Hillary Indictment Already Handed Down By FBI And Obama Justice Department Is Sitting On It

[JoeB131]

If someone pays into SS/Medicare and they get it back later, they're getting something out they put in. I'm fully aware there isn't an account with someone's name but records are kept about contributions to determine distributions. With food stamps, if someone gets, they aren't putting into the pot that funds. The number simply don't add up.

Uh, no. The fact is, if you spend your full 26 weeks of Unemployment insurance, you are getting more out of than was paid in on your behalf. (And you aren't paying it, the employer is.) So that's definintely "White People Welfare". As opposed to SNAP, where 40% of households receiving it have at least one person with a job so they are contributing something into it. So again, you are fine with welfare if it is "White People Welfare".

When you show proof of YOUR claim about income. Deal?

Um, no, guy. I know I make more than you do, because you are clearly uneducated.

I didn't say socialism was OK. That's your moronic viewpoint. Since you haven't proven your claim about income, we'll take it as you don't since you can't.

uh, no, guy, I don't put my personal information out to a crazy person who has openly said on this board he'd like to shoot me. that would be nuts...

But we've established you are okay with Socialism as long as it's WHITE PEOPLE socialism. Thanks for playing.

 

[Conservative65]

If someone pays into SS/Medicare and they get it back later, they're getting something out they put in. I'm fully aware there isn't an account with someone's name but records are kept about contributions to determine distributions. With food stamps, if someone gets, they aren't putting into the pot that funds. The number simply don't add up.

Uh, no. The fact is, if you spend your full 26 weeks of Unemployment insurance, you are getting more out of than was paid in on your behalf. (And you aren't paying it, the employer is.) So that's definintely "White People Welfare". As opposed to SNAP, where 40% of households receiving it have at least one person with a job so they are contributing something into it. So again, you are fine with welfare if it is "White People Welfare".

When you show proof of YOUR claim about income. Deal?

Um, no, guy. I know I make more than you do, because you are clearly uneducated.

I didn't say socialism was OK. That's your moronic viewpoint. Since you haven't proven your claim about income, we'll take it as you don't since you can't.

uh, no, guy, I don't put my personal information out to a crazy person who has openly said on this board he'd like to shoot me. that would be nuts...

But we've established you are okay with Socialism as long as it's WHITE PEOPLE socialism. Thanks for playing.

Then you have no proof. You use something you can't verify and reasons to pacify your simple mind. No objective evidence, no proof.

You've, again, made up things you can't prove much like being able to show where I stated I'd like to shoot you. If I made that statement, provide it.

Being nuts involves making claims you don't prove, not showing an objective evidence to back them up, then expecting others to believe it because you say so.

 

[Oldstyle]

She had two private email servers installed in her private residence so that she could conduct State Department business without anyone being able to see how she was doing it. It's the kind of thing you need to have when you're extorting millions in bribes from people because they think you might be the next President!

Okay, guy, if you say so. Let me know when you get evidence to that effect.

Let me know when the Obama Justice Department actually TRIES to get evidence to that effect!

 

[TooTall]

I seem to recall that the General shared classified material with his girl friend that was a Major in the reserves and most certainly did have a clearance at one time.

You have poor recollection.



Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation of the law.

"As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability."

<snip>

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer.

As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly."

My memory was flawless. Paula Broadwell graduated with honors from West Point and attained the rank of Major, eventually becoming an expert on military intelligence. Broadwell lived, worked or traveled in more than 60 countries during more than 15 years of military service and worked in geopolitical analysis and counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations.

As flawless as a cutten paste.



She wasn't cleared to see the top secret information, much less take possession of it.

Your "memorable" C&P bio of the adulterer notwithstanding.

This is what I posted and an ignorant pissant like you didn't believe it.

"I seem to recall that the General shared classified material with his girl friend that was a Major in the reserves and most certainly did have a clearance at one time."

why did you think that mattered?

Having previously held a Top Secret in the service as well as a Q Clearance for the AEC, I suggest that any former Major in the Army who held a clearance knows the rules of disclosure infinitely better than Hillary's political advisers who do not have clearances.

 

[JoeB131]

Then you have no proof. You use something you can't verify and reasons to pacify your simple mind. No objective evidence, no proof.

Guy, I've got proof of what I make. I just choose not to share it with your inbred ass.

Again, you need to see a shrink, before it's too late.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me know when the Obama Justice Department actually TRIES to get evidence to that effect!

That's not their job, guy. It's not their job to validate every whackadoodle conspiracy theory you have about the clintons.

There USED to be a guy who had that job. His name was "Ken Starr", and all he managed to prove was BIll Clinton lied about getting a blow job.

And it only cost 70 million dollars! WHAT A BARGAIN.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Wait, wait wait. Are you actually saying "I've got proof, but refuse to provide it?"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives clearly have no idea how ridiculous they are – or if they do, they just don't care.

 

[Conservative65]

Then you have no proof. You use something you can't verify and reasons to pacify your simple mind. No objective evidence, no proof.

Guy, I've got proof of what I make. I just choose not to share it with your inbred ass.

Again, you need to see a shrink, before it's too late.

You saying it isn't proof.

 

[Votto]

The FBI can't hand down indictments.

They can make recommendations, but utlimately, it's the AG who had to make the determination if a case is 1) Worth pursuing or 2) Winnable.

Sorry, any case against Hillary isn't winnable. there are people out there who will vote to acquit her if you had video of her handing a briefcase full of secrets to Putin, much less the horrible crime of not using the right kind of e-mail (OMFG!!!!)

The only purpose of filing such a case would be to damage her chances of winning, but frankly, the GOP is pretty much wrapping it up for her by nominating a Reality TV Rodeo Clown.

Once politicians reach this level of power, nothing ever stops them.

Laws are for the little people.

 

[JoeB131]

Once politicians reach this level of power, nothing ever stops them.

Laws are for the little people.

Yes, they are, because the little people agree to that.

Take OJ. Didn't matter how much evidence Darden and Clark drummed up. He was a celebrity. They were going to give him a pass, no matter what.

Didn't matter that hundreds of people went to prison for doing what Rush Limbaugh did. Rush was a celebrity who could afford fancy lawyers.

The thing is, ANY Jury is going to have people who won't convict Hillary no matter what kind of "evidence" you bring against her.

But you guys have yet to provide me with ONE CASE where a "Little Person" did something even close to what Hillary did who went to prison for it. And I have been asking for some time.

 

[Freewill]

God, that looks like a wide body, the plane I mean. The landing strip for it is just to Obie's right.

She is bigger then Obama, I never realized that.

No, she's just much wider. The Prez gets off first.

She would not be in his same weight class. He might be down a step but if he is ahead of her that should make him look bigger. No wonder they need a jumbo jet.

 

[Freewill]

Once politicians reach this level of power, nothing ever stops them.

Laws are for the little people.

Yes, they are, because the little people agree to that.

Take OJ. Didn't matter how much evidence Darden and Clark drummed up. He was a celebrity. They were going to give him a pass, no matter what.

Didn't matter that hundreds of people went to prison for doing what Rush Limbaugh did. Rush was a celebrity who could afford fancy lawyers.

The thing is, ANY Jury is going to have people who won't convict Hillary no matter what kind of "evidence" you bring against her.

But you guys have yet to provide me with ONE CASE where a "Little Person" did something even close to what Hillary did who went to prison for it. And I have been asking for some time.

Finding a "little" person who has done what Mrs Tuluza has done would be impossible. How many "little" people are SOS? How many people have their own servers? Could be many. How many of those knowingly, or should know, they are handling classified information? Few I would guess.

Maybe this will answer your question:

How judges have punished leakers of classified information.

How judges have punished leakers of classified information

 

[JoeB131]

Finding a "little" person who has done what Mrs Tuluza has done would be impossible. How many "little" people are SOS? How many people have their own servers? Could be many. How many of those knowingly, or should know, they are handling classified information? Few I would guess.

Maybe this will answer your question:

How judges have punished leakers of classified information.

Except she didn't lead classified information, that's the point you keep avoiding. If she gave classified information to someone, like member of congress do every day to the press, then you might have a point. But the thing she is accused of is getting information she was authorized to see on a computer server that wasn't authorized to received them.

 

[Freewill]

Finding a "little" person who has done what Mrs Tuluza has done would be impossible. How many "little" people are SOS? How many people have their own servers? Could be many. How many of those knowingly, or should know, they are handling classified information? Few I would guess.

Maybe this will answer your question:

How judges have punished leakers of classified information.

Except she didn't lead classified information, that's the point you keep avoiding. If she gave classified information to someone, like member of congress do every day to the press, then you might have a point. But the thing she is accused of is getting information she was authorized to see on a computer server that wasn't authorized to received them.

Nope, I have said that from the start. The other cases involve people giving away "secrets." Mrs. Tuluza either was ignorant of the rules and law, knew the law and didn't give a crap, or was trying to hide information. Any of the above should spell problems for Mrs. Tuluza, but as I have been saying, it won't.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, I have said that from the start. The other cases involve people giving away "secrets." Mrs. Tuluza either was ignorant of the rules and law, knew the law and didn't give a crap, or was trying to hide information. Any of the above should spell problems for Mrs. Tuluza, but as I have been saying, it won't.

Or- it wasn't that big of a deal, it was the kind of information that is talked about in Washington every day and no one usually notices, but we are having a bureaucratic pissing contest.

Meanwhile, the Reality TV Rodeo Clown just won two more primaries.