Why is none of the damaging evidence against Hillary being released

[Borillar]

Because the releases will be timed for her or her bimbo daughters 2020 run for office.

Aint it great

Trump Ally Roger Stone Claims Huma Abedin Collected Damaging Material on the Clintons

Yes, where is all of that evidence that Hillary is a liar, a crook, a warmonger, taking bribes? For 25+ years the Clintons have endured investigation after investigation, all of which has come up with nothing.

Despite claims by Republicans that the Clintons are a crime family, and despite 17 investigations costing taxpayers $100,000,000, there hasn't been a single witness produced, a single piece of evidence of wrong-doing, or indictment, except for Bill lying about a blow job under oath.

Most of these investigations were begun at the behest of Republicans on fishing expeditions, who started rumours of illegal activities by the Clintons and then went seeking evidence that the Clintons did what the Republicans claimed (with no evidence) that they did. In every instance, Republicans came up short - they found NOTHING.

Call me crazy, but I conclude, there was nothing to find in the first place.

You are starting to sound like a Franco sock, I thought you were Canadian?

Listen I told Franco this and I will tell you also


Obama, Michelle, Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid, Bush sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary has...


Do you see a pattern here?



.

Yeah. Repugs make up a whole lot of BS, then they double down on it even after it has been investigated and refuted.

 

[BULLDOG]

He can have all the consensual blow jobs he wants. It's none of my business. Of course, since the right has set the precedent that a blowjob causes problems for a president, he would have to deal with that. I didn't make the rules, but I recognize when they apply.

So your good with Trump lying under oath?

He lies constantly, but I wouldn't care if it was about a consensual low job. His problem is that he lies about things that are so obviously different from his claims. 3 million illegal voters in California? Give me a break.

That's a white lie to you. So if I show Obama lied the same. You will be okay with that, but we are talking about lying under oath. Which you have proven your okay with. I'll also ask you, you okay lying under oath about treason?

Of course not. What a dumb question.

So tell me when does lying under oath is wrong?

In that situation, that blow job had nothing to do with his ability to govern, It was nobody's business but His and the people personally effected by it. Quit looking through people's windows,

 

[BULLDOG]

They also knew about idiots like Trump. Just a matter of time till his incompetence is dealt with.

You lost all honest credibility

Imagine how much it bothers me to hear that from you.

I know, integrity means nothing to you.

Integrity means a lot to me. You don't.

You proved yourself wrong.

You proved yourself an idiot. Run along now.

 

[jknowgood]

That's a white lie to you. So if I show Obama lied the same. You will be okay with that, but we are talking about lying under oath. Which you have proven your okay with. I'll also ask you, you okay lying under oath about treason?

I don't have a problem with someone lying under oath about personal responsible stuff that has nothing to do with anybody and is none of their business.

Starr went way outside of his brief. Don't forget that at least Clinton had the balls to appoint a SP in the first place. Interesting that Bush refused to do so with regard to WMDs.

You proved yourself a liar. They knew before asking the question. The truth, and you are okay with someone lying under oath.

 

[jknowgood]

So your good with Trump lying under oath?

He lies constantly, but I wouldn't care if it was about a consensual low job. His problem is that he lies about things that are so obviously different from his claims. 3 million illegal voters in California? Give me a break.

That's a white lie to you. So if I show Obama lied the same. You will be okay with that, but we are talking about lying under oath. Which you have proven your okay with. I'll also ask you, you okay lying under oath about treason?

Of course not. What a dumb question.

So tell me when does lying under oath is wrong?

In that situation, that blow job had nothing to do with his ability to govern, It was nobody's business but His and the people personally effected by it. Quit looking through people's windows,

So why do you make a big deal with Trumps grabbing pussy remarks? I mean that doesn't make him a bad guy.

 

[jknowgood]

You lost all honest credibility

Imagine how much it bothers me to hear that from you.

I know, integrity means nothing to you.

Integrity means a lot to me. You don't.

You proved yourself wrong.

You proved yourself an idiot. Run along now.

So tell me at what point does lying under oath bother you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

There are no more repugnant people on the planet than the Clintons, The Clinton news network covers for them…

It's easier to convince a RWNJ of some crazy lie than it is to convince them that they have been lied to.

Come on kid, Hillary Clinton never once opened her mouth and told the truth

Is that why the right has such a long line of accusations, but not one piece of actionable evidence to back even one of them up? Except for that silly blowjob from an extremely willing participant.

Because the releases will be timed for her or her bimbo daughters 2020 run for office.

Aint it great

Trump Ally Roger Stone Claims Huma Abedin Collected Damaging Material on the Clintons

Yes, where is all of that evidence that Hillary is a liar, a crook, a warmonger, taking bribes? For 25+ years the Clintons have endured investigation after investigation, all of which has come up with nothing.

Despite claims by Republicans that the Clintons are a crime family, and despite 17 investigations costing taxpayers $100,000,000, there hasn't been a single witness produced, a single piece of evidence of wrong-doing, or indictment, except for Bill lying about a blow job under oath.

Most of these investigations were begun at the behest of Republicans on fishing expeditions, who started rumours of illegal activities by the Clintons and then went seeking evidence that the Clintons did what the Republicans claimed (with no evidence) that they did. In every instance, Republicans came up short - they found NOTHING.

Call me crazy, but I conclude, there was nothing to find in the first place.

You are starting to sound like a Franco sock, I thought you were Canadian?

Listen I told Franco this and I will tell you also


Obama, Michelle, Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid, Bush sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary has...


Do you see a pattern here?



.

okay,

then....

PUT UP, without a single right wing source, or

SHUT UP!

so put up those so called scandals, without using right wing sources, but mainstream, legitimate news media...

you will be lucky to have even a handful...is my bet!

? You talking to me?


I even started to write a Billy Joel parody song last year on this subject on this board


Travel gate, bengahzi gate, trooper gate and Jennifer flowers..
North Korea, South Korea,
Naomi Robson, Markie Post, and
Maria Furtwängler
Asia fund raising scandal, white water and Monica Lewinsky
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the Clintons been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
File gate, email gate and hillary stealing white house furniture..
Quid pro quo, Athony Wiener.. And the corrupt clinton foundation..

We didn't start the fire
Nor did we light it
But we tried to fight it
Since the clintons been turning



R-W'ers have new-found FBI love...BUT, have they looked at the polls?




.

 

[Rambunctious]

Imagine how much it bothers me to hear that from you

 

[Rambunctious]

Yes, it wasn't a good look....

I'm a Trump supporter but your avatar is cracking me up

 

[Dr Grump]

You proved yourself a liar. They knew before asking the question. The truth, and you are okay with someone lying under oath.

Yep, what does lying under oath mean anyway? it's just words. People lie all the time - it's what they lie about that gives me the shits. A blowjob? Couldn't give a fuck. National security? Different matter altogether. Whether they lie under oath or generally is irrelevant if the outcome is the same...

 

[Wyatt earp]

So your good with Trump lying under oath?

He lies constantly, but I wouldn't care if it was about a consensual low job. His problem is that he lies about things that are so obviously different from his claims. 3 million illegal voters in California? Give me a break.

That's a white lie to you. So if I show Obama lied the same. You will be okay with that, but we are talking about lying under oath. Which you have proven your okay with. I'll also ask you, you okay lying under oath about treason?

Of course not. What a dumb question.

So tell me when does lying under oath is wrong?

In that situation, that blow job had nothing to do with his ability to govern, It was nobody's business but His and the people personally effected by it. Quit looking through people's windows,

Newt Gingrich had the decency to step down, governor Bentley is getting impeached because of it...

Like I said Before Obama, Michelle, Newt, Nancy, Harry, both Bush combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary


.




Yet the left doesn't notice a pattern here?



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You proved yourself a liar. They knew before asking the question. The truth, and you are okay with someone lying under oath.

Yep, what does lying under oath mean anyway? it's just words. People lie all the time - it's what they lie about that gives me the shits. A blowjob? Couldn't give a fuck. National security? Different matter altogether. Whether they lie under oath or generally is irrelevant if the outcome is the same...

Only someone that is ignorant to the US constitution would say that


.

 

[francoHFW]

See my sig, last line. I'm surrounded by you political idiots/ignoramuses, brainwashed morons. Other than politics and racism- based on pure ignorance and bs from above, you're fine. OTOH, your brainwashers are greedy idiot scumbags. Murdoch, Adelson, Kochs, Moonies, Russian thugs , Rush Savage etc...etc...

You're a hater. Just admit it, you have emotional problems. You probably want untold evil to descend upon your political enemies. You know what? there is only one thing that can make a person so angry and that is to hear the truth and have it toss your long held life long beliefs right out the window. You are a throwback dude. You are stuck in the 60's man. It's your side that has become evil and untrustworthy enough to lead this nation and that is why you lost and your party is no longer a national political party. Because of democrat lunacy and hatred.

LOL. I know,a giant tax cut for the rich!! This time it'll work...
I'm sorry- dupes are lovely people- but I can't take their lazy, ignorant, careless, stupid politics a minute longer. Sorry
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Because the releases will be timed for her or her bimbo daughters 2020 run for office.

Aint it great

Trump Ally Roger Stone Claims Huma Abedin Collected Damaging Material on the Clintons

Yes, where is all of that evidence that Hillary is a liar, a crook, a warmonger, taking bribes? For 25+ years the Clintons have endured investigation after investigation, all of which has come up with nothing.

Despite claims by Republicans that the Clintons are a crime family, and despite 17 investigations costing taxpayers $100,000,000, there hasn't been a single witness produced, a single piece of evidence of wrong-doing, or indictment, except for Bill lying about a blow job under oath.

Most of these investigations were begun at the behest of Republicans on fishing expeditions, who started rumours of illegal activities by the Clintons and then went seeking evidence that the Clintons did what the Republicans claimed (with no evidence) that they did. In every instance, Republicans came up short - they found NOTHING.

Call me crazy, but I conclude, there was nothing to find in the first place.

You are starting to sound like a Franco sock, I thought you were Canadian?

Listen I told Franco this and I will tell you also


Obama, Michelle, Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid, Bush sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary has...


Do you see a pattern here?



.

I looked into every one of the so-called "Clinton Scandals" in depth, reading accounts and news reports from as early as 1990, and some even earlier (for the Anita Broaddrick case) and here is what I found:

Republicans start a rumour of some impropriety by one or both of the Clintons, or someone the Clintons know or who has any sort of tie to the Clintons, is found to be dirty, so Republicans start speculating as to ways the Clintons could be involved. Then they start talking as if their speculation is fact. Then they want these "facts" investigated. An investigation follows where no evidence is found that the Clintons did anything wrong. No witnesses turn against them, even with immunity, and a report is issued clearing the Clintons for lack of any evidence whatsoever. Republicans issue this report and the moment they close the report, they repeat the same lie the report disproves as if the investigation had never happened, and the Clintons hadn't been exonerated.

This happened over and over again. Through 7 Benghazi investigations. Through Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate.

Anita Broaddrick filed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying that Clinton had ever raped her and begging the press and the Republican Party to respect her privacy and her leave her alone about it. The Special Prosecutor had the FBI haul her in and threaten her with a perjury charge if she didn't recant and offer her immunity if she did. After that Anita said whatever Republicans told her to say.

Ken Starr has publically apologized to the Clintons for his part in what he deemed to be a "public witch hunt" against them and said he is ashamed of his actions which were motivated by partisanship and damaging to the country.

Today's crop of Republicans have had no such attacks of conscience. Party over country - always.

I started to look into it



You looked I lived through it..anyone who would still say what they say "after they looked into it" and found nothing fishy would say nothing was fishy about Ruby ridge or waco


Oh wait Waco happened on Bill Clinton's watch Ruby Ridge on Bush sr


Yep again put them all together and still don't have as many scandals as Hillary

 

[francoHFW]

He lies constantly, but I wouldn't care if it was about a consensual low job. His problem is that he lies about things that are so obviously different from his claims. 3 million illegal voters in California? Give me a break.

That's a white lie to you. So if I show Obama lied the same. You will be okay with that, but we are talking about lying under oath. Which you have proven your okay with. I'll also ask you, you okay lying under oath about treason?

Of course not. What a dumb question.

So tell me when does lying under oath is wrong?

In that situation, that blow job had nothing to do with his ability to govern, It was nobody's business but His and the people personally effected by it. Quit looking through people's windows,

Newt Gingrich had the decency to step down, governor Bentley is getting impeached because of it...

Like I said Before Obama, Michelle, Newt, Nancy, Harry, both Bush combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary


.




Yet the left doesn't notice a pattern here?



.

Newt knew he could make more off you dupes and Fox. Bentley used funds to defend himself, a crime. Balogna.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you see a pattern here?

.

Yep. Conjobs just making shit up hoping some of it will stick.

What do you think they all happened on the same day?



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's a white lie to you. So if I show Obama lied the same. You will be okay with that, but we are talking about lying under oath. Which you have proven your okay with. I'll also ask you, you okay lying under oath about treason?

Of course not. What a dumb question.

So tell me when does lying under oath is wrong?

In that situation, that blow job had nothing to do with his ability to govern, It was nobody's business but His and the people personally effected by it. Quit looking through people's windows,

Newt Gingrich had the decency to step down, governor Bentley is getting impeached because of it...

Like I said Before Obama, Michelle, Newt, Nancy, Harry, both Bush combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary


.




Yet the left doesn't notice a pattern here?



.

Newt knew he could make more off you dupes and Fox. Bentley used funds to defend himself, a crime. Balogna.

No one heard from Newt in a long time after he stepped down..


.

 

[francoHFW]

Because the releases will be timed for her or her bimbo daughters 2020 run for office.

Aint it great

Trump Ally Roger Stone Claims Huma Abedin Collected Damaging Material on the Clintons

Yes, where is all of that evidence that Hillary is a liar, a crook, a warmonger, taking bribes? For 25+ years the Clintons have endured investigation after investigation, all of which has come up with nothing.

Despite claims by Republicans that the Clintons are a crime family, and despite 17 investigations costing taxpayers $100,000,000, there hasn't been a single witness produced, a single piece of evidence of wrong-doing, or indictment, except for Bill lying about a blow job under oath.

Most of these investigations were begun at the behest of Republicans on fishing expeditions, who started rumours of illegal activities by the Clintons and then went seeking evidence that the Clintons did what the Republicans claimed (with no evidence) that they did. In every instance, Republicans came up short - they found NOTHING.

Call me crazy, but I conclude, there was nothing to find in the first place.

You are starting to sound like a Franco sock, I thought you were Canadian?

Listen I told Franco this and I will tell you also


Obama, Michelle, Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid, Bush sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary has...


Do you see a pattern here?



.

I looked into every one of the so-called "Clinton Scandals" in depth, reading accounts and news reports from as early as 1990, and some even earlier (for the Anita Broaddrick case) and here is what I found:

Republicans start a rumour of some impropriety by one or both of the Clintons, or someone the Clintons know or who has any sort of tie to the Clintons, is found to be dirty, so Republicans start speculating as to ways the Clintons could be involved. Then they start talking as if their speculation is fact. Then they want these "facts" investigated. An investigation follows where no evidence is found that the Clintons did anything wrong. No witnesses turn against them, even with immunity, and a report is issued clearing the Clintons for lack of any evidence whatsoever. Republicans issue this report and the moment they close the report, they repeat the same lie the report disproves as if the investigation had never happened, and the Clintons hadn't been exonerated.

This happened over and over again. Through 7 Benghazi investigations. Through Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate.

Anita Broaddrick filed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying that Clinton had ever raped her and begging the press and the Republican Party to respect her privacy and her leave her alone about it. The Special Prosecutor had the FBI haul her in and threaten her with a perjury charge if she didn't recant and offer her immunity if she did. After that Anita said whatever Republicans told her to say.

Ken Starr has publically apologized to the Clintons for his part in what he deemed to be a "public witch hunt" against them and said he is ashamed of his actions which were motivated by partisanship and damaging to the country.

Today's crop of Republicans have had no such attacks of conscience. Party over country - always.

I started to look into it



You looked I lived through it..anyone who would still say what they say "after they looked into it" and found nothing fishy would say nothing was fishy about Ruby ridge or waco


Oh wait Waco happened on Bill Clinton's watch Ruby Ridge on Bush sr


Yep again put them all together and still don't have as many scandals as Hillary

Yup, all investigated and nothing on Bill or Hilary, ditto all the corrupt Hilary-lock her up. ALL fake news, dupes. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 25 years of BS. Go Trump!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Because the releases will be timed for her or her bimbo daughters 2020 run for office.

Aint it great

Trump Ally Roger Stone Claims Huma Abedin Collected Damaging Material on the Clintons

Yes, where is all of that evidence that Hillary is a liar, a crook, a warmonger, taking bribes? For 25+ years the Clintons have endured investigation after investigation, all of which has come up with nothing.

Despite claims by Republicans that the Clintons are a crime family, and despite 17 investigations costing taxpayers $100,000,000, there hasn't been a single witness produced, a single piece of evidence of wrong-doing, or indictment, except for Bill lying about a blow job under oath.

Most of these investigations were begun at the behest of Republicans on fishing expeditions, who started rumours of illegal activities by the Clintons and then went seeking evidence that the Clintons did what the Republicans claimed (with no evidence) that they did. In every instance, Republicans came up short - they found NOTHING.

Call me crazy, but I conclude, there was nothing to find in the first place.

You are starting to sound like a Franco sock, I thought you were Canadian?

Listen I told Franco this and I will tell you also


Obama, Michelle, Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid, Bush sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich combined don't have as many scandals as Hillary has...


Do you see a pattern here?



.

I looked into every one of the so-called "Clinton Scandals" in depth, reading accounts and news reports from as early as 1990, and some even earlier (for the Anita Broaddrick case) and here is what I found:

Republicans start a rumour of some impropriety by one or both of the Clintons, or someone the Clintons know or who has any sort of tie to the Clintons, is found to be dirty, so Republicans start speculating as to ways the Clintons could be involved. Then they start talking as if their speculation is fact. Then they want these "facts" investigated. An investigation follows where no evidence is found that the Clintons did anything wrong. No witnesses turn against them, even with immunity, and a report is issued clearing the Clintons for lack of any evidence whatsoever. Republicans issue this report and the moment they close the report, they repeat the same lie the report disproves as if the investigation had never happened, and the Clintons hadn't been exonerated.

This happened over and over again. Through 7 Benghazi investigations. Through Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate.

Anita Broaddrick filed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying that Clinton had ever raped her and begging the press and the Republican Party to respect her privacy and her leave her alone about it. The Special Prosecutor had the FBI haul her in and threaten her with a perjury charge if she didn't recant and offer her immunity if she did. After that Anita said whatever Republicans told her to say.

Ken Starr has publically apologized to the Clintons for his part in what he deemed to be a "public witch hunt" against them and said he is ashamed of his actions which were motivated by partisanship and damaging to the country.

Today's crop of Republicans have had no such attacks of conscience. Party over country - always.

I started to look into it



You looked I lived through it..anyone who would still say what they say "after they looked into it" and found nothing fishy would say nothing was fishy about Ruby ridge or waco


Oh wait Waco happened on Bill Clinton's watch Ruby Ridge on Bush sr


Yep again put them all together and still don't have as many scandals as Hillary

If you looked into it did you find this also dragon lady?

 

[Dragonlady]

Because the releases will be timed for her or her bimbo daughters 2020 run for office.

Aint it great

Trump Ally Roger Stone Claims Huma Abedin Collected Damaging Material on the Clintons

Because the investigations continue. The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation used an extremely complex bookkeeping methods. The intent is obvious.

As you know too, the Clinton's have decades of experience skirting the law and finding every legal and/or sort of legal loopholes.

No they didn't. They used an entirely different Foundation Model. Their accounting system was neither complicated, nor did it lack transparency. It was all very clear and above board.

Most family foundations raise money and then donate it to NGO's and other other organizations doing good works. The Clinton Foundation hires the programs and runs them itself. It distributes 75% of all of the AIDS drugs given to children in the World, and 50% of the drugs given to adults. It has been praised by governments throughout the world for their work with educating girls and women, advocating for their rights, and distributing AIDS drugs.

The Clinton Foundations has a 4 star rating (the highest possible) from every charity watchdog in the world. Their financial statements are posted online for all to see.

As for years of skirting the law - given the level of scrutiny they've been under, the Clintons would be fools to do anything even slightly illegal. If Republicans could find anything on either of them, they would have thrown them in jail years ago.

As for the story that Huma has the goods on Hillary and others have seen it, where are the leaks? Where is the hard evidence that this is more than a Republican wet dream?