Breaking News

USFREEDOM911 said:
1602_10153418729616696_6842476517045812717_n.jpg


She probably needed them to furnish that mansion, that they couldn't afford, after the 2008 elections.
Click to expand...

But maybe she had no intention of stealing the White House furniture, etc......Jarod says there must be 'intention' to break the law....

We all know and have known for years that Hillary is above the law and excuses will be found to make sure she is not held responsible for anything ...including the email investigation....
or 'review' as Hillary would call it.....

We've all acknowledged that fact a long time ago...even before Obama excused her actions.
 
Thing1 said:
unless more people vote their conscience and at least try to make whatever small statement they can that they will no longer support it.
Click to expand...

this has almost zero chance of happening as long as we let the establishment parties play us for our fears. I know more people that are voting for HRC, despite her obvious issues, that are doing so mainly out of fear of what the republicans will do......and vice versa.
 
christiefan915 said:
Freedumb never met an urban legend he didn't embrace.

"A viral graphic said that Hillary Clinton was forced to return about $200,000 worth of furniture, artwork and china that she had stolen from the White House. The statement contains several inaccuracies.

The Clintons returned about $48,000 in furniture, and they paid the government about $86,000 for other items. Any way you count it, the $200,000 figure is too high. According to top ethics lawyers, it’s at least debatable -- and at worst hyperbolic -- to say the Clintons "stole" the items. A congressional investigation found poor tracking of ownership and final disposition of gifts, which makes it hard to speak definitively of wrongdoing. In fact, two items the Clintons returned were ultimately sent back to them. Finally, it’s worth making clear that the "force" they responded to was political pressure, not legal jeopardy.

Accusations of stealing are serious and require a high threshold of evidence, unmet by the charges in this over-the-top graphic. We rate the claim Mostly False."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Click to expand...

So Chrisitecunt wants to argue the amount and not the act.
Typical liberal behavior. :palm:
 
christiefan915 said:
Freedumb never met an urban legend he didn't embrace.

"A viral graphic said that Hillary Clinton was forced to return about $200,000 worth of furniture, artwork and china that she had stolen from the White House. The statement contains several inaccuracies.

The Clintons returned about $48,000 in furniture, and they paid the government about $86,000 for other items. Any way you count it, the $200,000 figure is too high. According to top ethics lawyers, it’s at least debatable -- and at worst hyperbolic -- to say the Clintons "stole" the items. A congressional investigation found poor tracking of ownership and final disposition of gifts, which makes it hard to speak definitively of wrongdoing. In fact, two items the Clintons returned were ultimately sent back to them. Finally, it’s worth making clear that the "force" they responded to was political pressure, not legal jeopardy.

Accusations of stealing are serious and require a high threshold of evidence, unmet by the charges in this over-the-top graphic. We rate the claim Mostly False."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...n-gifts/36773cf2-8120-4d58-b903-d76d39a6cc3f/

The figure is irrelevant....they tried and got caught.....excuses were made.....its the Clinton's, so case closed....as it was then is how it will be in the future....
 
NOVA said:
Christiefan is, as we speak, searching the internet for the 'truth' as in, politifact and snopes.....they've been whitewashing facts and spinning for the Democrats for years....
Click to expand...

Bravs, you really don't have any leg to stand on - at all - when it comes to being a party-first apologist.

It always cracks me up when you come on threads like this & make comments like the one above, like you're some kind of objective poster.
 
NOVA said:
But maybe she had no intention of stealing the White House furniture, etc......Jarod says there must be 'intention' to break the law....

We all know and have known for years that Hillary is above the law and excuses will be found to make sure she is not held responsible for anything ...including the email investigation....
or 'review' as Hillary would call it.....

We've all acknowledged that fact a long time ago...even before Obama excused her actions.
Click to expand...

"WE" don't know that. I guess YOU know that because you're Carnac the Magnificent.
 
BLABO said:
Christiefan is, as we speak, searching the internet for the 'truth' as in, politifact and snopes.....they've been whitewashing facts and spinning for the Democrats for years....
Click to expand...

Strange...ask Christiefan what compelled her to finally admit that Hillary is a proven liar.

I'll understand if you don't.

Poor Blabo.
 
NOVA said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...n-gifts/36773cf2-8120-4d58-b903-d76d39a6cc3f/

The figure is irrelevant....they tried and got caught.....excuses were made.....its the Clinton's, so case closed....as it was then is how it will be in the future....
Click to expand...

"Accusations of stealing are serious and require a high threshold of evidence, unmet by the charges in this over-the-top graphic."

Btw, where were you when the reagans were stealing from the WH?And the Ethics Office allowed him to accept a $2.5 million home. Guess reagan had friends in low places."For instance, the IRS investigated President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1989. At issue were gowns worth as much as $25,000 and diamond jewelry that had been loaned to Nancy Reagan. A year before, the White House Ethics Office found that the president could accept a $2.5 million home in Bel Air, Calif., purchased on his behalf by undisclosed friends. However, the Reagans ultimately repaid the donors."
 
christiefan915 said:
"Accusations of stealing are serious and require a high threshold of evidence, unmet by the charges in this over-the-top graphic."

Btw, where were you when the reagans were stealing from the WH?And the Ethics Office allowed him to accept a $2.5 million home. Guess reagan had friends in low places."For instance, the IRS investigated President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1989. At issue were gowns worth as much as $25,000 and diamond jewelry that had been loaned to Nancy Reagan. A year before, the White House Ethics Office found that the president could accept a $2.5 million home in Bel Air, Calif., purchased on his behalf by undisclosed friends. However, the Reagans ultimately repaid the donors."
Click to expand...

That must not have gotten much con chain e-mail action.

Poor Blabo.
 
Rana said:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05...evidence-clinton-broke-law-private-email.html

This is the only story I could find, popped up on Twitter!

There are going to be some really sad people over this news!
Click to expand...

likely another announcement of FBI investigation by Obama official who hasn't actually been told anything......its been done already.....we already know she made false statements to investigators when she told them she had turned over all her emails......that was enough to put Libby and Martha Stewart away......
 
cawacko said:
Politicsusa is the only group to have this story?
Click to expand...

Reports: FBI So Far Finds No Malicious Intent In Clinton Email Probe

FBI agents and federal prosecutors tasked with looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state have yet to find evidence that Clinton intentionally broke classification rules, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fbi-probe-hasnt-found-intent-clinton-emails
 
christiefan915 said:
Freedumb never met an urban legend he didn't embrace.

"A viral graphic said that Hillary Clinton was forced to return about $200,000 worth of furniture, artwork and china that she had stolen from the White House. The statement contains several inaccuracies.

The Clintons returned about $48,000 in furniture, and they paid the government about $86,000 for other items. Any way you count it, the $200,000 figure is too high. According to top ethics lawyers, it’s at least debatable -- and at worst hyperbolic -- to say the Clintons "stole" the items. A congressional investigation found poor tracking of ownership and final disposition of gifts, which makes it hard to speak definitively of wrongdoing. In fact, two items the Clintons returned were ultimately sent back to them. Finally, it’s worth making clear that the "force" they responded to was political pressure, not legal jeopardy.

Accusations of stealing are serious and require a high threshold of evidence, unmet by the charges in this over-the-top graphic. We rate the claim Mostly False."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Click to expand...


USF never met a lie he wasn't willing to spread if he thought it might demean a liberal somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top