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 -
Merc14

Hillary Clinton's nightmare

355 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker

I do wonder what they want Guccifer for. I think I read that he was serving 7 more years, but somehow he got sent over here. Humm????

Who's pulling strings, I wonder, to get international felons pulled out of foreign nation prison terms to testify on a "non issue"? If it was really a non-issue investigation, then he'd never have been pulled out of a current prison sentence. At least I've never seen that done for a "non issue" event before.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

That was an analogy yammie, the fact that you don't realize that bears testament to the dangers of your pastime I alluded to earlier. There was, allegedly, a HUMINT asset exposed but let's not bother to explain that to you, after all, you've proven that you can't comprehend the situation so let's not belabor the point and cause further embarrassment to yourself.

Sucks that I don't let you change the subject doesn't it "spanky"? No we'll stick to what you F'ed up and ignore the side jabs. You still haven't apologized to us about your lie that peopel stole defense funds and buried them in off-shore accounts. Lie or mistake yammie ( I pick lie)? We all make mistakes, after all but when we do, especially when we slander others, we adults apologize.

Shouldn't you apologize now and get this monkey off your back? Admit you were wrong, you made it all up and you will try and phrase things more accurately in the future.

When money goes missing at work or home, someone stealing it isn't a possibility that can be ruled out by default. I live in an apt I have friends over, neighbors over, friends of friends and occasionally throw some small parties. Ignoring the missing money like a blind sheep would be my worst reaction in any case. Why don't you even care about government mishandling/losing/stealing money? You can't even agree with me on that? You are conservative?

If Hillary Clinton stole something, then I'm all for prosecuting her for theft. But that's not what this is about. If the man wasn't straw, then I'd be as enthusiastic a prosecutor as you are but not for the same partisan or political reasons. It's like Ron Paul said when he voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment. He almost single-handedly believed that Bill Clinton should have been impeached already. I'm quite the same regarding his wife. If a foreign policy is illegal, then if you add Hillary Clinton to the prosecution list featuring President Obama and Secretary Gates, that will be fine. But you never wrote a post about prosecuting the Obama administration for Libya. Your interest there begins and ends in "Benghazi", and your true interest in anything anti-Clinton is further reduced when you're almost exclusively caring about the damned emails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Why does it need to be about money, Yamato? Her "laissez faire" treatment of her documents she created at some of the highest levels of government should frighten you regardless of if any money was lost or harm done.

Would you support Trump if he openly exchanged political influence for donations to charity? Of course not. So demanding money damages is really just obscuring the issue. Demanding damages is the real straw man here. The actual story is about Intellectual Property of the US FedGov which Hillary had no respect for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

When money goes missing at work or home, someone stealing it isn't a possibility that can be ruled out by default. I live in an apt I have friends over, neighbors over, friends of friends and occasionally throw some small parties. Ignoring the missing money like a blind sheep would be my worst reaction in any case. Why don't you even care about government mishandling/losing/stealing money? You can't even agree with me on that? You are conservative?

If Hillary Clinton stole something, then I'm all for prosecuting her for theft. But that's not what this is about. If the man wasn't straw, then I'd be as enthusiastic a prosecutor as you are but not for the same partisan or political reasons. It's like Ron Paul said when he voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment. He almost single-handedly believed that Bill Clinton should have been impeached already. I'm quite the same regarding his wife. If a foreign policy is illegal, then if you add Hillary Clinton to the prosecution list featuring President Obama and Secretary Gates, that will be fine. But you never wrote a post about prosecuting the Obama administration for Libya. Your interest there begins and ends in "Benghazi", and your true interest in anything anti-Clinton is further reduced when you're almost exclusively caring about the damned emails.

Sorry, you are NOT allowed to change the subject on me to avoid answering the asked question. I realize that is your normal way of escaping one of your many mindless F-ups here but I won't let you get away with it. All of the above is off-topic and also irrelevant to the question I asked of the assertion you made. Either provide your proof that the Panama Papers showed US Dept. of Defense money from the Iraq war hidden in private off-shore accounts as you asserted or admit you made it up or just move on as the mods suggested.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Here is a great article that very accurately describes the nature of Hillary's crime, why it was/is a crime and why she may be in serious trouble for it https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/andrew-p-napolitano/damning-hillary/ Especially applicable for those who may not understand what is going on with this situation (yamato excepted, he is beyond help).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

Here is a great article that very accurately describes the nature of Hillary's crime, why it was/is a crime and why she may be in serious trouble for it https://www.lewrockw...amning-hillary/ Especially applicable for those who may not understand what is going on with this situation (yamato excepted, he is beyond help).

Informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Things must be getting hotter for Hillary as she has now unleashed the "Big Dog", Bill, to defend her handling of emails. She has also stopped with the ridiculous excuse that this is just a normal review of State Dept. classified material policies because the DoJ has denied a FOIA request for her deleted/erased emails on the grounds that it would interferer with a law enforcement case. This is shorthand for a criminal investigation. http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2016/05/05/hillarys-secret-weapon-n2158036?utm_content=buffer4cd67&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Lastly, she can stop with the assertions that her server was never hacked. Of course it was and we now have Guccifer on record as saying he hacked it himself twice and noticed evidence of others scrounging around in there as well. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html

Guccifer also alluded to 2Gb of classified data he has hidden that he may be using to negotiate a deal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Things must be getting hotter for Hillary as she has now unleashed the "Big Dog", Bill, to defend her handling of emails. She has also stopped with the ridiculous excuse that this is just a normal review of State Dept. classified material policies because the DoJ has denied a FOIA request for her deleted/erased emails on the grounds that it would interferer with a law enforcement case. This is shorthand for a criminal investigation. http://townhall.com/...campaign=buffer

Lastly, she can stop with the assertions that her server was never hacked. Of course it was and we now have Guccifer on record as saying he hacked it himself twice and noticed evidence of others scrounging around in there as well. http://www.foxnews.c...t-was-easy.html

Guccifer also alluded to 2Gb of classified data he has hidden that he may be using to negotiate a deal.

I've been reading over things this morning from the internet that state they the FBI have 100% solid evidence to convict her.

ETA - all the claims are from April of 2016 that suggest they have solid proof.

ETA again - she doesn't sound healthy enough to take office. i don't know if it's stress that's causing it or what but she hasn't sound very well in a long time.

Edited by Ellapennella
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

I've been reading over things this morning from the internet that state they the FBI have 100% solid evidence to convict her.

ETA - all the claims are from April of 2016 that suggest they have solid proof.

ETA again - she doesn't sound healthy enough to take office. i don't know if it's stress that's causing it or what but she hasn't sound very well in a long time.

If you knew the FBI was after you, you'd be beyond stressed out. Can you imagine the infamous FBI is gunning for you and you have to smile and wave for the crowd? Immense, immense pressure on top of the election race and any shred of guilt she may be carrying around. She has to be popping pills to fall asleep, pills to wake up, pills to stimulate appetite...

The real question is who will get to her first? The Grim Reaper or the FBI?

Edited by Dark_Grey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

One thing I have learned about the Clintons is NEVER assume they can't weasel out of whatever trouble they are in. This may already be "fixed" with some deal they have lined up, hence her calm demeanor. Of course I don't think the new generation will cheer their shady deals like mine did which gives me some hope for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-more-hillary-clinton-emails-withheld-from-state-department/

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages) that again appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com system until March 18, 2009.

Judicial Watch recently released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

If you knew the FBI was after you, you'd be beyond stressed out. Can you imagine the infamous FBI is gunning for you and you have to smile and wave for the crowd? Immense, immense pressure on top of the election race and any shred of guilt she may be carrying around. She has to be popping pills to fall asleep, pills to wake up, pills to stimulate appetite...

The real question is who will get to her first? The Grim Reaper or the FBI?

yeah. I mean even after all the witch has done I don't feel good about wanting to root for her to be indited, but at the same time I want for her to be indited, she's not to be placed above the law. It's sad that she had opportunity to do good things in life and she like others abused that power. I don't think she cares one bit about anyone other than maybe her own. She's nothing but a liar.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

I do wonder what they want Guccifer for. I think I read that he was serving 7 more years, but somehow he got sent over here. Humm????

Who's pulling strings, I wonder, to get international felons pulled out of foreign nation prison terms to testify on a "non issue"? If it was really a non-issue investigation, then he'd never have been pulled out of a current prison sentence. At least I've never seen that done for a "non issue" event before.

Isn't it something like, if an individual has stolen from federal somehow or has breached federal information illegally that under those terms by law they the agency can and will extradite,right?

ETA- had to add a word.

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

So we can add perjury to her list of crimes. :no: No doubt this will hand-waved away as well ,since we are dealing with royalty here, but all of the "laws don't apply to me" activity will not play well on the campaign circuit. Trump will bang this drum loudly and frequently right up till election day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Here we go folks. DoJ's first official words on Hillary's crimes are "but so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law"

Please note that the law specifically states that intent isn't a prerequisite to being guilty of breaking this law but that is where this will end up. People have been prosecuted and found guilty for much less than she has done but this is no longer a country of laws.

Read more at http://dcwhispers.com/obama-doj-hints-no-criminal-wrongdoing-regarding-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal/#eEf6OLRGc7rXPJuE.99

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

Over the years on this earth, what I have noticed, mostly about America, is that: the people called to make, interpret, and/or uphold the law believe, behave, and are allowed to be above the law.

It isn't as though we like it or want it... it is what it is and no "outside" person we call to help us will or can because they too are currently in or now asked to be in that paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Over the years on this earth, what I have noticed, mostly about America, is that: the people called to make, interpret, and/or uphold the law believe, behave, and are allowed to be above the law.

It isn't as though we like it or want it... it is what it is and no "outside" person we call to help us will or can because they too are currently in or now asked to be in that paradigm.

It seems that this applies to democrats only, however. Thinks about how many democrats/leftists you can name that are guilty yet not prosecuted and then try and come up with republicans/righties that weren't prosecuted for a crime. If this server had been Condoleeza Rice's the left would be screaming for blood so the know it is wrong and that Hillary broke the law.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Here we go folks. DoJ's first official words on Hillary's crimes are "but so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law"

Please note that the law specifically states that intent isn't a prerequisite to being guilty of breaking this law but that is where this will end up. People have been prosecuted and found guilty for much less than she has done but this is no longer a country of laws.

Read more at http://dcwhispers.co...OLRGc7rXPJuE.99

I read that the other day. Didn't they specifically say they haven't found criminal intent on using the server. They didn't say anything yet about any other charges that might come about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

His name is a brand that people pay him for. If he was to attain the Presidency, the value of that brand will soar. In fact, the value of his brand has risen just off the back of his populist showing in the nomination race. He can't buy that with money.

This is true of all Presidential Candidates. Even those Republicans who dropped out early are now national names and could get a talk show, or a column in a major online newspaper.

Hillary clearly is out to grab power. Why should Trump be altruistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I read that the other day. Didn't they specifically say they haven't found criminal intent on using the server. They didn't say anything yet about any other charges that might come about.

The important thing is they are ignoring the law which is explicit about no need for intent. The law is designed to punish people that are simply careless with classified information as well as those that are purposely exposing classified info. and the issuing authorities are very straightforward about it in all the training one receives when you get a clearance. There no need for her to have willfully exposed classified material, her simply having exposed it whether from ignorance, stupidity or to cover her tracks are all equally in violation. This is classified material 101, there is no mystery here.

Most of the public will not understand the above and will except this excuse and I am sure that is the plan. It is what I have thought they'd say all along. There is no doubt she knew what she was doing and did all of the crimes in order to keep her business far away from prying eyes. Nether is there any doubt that anything that was on that server was stolen by foreign governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal

In a 2015 prison interview from Romania with reporter Matei Rosca for Pando.com, Lazar told Rosca that, "I used to read [Clinton's] memos for six or seven hours ... and then do the gardening."

Well gardening can be very rewarding and relaxing. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
13177869_10157016023315389_4022656361552657386_n.jpg?oh=1ee1b0e356b9c40b1846ff0aea3b9de2&oe=57D81023
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.