Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hillary Clinton's nightmare


Merc14
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, F3SS said:

Myles' post... Damn. That's insane. The stuff of movies. If it's all true it really is beyond belief that she could have the ghal to jump on this most public of stages and run for president. That's an unreal amount of hubris.

NEVER underestimate the Clintons.  Her biggest problem, and Bill's, is that they expected the media shield of the 90's would  extend to 2016.  The word has changed and the MSM is not nearly as influential as it was 20 years ago. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, White Unicorn said:

Yamato 

Incidentally, why don't we consider everyone's email to be "classified"?    Yours, mine, AOL's, Colin Powell's Yahoo account, whatever, etc?

 

Exactly.  Why don't we?  I do.

Quote

So why make such a fuss about govt. getting to have all its secrets, while ignoring the fact that we the people can't?!

 That would be a terrible idea if I was ignoring yours, mine and Colin's.  That's why I brought it up, because I'm not ignoring it.

Quote

The Patriot Act was the time I personally started calling our government big brother. CIA DoD FBI IRS Interpol NSA and other investigative intelligence agencies were allowed to investigate and supposedly were to share information to protect our homeland.

So is it 2001 then?   Is that when we lost our rights?   If so, then Osama bin Laden played us like a fiddle, and still does. 

Quote

I think Snowden was a fool and a traitor

Then the resources at your disposal for dealing with the Big Brother you cite are very thin.   How gentle does it have to get before it's not foolish and treasonous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

 

Then the resources at your disposal for dealing with the Big Brother you cite are very thin.   How gentle does it have to get before it's not foolish and treasonous?

I don't have an answer Yamato. Snowden running to Putnim for sanctuary didn't do well for us. US political leaders of various committees is another way to expose information to get things investigated more and not fall into the hands of an old style KGB man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 06/04/2016 at 8:43 AM, White Unicorn said:

I don't have an answer Yamato. Snowden running to Putnim for sanctuary didn't do well for us. US political leaders of various committees is another way to expose information to get things investigated more and not fall into the hands of an old style KGB man.

Snowden isn't treacherous scum but he's not an American hero, either. We don't know how safe his knowledge is kept while in Russia, but given the fact that he's still alive and well we have to assume there is something happening behind the scenes. This is Kremlin Country, after all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

given that the usual suspect seem to be too busy, in related news:

Quote

Clinton’s State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries

WASHINGTON — An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met.

The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to the AP after it sued the government in federal court.

The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror the other, more detailed records of her daily meetings.

 

Read more on The Washington Post

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

and in related news:

Quote

Clinton’s FBI interview only compounds her trust problem

Hillary Clinton’s weekend interview with the FBI stands as a perfect symbol of what is probably her biggest liability heading into the fall election: A lot of people say they don’t trust her.

Clinton sat for an interview of more than three hours as part of a Justice Department investigation into the privately owned email system she operated off the books when she was secretary of state. The timing — less than three weeks before she will claim the Democratic presidential nomination — is an attempt to make the best of a situation that would look bad for any candidate but is particularly damaging for Clinton.

That the interview at FBI headquarters was voluntary does not expunge the whiff of suspicion surrounding the entire email affair that, for many voters, confirms a long-held view that Clinton shades the truth or plays by her own rules.

Read more on The Washington Post

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, questionmark said:

and in related news:

 

Seems she was the last to be interviewed for the  FBI's investigation? If she is that means they should have their official report out soon. At least I hope she was the last one giving her statement. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

Seems she was the last to be interviewed for the  FBI's investigation? If she is that means they should have their official report out soon. At least I hope she was the last one giving her statement. 

Apparently she had volunteered to be interviewed months ago, but it's standard practice I think for the FBI to interview everyone else first. Now that the interview is over, some seem to think that the FBI will go after her in a big way and recommend that she be indicted. I sure hope that's the case but some Republicans are worried the Democrats might intervene somehow. Whatever happens, I think she should be charged, and if convicted, she should get the prison sentence that goes along with it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Clair said:

Apparently she had volunteered to be interviewed months ago, but it's standard practice I think for the FBI to interview everyone else first. Now that the interview is over, some seem to think that the FBI will go after her in a big way and recommend that she be indicted. I sure hope that's the case but some Republicans are worried the Democrats might intervene somehow. Whatever happens, I think she should be charged, and if convicted, she should get the prison sentence that goes along with it.

Ohhh the tease is too much!

FBI to make "big move" against the she-devil

The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton and if its recommendation isn’t followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency’s investigators plan to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV.


[...]
“They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.”


 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clair said:

Apparently she had volunteered to be interviewed months ago, but it's standard practice I think for the FBI to interview everyone else first. Now that the interview is over, some seem to think that the FBI will go after her in a big way and recommend that she be indicted. I sure hope that's the case but some Republicans are worried the Democrats might intervene somehow. Whatever happens, I think she should be charged, and if convicted, she should get the prison sentence that goes along with it.

FBI only recommends to indite but I like the part that FBI will go public with report if attorney doesn't follow recommendation. 

Unfortunately, she is close with other too big to jail people whose advice she will follow and the money to pay for protection against jailing but then it might be like all those NY politicians getting sentenced recently on various charges of corruption. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

FBI only recommends to indite but I like the part that FBI will go public with report if attorney doesn't follow recommendation. 

Unfortunately, she is close with other too big to jail people whose advice she will follow and the money to pay for protection against jailing but then it might be like all those NY politicians getting sentenced recently on various charges of corruption. 

Maybe, but her election cruise ship is full of holes and taking on water fast. Even if the law doesn't find her guilty, (which she obviously is,) the people ready to cast votes in November should and right now that's all that matters.

But if she gets indicted and loses the election, she can forget about gainful employment in politics for the rest of her short, sociopath days.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, the most Googled question about Hillary these days is, "Is she going to jail". But to be honest, I'm not holding my breath. She's been breaking the law with impunity for decades now, so I highly doubt the server incident will bring her crime spree to a screeching halt. The only bright side is that some poor soul will be spared having to cavity search her.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cavity searches, Clair. Why did you feel it necessary to bring that up? These are innocent people. 

Why, Clair? Why? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI not recommending charges.  Pretty much should have know beforehand though.  The way the Dem's were throwing their endorsement at her in the last few days, including Obama, should have given it away.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-director-doesnt-recommend-charges-against-hillary-clinton/index.html

Edited by Gromdor
added the link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

FBI not recommending charges.  Pretty much should have know beforehand though.  The way the Dem's were throwing their endorsement at her in the last few days, including Obama, should have given it away.

and for those who want to read the story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-chief-plans-remarks-to-media-amid-heightened-focus-on-clinton-email-probe/2016/07/05/a53513c4-42b9-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

Guess that is a bad day for those who hoped she would, somehow, disappear. Now watch her go on the offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the cards are falling seem to be helping her out.  Both the Benghazi and the Email scandals are coming to a head right before the convention and both came up in her favor.  Now she can attack Trump and the Republicans over their accusations over the years in addition to the normal scandals that they seem to be causing.  Might have to start calling her "Teflon" Hillary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

The way the cards are falling seem to be helping her out.  Both the Benghazi and the Email scandals are coming to a head right before the convention and both came up in her favor.  Now she can attack Trump and the Republicans over their accusations over the years in addition to the normal scandals that they seem to be causing.  Might have to start calling her "Teflon" Hillary.

And over the money they wasted on "lavish investigations"....

But as I was saying: all that hype that was generated at the end will benefit her if they can't prove any criminal actions and get a conviction. And I have not been saying that since yesterday either.

So, here comes the establishment again.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at it, whoever heads the Senate Judicial Committee basically gets to use these "investigations" as government funded smear/propoganda campaigns.  If Dems ever get to chair it, they will do the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

And over the money they wasted on "lavish investigations"....

But as I was saying: all that hype that was generated at the end will benefit her if they can't prove any criminal actions and get a conviction. And I have not been saying that since yesterday either.

So, here comes the establishment again.

 

 

I believe her main defense was the timing. When she was Secretary of State it was a transitional period in time, recommended protocols to follow were not mandatory as it is now. 

Careless but not criminal at that time. Her defense would be lack of technology saviness and that would be why she hired tech people to help her, I imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The way I look at it, whoever heads the Senate Judicial Committee basically gets to use these "investigations" as government funded smear/propoganda campaigns.  If Dems ever get to chair it, they will do the same thing. 

qute, quite... and then it will be Reps turn to get a undeserved Teflon suit....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-we-will-not-indict-hillary-clinton-even-though-there-is-evidence-of-violations/

“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.”

TRANSLATION: She’s guilty but we won’t prosecute.

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

TRANSLATION: If YOU did this, you would absolutely be in prison.

Explain_f3f71f_103575.jpg

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.