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 -
OverSword

FBI recommends no charges for Clinton

267 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
1 hour ago, Clair said:

Meh, like it'll make a difference. They know the law. We know the law. But the FBI is now sucking and blowing. So what if Hillary and her minions did not intend to violate laws? They still did. And if Hillary gets away with it, why shouldn't everyone else? This whole situation reeks and if she becomes President after this, after Benghazi, and after everything else she has done, I will have a meltdown.

I think I'm falling in love with you Clair

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think I'm falling in love with you Clair

Enough to hitch across the Atlantic?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz Dane

Hmmm... I figured "the fix" would be in somehow, even be it a Pardon issued by Obama. But I didn't expect them to be so open about it. :wacko:

First Slick Willy meets with Attorney Loretta Lynch last Monday on her plane at the airport in Phoenix. We're told that the both of them being there simultaneously was a coincidence. Then Slick Willy goes aboard her plane on the tarmac and has a meeting with her. We're told that they didn't discuss Hillary's email "review" and instead talked about family and grandchildren. Ya ok.

Then later, Lynch says it was a mistake to meet with Bill Clinton and understands that it "looks bad" and called it a "mistake" and that she "certainly wouldn’t do it again"(like Hillary talking about using her private server). Lynch also says now that she will defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. on whether to issue charges in Hillary Clinton's emails scandal.

Then we hear that Clinton, if she wins the Presidency, is considering keeping Lynch on as Attorney General...

- "Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is considering keeping Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch in her current position..."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-loretta-lynch-attorney-general-president/2016/07/04/id/736943/

Then today we have F.B.I. director James Comey recommending NO charges be brought up.

And NOW(he didn't before), we have President Obama touring with Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail... on the same day as Comey's announcement.

Wow, that was a close call for Obama... 50/50 ... if Comey had recommended charges today, Obama would have been campaigning with a recommended felon.

:wacko:

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, questionmark said:

Wherein, you have to demonstrate that the removed property was stolen (not demonstrated), misused (not demonstrated) or delivered to a non-authorized third party.

 

 

Nowhere is it indicated that any of those things you list as not demonstrated need to be demonstrated. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

she can not handle two phones, yet she can handle presidency??? 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Nowhere is it indicated that any of those things you list as not demonstrated need to be demonstrated. 

Not to mention that once real harm HAS been documented, she'll be in a position to pardon herself and anyone else involved.  This stinks worse than 3 day old fish heads in the sun.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

I think the pertinent issue here is whether or not Sec. Clinton used an unauthorized computer server to store, create or otherwise facilitate State Dept. communications in violation of long-standing policy of secure communication protocol.

It's obvious that she did. Regardless of whether or not a specific email was previously "classified", or "post-classified" the use of a private server outside of strict security controls should be illegal and subject to prosecution via violation of internal, written State Dept. policy.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Nowhere is it indicated that any of those things you list as not demonstrated need to be demonstrated. 

I agree. And what abut the Espionage Act? it would apply wouldn't it? After all, she did place classified information on an unclassified system within reach of hackers, not to mention foreign intelligence services. And according to the Espionage Act, it doesn't matter if it was done willfully or through gross negligence. Also, by revealing the names of undercover CIA agents, would that not have her in violation of the Intelligence Identities Act?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
9 minutes ago, Clair said:

I agree. And what abut the Espionage Act? it would apply wouldn't it? After all, she did place classified information on an unclassified system within reach of hackers, not to mention foreign intelligence services. And according to the Espionage Act, it doesn't matter if it was done willfully or through gross negligence. Also, by revealing the names of undercover CIA agents, would that not have her in violation of the Intelligence Identities Act?

You will never get QMark to admit that intent does not matter.  He's been beating this dead horse for months without regard to the many posts that have proven his argument wrong.

 

And yes I would hitch hike across the Atlantic but I doubt you're on the other side.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I'd be curious to know what Petraeus thinks about this statement today.  Tire prints from that bus that ran him down are probably still fresh ....

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
51 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

And NOW(he didn't before), we have President Obama touring with Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail... on the same day as Comey's announcement.

 

:wacko:

I've always had a problem with a president campaigning for the next president.   It should be a conflict of interest.    At minimum it should be discouraged.  

I've felt this way with all presidents if they are still in office.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
26 minutes ago, and then said:

I'd be curious to know what Petraeus thinks about this statement today.  Tire prints from that bus that ran him down are probably still fresh ....

I wish he could sue or something.

I was wondering if the wiki-leaks guy will now start releasing what he claims to have.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I think I'm falling in love with you Clair

Form an orderly queue I think I am as well.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
14 minutes ago, skliss said:

I wish he could sue or something.

I was wondering if the wiki-leaks guy will now start releasing what he claims to have.

They have made it clear that regardless of evidence she will not be indicted.  The result of a wikileak will be our outraged government demanding Julian Assange's head on a platter (where Hillary's head belongs)

 

At this point even if Donald trump wins the election Hillary will still be declared president because the fix is in and I doubt the elections aren't rigged thanks to this outrageous announcement by the FBI director.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

She could still be tried in the court of public opinion if the wiki-leaks stuff is good enough.....I don't care as long as it keeps her out of the white house.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

The court of public opinion would be the election coming up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

The court of public opinion would be the election coming up...

I would agree, if it were for the massive voter fraud on the left ready to support her later this year.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The court of public opinion would be the election coming up...

You mean where the public are told their options are her or Trump?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You mean where the public are told their options are her or Trump?

 

Yup.  Pity that the public believes everything they are told.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You mean where the public are told their options are her or Trump?

 

I wonder (because I don't really know) if there is a possibility that BOTH presumptive candidates can be "thrown-out" before or during the convention.

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
3 hours ago, Clair said:

I agree. And what abut the Espionage Act? it would apply wouldn't it? After all, she did place classified information on an unclassified system within reach of hackers, not to mention foreign intelligence services.

Maybe Putin will do us a solid and reveal the contents of her emails. Of course, *he's* the bad guy. :rolleyes:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

Wow.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

No charges?   I'm compelled to pull out that infamous igno line once again and say:  "Nobody could have seen it coming!"

We already have other parties!   We've got the Libertarian Party on the ballot on all 50 states.   Let's start taking action in the face of the Same Old S every election instead of complaining about it and then participating in it (again).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
3 minutes ago, Yamato said:

No charges?   I'm compelled to pull out that infamous igno line once again and say:  "Nobody could have seen it coming!"

We already have other parties!   We've got the Libertarian Party on the ballot on all 50 states.   Let's start taking action in the face of the Same Old S every election instead of complaining about it and then participating in it (again).

 

Yeah, this one is a b****, as both presumptive nominees are clearly unsuitable to become President.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bavarian Raven

Surprise, bloody surprise. >.>

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.