Clinton ally gave $500K to wife of FBI agent on email probe

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
So not only did hillary influence the AG she hand picked the investigator and had him indirectly bribed through his wife. Again I find myself wondering what it will take to get some people to admit she is simply too corrupt to hold public office.

All of negatives are have a cumulative effect that's becoming hard to ignore. The American public is starting to realize how bad of a candidate Hillary is. They don't know details like we do, but they're sensing that electing her would be a huge mistake for our country.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: kruphix

Here, let me help you:

A democrat helping the wife of an FBI official who is also investigating illegal activity of a long time partner of the person doing the donating.

Are those blinders surgically implanted?

So no elected Democrats can support this women in her campaign because of her husband's job?

Bottom line, nothing is illegal about this...so this is just more whining by the Right.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: kruphix

Here, let me help you:

A democrat helping the wife of an FBI official who is also investigating illegal activity of a long time partner of the person doing the donating.

Are those blinders surgically implanted?

So no elected Democrats can support this women in her campaign because of her husband's job?

Bottom line, nothing is illegal about this...so this is just more whining by the Right.

Actually, guidelines for Federal employees are that if it APPEARS to be a conflict of interest, it is and should not be done. The agent's wife should have not accepted the donation and the agent should have recused himself from any aspect of the investigation. As it stands, it appears to be a conflict of interest.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So he made a campaign contribution.
Last I checked that was not only legal but encouraged civic activity.

Oh are they implying pay for play again? Because he's someone who knows the most well know woman on the planet.
And they're both democrats?
Ok. More bent logic.

I have a legitimate question for you.

If Trump was caught paying $500,000 to the wife of someone who was investigating him, and he was able to get that person two promotions to fantastic job positions, then the investigation turned up "nothing", would you have any negative opinion about it?

a reply to: Greggers

i'd say you hillary supporters will never admit bribery unless the donor uses the word bribe and even then i think you would still defend it!

a reply to: network dude

They would sing it from the rooftops and it would be on the msm non stop

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: Greggers

i'd say you hillary supporters will never admit bribery unless the donor uses the word bribe and even then i think you would still defend it!

I'm not a Hillary supporter.

In fact, I've repeatedly brought attention to the two allegations that I think have legitimately been exposed by the wikileaks and the FOIA inquiry into the Clinton Foundation.

They are
1) Bill accepted a 1M donation from QATAR even after the leaks proved Hillary knew QATAR had funded ISIS
2) Hillary gave Haiti contracts preferentially to firms who had donated to the Clinton foundation.


Both raise serious questions.

But the alt-right propaganda machine is creating a smoke screen around Hillary's genuine misdeeds by focusing on things that either cannot be proven or which are outright, obvious lies.

I think you guys should ask yourselves why, as a group, you're so gullible. You're being played by fringe media outlets who only care about pageviews and ad revenue.

originally posted by: Greggers
I don't know if this is an attempt at bribery, and neither does anyone else. What's of greater concern to me is that there is so much money in politics. Bribery is implied if not proven.

Until money is removed from politics, this isn't stopping.

I think this is the most logical statement I've read in here.

Politics is supported/run by money. Money and power go together. It just is. They just do.

However, just because there's money involved - - - does not make it illegal.

So, question is - - even if you're poor - - and a friend needs a job - - do you help them? Do you use your influence to get them an interview? Do you put a good word in for them?

My guess is yes. It's human nature.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: kruphix

Here, let me help you:

A democrat helping the wife of an FBI official who is also investigating illegal activity of a long time partner of the person doing the donating.

Are those blinders surgically implanted?

So no elected Democrats can support this women in her campaign because of her husband's job?

Bottom line, nothing is illegal about this...so this is just more whining by the Right.

Actually, guidelines for Federal employees are that if it APPEARS to be a conflict of interest, it is and should not be done. The agent's wife should have not accepted the donation and the agent should have recused himself from any aspect of the investigation. As it stands, it appears to be a conflict of interest.

Is the agent's wife a Federal employee?

a reply to: pteridine

Yup! That is how it is. It really would have been in her best interest to not take her money. It would make her look better anyways.


But since she has already take the fund he now needs to be removed from the case, due to conflict of interest. If he's not...well it just goes to show how far we've fallen.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So he made a campaign contribution.
Last I checked that was not only legal but encouraged civic activity.

Oh are they implying pay for play again? Because he's someone who knows the most well know woman on the planet.
And they're both democrats?
Ok. More bent logic.

I have a legitimate question for you.

If Trump was caught paying $500,000 to the wife of someone who was investigating him, and he was able to get that person two promotions to fantastic job positions, then the investigation turned up "nothing", would you have any negative opinion about it?

That scenario would smell to high hell, party because it's Trump's wife (and therefore a legal extension of Trump financially) and partly because there isn't some legitimate reason for Trump to be paying her 500K other than bribery (or if one existed, you haven't mentioned it).

On the other hand, in the Hillary scenario, we have a fellow political operative who has been associated with Clinton (and perhaps hundreds of other people) making a CAMPAIGN DONATION to someone, with no evidence to tie the donation back to Clinton and a legitimate reason for the donation in the suggestion that the donor actually wanted the recipient to win her campaign FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

How many other people did this person donate to?
How many other campaigns is this person tied to, directly or indirectly?

a reply to: Greggers

just trying to make the point that the pendulum doesn't swing both ways with the militant Clinton folks.

Trump has said early in his campaign that he gave money in the past to politicians and he expected things to be done becasue of those donations. It's how the system works. We all know it. But some try to deny it occurs with their candidate, or at the very least, deflect any attention away from that fact.

It's a horribly corrupt business and kind of solidifies that point when you look at the bank accounts of those in office before and after their time in Washington. They are all really, really cheap whores who would do just about anything for the $. If there are any who aren't, I'd love to see them and have THEM run for office. But it seems those folks know better and don't want the skeletons placed in their closets, then exposed.

All I'm seeing is people giving weak excuses for overt corruption.

You have to deliberately break your moral compass in order to not accept the facts.

Now we know how they cloak the bribes to look like something legitimate.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greggers

just trying to make the point that the pendulum doesn't swing both ways with the militant Clinton folks.

Trump has said early in his campaign that he gave money in the past to politicians and he expected things to be done becasue of those donations. It's how the system works. We all know it. But some try to deny it occurs with their candidate, or at the very least, deflect any attention away from that fact.

It's a horribly corrupt business and kind of solidifies that point when you look at the bank accounts of those in office before and after their time in Washington. They are all really, really cheap whores who would do just about anything for the $. If there are any who aren't, I'd love to see them and have THEM run for office. But it seems those folks know better and don't want the skeletons placed in their closets, then exposed.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. Money is a horribly corrupting influence in politics and corruption will never be gone until it's eliminated.

I heard a comedian once suggest that serving in the government should be like extended "Jury Duty." Although the guy joking, he's right. There shouldn't be "perks" for doing one's civic duty.

I'm just tired of people on both sides running wild with poorly vetted allegations. In another thread I'm in, a Hillary supporter is claiming Epstein personally implicated Trump in the rape of young girls, which is a lie.

And the allegations against Clinton have gone completely off the rails.

Very little of this stuff would stand up even in the most legitimate court on earth.

a reply to: Annee
Yes
The donation was made to Dr. Jill McCabe's senate campaign, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.”

Now do you see where there could be a conflict of interest?

originally posted by: Greggers


Very little of this stuff would stand up even in the most legitimate court on earth.

at this point, fact checking can't really be done in time, and the public will only remember stuff for a few days, so anything said now, will likely stick until the election. So I expect to see a whole basket of deplorable lies spread by both sides in the next few days.

I do have to admit that the main reason I want Trump is all the idiots who claim they will leave the country if he's elected. (most of them need to go anyways, so it would be a win-win)

But there is not sunny side to any of this in reality.

Ok for the people who don't know.

When things like this happen on a case. It's in the best interest for the investigator to state what the conflict is for the records and step down from the case. But when someone does not they have to be "removed" from the case, which is much worse then it sounds and surrender everything they have on the case to the next investigator. It means all he's done can't be used and they can now look in to his email and his wife's email as well.

They might as well just shot them self in the foot. That is of course they follow protocol and take him off the case and just don't forget this ever happened.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: kruphix

Here, let me help you:

A democrat helping the wife of an FBI official who is also investigating illegal activity of a long time partner of the person doing the donating.

Are those blinders surgically implanted?

So no elected Democrats can support this women in her campaign because of her husband's job?

Bottom line, nothing is illegal about this...so this is just more whining by the Right.

Actually, guidelines for Federal employees are that if it APPEARS to be a conflict of interest, it is and should not be done. The agent's wife should have not accepted the donation and the agent should have recused himself from any aspect of the investigation. As it stands, it appears to be a conflict of interest.

Just because they are all Democrats does not make it a conflict of interest.

Just because a friend of someone being investigated donated to the wife of someone involved in the investigation, doesn't make it a conflict of interest.

I know a lot of you are rabid to get something on Clinton...but this doesn't even involve Clinton.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: kruphix

Here, let me help you:

A democrat helping the wife of an FBI official who is also investigating illegal activity of a long time partner of the person doing the donating.

Are those blinders surgically implanted?

So no elected Democrats can support this women in her campaign because of her husband's job?

Bottom line, nothing is illegal about this...so this is just more whining by the Right.

Actually, guidelines for Federal employees are that if it APPEARS to be a conflict of interest, it is and should not be done. The agent's wife should have not accepted the donation and the agent should have recused himself from any aspect of the investigation. As it stands, it appears to be a conflict of interest.

Just because they are all Democrats does not make it a conflict of interest.

Just because a friend of someone being investigated donated to the wife of someone involved in the investigation, doesn't make it a conflict of interest.

I know a lot of you are rabid to get something on Clinton...but this doesn't even involve Clinton.

Just becasue he was standing over the body with blood dripping off the knife and there was blood all over him and his cloths, DOESN'T mean he stabbed him. He could have just slipped and caught himself on the knife.

Dood, you make me smile.