Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on March 14, 2019, 08:51:33 PM
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44587/obama-doj-told-fbi-not-charge-hillary-lisa-page-ryan-saavedra
FYI, criminal referrals coming down to just about everyone involved in about 3-4 weeks
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44587/obama-doj-told-fbi-not-charge-hillary-lisa-page-ryan-saavedra
FYI, criminal referrals coming down to just about everyone involved in about 3-4 weeks
I read the article you posted.
"Page continued: "And the Justice Department's assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge, and also that it had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago. And so they did not feel that they could sustain a charge."
In my career I had prosecutors many times tell me, "This case is unwinnable" You can file it but it's our experience it won't get past the grand jury. And if it does, it won't be winnable in court because of A, B & C"And we won.
That page interpreted that as "You WILL not file the charges" is really on her. We often filed charges even when the prosecutor said it was a waste of time if we felt they were more politically motivated than justice motivated. a good follow up question might have been, and I'm not high powered attorney/Congressman "What would have been the downside if you had went ahead with the charges if you believed them to be warranted?"
-
I read the article you posted.
"Page continued: "And the Justice Department's assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge, and also that it had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago. And so they did not feel that they could sustain a charge."
In my career I had prosecutors many times tell me, "This case is unwinnable" You can file it but it's our experience it won't get past the grand jury. And if it does, it won't be winnable in court because of A, B & C"And we won.
That page interpreted that as "You WILL not file the charges" is really on her. We often filed charges even when the prosecutor said it was a waste of time if we felt they were more politically motivated than justice motivated. a good follow up question might have been, and I'm not high powered attorney/Congressman "What would have been the downside if you had went ahead with the charges if you believed them to be warranted?"
She had to much circumstantial evidence to not indict and at the very least lied to Congress as proven by Comey. She was completely exonerated before any investigations were started.
I take that back. They have hard evidence
-
She had to much circumstantial evidence to not indict and at the very least lied to Congress as proven by Comey. She was completely exonerated before any investigations were started.
I take that back. They have hard evidence
There is no question she broke the law. Not a close call. Nothing questionable. Plain as day. But that ship has sailed. She's never going to be held accountable IMO.
-
There is no question she broke the law. Not a close call. Nothing questionable. Plain as day. But that ship has sailed. She's never going to be held accountable IMO.
I’m up in the air with this. Nunez, even though quiet, hasn’t let up on his investigations and said criminal referrals will be coming down in 3-4 weeks. Really only the left aren’t talking about this but for two years the allegations haven’t let up.
-
I’m up in the air with this. Nunez, even though quiet, hasn’t let up on his investigations and said criminal referrals will be coming down in 3-4 weeks. Really only the left aren’t talking about this but for two years the allegations haven’t let up.
I don't think Congressional criminal referrals are worth the paper they are written on. How many referrals have they made and how many people have been prosecuted and convicted?
I have a non-monetary bet with a coworker about this. She says people are going to jail. I say I'll believe it when I see it.
-
In my opinion, Hillary was sloppy and shouldn't have kept that server in her house.
Then it all comes down to politics and she had the President ( Obama) and AG ( Lynch) on her side.
Since it was a bit murky , technical and not obvious, she got the benefit of the doubt and was cleared.
FYI, the same thing may happen when the Mueller report finally gets released.
It could show Trump guilty of a few things but it may not be clear or obvious.
Even if the House Dems impeached him, without clear proof, the GOP led senate won't convict him with 67 votes.
I wish things were fair and objective, but, politics never has been.
If you read the applicable law and look at the undisputed facts in the public record, there is one logical conclusion: she broke the law.
Or if you talk to someone who actually has or had a security clearance, they will tell you the same thing.
-
Oh , no question, by the letter of the law on national security matters, she's guilty.
BUT convicting high level political figures is POLITICAL*
In simple terms, whomever is in charge determines guilt.
There are clear cut laws on the books for this sort of thing that are not political.
-
Oh , no question, by the letter of the law on national security matters, she's guilty.
BUT convicting high level political figures is POLITICAL*
In simple terms, whomever is in charge determines guilt.
Stop playing a semantic game. She broke the law. Plain and simple.
-
If you read the applicable law and look at the undisputed facts in the public record, there is one logical conclusion: she broke the law.
Or if you talk to someone who actually has or had a security clearance, they will tell you the same thing.
go ahead and state the law for us professor
in this case they had to be able to prove she intended to break the law and not just carelessness
Trumptards should keep this in mind as many people in the Trump Crime Family are going to try to make this claim
-
I don't think Congressional criminal referrals are worth the paper they are written on. How many referrals have they made and how many people have been prosecuted and convicted?
I have a non-monetary bet with a coworker about this. She says people are going to jail. I say I'll believe it when I see it.
Yep, I would be absolutely shocked if anything beyond slaps on the wrist occur. Would love for it to happen but 80% (at least) of these people are corrupt/live in a different world then the rest of us.
-
Wonder if the Gay Muslim knew of the criminal acts his hand picked corrupted mutts committed ?
-
I said she was guilty of breaking the national security regulations.
BUT, we all know she was never convicted.
Her husband Bill, was guilty and impeached but thanks to the senate vote he was never convicted.
Trump violates the nepotism laws by having his daughter and son in law as presidential advisors.
BUT, nobody can ENFORCE the nepotism statutes with him as POTUS.
For that matter, OJ was guilty and he walked due to some slick legal manipulation of the jury.
Breaking the law is one thing while enforcing it is very different.
What specific “nepotism laws” are you referring to?
-
Yep, I would be absolutely shocked if anything beyond slaps on the wrist occur. Would love for it to happen but 80% (at least) of these people are corrupt/live in a different world then the rest of us.
Unfortunate truth. The laws are for us little people.
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44587/obama-doj-told-fbi-not-charge-hillary-lisa-page-ryan-saavedra
FYI, criminal referrals coming down to just about everyone involved in about 3-4 weeks
Good to know. Can we hold you to this? Obviously, you must have inside information.
-
Good to know. Can we hold you to this? Obviously, you must have inside information.
Really? Nunez said so himself on National TV🤦♂️
-
What specific “nepotism laws” are you referring to?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/nepotism.pdf
-
go ahead and state the law for us professor
in this case they had to be able to prove she intended to break the law and not just carelessness
Trumptards should keep this in mind as many people in the Trump Crime Family are going to try to make this claim
Have you found that Russian Collusion yet?
-
Really? Nunez said so himself on National TV🤦♂️
It's Devin Nunes, not Nunez.
The following is from your source:
"Page also indicated that the decision to not charge Clinton with felony gross negligence in her email scandal came at the direction of the Obama Justice Department.
We did not blow over gross negligence. We, in fact and, in fact, the Director because on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there's a potential here for this to be the charge," Page said. "And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence.
Page continued: "And the Justice Department's assessment was that it was both, constitutionally vague so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge, and also that it had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago. And so they did not feel that they could sustain a charge.""
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44587/obama-doj-told-fbi-not-charge-hillary-lisa-page-ryan-saavedra
-
Have you found that Russian Collusion yet?
Not my job dipshit
Why don't you email Mueller
-
Not my job dipshit
Why don't you email Mueller
It doesn't appear he has either. Give me his email address and I will ask him though.
-
It doesn't appear he has either. Give me his email address and I will ask him though.
;D
Poor Cucktard SnowFlakeMan
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
-
Great post and sums up the essence of this Hillary server issue.
No question as Sec of State she was careless and negligent by having an internet server in her personal home.
By the specific letter of the law, she was guilty of violating national security guidelines.
BUT ( and this was the key finding), no harm came from this specific negligence related to the server.
Maybe she was lucky , but wtf.
Ok before some chime in with , "but you voted for Hillary":
Yup, I did ...because I honestly felt Trump was that bad. ( still do).
It's like this :
It's late, you're bit drunk and the bar is about thre close.
You're going home alone or with one of 2 skanks still in the bar.
One is an older, chunky, female wearing a pant suit.
The other is an obvious tranny with visible adams apple.
Since a real vaj is better then a cock/balls, you offer Ms Pantsuit a ride home. ;)
The probability of Joe Bloggs doing what she did risking national security
And not getting charged is - ZERO
Don’t talk crap - she got away with it because of being a Clinton.
Your analogy of Killary being an obvious tranny ( just like OBumers misses )
Is Very Good.
😂😂😂😂😂
-
The probability of Joe Bloggs doing what she did risking national security
And not getting charged is - ZERO
Don’t talk crap - she got away with it because of being a Clinton.
Your analogy of Killary being an obvious tranny ( just like OBumers misses )
Is Very Good.
😂😂😂😂😂
Considering Howard's analogy, I believe the older woman wearing a pant suit represented HRC, not the transsexual. Regardless, he was exampling what he felt was the better of two choices (HRC or Trump).
-
You both focused on the Killary / Trans bit ::)
Completely missing the part about joe Bloggs putting National
Security at Risk - Which was The Main Point.
Why would you both do That. ?
Really I couldn’t care any less about Killary - She Lost End Of.
She’s very clearly high on your minds to spring immediately to her
Defence - Jeez White Knighting Killary 😂😂😂😂😂
What’s Say about You.
Go take a minute lads 😂😂😂😂😂
-
It doesn't appear he has either. Give me his email address and I will ask him though.
Being a Trumptard and all around moron you must think it's common practice for the Special Counsel to reveal all his evidence to satisfy the whims of a Trumptard.
Since Mueller hasn't done this I guess the only logical conclusion a Trumptard such as yourself can draw is that he doesn't have any evidence
Of course we're not just talking about collusion (or conspiracy) but the full spectrum of his investigation (of course I don't need to explain this to you)
-
Being a Trumptard and all around moron you must think it's common practice for the Special Counsel to reveal all his evidence to satisfy the whims of a Trumptard.
Since Mueller hasn't done this I guess the only logical conclusion a Trumptard such as yourself can draw is that he doesn't have any evidence
Of course we're not just talking about collusion (or conspiracy) but the full spectrum of his investigation (of course I don't need to explain this to you)
Are you going to cry for Trumps full 8 year run? Don't you ever get tired of being obsessed with waiting around for the next "big story" to "take down President Trump"? You should probably go outside, get some fresh air. That is, if Newscum hasn't taxed you on breathing yet.
-
Are you going to cry for Trumps full 8 year run? Don't you ever get tired of being obsessed with waiting around for the next "big story" to "take down President Trump"? You should probably go outside, get some fresh air. That is, if Newscum hasn't taxed you on breathing yet.
weird that you think pointing out obvious facts is crying
is that how life works for you?
obvious fact is that Mueller is not finished yet and no one knows what (if anything) he has found that would implicate Trump (maybe only his idiot kids are criminals....just like his campaign manager, personal lawyer, and various advisers have been proven to be)
a true patriotic US citizen would want to let him do his job so we can find out if our POTUS is a criminal or not
Even Trump lovers such as yourself should want this since it could vindicate your messiah and remove any other questions about whether he is a traitor or not
Of course, if he is a traitor then you should want to know that too....unless of course you're a traitor yourself
-
Being a Trumptard and all around moron you must think it's common practice for the Special Counsel to reveal all his evidence to satisfy the whims of a Trumptard.
Since Mueller hasn't done this I guess the only logical conclusion a Trumptard such as yourself can draw is that he doesn't have any evidence
Of course we're not just talking about collusion (or conspiracy) but the full spectrum of his investigation (of course I don't need to explain this to you)
classic
-
Being a Trumptard and all around moron you must think it's common practice for the Special Counsel to reveal all his evidence to satisfy the whims of a Trumptard.
Since Mueller hasn't done this I guess the only logical conclusion a Trumptard such as yourself can draw is that he doesn't have any evidence
Of course we're not just talking about collusion (or conspiracy) but the full spectrum of his investigation (of course I don't need to explain this to you)
I've been waiting 2 years and still nothing.
-
Hey pot ,meet kettle ;)
Trump supporters get their panties in a bunch when the media covers the constant barrage of new Trump scandals.
BUT, they never tire of rehashing the same old Hillary story.
To be fair, during W. Bush's 2 terms, libs talked about impeaching "W" for war crimes related to the Iraq war.
Don't forget, the infamous 9/11 truthers that accused VP Cheney of blowing up the twin towers from his basement lair .
All that crap was absurd and proven to be nonsense, but it was out there and some nitwits believed it.
Like it or not, the Hillary email/cpu server scandal was investigated and she wasn't found guilty of criminal acts.
I'll admit it looked bad and she may have pulled a fast one, but , in the end she came out fine.
In simple terms, she's not the POTUS and this is old news.
On the other hand, Trump is the current POTUS and he may have done something.
It's getting a full and fair investigation.
I suspect he did a few shady things, but have no idea if it rose to the level of criminal conduct.
In the end , regardless of the evidence or verified fact we'll have those on either side:
1. the dedicated liberals that hate Trump and refuse to believe he could be innocent regardless of the prood
or
2. the hardcore Trumpers who won't think he's guilty, even he shot someone on 5th Ave
Yawn !!
Some one wake me up when Howard’s finished writing.
😂😂😂😂😂
-
...and some still wonder how so many woman could divorce me ;)
Ha ha ha
Just pulling your leg Howard
A bit of light Humor.
Makes a change from going at each other. 🤪
-
Hey pot ,meet kettle ;)
Trump supporters get their panties in a bunch when the media covers the constant barrage of new Trump scandals.
BUT, they never tire of rehashing the same old Hillary story.
To be fair, during W. Bush's 2 terms, libs talked about impeaching "W" for war crimes related to the Iraq war.
Don't forget, the infamous 9/11 truthers that accused VP Cheney of blowing up the twin towers from his basement lair .
All that crap was absurd and proven to be nonsense, but it was out there and some nitwits believed it.
Like it or not, the Hillary email/cpu server scandal was investigated and she wasn't found guilty of criminal acts.
I'll admit it looked bad and she may have pulled a fast one, but , in the end she came out fine.
In simple terms, she's not the POTUS and this is old news.
On the other hand, Trump is the current POTUS and he may have done something.
It's getting a full and fair investigation.
I suspect he did a few shady things, but have no idea if it rose to the level of criminal conduct.
In the end , regardless of the evidence or verified fact we'll have those on either side:
1. the dedicated liberals that hate Trump and refuse to believe he could be innocent regardless of the prood
or
2. the hardcore Trumpers who won't think he's guilty, even he shot someone on 5th Ave
"constant barrage of new Trump scandals" is just your cnn overblowing every move Trump has made in the last 25 years, bunch of filler to rile up the weak minded such as yourself.
The Killary scandal she was never charged in was bullshit, they came out and said she committed crimes, multiple crimes, lying to investigators, using personal email, destroying evidence, etc, they blew it off by saying she was too stupid to realize she had committed the crimes. You or I would have been tried and hanged for those crimes. It's all about who you know and who you've jacked off with these government fucks. I've said it before, I'll say it again, Mueller/etc should be investigated also. Bunch of shady bastards.
...and some still wonder how so many woman could divorce me ;)
Not true, most wonder how so many married you.
-
You both focused on the Killary / Trans bit ::)
Completely missing the part about joe Bloggs putting National
Security at Risk - Which was The Main Point.
Why would you both do That. ?
Really I couldn’t care any less about Killary - She Lost End Of.
She’s very clearly high on your minds to spring immediately to her
Defence - Jeez White Knighting Killary 😂😂😂😂😂
What’s Say about You.
Go take a minute lads 😂😂😂😂😂
Check this tread's title. Who's name do you see there?
As for the whole HRC email fiasco, I suggest you read this article: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307. Seems like U.S. politicians should be required to enroll and pass computer science 101 so they have at least a basic understanding of how to use today's technology.
-
The tide is turning
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-in-newly-revealed-classified-emails-discussed-secret-comms-channel-with-israel
-
The tide is turning
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-in-newly-revealed-classified-emails-discussed-secret-comms-channel-with-israel
What do you have to say about this? Jared Kushner uses private messaging apps and personal email to communicate about official Trump administration matters with foreign leaders – a violation of a laws governing White House records - a congressional committee has been told. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jared-kushner-white-house-security-emails-ivanka-trump-whatsapp-a8834326.html