Under fire after secret meeting, Lynch to step back from Clinton probe

originally posted by: introvert
It seems to be the ones that want her to be guilty of something are having a rough time proving it and are in denial of current reality.

Thats why she will be interviewed by The FBI right?
Because she hasn't done anything wrong, right?

See, every day in Hillary land is a day of denial.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert
It seems to be the ones that want her to be guilty of something are having a rough time proving it and are in denial of current reality.

Thats why she will be interviewed by The FBI right?
Because she hasn't done anything wrong, right?

See, every day in Hillary land is a day of denial.

The FBI never interviews people unless their guilty of something?

That makes no sense.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
As much as I hate to say this, it's pretty evident there's a common theme here among a number of the Hillary defenders...

This theme being..."Well, I'm here 'til 5 no matter what. It all pays the same."

Speaking of themes . . . . how 'bout a theme song for them?

Lately I keep hearing the same song in my mind whenever the Clintons are mentioned, it's not an exact fit but the flavor of the song and their southern ties make me want to rewrite the lyrics for their dark past and I'm sure their equally dark future.

If there's any good lyricists on this thread give it a go, it'd be a good stress reliever, here it is . . . I especially like the backwoods southern lawyer line and the judge line.


STM

ETA: Personally, I've always wondered if Hillary shot Vince herself?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

I am aware of the difference.
I made no statement that wasn't true.
But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

I am aware of the difference.
I made no statement that wasn't true.
But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What did I make up?

originally posted by: introvert
The FBI never interviews people unless their guilty of something?

There is no logic in your question, but at least your consistent
with the doping levels.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

I am aware of the difference.
I made no statement that wasn't true.
But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What did I make up?

I didn't say that you made anything up.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It just makes me cringe every time I see how our nation has fallen into the hands of the elite corruption this days, all of them serving their higher masters are exempting themselves from prosecution, we are living in the era of money talks BS walk and immunity can be bought, but no for the rest of the nation tax payers and hard working class.

They are all traitors to America and us the voters tax payers.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Same # different day. S.s.d.d.

Yep, every day in Hillary land is a day of
over confidence in their severely disliked,
untrustworthy, crooked leader.

Overconfidence Emerges as Top Concern for Hillary Clinton's Camp


Just how do you guys do that?
If only we could test for doping like the sports world.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

Um, their was burden of proof (termed preponderance of evidence) shown in the civil case, which means he was guilty in the civil, not criminal case. Which makes my point that just because Hillary hasn't been found guilty, doesn't mean she has never done wrong, as much as you and others want to believe.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
As much as I hate to say this, it's pretty evident there's a common theme here among a number of the Hillary defenders...

This theme being..."Well, I'm here 'til 5 no matter what. It all pays the same."

Another observation that could be made is that it seems the anti-Hillary folks resort to calling people trolls or shills when another person's opinion does not coincide with their need for confirmation bias.

I swear to GOD.

After listening to the last 16 YEARS of whining about Bush.

Clinton 'apologists' have exactly NOTHING to be whining about.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

I am aware of the difference.
I made no statement that wasn't true.
But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What did I make up?

I didn't say that you made anything up.

Yes you did. Here is the quote:

But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What "schtuff" did I make up?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

I am aware of the difference.
I made no statement that wasn't true.
But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What did I make up?

I didn't say that you made anything up.

Yes you did. Here is the quote:

But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What "schtuff" did I make up?

You must have had a problem with reading my quote.
I did not say that you made anything up.
Read it a couple more times.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert
The FBI never interviews people unless their guilty of something?

There is no logic in your question, but at least your consistent
with the doping levels.

I responded to an absurd question in kind.

If you can notice the lack of logic in one, why can you not see the same in what you posted?

Thats why she will be interviewed by The FBI right?
Because she hasn't done anything wrong, right?

a reply to: neo96

What does Bush have to do with this? I haven't complained about Bush.

Go talk to someone that does.

a reply to: introvert

Because one of these is not like the other.
AKA known as blind loyalty. Or a paycheck.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: poriggity
I've had a feeling from the beginning that Hillary will walk away from this unscathed. She's a murderous traitor to the USA, yet no one seems to care.. especially the Democratic party or the main stream media.

Whom did she murder?

If she is guilty of murdering someone, I'd care quite a bit about that.

But I don't believe she has been found guilty of anything.

So let me get this straight. OJ wasn't found not guilty of murder, therefore he didn't actually murder two people?

If he was found guilty, the court decided he did not murder those people.

So, he was innocent of murdering those people? or just not guilty because the state didn't make their case?

Either way, he was cleared of the charges. If someone is going to claim he is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on them.

He was found to be responsible for their deaths, in court.

In civil court, not criminal.

Thanks for the confirmation, but I already knew that.

There's a big difference between the two courts and there is a big difference between OJ's case and Hillary's.

It's a false equivalence.

I am aware of the difference.
I made no statement that wasn't true.
But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What did I make up?

I didn't say that you made anything up.

Yes you did. Here is the quote:

But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

What "schtuff" did I make up?

You must have had a problem with reading my quote.
I did not say that you made anything up.
Read it a couple more times.

But you feel compelled to make schtuff up.

Ok. Enlighten me. What does that actually mean?