everyone in this Nation is innocent until proven guilty except the Clintons, they are always guilty, without a trial or conviction...
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Will Obama pardon Hillary, Bill and Chelsea? What do you think?
- Thread starter Jackson
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #42
The FBI Director has already said she a) lied to the FBI b) was Extremely careless in handling TS documents c) Lied about how many devices she had d) lied about destroying State documents ...but you know all those things and you just want to ignore them. Will not repeat them again.Trump cannot prosecute anyone. That is under the direction of the DOJ and FBI. Even Colin Powell called the Clintons, the Clinton Mafia.... Ceny is you must. I have no problem with people on the left ignoring the facts.The problem with that is, the president does not pardon those he thinks have not broken the law. If he pardons her, it's practically an admission she and the rest of the family are felons!
And if he doesn't, she's open to prison...
She's toast either way.
No she's not. She hasn't broken any laws and doesn't need a pardon. Stop being an idiot. Trump is NOT going to prosecute her. Republicans have been trying to get something on the Clintons for 25 years. If they had anything, she'd already be in jail.
I have a problem with people repeating Republican lies. 16 investigations, a special prosecutor and $100 million spent investigating the Clintons, say you're lying.
Obama's problem, besides his legacy, is that he can't pardon someone who has not yet been charged, in other words proactively (I think).
they haven't committed any crimes, and any over reach he's taken, gets squashed by the SC and through the courts... that's how the system worksHistory, lets deal on whats going on today, or do we need to point out that Nixon and his administration answered for their crimes while this current Kenyan administration gets away with every single crime they have committed against the country.The problem with that is, the president does not pardon those he thinks have not broken the law. If he pardons her, it's practically an admission she and the rest of the family are felons!
And if he doesn't, she's open to prison...
She's toast either way.
No she's not. She hasn't broken any laws and doesn't need a pardon. Stop being an idiot. Trump is NOT going to prosecute her. Republicans have been trying to get something on the Clintons for 25 years. If they had anything, she'd already be in jail.
Neither did Nixon.
Think about it
Nixon was a real criminal. He started a secret war in Cambodia and didn't tell Congress. He used to IRS to attack his enemies. He ordered the Watergate break-in and covered it up. His entire administration ended up in prison for what they did under his direction. His vice-President was convicted of accepting bribes and stripped of his office.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
- Thread starter
- #45
Think you are wrong. Nixon was pardoned by Ford without any charges against him.Obama's problem, besides his legacy, is that he can't pardon someone who has not yet been charged, in other words proactively (I think).
- Banned
- #46
Whatever you say DerpyTrump Foundation was the "pay to play". The only one actually proven.Yes & of course yesDid Chelsea pay for her wedding through Clinton Foundation? Was Bill part of the Pay to Play of the Foundation?Not sure about Slick Willy and Chelsea, but Yes on Hitlery.
no. in context comey didn't say that, republican congress critters said, he said that....The FBI Director has already said she a) lied to the FBI b) was Extremely careless in handling TS documents c) Lied about how many devices she had d) lied about destroying State documents ...but you know all those things and you just want to ignore them. Will not repeat them again.Trump cannot prosecute anyone. That is under the direction of the DOJ and FBI. Even Colin Powell called the Clintons, the Clinton Mafia.... Ceny is you must. I have no problem with people on the left ignoring the facts.The problem with that is, the president does not pardon those he thinks have not broken the law. If he pardons her, it's practically an admission she and the rest of the family are felons!
And if he doesn't, she's open to prison...
She's toast either way.
No she's not. She hasn't broken any laws and doesn't need a pardon. Stop being an idiot. Trump is NOT going to prosecute her. Republicans have been trying to get something on the Clintons for 25 years. If they had anything, she'd already be in jail.
I have a problem with people repeating Republican lies. 16 investigations, a special prosecutor and $100 million spent investigating the Clintons, say you're lying.
in context he said she used only 1 device at a time, the several devices were replacements or upgrades.
in context he said the 3 classified emails at the lowest level that were marked were only partially marked with no proper markings at the top, so they easily could be missed
he said she NEVER lied to them about destroying evidence...
but you know that!
You are correct. Nixon was pardoned for any future charges he might incur.Think you are wrong. Nixon was pardoned by Ford without any charges against him.Obama's problem, besides his legacy, is that he can't pardon someone who has not yet been charged, in other words proactively (I think).
Hillary's problem is being pardoned. Strange.
Maryland Patriot
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 9,966
- 1,394
- 290
Makes me wonder. If bill and Hillary get off again, but Chelsea looks like she is going to take the rap, will she end up committing some spectacular almost impossible to imagine suicide right before she has a chance to turn evidence on bill and Hillary? would not surprise me if they killed her to keep out of jail.Hillary - definitely.
Bill - doubt it. It depends what his FBI has on the Foundation.
Chelsea - no.
- Thread starter
- #52
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
you should ask for a pardon for your anti American political views.You should ask for a pardon for this thread.
You should come up to upstate NY and say that to my face.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Why would you have to pardon someone who's not convicted of anything?
Maryland Patriot
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 9,966
- 1,394
- 290
what makes you think you are important enough for anyone to take the time to drive through new York for you?you should ask for a pardon for your anti American political views.You should ask for a pardon for this thread.
You should come up to upstate NY and say that to my face.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,122
- 2,645
no. in context comey didn't say that, republican congress critters said, he said that....in context he said she used only 1 device at a time, the several devices were replacements or upgrades.in context he said the 3 classified emails at the lowest level that were marked were only partially marked with no proper markings at the top, so they easily could be missed. he said she NEVER lied to them about destroying evidence...but you know that!
Libs are STILL trying to make excuses for Hillary's CRIMES?!
1. " At that hearing, Clinton had claimed that nothing she sent or received was marked classified"
-- COMEY TESTIFIED:
"That’s not true. … There was classified material emailed,”
PERJURY!
2. On her claim that she used one device...
-- COMEY TESTIFIED:
“She used multiple devices.”
PERJURY!
(Libs seek to play 'Bill Clinton Definition of 'Is'' Games to claim Hillary did not LIE - BS!)
3. "On her claim that she turned over all work-related emails"
-- COMEY TESTIFIED:
“No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.”
PERJURY!
VIOLATION OF THE FOIA!'VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RECORDS ACT!
1. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Hillary was not allowed to have classified information of Classified after she left the State Department - she had thousands.
2. ILLEGAL HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL
- Places highly classified on an UN-AUTHORIZED, UN-ENCRYPED server
- Stored highly classified on a server located in an un-secure bathroom of an IT company that did not even have the required security clearances
- Her highly classified information was carried around on a memory stick, NOT in a classified courier pouch, not with the legally required security paper work
- SHE GAVE ACCESS TO HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO NYMEROUS PEOPLE WHO HAD NO SECURITY CLEARANCES: Her MAID, Her Lawyers, her IT Tech, a private Tech company, a disgraced pedophile.../and, according to security experts, no less that 3 foreign countries 'enemies'.
3. ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND HARWARE
- There are specific laws governing the destruction of classified information and hardware. For example, classified systems like hard drives & laptops are required to be destroyed by a specific type of shredder approved and authorized by the US government - the information / systems have to be catalogued PERSONAL HAMMERS not only do not count but are crimes against those specific rules, regs, and laws.
4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Hillary destroyed thousands of documents/files AFTER they had been subpoenaed by the courts
5. PERJURY
6. VIOLATION OF THE FOIA
1 'count' for ever document she deleted - THOUSADS of counts of this crime, according to Comey
7. VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RECORDS ACT
- Again, 1 count per document - thousands of counts.
This doesn't cover all of the crimes involving her e-mail scandal...and this does not cover the on-going case against the Clinton Foundation looking into crimes of Corruption, Fraud, Bribery, Influence Peddling, etc....
Comey testifies Clinton email claims ‘not true’ at heated Hill hearing
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
what makes you think you are important enough for anyone to take the time to drive through new York for you?you should ask for a pardon for your anti American political views.You should ask for a pardon for this thread.
You should come up to upstate NY and say that to my face.
Big surprise.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,122
- 2,645
NOT YET....which is why she needs an Obama pardon.Why would you have to pardon someone who's not convicted of anything?
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
NOT YET....which is why she needs an Obama pardon.Why would you have to pardon someone who's not convicted of anything?
You people and your 'yets'.
Have you found Obama's Kenyan birth certificate YET?
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Sore winners are cartoon characters.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 139
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 162
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 494
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 42
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 43
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8208
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-