$6 Billion Goes Missing at State Dept (under Hillary Clinton)

reply to post by Phage


And what if the audit revealed something that was hoped to not be revealed, or possibly stopped corrupt behaviour from advancing ?

Does that mean that something sinister wasn't happening, or can't continue once prying eyes have looked away ? They may of even been given a slap on the wrist behind closed doors whereas you or I would face a much harsher punishment. Oh the irony. Do you see what I meant by that comment now ? Do you honestly think that if it was proven beyond doubt that Hillary stole 6 billion that she would face any punishment, considering the crimes she has been involved in yet still remains unpunished, not to mention REWARDED with the positions she has taken since.

Maybe if Politicians had to cover any loses or discrepancies out of their own pocket, we would see an end to the likes of Hillary in politics. I bet there would be a lot less cases of missing paperwork too. That was the point of my irony comment. I hope this has been cleared up now because it's really getting stale !

reply to post by DarksideOz

And what if the audit revealed something that was hoped to not be revealed, or possibly stopped corrupt behaviour from advancing ?

What?
What if my uncle was a woman? Then he would be my aunt, right?

The audit did not involve accounting, it was about contract document handling. That's it.

If it was an accounting audit, well, then we would have something to talk about. But it wasn't, was it?

That woman is the definition of a Walking Pestilence

reply to post by DarksideOz


No sarcasm here. What do you NOT understand about "This is not about accounting"?

Even SheopleNation realizes that

SheopleNation

Technically, it is not missing,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

FWIW, admitting the report does not say money is missing would not invalidate concerns over where the money actually went. They are separate issues.

That the report does not say money is "missing", AKA unaccounted for, really is a simple matter of fact and disturbing that it's this difficult for so many to see.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


And which part of "the history of the people possibly involved" do you not understand, sarcasm excluded also ?

But ok, we'll play it your way..................nothing to see here, just a clerical error, move on people.