a distinct difference between speaking within boundaries or being obnoxious at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/29/trumps_problem_with_women_will_tar_the_gop_130118.html .
I think that most of us have occasionally insulted others in our youth, but that was then, even though no human is perfect and necessarily immune to insulting others, and those who seek Public Service should have obtained higher standards and greater restraints than ordinary People, and it is better to attack and insult an opinion and call the opinion or the policy or the behavior bad or wrong, rather than insulting the Person that you disagree with, even though you might not know that you might not be right all of the time, but People are entitled to their opinions, and People should Not insult what they perceive to be the appearance of others.
I have heard some women insult men and women, and I have heard them say the same, and even worse than what that Donald Trump has said, and Hillary Clinton spoke of bimbo eruptions of those women who were the Victims of the serial abuser Bill Epstein Clinton, and Hillary Clinton takes Money from Saudi Arabia, and if Donald Trump is not a Clintonite Trojan Horse for the Republicans, then he should say that Hillary Clinton is anti women, and he should speak more maturely because of having basic respect for other Americans.
That is why Many Americans Know that the Democratic Party is offering Voters the dregs of the Bush and Clinton Dictatorships to America, and the Reason that Americans are Deceived by the Epstein Clintonite Democrats is Not because ordinary Americans lack sufficient intelligence, because they have average intelligence, but it is because the Clintons’ Think Tanks and All of the Resources of the Clintonite Epstein Media Journalistic Think Tanks have Far Superior Intelligence, and Far More Accumulated Knowledge and Experience of Lawyers, and Abilities to Act better than Grammy Award winners, and they can and do Successful Slander Innocent People for things that they themselves are Guilty of, and they can and do Deceive Most of the People Most of the time, but they cannot deceive all of the People all of the time, but they do Not need 100% of the Vote to win an Election.
That Civil Case could raise questions as to its timing, because it would be used by the Media to ask questions to Candidates, and because of using guilt by a once off or occasional association with Jeffrey Epstein, of whom Donald Trump may have had no knowledge of Epstein’s Naturophobic Deviancy, and People cannot function in Business or even Society on the assumption that 99 % of People must be assumed to be deviants and criminals until they are proven innocent, because that would be highly impractical, if not impossible, but the Bill Epstein Clinton who has Knowingly been to Jeffrey Epstein’s Island on Many Occasions and who wants to be Co President again is certainly considered by People to be a Deviant, and perhaps Hillary Clinton has Secretly been to Jeffrey Epstein’s Island, because certain perverted deviancies are committed by men and women.
Americans Know that it is wrong to have guilt by association, and that there must be the Presumption of Innocence until proven guilty in a Court of Law, and Americans Know that the Clintons are Lawyers and Schemers who can make the Innocent look guilty and the Guilty look innocent, and this is why the Guilty and Devious Clintons have been very good at defending their Many Criminal Acts.
If the Clintons are thought to have died in a Fake accident, then Bill Epstein Clinton and Hillary Epstein Clinton cannot be Subpoenaed to answer Questions under Oath in a Court of Law, such as the questions mentioned at http://theantimedia.org/one-question-the-media-refuses-to-ask-donald-trump/ .
There are People on the Left and of them there are approximately 50 % who are females, and they could Never bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton, because they Know that they would be showing a Lack of self respect for themselves, and that they would be showing a great deal of Contempt for their Fellow Americans at https://www.the-newshub.com/us-politics/i-wont-vote-for-clinton-and-will-encourage-sanders-to-run-a-third-party-bid-for-president .
@Anonymous, #17:
If republicans knew what a majority of honest Americans wanted, they wouldn’t be offering them a choice between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric suggests he believes a president can overcome obstacles by pronouncement and by force of will. Look up the definition of the word dictatorship.
There shall be a wall. Mexico will pay for it. Make it so! And make it 10 feet higher! I’m afraid that’s not how things work.
Ted Cruz is a bit confused on the constitutional separation of Church and State. Look up the word dominionism. That’s the underlying evangelical theology that he comes out of, and that informs his understanding of the purpose of government. That’s the purpose he believes he’s been charged with fulfilling. This, to my mind, is a big problem. America was clearly not intended to become a theocratic republic. The intention was that America should become a nation where religion can be freely practiced or not, in accordance with personal belief. It would be a nation free of both repression of religion and coercion by religion. That’s what freedom of religion is about.
@Greg: Actually, Republicans are pretty clear on what they want; the rule of law as opposed to Obama’s extra-Constitutional rule by edict. Cruz is an excellent choice, if short on experience.
Trump offers experience and a record of getting things done sans political entanglements. His rhetoric, while distasteful to some Republicans is nothing worse than Obama’s, which you eat up with a spoon.
Your fear-mongering of “dominionism” is nothing but a figment of your liberal imagination. Like calling someone a racist, that is the product of fearing a viable alternative and lying about it.
Speaking of alternatives, the Democrats with some morals and integrity left are so desperate for an alternative to Hillary, the most dishonest and corrupt individual to EVER seek the office, that they entertain the thought of a lame, unaccomplished, misogynistic socialist. Good luck with THAT.
@Bill, #19:
Do you think the video is a fake that was somehow worked up for propaganda purposes in a studio? It’s hardly the only evidence available. I can hear what’s being said, and I can understand what it means.
Evangelical dominionism is certainly no figment of anyone’s imagination. It’s an entirely real theology that has become a political intention. Not only are its principles absent from the U.S. Constitution; they run contrary to principles specifically expressed in the U.S. Constitution.
@Greg: Too much LSD!
@Greg: Oh, I see. You think everyone named Cruz is running for President.
So I guess it’s OK to believe Hillary will molest and abuse women when she gets in the White House, right?
You still haven’t explained how you can simply ignore Hillary’s lying, much of it for no reason other than to simply lie to unnecessarily enhance herself or for her own amusement. However, it is confirmed that she will lie at the drop of a hat (or a dollar) and, as my wife’s grandmother would say, “would rather clime on the roof an tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth.”
@Bill: Greg are you going to answer the questions posed by Bill, they are valid questions. Likely you won’t because you never do and just run to mommy every time you are called out!!
@Common Sense: Rather consistent, isn’t he?
I saw another Clinton lapdog claiming she was innocent. In order to believe she didn’t break any laws one of two things would have to be true.
One, the United States Government doesn’t have any laws or regulations pertaining to the storage and transmission of classified documents/emails. Or two, the laws and regulations make no distinction between the two and therefore it is legal to store and transmit classified documents/emails in the same manner as unclassified documents.
@Common Sense, #23:
No, I’m not, and no, they aren’t. While they take the form of interrogative sentences, they’re not really questions at all. What we have is not a list of questions, but a compilation of right-wing propaganda points. Most or all have been addressed individually at some point in the past. Attempting to deal with them collectively is a total waste of time. People who believe every “question” represents a summary truth are unlikely to be persuaded to think otherwise. They’ve got an acquired mind set.
It’s like arguing with people about Benghazi. There have been 7 formal Congressional investigations of the topic involving 32 Congressional hearings and the in-depth review of over 70,000 subpoenaed documents. Not one has found evidence of wrongdoing, not one has found evidence of an intelligence failure, and not one has found evidence of a stand-down order. Clinton, who was finally allowed to publicly testify after 11 months of continuous public attack in the media, made the republican tag-team look like a pack of idiots.
Seven investigations finding no evidence of wrongdoing should be enough for any reasonable person. Yet if Benghazi comes up, many on the right will restate all the same slanderous charges they’ve been making from the beginning, as if no investigations ever happened and no formal conclusions were ever published. What reasonable people have long since realized is that the continuous investigations haven’t really been about revealing any truths. They’ve been a partisan political exercise intended to damage the image of a political opponent, conducted at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.
I see little difference between the Benghazi exercise and the email server exercise. There might have been legitimate questions deserving of investigation and answers in both cases, but the investigations quickly turned into something else entirely. Anyone who can’t figure something so obvious out probably can’t figure out much of anything..
Post #25 is mine. “Grer” was an unnoticed typo.
@Greg: I knew it was you from the moment you declined to answer any questions but rather blather on with your nonsense!!
@Grer: So, Hillary DID dodge sniper bullets in Kosovo then… is that what you are saying? She never said there was no classified information on her private, secret, unsecured server…? Hillary never claimed the attack on the consulate was over a video?
Gee, Greg. You’re kind of in severe denial…. real bad. I didn’t even delve into all of Hillary’s gratuitous political lies, the vulgar pandering she commits for some votes. These are just the lies she tells to cover her own corrupt ass or, in many cases, just because they sound neat-o.
Whether she literally dodged sniper bullets or only visited a city where sniper fire at civilians targets was part of the daily routine is irrelevant to me.
The right obsesses about statements being totally literal on occasions where doing so seem useful. On other occasions they find it useful not to do so, even when misstatements might be of serious consequence. People tend to embellish their personal experiences. It’s a common human attribute. Part of the right’s problem is not knowing what actually matters, or at least pretending that they don’t.
@Greg: She lied to sound cool. She lied for the fun of it. And that’s just that one. Every other example I gave is a legitimate example of her lying… blatantly. Everything she says has to be fact checked because she is a habitual, pathological liar.
And you want her to be President, just because she’s a liberal. But, of course, what is a liberal but a liar?
She most likely will be the next president, because a dysfunctional republican party will be offering a totally unacceptable alternative that no one without more loose screws than a Studebaker would consider voting for.
If they don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president, I suggest they deal with that little problem.
@Greg: No, she most likely will not be President. Just because you are willing to set aside a long record of practically nothing but lies, corruption and people around her dropping dead at an alarming rate does not mean everyone is. Her abysmal record of both achievement and honesty is the sole reason a sack of wrinkled laundry like Sanders actually has a shot at it.
Of course Hillary, as the leftist leading candidate, gets the media shielding while they carry on their attacks on Republicans. For instance, on the front page of the Dallas Morning News this morning is a story about Trumps new woes yet NO story about Hillary losing her temper (and lying) at an environmental crank who asks her a question about her taking money from fossil fuel interests. THIS is her one and only advantage, and it is a YUGE one, but apparently her reputation of a scummy, corrupt, lying failed administrator is widely known.
That DMN issue, by the way, also carried a story about the new (black) police chief of Ferguson, Mo., running a completely racially biased story leaving out all the pertinent details of the how and why of Michael Brown’s shooting. So, there are obviously no limits to which the corrupt left wing media will sink in order to promote a far left agenda… including applying a thick layer of propaganda stucco over Hillary’s foundation of lies.
Actually, this post is not about if Clinton committed crimes, It is about giving her a pass on crimes that other people would not have because she is running for president. What Fournier is saying is that evidence that would convict others should not be used for Clinton. He wants a higher bar for prosecutors to climb. As Vet has said, different rules for different people means there are really no rules or laws that apply to criminal activity in this country.
@Randy: Obama has established that precedent by unilaterally deciding which laws serve his personal agenda and, thus will be enforced and which laws impede his agenda and are ignored. When his favorite Attorney General ran a failed gun running operation and numerous deaths, including that of a border agent, Jason Terry, Obama steps in to use executive privilege to protect Holder. Obama has used the Bureau of Land Management to cut off rancher’s access to their own land and falsely prosecuted them for “terrorism” to grab privately owned territory. Obama has used the IRS to attack political opponents.
The rule of law has definitely lost much of its value during this administration and if a corrupt, lying criminal like Hillary ever takes the oath, the rule of law and the Constitution will become nothing but a left wing tool to bludgeon the political opposition with.
@Bill: I have a question, will Hillary take her oath on the Clinton Foundation check book?
@Randy: Soros’ checkbook.
@Bill, #32:
You really need to get out of the conservative news bubble more often. Outside it, opinions about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama are considerably different than they are inside. The latest Real Clear Politics presidential election match-up polls put Clinton ahead of Trump by 10.6 percentage points and ahead of Cruz by 2.8 points; Sanders runs 15.8 points ahead of Trump, and 9.4 points ahead of Cruz. Obama’s job approval rating is 1.7 points ahead of his disapproval rating.
None of these numbers suggest that most Americans share the right’s intensely negative views of Clinton, Sanders, or Obama.
@Greg: Polls don’t mean that much at this point, but do they make Hillary any less a lying criminal?
You have every right to believe in your own fantasies. No one else is required to do so.
Hillary doesn’t matter any more, therefore the admin might just prosecute on lesser charges. How long can the DNC ignore this?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/04/01/sanders-first-new-york-rally-draws-thousands-n2141820?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
@kitt: When MSNBC is appalled with the lack of action by this administration, there is much more than smoke. Someone is burning on the fire! Is it ROFL to see Greg talk about other people’s fantasies?
That Clinton is likely to be prosecuted is one of the right’s current fantasies. No actual evidence has been presented that there’s anything to prosecute her for.
@Greg: Your fantasies are numerous Gerggie. Remember Obola telling America if you like your health insurance and/or doctor you can keep them “period”?? Remember Obola telling America Iraq is stable?? Remember Obola telling America ISIS is a JV team?? Remember Obola telling America ISIS is contained?? If Hilldabeast where a Republican the demoncrats would have charged her long ago. Her days are numbered Greggie and not for the Whitehouse!!
@Common Sense: Maybe the Justice Department will charge her on a lesser charge like sending emails in all bold capital letters.
@Greg: The fantasy is yours in which you do not believe Hillary told all those lies… and more, yet you seem to hold anyone else to a much higher bar.
@Greg: Mis-handling of government records is a crime the evidence is in the FBIs hands, the records dont have to be classified.
She is gonna get bumped off by Bernie lol
Around 55,000 pages of emails have been released. There were 22 that the State Department retroactively classified as Top Secret, in order to keep any part of them from being made public. They have declined to state whether the contents should have been considered classified at the time they were sent or received.
Around 30,000 pages that she and her attorney agreed were entirely personal were deleted. That was legally her own determination to make. There was no law requiring that personal emails be retained.
No determination has been made that any anything was mishandled, let alone knowingly mishandled.
Those are the known facts, thus far. They don’t add up to an indictment.
@Randy: Greg better start painting his FREE HILLARY signs to protest outside a federal courthouse.
@Greg:
Well, no, it wasn’t. When she decided to conduct State Department business on the secret, private, unsecured server she ordered to be set up in her house, ALL those emails became property of the State Department; it was THEIR decision to make.
We have at least one example of Hillary telling her aids to remove classified headings from information so it could be sent to her server. Also, regarding the 22 Top Secret emails… those don’t become Top Secret after the information is public. It becomes Top Secret when the people whose names were on the emails became intelligence operatives.
What you need to do, Greg, is stop getting involved in conversations about Hillary’s email scandal and how she flippantly handles national security information. You simply look like a foolish sycophant.
Nope. That’s not what the law said. What was in the possession of the State Department was property of the State Department. Such an issue has come up previously. The Supreme Court weighed in with a written opinion. This article provides a good summary overview of the laws involved with regard to that point, and a couple of others: Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law
Courts deal with the laws and actual established facts, not with media generated perceptions. Clinton can’t be charged based on perceptions; only on facts supported by evidence.