Breaking: Hillary Clinton's Plea Bargain?

a reply to: burntheships

She does have some serious problems ...right?

Man, does she ever! Even though she's out of the picture, she can't stop the ridiculous gossip, conspiracy theories, and False reporting about her.

a reply to: burntheships

I think anything less than jail/noose for treason is a huge let down...

originally posted by: xuenchen
The DNC needs to get the "Hillary" stigma off their backs.

This is the perfect way.

Next is DWS Inc.

She won't leave the stage!😂

a reply to: burntheships

I just want to point out that it was never Comey's job to decide if she was prosecuted ...he could only recommend charges be brought. It was Lynch's job to prosecute her based on available evidence...of which there was plenty.

a reply to: Grambler

Do we not both agree on the lack of sourcing? I dont even think the un named sources are true.

I re read and it doesnt even look like they actually state someone talked to them. The article is 1000% conjecture . Or am I missing something. Would be glad to keep it out of haox bin if theres an actual line that states newsmax spoke to someone..anyone....un named or otherwise.

I'm hearing this will be confirmed Thursday by Sessions !!

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: burntheships

You'd receive a longer sentence and stiffer fine. If it were Me, I'd get 'extra time' because I'm retired from Law Enforcement so I should know better (oh that and I wouldn't squeal on anyone else..)

These folks will also get a "Clean Slate" on other crimes that 'may' have been perpetrated by the Defendant.. Would this be the same Mrs. Clinton that is 'reported' to be behind numerous murders of political opponents or folks who 'may' be able to provide testimony later on in any upcoming case(s)..

Good points there, who knows what else they may be clearing her of?

She has an open investigation for threatening a
IRS audit on someone, plus more emails keep coming out.

Maybe they found her 33,000 missing emails?

originally posted by: xuenchen
I'm hearing this will be confirmed Thursday by Sessions !!

Im hearing we

didnt land on the moon

9/11 was an inside job

aliens met with Eisenhower

the earth is flat

dinosaurs didnt exist.......



blah

blah blah blah blah

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

Do we not both agree on the lack of sourcing? I dont even think the un named sources are true.

I re read and it doesnt even look like they actually state someone talked to them. The article is 1000% conjecture . Or am I missing something. Would be glad to keep it out of haox bin if theres an actual line that states newsmax spoke to someone..anyone....un named or otherwise.

It says "according to a Clinton attorney".

You claim that you deal in unnamed sources and find the acceptable, now you want this hoax binned?

Do you recommend hoax binning all Trump russia collusion stories with unnamed sources.

Should all of your threads on P-gate be hoax binned for unnamed sources?

and ETA.

This is ATS, a conspiracy site. People post anecodotes about hearing government officials talking about operating on aliens, and they are not hoaxed binned until it is proven it is a hoax.

Yet your standard now seems to be hoax anything that can't be proven true. What a fun site that will be!

originally posted by: feldercarb

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: feldercarb

If she were to take a plea bargain, she would never be able to run again. And I think she will run again.

Eh, I think this story is probably fake.

Here's where I disagree with you. I don't think she will run again. She is almost 70 years old. She would be over 75 during the next election. I don't think anyone is willing to support her. She will definitely lose the under 40 crowd. The democrats will be looking for new blood to energize their agenda.

Agree to disagree. I think her last two runs were marketed as being unfair to her specifically for the purpose of her running again because, you know, it's *finally her time.*

She will be running for president until she wins or dies.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: burntheships

LBJ had a list of dead associates tied to him.... but it was much shorter.

Ah, your right.

Much shorter list!

The Clinton's list keeps growing!

a reply to: Grambler

No not at all. I missed the according part. And for the record, since you bring it up again. I have not bought into PG. Isiply dont dismiss it like others.... I bought into the possibility that Clinton et al are capable of those atrocities. I still think that. PG is also more than ONE story from ONE news outlet, from ONE un named source.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: feldercarb

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: feldercarb

If she were to take a plea bargain, she would never be able to run again. And I think she will run again.

Eh, I think this story is probably fake.

Here's where I disagree with you. I don't think she will run again. She is almost 70 years old. She would be over 75 during the next election. I don't think anyone is willing to support her. She will definitely lose the under 40 crowd. The democrats will be looking for new blood to energize their agenda.

Agree to disagree. I think her last two runs were marketed as being unfair to her specifically for the purpose of her running again because, you know, it's *finally her time.*

She will be running for president until she wins or dies.

This is fear based thinking. Shes not running again. If she runs again. I will delete my account.


ETA: Its only fear based thinking because Fox and Trump wont let the topic of Clinton go. At least Obama moved on from Bush

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: burntheships

Why would she ever agree to a plea bargain when she could just waive her right to a jury trial and pay off/arrange for some crony/corrupt judge to acquit her?



ETA: My vote is for fake-news, too.

She and Bill are the only president and candidate who have
a long list of dead people tied to them in mysterious circumstances.

Like...the only two out of all of our presidents.

Ever spent much time thinking about that?

Me?

Ha...oh, yeah.

And I have been vocal about it: Link

originally posted by: burntheships
This Ed Klein, didn't he put out a lot of stuff
on Hillary that turned out to be true, during the election?

Yeah, it could be made up, but again all facts
point to an active investigation.

*shrugs*

Ed Klein said a lot of controversial things about Obama, too, in 2008...to Hillary's benefit, even.

I have long suspected that Ed Klein is disinfo & controlled opposition.

I think you misunderstand my perspective.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

No not at all. I missed the according part. And for the record, since you bring it up again. I have not bought into PG. Isiply dont dismiss it like others.... I bought into the possibility that Clinton et al are capable of those atrocities. I still think that. PG is also more than ONE story from ONE news outlet, from ONE un named source.

I have no problem with you discussing Pgate and am willing to here it out.

Nor do I mind people discussing Trump russia collusion stories to their hearts desire.

Thats why I love this site; we can talk about these things in a critical manner.

Thats why I don't favor hoaxing something until its absolutely certain its a hoax.

Whats wrong with just pointing out that there is no proof this story is true?

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: burntheships

Not sure. Want to base your membership on this story? If its a hoax, cancel your account and start all over again.

Lol, you want me gone eh?

Like the story on the Awans, I was thoroughly attacked,
cries of "fake news". Now look at that story?
Awan was arrested on bank fraud.

I didn't write this story!

I also put a question mark, which I really didn't
need to. Because I posted this for the sake of discussion...



I'll make a note of your request.

a reply to: burntheships

I dont want you gone at all. I want you to put your money where your mouth is

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

No not at all. I missed the according part. And for the record, since you bring it up again. I have not bought into PG. Isiply dont dismiss it like others.... I bought into the possibility that Clinton et al are capable of those atrocities. I still think that. PG is also more than ONE story from ONE news outlet, from ONE un named source.

I have no problem with you discussing Pgate and am willing to here it out.

Nor do I mind people discussing Trump russia collusion stories to their hearts desire.

Thats why I love this site; we can talk about these things in a critical manner.

Thats why I don't favor hoaxing something until its absolutely certain its a hoax.

Whats wrong with just pointing out that there is no proof this story is true?

You are 100000% right. I spoke far too soon

originally posted by: [post=22537228]MotherMayEye[/pos]


Ed Klein said a lot of controversial things about Obama, too, in 2008...to Hillary's benefit, even.

I have long suspected that Ed Klein is disinfo & controlled opposition.

First MME, let me say I always appreciate your perspectives.


I thought about those angles, it could be!

I am just really curious why he would put this
out there right now? Help me see how could this help her?

Is she going to run again?

When would she announce?

a reply to: burntheships

She'll say she has no plans on running...and people will just beg her to run. There will be oodles of these moments scheduled over the next few years. But she'll say, "No, i am just enjoying spending time with my grandchildren. I have no plans on running again."

And then one day when we are all feeling safe and happy...she will announce she is running, again, and ruin it for everyone. Even Democratic voters.