Breaking: FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe...uh oh

[ThunderKiss1965]

Uh oh!

Who is in your plan B?

I'll stick with plan A. Laughing at you rubes every time you say she's done. It's been working pretty well for 40 years.

The Teflon Donita just like a crime boss.

 

[Preacher]

And to think Nixon was forced to resign over something no where near as bad as this

 

[Contumacious]

 

[Iceweasel]

The wheels are falling off the Corrupt Clinton machine.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The FBI had those e-mails. They are not new. And nobody cares.

 

[Contumacious]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned."


Should Hillary WITHDRAW from the presidential campaign?


.

When you say something is breaking it might be good to not post old news. This was in the article to btw.
"In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed."

Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.

Just sayin.....

Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?

Let me remind you that the US is BANKRUPT

The US has NO AUTHORITY to enter an organization like NATO

Each of the NATO enders can pay for their own defense

Therefore the US should repudiate its "commitments" to NATO

Putin is going to hack Killary's email if he has the motive and the means

I have not read any threats from Mr Trump against Killary but have read where Killary have threatened Assad and Putin


.

 

[Contumacious]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned."


Should Hillary WITHDRAW from the presidential campaign?


.

lol Should she withdraw? It is scandalous that some one as corrupt and incompetent as Hillary was chosen by the Democratic leadership to run in the first place.

That's what they do.


But she is in big trouble, she is UNelectable, she is going down like a lead balloon.


.

 

[Contumacious]

When you say something is breaking it might be good to not post old news. This was in the article to btw.
"In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed."

August 22 is old news?

I think he meant AWFUL news.


.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe

Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed.

Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted.

 

[mudwhistle]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned."


Should Hillary WITHDRAW from the presidential campaign?


.

When you say something is breaking it might be good to not post old news. This was in the article to btw.
"In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed."

Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.

Just sayin.....

Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?

The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ "Nothing criminal, no intent", NADA, hater dupes.

 

[forkup]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned."


Should Hillary WITHDRAW from the presidential campaign?


.

When you say something is breaking it might be good to not post old news. This was in the article to btw.
"In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed."

Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.

Just sayin.....

Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?

The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.

You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.

 

[mudwhistle]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned."


Should Hillary WITHDRAW from the presidential campaign?


.

When you say something is breaking it might be good to not post old news. This was in the article to btw.
"In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed."

Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.

Just sayin.....

Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?

The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.

You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.

Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

 

[Contumacious]

The most delicious thing about this e-mail "scandal," is that if republicans hadn't driven themselves into an insane frenzy over the last 8 years, trying to convince each other of blatant lies (like Obama being a Muslim, that Hillary killed Ambassador Stevens, etc), trying to convince each other that anybody in their party trying to be reasonable is a RINO, and on and on... this e-mail scandal, none of which was illegal btw, probably would have sunk Hillary! Instead, you nominated a candidate that confirmed everyone's worst fears about republicans! Bravo!

The disclosure of secrets is a criminal act but the powers-that-be ruled that she was above the law.


.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The most delicious thing about this e-mail "scandal," is that if republicans hadn't driven themselves into an insane frenzy over the last 8 years, trying to convince each other of blatant lies (like Obama being a Muslim, that Hillary killed Ambassador Stevens, etc), trying to convince each other that anybody in their party trying to be reasonable is a RINO, and on and on... this e-mail scandal, none of which was illegal btw, probably would have sunk Hillary! Instead, you nominated a candidate that confirmed everyone's worst fears about republicans! Bravo!

The disclosure of secrets is a criminal act but the powers-that-be ruled that she was above the law.


.

 

[easyt65]

According to Liberals, 14,000+ e-mails that should have been turned over, according to the law - FOIA & The Federal Records Act - but which never were turned over, in VIOLATION of those laws, are somehow NOT a crime. Somehow those documents and Hillary are not to be held to these same laws.

 

[TheOldSchool]

According to Liberals, 14,000+ e-mails that should have been turned over, according to the law - FOIA & The Federal Records Act - but which never were turned over, in VIOLATION of those laws, are somehow NOT a crime. Somehow those documents and Hillary are not to be held to these same laws.

Private e-mails that have nothing to do with work do not have to be turned over. This is not hard.

 

[Contumacious]

The most delicious thing about this e-mail "scandal," is that if republicans hadn't driven themselves into an insane frenzy over the last 8 years, trying to convince each other of blatant lies (like Obama being a Muslim, that Hillary killed Ambassador Stevens, etc), trying to convince each other that anybody in their party trying to be reasonable is a RINO, and on and on... this e-mail scandal, none of which was illegal btw, probably would have sunk Hillary! Instead, you nominated a candidate that confirmed everyone's worst fears about republicans! Bravo!

The disclosure of secrets is a criminal act but the powers-that-be ruled that she was above the law.


.

18 USC 793 -

Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.



Spin in any way you want to, she is a fucking criminal



.

 

[forkup]

When you say something is breaking it might be good to not post old news. This was in the article to btw.
"In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed."

Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.

Just sayin.....

Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?

The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.

You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.

Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Uh oh!

Who is in your plan B?

I'll stick with plan A. Laughing at you rubes every time you say she's done. It's been working pretty well for 40 years.

How did that work out for lance Armstrong?