Hillary Clinton facing 1-10 years; Likely to Be Indicted Early May

T

TheDonald

Banned
https://pivotamerica.com/clinton-li...ch-of-national-security-facing-1-to-10-years/ This video surfaced earlier this month combining video feeds from experts as to what’s really going on with Clinton and her Email scandal. According to the video she could be facing charges from a Misdemeanor with up to 1 year sentence all the way up to a 10 year sentence and a felony.

It could even go up to the President of the United States, the question is how could the President not know that emails he was sending to his Secretary of State were not over a secure line to a secure email server, secured by the top security professionals, but instead a private email server setup by a Clinton staffer?

hillary-angry1.jpg
 
The band played 'Believe it if you like'. I expect flying saucers arranged it all after they shot President Kennedy!
 
There is zero doubt to anyone who isn't a partisan hack that Crooked Hillary violated both the spirit and intent of the law.

However the odds of her being indicted are as good as JPPs new Internet ganging not finding Yurt around every corner
 
It's already the middle of May. If anything demonstrates the vast number of semi-literate retards in the GOP base it is stuff like this. You take a minor "whoops my bad" that only some partisan right wing hacks give a rats ass about and by telling yourself over and over and over again that she broke the law and is going to jail despite that this has gone on interminably, millions of dollars of tax payer money utterly wasted, no evidence to support a crime, other than ones invented whole cloth, and you convince yourself with absolute certainty that Clinton will be indicted in early May when it's already the middle of May. This is solid evidence that you're all simply retards.

This is just White Water two and the only people you retards are convincing is other retards.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's already the middle of May. If anything demonstrates the vast number of semi-literate retards in the GOP base it is stuff like this. You take a minor "whoops my bad" that only some partisan right wing hacks give a rats ass about and by telling yourself over and over and over again that she broke the law and is going to jail despite that this has gone on interminably, millions of dollars of tax payer money utterly wasted, no evidence to support a crime, other than ones invented whole cloth, and you convince yourself with absolute certainty that Clinton will be indicted in early May when it's already the middle of May. This is solid evidence that you're all simply retards.

This is just White Water two and the only people you retards are convincing is other retards.
Click to expand...

She did break the law and no I don't believe she will go to jail. The hive will protect the hive.

Only a complete partisan hack i.e. YOU can look at what she did and conclude she didn't break the law. Many people break the law and don't go to jail.

What is hilarious is that you are such a partisan hack that you keep calling this a republican witch hunt but it is a democrat led Department of Justice investigation.

Maybe that is why you don't make more than $55K a year?

:dunno:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's already the middle of May. If anything demonstrates the vast number of semi-literate retards in the GOP base it is stuff like this. You take a minor "whoops my bad" that only some partisan right wing hacks give a rats ass about and by telling yourself over and over and over again that she broke the law and is going to jail despite that this has gone on interminably, millions of dollars of tax payer money utterly wasted, no evidence to support a crime, other than ones invented whole cloth, and you convince yourself with absolute certainty that Clinton will be indicted in early May when it's already the middle of May. This is solid evidence that you're all simply retards.

This is just White Water two and the only people you retards are convincing is other retards.
Click to expand...
The evidence is the very existence of the server. Doy
 
Did they intend to setup a server? Yes.

Did they send top secret shit to it? Yes.

It's so utterly basic that only a corruption loving globalist hack would deny it.
 
This isn't Whitewater or some "vast right wing conspiracy" -it's an FBI investigation ( not a "security review" either as she plays it off)..

How in the hell she thought she could use ONLY a private server and conduct business as Sec of State
( not using the State dept classified system) is typical Clinton arrogance of power , or possible worse ..

If you know the myriad ways she circumvented the law -knowingly or unknowingly ( intent);
it's extremely difficult to give her the benefit of a doubt on all this.

She has admitted it was a "mistake" to use the private server..was it criminal? How about letting the FBI investigate and refer to DoJ ..or not.
 
anatta said:
This isn't Whitewater or some "vast right wing conspiracy" -it's an FBI investigation ( not a "security review" either as she plays it off)..

How in the hell she thought she could use ONLY a private server and conduct business as Sec of State
( not using the State dept classified system) is typical Clinton arrogance of power , or possible worse ..

If you know the myriad ways she circumvented the law -knowingly or unknowingly ( intent);
it's extremely difficult to give her the benefit of a doubt on all this.

She has admitted it was a "mistake" to use the private server..was it criminal? How about letting the FBI investigate and refer to DoJ ..or not.
Click to expand...


They same reason Condi Rice and Colin Powel thought they could use a private server to conduct Secretary of State business. It is arrogance, its not criminal.

She successfully circumvented the law, that means she did not break the law, she found a way around the law. You cant prosecute someone for that.

It was a mistake, and she admitted it.

Now do we want to compare it to the "mistakes" Donald Trump wont admit to?
 
Jarod said:
They same reason Condi Rice and Colin Powel thought they could use a private server to conduct Secretary of State business. It is arrogance, its not criminal.

She successfully circumvented the law, that means she did not break the law, she found a way around the law. You cant prosecute someone for that.

It was a mistake, and she admitted it.

Now do we want to compare it to the "mistakes" Donald Trump wont admit to?
Click to expand...
Look the difference was wantonly not using states server.
Not for anything . She had no state dept account.. just how do you perform your duties as Sec of State without a classifed Email account?

We know she was a 'crakberry'(Blackberry addict) -it why her aides fought for its use on Mahogany Row,
instead of turning in the device while she was there.
What security officials didn't know was it was tethered to her Email.

She has admitted it was "wrong" - I find it amazing she would transact innate classified info on her Emails (so called born classified)
when as Sec of State she signed off on classified procedures..was that knowingly criminal -or simply gross dereliction?

This isn't in front of the FBI for protracted investigation for no reason..i'd hope you would so stipulate ?
the INTEL IG's were alarmed enough to refer.
So let the FBI make the findings and then that should be the final say on criminality. It's false to say one way or the other now.

Then there is the OTHER despositions/discovery into the Clinton Foundation; the possible unethical mixing of Mrs. Clinton’s public work and her personal fundraising/speech-giving/favor-doing

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer (atlantic)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

 The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.
 
anatta said:
Look the difference was wantonly not using states server.
Not for anything . She had no state dept account.. just how do you perform your duties as Sec of State without a classifed Email account?

We know she was a 'crakberry'(Blackberry addict) -it why her aides fought for its use on Mahogany Row,
instead of turning in the device while she was there.
What security officials didn't know was it was tethered to her Email.

She has admitted it was "wrong" - I find it amazing she would transact innate classified info on her Emails (so called born classified)
when as Sec of State she signed off on classified procedures..was that knowingly criminal -or simply gross dereliction?

This isn't in front of the FBI for protracted investigation for no reason..i'd hope you would so stipulate ?
the INTEL IG's were alarmed enough to refer.
So let the FBI make the findings and then that should be the final say on criminality. It's false to say one way or the other now.

Then there is the OTHER despositions/discovery into the Clinton Foundation; the possible unethical mixing of Mrs. Clinton’s public work and her personal fundraising/speech-giving/favor-doing

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer (atlantic)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

 The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.
Click to expand...

Just the usual supposition and bullshit.
No proof of anything illegal.

Reread Jarod's post.
He is a lawyer, he knows what he is talking about.
 
I Love America said:
She did break the law and no I don't believe she will go to jail. The hive will protect the hive.

Only a complete partisan hack i.e. YOU can look at what she did and conclude she didn't break the law. Many people break the law and don't go to jail.

What is hilarious is that you are such a partisan hack that you keep calling this a republican witch hunt but it is a democrat led Department of Justice investigation.

Maybe that is why you don't make more than $55K a year?

:dunno:
Click to expand...
Yea, yea...keep telling yourself that. You're doing a great job of convincing yourself.
 
TheDonald said:
It could even go up to the President of the United States...
Click to expand...

Loretta Lynch is the head of the Department of Justice. She is appointed by the president and is a member of his cabinet. She serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by him at any time. If the FBI refers a criminal charge to her, how likely is she to indict and prosecute her own boss? And how realistic would it be for a special prosecutor to be able to act before the election? Which would make this entire fantasy of yours a mute point, anyway.

I Love America said:
What is hilarious is that you are such a partisan hack that you keep calling this a republican witch hunt but it is a democrat led Department of Justice investigation.

Maybe that is why you don't make more than $55K a year?
Click to expand...

You may make more than $55k a year, but you can't really be serious about labeling the FBI's investigation as Democrat led? The only accusations of Republican led email witch hunts (that I am aware of) are the two Congressional investigations by House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Exactly who on the left accuses the FBI email investigation of being a Republican witch hunt?

Speaking of Republican witch hunts, the Trey Gowdy led investigation of Benghazi has been described as blatantly politically motivated by Republican Reps. McCarthy and Hanna. It is the eighth Benghazi investigation that has cost taxpayers at least $22 million over almost four years, with no Hillary indictments. It is rather sad to see Republicans wasting taxpayer money on a self-proclaimed political witch hunt. Methinks you are mixing up your scandals.
 
Rice and Powell bought their own systems ? No, they did not. I would think risking state secrets is rather more consequential than anything Trump said.

Remember how upset people were because some retired spy whose children outed before Libby ? Remember how upset people were when Snowden published state dept emails (probably including these) ?

This is a problem.
 
Rune said:
Just the usual supposition and bullshit.
No proof of anything illegal.

Reread Jarod's post.
He is a lawyer, he knows what he is talking about.
Click to expand...
what is bullshit? what is supposition? I read and responded to Jarod.
You drive by and say nothing..the FBI will refer to DoJ or not..leave it at that.
 
Celticguy said:
Remember how upset people were because some retired spy whose children outed before Libby ?
Click to expand...

If you are jabbering about the Plame affair, then you have it completely wrong. Former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson wrote an op-ed article in July 2003 published in The New York Times stating his doubts, during his mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had arranged to purchase and import uranium from the country, that any such transaction had taken place. A week later, a journalist close to the Administration, Robert Novak, published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. Many believe that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article. The scandal led to a criminal investigation; no one was charged for the leak itself. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators. His prison sentence was ultimately commuted by President Bush.

If you aren't "upset" by the intentional outing of a covert CIA operative, then please go on and on about how this treasonous email scandal is on par with the Plame affair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top