Hillary Clinton Declares ‘Not Even Remotest Chance’ She’ll Be Charged in Email Scandal

a reply to: supremecommander

Chosen for wall street? Is that like the adopt a spot program where you pick up trash for a stretch of roadway?

a reply to: BlueJacket

I can assure you I am completely human.

a reply to: gpols

Further research would have shown you that that was a failed investigation that Comey didn't find anything and still bears a grudge against the Clintons. I'm not putting him in her corner however I respect the man and if he says there is nothing to prosecute I will believe him.
No one else may but I will.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hhmm...the guy who always demands facts get some, and now responds with "Why bother with pretending to look for facts?"

Such hypocrisy from you. Nice job of not answering my questions, too.

Anyways, I was talking to everyone, not you.

You may want to look up the meaning of "rhetorical" for your future edification.

Also, "hypocritical," as it does NOT mean "someone didn't answer my loaded questions the way I wanted them to. Waah."

LOL.

Leave it to you to change the contex of another to form a semblance of a retort.

You consider valid questions pertaining to the topic as "loaded" when they clearly are informative in regards to the topic? Or you just don't want to answer them because they don't fit with your line of thinking?

Rhetorical? When reading text, it can be difficult to understand the typer's intent, emotion, tone, etc. There are ways for the typer to help the reader to understand.

For example: "I really really like you, Gryphon!" /sarcasm WAAAH!

originally posted by: gator2001

Leave it to you to change the contex of another to form a semblance of a retort.

I'm going to leave this word-salad right there on the table. Good heavens.

originally posted by: gator2001
You consider valid questions pertaining to the topic as "loaded" when they clearly are informative in regards to the topic? Or you just don't want to answer them because they don't fit with your line of thinking?

What a sophomoric attempt to "turn the tables"! Look, I answered a couple of your questions that have factual answers, you didn't like those factual answers, and tried to claim in the face of being answered ... that you weren't.

Either you didn't read my response, or you simply ignored what was said to you. Either way, your little attempt at a sarcastically worded "Q&A" was called out for what it obviously was ... and you don't like that.

So what do you do?

originally posted by: gator2001

For example: "I really really like you, Gryphon!" /sarcasm

WAAAH!

You respond with what you apparently think is witty ad hominem. It isn't ... it merely shows you for what you are ... a really bad mimic ....

... at best. Or as you might say ... "HAW HAW HAW!"

Let me know if you actually want to discuss factual matters about HIllary Clinton in an adult manner; I'll oblige.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme

And it's an investigation.

Of her server.

I can see the future headlines....

Hillary's server indicted !!!!

Hillary's server found guilty !!!!

Hillary's server sentenced to 20 years hard labor to be served in a Federal facility !!!!

You're not planning to be writing for NewsMax are you? Or perhaps, some of the other "blogs" you normally drag here as sources?

I only ask, somewhat jokingly, because that rot is very similar to the quality of writing they usually put on display.

You'd be better served to write up some stuff on how Director Comey and AG Lynch colluded to exonerate Clinton ... that might actually be useful in the circles you frequent in the near future.

Make hay!

Because of course, we can anticipate 15 or so subsequent investigations of the same matter from whatever Republicans are left in Congress...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: gator2001

The fact is that the FBI has repeatedly said that the investigation regards the server.

The fact is that he FBI has NEVER said that Clinton is "a subject of interest."

The fact is that there is nothing to this point to suggest that Clinton's use of a private server was illegal.

The fact is that there is nothing to suggest that Clinton will be accused or convicted of anything ... not because she's so "all - powerful", but because she did nothing illegal.

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: Gryphon66

Such hypocrisy from you. Nice job of not answering my questions, too.

/yawn

Sooner or later the lying criminal old hag will answer for all of her violations of the law.

But that will most likely occur long after Donald Trump defeats her in a landslide Presidential election coming this November. ~$heopleNation

Can anyone please tell me why this matters other than you hate Hillary? What was covered up? Is this topic useless shills or is there something to talk about?

Thanks.

a reply to: SheopleNation

That will never happen. Polls show Hillary beating trump.

The big thing nobody is talking about is whether her security clearance is on the line. She blatantly committed several security violations, which can and does for most result in a security clearance suspension.

a reply to: amicktd

She still has hers so I guess it's not as blatant as you think.
Some may even go so far as to say wait until it's over before making claims like she blatantly committed crimes. Here in the USA we are innocent until proven guilty and there hasn't even been a criminal investigation into Hillary so that cart is way out ahead of the horse.

a reply to: amicktd

Can I ask why this is important right now? She doesn't have access to any top secret stuff now. She only has her clearance.

a reply to: Sillyolme

She still has hers so I guess it's not as blatant as you think.

You should read what falls under security violations.

Some may even go so far as to say wait until it's over before making claims like she blatantly committed crimes. Here in the USA we are innocent until proven guilty and there hasn't even been a criminal investigation into Hillary so that cart is way out ahead of the horse.

Tell that to the thousands that were treated differently than Hillary is in regards to her clearance. I have a few friends myself. One lost his clearance over past due college loans. That's not even comparable to storing classified material in an unauthorized container, or using carelessness in her practices as she has admitted to according to the OP I read yesterday.

Can I ask why this is important right now?

Because she is most likely to get the nomination for the Democratic party. What happens if we elect a president thats not allowed to look at intelligence reports?

a reply to: Sillyolme

The point is you don't have to do something purposely to commit a security violation. Most security violations happen on accident anyways. But, just because its an accident doesn't make you not guilty either.

a reply to: amicktd

Hillary hasn't been accused of doing anything so I don't see how that pertains to people who have broken the law and are in prison for it.

You assume she has done something. I say wait for the DOJ to tell us she did something or even that they merely think she's done something.

a reply to: amicktd

Nice to know.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: amicktd

Hillary hasn't been accused of doing anything so I don't see how that pertains to people who have broken the law and are in prison for it.

You assume she has done something. I say wait for the DOJ to tell us she did something or even that they merely think she's done something.

I've never stated she broke the law, just that she has violated several security violations.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Fabricated skewed liberal media polls mean nothing in the real World. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: SheopleNation

Ya coulda fooled me...