Ex-Top FBI Official Admits Hillary Wasn't Indicted because they thought she'd win 2016 electionn

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Jul 20, 2018
5,977
2,039
Truly outrageous stuff....call out for heads to roll!

How could this happen in America?

 
All the more resaon to indict her.

“She wins the election, we go to DOJ, and we recommend that they indict her before she becomes president,” Baker said, describing how events would have unfolded should they have decided to proceed with charging her. “That’s not a good place for the country. That’s not a good place for the FBI.”

It would have been a great place for the country, and FBI leadership would have retained a modicum of credibility.
 
Truly outrageous stuff....call out for heads to roll!

How could this happen in America?

Yep. Wouldn't want a "bad look" for the country with the new president! Funny how that didn't stop the FBI, DOJ, FISA Court or the Democrats from trying their best to hang Trump!

So, OKAY! They saved face in 2016-- -- -- what's keeping them from prosecuting her now? LET ME GUESS: Statute of Limitations. :smoke:
 
Truly outrageous stuff....call out for heads to roll!

How could this happen in America?

And yet afterward when she lost the election she still wasn't indicted. How does that work? I'll also point out that the state department probe in 2019 again reaffirmed the FBI's findings. I'll say this again in 2019 when the State Department has been led by Trump appointees for over 2 years. State Dept. finds no ‘systemic’ classified violation in Hillary Clinton private-server emails

This begs the question, why do you feel that an author who claims to have a source that disputes the findings by the FBI and the State Department not to mention the simple fact that the Justice Department hasn't chosen to prosecute either has credibility? Can you lead me through your thought process, please?
 
Last edited:
Truly outrageous stuff....call out for heads to roll!

How could this happen in America?


Just another opinion piece from an alt-right Internet site. Here's your key paragraph in this wet dream piece.

"Baker “believed it was likely that the FBI could find new evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton,” Rohde wrote in his recently released book, In Deep: The FBI, the CIA, and the Truth about America’s “Deep State.”

And when they couldn't, they'd manufacture it. I swear, right wingers are just pigeons. If there was any wrongdoing here, they'd have charged her regardless. Any day now.....
 
This has been obvious for years. They ALL assumed HRC would win and wanted to curry favor with the incoming Administration. Clear as day.
Why is it obvious? She lost, nobody needed to curry favor anymore, in fact, I dare say that actually indicting her would have been looked at favorably by this administration. Yet she WAS NOT indicted. How do you explain that if it's so obvious?
 
Intel trumps team roots out the deep state in the FBI intelligence, And judicial system,, There’s not much he can do there too deep...
 
Let's hope Trump is still playing 6-D chess.... get the the election out of the way and then sweep thru those shit-eating marxist rodents like Thor with the hammer....
 
Truly outrageous stuff....call out for heads to roll!

How could this happen in America?

your a fucking idiot. She did not win and still not indicted. How do explain that one. Of course liogic does not register with the typical trumper all they can do is cry and blame every one else.
 
You liberal assholes just have to switch the names Trump and Obama. Now you think the FBI is corrupt.
 
your a fucking idiot. She did not win and still not indicted. How do explain that one. Of course liogic does not register with the typical trumper all they can do is cry and blame every one else.
It surely can't be because of Clinton's lack of guilt. Just the fact that she destroyed thousands of emails
subpoenaed by Congress alone deserves an indictment.
 

Forum List

Back
Top