TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Again, will never be indicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 This statement from Bill is so wildly inaccurate and hypocritical only comment need be made is "lol" Bill Clinton: To understand Hillary, look to her faith "In the Methodist church, the founder John Wesley, said we live under a simple obligation to do all the good we can, in whatever ways we can, to all the people we can, for as long as we can," said the former president while stumping for his wife. "She lived by that." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/28/politics/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-faith/index.html?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist&iref=obinsite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 The difference between Hillary and Bill is that she will screw anybody to gain power while Bill will just screw anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 From the link: Hillary Clinton's handling of CLASSIFIED MATERIAL isn't as bad as you think — it’s as bad as it’s possible for you to think: White House puts thumb on scales of Justice: Hillary “doesn’t seem to be headed” to indictment How does the White House know? .................and why would they even address it ? The political interference by the White House in the investigation of Hillary Clinton just took a big step up. Previously, in a 60 Minutes interview in October 2015, Obama pretty much signaled Justice to lay off Hillary (transcript at link): The White House later tried to walk back Obama’s expression of his view on whether Hillary had a national security problem as even that commentary could be seen as improper interference. Today the White House stepped it up a significant notch, as reported by The Washington Examiner: The president’s top spokesman said he sees no reason for Democrats to find an alternative presidential candidate in case Hillary Clinton is indicted over her mishandling of classified material on her private email server. “That’s not something I’m worried about,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday. Earnest also tried to counter a steady stream of largely GOP predictions that Hillary Clinton will face a Justice Department indictment for the email scandal. “That will be a decision that will be made by the Department of Justice,” he said. “Some officials have said she is not the target of the investigation and it does not seem to be the direction in which it is trending.” Pressed again on whether he believed Clinton could get indicted, Earnest said firmly: “It doesn’t seem to be headed in that direction.” The White House needs to shut its collective mouth and stop signaling to the supposedly independent investigators what the outcome should be. That’s particularly true given the escalating revelations about the highly sensitive nature of material found in Hillary’s emails: It’s particularly improper for the White House to make such comments since Obama signaled the other day that he’s quite fond of Hillary as his successor. Unless The White House already knows what the result will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 This statement from Bill is so wildly inaccurate and hypocritical only comment need be made is "lol" Bill Clinton: To understand Hillary, look to her faith "In the Methodist church, the founder John Wesley, said we live under a simple obligation to do all the good we can, in whatever ways we can, to all the people we can, for as long as we can," said the former president while stumping for his wife. "She lived by that." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/28/politics/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-faith/index.html?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist&iref=obinsite Right. Anyone remember when she equated the traditional family to slavery? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Again, will never be indicted. She could kill you, me and 8 puppies in broad daylight in Times Square and never be indicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 She could kill you, me and 8 puppies in broad daylight in Times Square and never be indicted. Water: wet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I still feel like Hillary being indicted opens the door for Biden to hop in, save the democrats and preserve Obama's legacy. It's terrifying to think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 She could kill you, me and 8 puppies in broad daylight in Times Square and never be indicted. Agree but the court of public opinion might still do her in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 From today's NY Times Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said in a statement that it made no sense to her that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else. The only reason to hold Secretary Clinton responsible for emails that didnt originate with her is for political points, and thats what weve seen over the past several months, she added. The Clinton campaigns response has reflected an effort to highlight the selective judgments that can be involved in the classification process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Feinstein, Pelosi, Waters - same mold, same story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 True, she's not responsible for what happens under her watch and she's powerless to stop others from jeopardizing our citizens. She's perfect for POTUS, considering the clown currently in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Gotta love how Bernie's playing this. Keeps acting like he's taking the high ground saying stuff like it shouldnt be "politicized", knowing full well the republicans will do the dirty work for him. Clinton's chief Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, didn't bite. He released a statement saying the legal process shouldn't be politicized. Donald Trump tweeted: The new e-mail release is a disaster for Hillary Clinton. At a minimum, how can someone with such bad judgement be our next president? "What I know for a fact is that if a member of my staff on the Intelligence Committee had done that, they'd have been fired and probably would have been prosecuted," Sen. Marco Rubio told reporters. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-emails-democratic-candidate-in-damage-control-ahead-of-iowa-caucuses/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 From today's NY Times Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said in a statement that it made no sense to her that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else. The only reason to hold Secretary Clinton responsible for emails that didnt originate with her is for political points, and thats what weve seen over the past several months, she added. The Clinton campaigns response has reflected an effort to highlight the selective judgments that can be involved in the classification process. That is laughable. Where they originated doesn't matter. She communicated using an insecure server. If I communicate with a client via a personal email I lose my job. So to avoid that I never give my clients or prospects my personal email. If by chance a friend asks me a question to my personal email I either respond via phone or my approved email. Feinstein has no idea what she's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 It doesn't matter where they 'originated'......that's a squirrel No, Bernie: The State Department emails are not 'personal'; they are 'national' FTA: Bernie, if you want to attack Hillary for her pantsuits or her husband’s behavior, that might be “personal.” But when email security involving the nation’s State Department, emails that contain classified and top-secret information is slovenly channeled through an unsecured server for that person’s convenience, it becomes a “national” issue. The personal portion is removed. Wake up, Bernie. Decisions like this disqualify you from any further decision-making involving national security. You just don’t get it. But that seems symptomatic of your ilk. Emotion governs; pragmatism and reality take a seat. The then secretary of state, for her convenience, established official communication not by the normal channels, but through her personal server. The bad guys – and yes, there are bad guys – could read classified and top-secret communications as easily as a man picking up a magazine in a barbershop. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/no_bernie_the_state_department_emails_are_not_personal_they_are_national.html#ixzz3ykghNEBB Over-Clintonization run amok The State Department has now withheld from production 22 emails housed on Hillary Ciinton’s unsecured private server. The emails were to be produced under the Freedom of Information Act; they were withheld on grounds of national security because the emails include information classified Top Secret. The intelligence community deems release of any part of the emails “too damaging” to release under any circumstances. The State Department announced this latest development yesterday. This development once again puts the lie to just about everything Hillary Clinton has had to say on the subject. She continues to maintain that none of the emails were marked classified upon receipt. Whether or not this is true, however, it is irrelevant to many of the statutes under which her behavior can be deemed criminal. She has yet to answer questions that bore in on the irrelevance of her continued protestations in the Clinton style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 This development once again puts the lie to just about everything Hillary Clinton has had to say on the subject. She continues to maintain that none of the emails were marked classified upon receipt. Whether or not this is true, however, it is irrelevant to many of the statutes under which her behavior can be deemed criminal. She has yet to answer questions that bore in on the irrelevance of her continued protestations in the Clinton style. Did she testify to as much in Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Right. Anyone remember when she equated the traditional family to slavery? Anyone? Wasn't that when she remarked that you'd not find her in the kitchen baking cookies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 From today's NY Times Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said in a statement that it made no sense to her that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else. The only reason to hold Secretary Clinton responsible for emails that didnt originate with her is for political points, and thats what weve seen over the past several months, she added. The Clinton campaigns response has reflected an effort to highlight the selective judgments that can be involved in the classification process. Feinstein is an idiot. Clinton made a conscious decision to move her email off of a government server to a private one knowing that it would be less secure. She did that knowing that if there was a breach of whatever security was in place, then she risked exposing sensitive info to spies and put herself in a criminal position. She also gave that email address to all who she worked with and all she had communication with. Then after she was no longer SOS, she exported the email, erased whatever portions of it she wanted to and claimed it was all for convenience. Who on Earth is buying that excuse and even if you do, how can this be considered an acceptable decision on her part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 FBI 'SUPER PISSED OFF' AT WHITE HOUSE MEDDLING... REVEALED: OBAMA EMAILED HILLARY 18 TIMES! FLASHBACK: CLAIMED HE LEARNED FROM MEDIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 FBI 'SUPER PISSED OFF' AT WHITE HOUSE MEDDLING... REVEALED: OBAMA EMAILED HILLARY 18 TIMES! FLASHBACK: CLAIMED HE LEARNED FROM MEDIA Obama lied? Come on, say it ain't so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts