FBI recommend no charges against Hillary!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not even breaking a sweat.

Facts are just facts.

The truth is still the truth regardless of what traitors and duplicitous idiots do.

The only chance of getting Hillary was this: IF she was caught lying to the FBI when she was interviewed

Therefore, no doubt during that interview she had 17 lawyers there directing her when or when not to answer said question.

The interview went down and nothing was incriminating in it so they MADE THE ANNOUNCMENT.

Hillary’s ONLY problem from day one was this possibility.


Remember it is a federal crime to lie to the FBI in an investigation.... Martha Stewart went to jail for that very purpose.

I think The Lynch & Clinton plane chat was set up so Lynch would have to do the "ill take the FBI recommendation stance" taking the pressure off the DOJ as they already knew the FBI would not suggest indictment. What a corrupt system we have but considering if Hillary went down so would most of our govt.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: EternalShadow

Trump's definitely not a sociopath. Nope, not at all.

And another one using the "deflecting" card.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Uh huh... No wonder why you seem to think the country is going into the toilet. You've convinced yourself not to do anything. In other words you've already defeated yourself. Oh well. Your loss.

By the way, I will continue to be perfectly happy in this country living my life. Hillary being arrested or not isn't going to make my life any worse or better. The verdict is in, and I'm content with letting it go. It's a shame you and your right leaning cohorts probably won't be letting it go for the foreseeable future and I expect many tax dollars to be wasted on future investigations that will turn up nothing.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Facts? I haven't seen you utter a fact yet. Just a bunch of derisive opinions about Hillary. Opinion != fact, you should check a dictionary.

originally posted by: soekvg
Why can't we all rise up UNITED and demand people like this be thrown from power?

It's quite simple really.

Because...
Muslims
Black Guns
Gay Pride
I still don't know which bathroom to piss in.
Black Lives Matter
Trans gender
Terrorists
Etc...

The list is long but I'm sure you get the point.
We are divided by design to keep what you suggest from happening.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You do realize we are having a national election for these very reasons right? That's the point of them. To throw people we are unhappy with out of power.

Thats funny, You still believe the system is not rigged when it involves trillions in corporate interest?
Princeton study and Harvard Professor of Law suggest eitherwise.

FBI further confirmed it today.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

a reply to: BlueAjah

The voters will become the "Grand Jury" in November.

All the now-proven high priority lies will be the evidence to consider when a "verdict" is rendered.

These lies were not just simple every day fibs.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Comey literally said she broke the law over and over, then he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges...

But here's the thing, and I think that he specifically stated it--the section of policy/law that governs this issue distinctly notes that the violations do NOT have to done with criminal intent. It's all about the negligence, and Comey stated over and over that the negligence was palpable and supported by the evidence.

IMO, any reasonable prosecutor would jump at the opportunity to make their career bringing down a Clinton. The problem resides in the fact that they all fear for their or their families' safety, and therefore must weight what's more important.

You don't f**k with the Clintons and not have someone close to you end up missing.

a reply to: interupt42

I said that? Oh no wait, the other thing. You just put words in my mouth. Good job, you are arguing with yourself and not me.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Oh don't get me wrong, I think she is as well. But members here that are pretending like he's the answer to her sociopathy are very mistaken.

Inserting images from my libraries doesn´t work anymore since weeks, so i have to write it and leave the link, it is so funny. Or sad, i don´t know:

"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." —Hillary #DemDebate
twitter.com...

The comments there, from january, nice to read them now again, like:
watch out what you wish for
or
"No individual too big to jail" - I can't believe she just tweeted that with a straight face
or
Hopefully, soon those words will come back to haunt Hillary!!

I hope there is a firestorm of demonstrations at her campaign stops.
..

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: EternalShadow

Oh don't get me wrong, I think she is as well. But members here that are pretending like he's the answer to her sociopathy are very mistaken.

I didn't get you wrong at all. I've spent many years identifying sociopathic behaviors and traits. By the way, you're still deflecting.

Worth documenting:

FBI boss Comey's 7 most damning lines on Clinton

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

2. "Should have known"
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

3. "Especially concerning"
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

4. "Still obligated to protect it"
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

5. "Generally lacking"
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.

6. "Hostile actors"
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

7. "Sophisticated adversaries"
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

And.... why again is she not indicted?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

I said that? Oh no wait, the other thing. You just put words in my mouth. Good job, you are arguing with yourself and not me.

Since I quoted your text It appears that you are arguing with yourself?

But I will break it down for you

You said:

You do realize we are having a national election for these very reasons right? That's the point of them. To throw people we are unhappy with out of power.

Meaning that you believe that the system works or were you just blowing smoke out of your keyboard? Or was that sarcasm on your part?

I basically said thats a BS argument because the system is rigged and backed by a Princeton study and Professor of Law at Harvard , that indicates that the system is in fact rigged and controlled by big money.

So you telling someone to go vote, is not going to make a difference in a rigged system.

Todays FBI decision , the huge conflict of interest with Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch over the weekend , and Hillary considering keeping lynch under her presidency only re affirms the blatant corruption within gov't.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
(A) What's the worst case scenario you can 'realistically' imagine, going forward to March 2017?

A Hillary victory.

(B) What's the best case scenario (for the people and the Republic) you can 'realistically' imagine going forward to March 2017?

I don't see one. There's worse and less worse. Ideally a Trump win and him having a sudden realization that he's not all that and a bag of chips and just maybe there are decent people out there who know more about the stakes and the issues than he does and he listens to them and at least considers their views. But that isn't realistic.

(C) What do you think is MOST LIKELY to play out between now and March 2017?

Things can change so fast and the things that might happen could have a huge impact on the outcome. If the Dems can get their supporters to the polls, they'll win and we'll continue our painfully long and inexorable slide into catastrophic failure.

I still don't think we've seen the fallout from Comey's remarks and the full measure of the impact on Hillary. I don't think that'll make any Hillary supporter change a vote, but it might be enough to discourage sufficient numbers of Dems from voting at all, which could result in a Trump victory.

And if Trump somehow does make it to the White House, that's only going to present it's own set of challenges. Which I'll trade for having Hillary appoint 3 or more SCOTUS justices and further bollix up the global war with Islamo-fascist terrorists and further run up the $19+trillion dollar debt.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Missed the bigger two:

8. Should be subject to security or administrative sanctions:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

9. Above the law: yeah we found evidence for potential violations but why go anyfurther?

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

a reply to: interupt42

Is that what it means? Wow. Thanks for doing my thinking for me. I'm glad you are here to translate my thoughts to "what they really mean" for me. What would I do without you and your keen insight?

PS: This was 100% sarcasm if you couldn't tell.