Rand Paul On Board to Indict Hillary Clinton, "followed by a prison sentence"

a reply to: Annee

On the contrary.

I think that her cackling laughter about her getting the rapist off

CLEARLY INDICATED

that THAT WAS EXACTLY her perspective on life. And her ruthless, vengeful, arrogant, rage-a-holic style with co-workers etc. has further demonstrated that day in and day out at the WH the first seige by the undynamic duo.

I appreciate that you seem to think she walks on water and has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein.

I don't think you have as much company in that perspective as you might presume, however.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

Oh yeah, Rand Paul wants us to go back to the dark ages before Equal Rights.

What a nut job. Doesn't anyone read what he says?

It doesn't matter what you think of Rand Paul - if evidence is revealed that Hilary lied under oath then she should be indicted and Rand Paul is calling for it. There is already evidence and more may be coming.

Oh, Gawd - - - more . . .

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

Of course it matters what Rand Paul promotes.

He can't let go of the past. He can't move forward. His ideas are archaic.

yeah yeah - "what difference, at this point, does it make".
Some people actually want there to be accountability in the world. Hillary, and her supporters it seems, are happy to ignore the wrecked lives she has left in her wake.

NO, this is not a male vs. female sexism issue - It is an issue of corruption at the highest level of politics and government.

For example:

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

"Newly released emails show the complicated nature of ties between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton-led State Department—and the high risk of conflicts of interest."

"Newly released emails have shown again the troublesome interconnections between the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

The conservative accountability group Judicial Watch released Tuesday night a tranche of nearly 300 emails it obtained through a lawsuit, and they paint a picture of some of the conflicts of interest created by a situation in which Hillary Clinton ran U.S. foreign policy as her husband’s foundation acted around the globe. Many of the emails are redacted, and some are almost comically boring—“No new voice messages,” one reads in full—but others are not.

In one of the more piquant interactions, from April 2009, Doug Band, a close confidant of former President Clinton who was then in charge of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, pressed top Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills for a connection at the State Department for Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian-Lebanese billionaire who was a major benefactor of the Clinton Foundation.......
Quote source:
www.theatlantic.com...



But you see how in some people's minds they have twisted this election into the old money maker Donald Turmp
vs. the lovable feminist liberal socialist Hillary Clinton

Not the truth which is the basically honest business man vs. the corrupt Clintonistas



So the post OP:
"Rand Paul On Board to Indict Hillary Clinton, "followed by a prison sentence"


And on what charges How many charges Too much corruption for any one charge - Well there is a law for that:

RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

"The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally............"
Quote source:
en.wikipedia.org...


Originally created to go after the so-called 'Mob" [Mafia], it has been used to go after corrupt companies and could
theoretically be used to go after a corrupt foundation ostensibly existing as a charity while actually functioning as a power
base for a corrupt group of politicians.

But the so-called 'New World Order' wants Hillary, wants you disarmed and defenseless, a slave to the socialist state as
they have succeeded in doing in England - So Hillary and Bill get passeS to do whatever they want, tell any lie, commit any
crime - And yet prosecution will Never happen - they are protected by hidden poweers of the hidden NWO agenda.



And if Donald Trump truthfully says:

"“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” Trump said at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., on Tuesday. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

THEY call it a threat

AND YES IT IS A THREAT - THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS A THREAT TO LIARS, PERJURERS AND ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
- ENEMIES OF THE IDEALS THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AmericanRealist

If the government droned Hillary Clinton for "terrorism", there would be QUITE a few "patriot" groups that would be bombed before her. It's sad that you are for kangaroo courts and don't care for our judicial system though... Just declare people guilty based on popular opinion.

Except we all know incredibly F'ing guilty Hillary is, so to see her droned dead would be a parade day in the USA. Dancing in the streets afterwards..

Except. No. You don't. You just assume so, but you haven't reviewed ANY of the official evidence to determine guilt. You are just basing your opinion off of what the media told you. Internet lawyers...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath. I think he'd have a lot more knowledge of the subject than you do. When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath. I think he'd have a lot more knowledge of the subject than you do. When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

I only listen to the people in charge of indicting since their opinion is the only one that matters. Clearly you only care about people's opinions that agree with you. What if I linked a Senator who DIDN'T think she should be indicted? Does that cancel out Rand's opinion?

It's funny that you care about what a politician says when he says something you agree with though. Every other day of the year politicians can go DIAF, right?

a reply to: UKTruth

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath.

None of that has any weight in the court of law. It's all about what you can prove.

When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

Agreed. You can listen to them, but still not agree with what they are saying. Quite obvious, considering the facts we have seen, that he is playing to the constituency.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath. I think he'd have a lot more knowledge of the subject than you do. When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

I only listen to the people in charge of indicting since their opinion is the only one that matters. Clearly you only care about people's opinions that agree with you. What if I linked a Senator who DIDN'T think she should be indicted? Does that cancel out Rand's opinion?

It's funny that you care about what a politician says when he says something you agree with though. Every other day of the year politicians can go DIAF, right?

No, you should listen to both sides and then draw a conclusion. If you want to disagree with Rand, then fine, that's your own judgement and it's not for me, Rand or anyone else to tell you what you should believe. My response was to your question about why should listen to him.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath.

None of that has any weight in the court of law. It's all about what you can prove.

When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

Agreed. You can listen to them, but still not agree with what they are saying. Quite obvious, considering the facts we have seen, that he is playing to the constituency.

The court is nothing to do with my point about listening to the man.
Your point about him playing to a constituency is your opinion and not quite obvious.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath. I think he'd have a lot more knowledge of the subject than you do. When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

I only listen to the people in charge of indicting since their opinion is the only one that matters. Clearly you only care about people's opinions that agree with you. What if I linked a Senator who DIDN'T think she should be indicted? Does that cancel out Rand's opinion?

It's funny that you care about what a politician says when he says something you agree with though. Every other day of the year politicians can go DIAF, right?

No, you should listen to both sides and then draw a conclusion. If you want to disagree with Rand, then fine, that's your own judgement and it's not for me, Rand or anyone else to tell you what you should believe. My response was to your question about why should listen to him.

Oh I can take his opinion into consideration, sure, but at the end of the day his opinion is worth as much as YOUR or MY opinion. Nothing.

Comey's opinion is the only one that matters and he already gave it weeks ago.

a reply to: UKTruth

The court is nothing to do with my point about listening to the man.

It should, if you are interested in his comments regarding potential charges against Hillary.

Your point about him playing to a constituency is your opinion and not quite obvious.

It is obvious he is playing to his constituency. Unless he truly still does not understand that the email issue is not worthy of prosecution and perjury would be damn near impossible to prove.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath. I think he'd have a lot more knowledge of the subject than you do. When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

I only listen to the people in charge of indicting since their opinion is the only one that matters. Clearly you only care about people's opinions that agree with you. What if I linked a Senator who DIDN'T think she should be indicted? Does that cancel out Rand's opinion?

It's funny that you care about what a politician says when he says something you agree with though. Every other day of the year politicians can go DIAF, right?

No, you should listen to both sides and then draw a conclusion. If you want to disagree with Rand, then fine, that's your own judgement and it's not for me, Rand or anyone else to tell you what you should believe. My response was to your question about why should listen to him.

Oh I can take his opinion into consideration, sure, but at the end of the day his opinion is worth as much as YOUR or MY opinion. Nothing.

Comey's opinion is the only one that matters and he already gave it weeks ago.

Incorrect - Comey was not assessing a purjury case.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The court is nothing to do with my point about listening to the man.

It should, if you are interested in his comments regarding potential charges against Hillary.

Your point about him playing to a constituency is your opinion and not quite obvious.

It is obvious he is playing to his constituency. Unless he truly still does not understand that the email issue is not worthy of prosecution and perjury would be damn near impossible to prove.

The courts will hear the case if it gets to court. Until then Rand Paul is well within his rights to call for an indictment based on what he knows, which I would suggest is an awful lot more than you.

a reply to: UKTruth

The courts will hear the case if it gets to court.

Yes, if...

Until then Rand Paul is well within his rights to call for an indictment based on what he knows, which I would suggest is an awful lot more than you.

That may be possible. It's also possible that he is saying these things as a play towards his constituents.

He better have some information above and beyond what the general public does because if he is making these calls for an indictment based solely on what we know now, he's a fool.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath. I think he'd have a lot more knowledge of the subject than you do. When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

I only listen to the people in charge of indicting since their opinion is the only one that matters. Clearly you only care about people's opinions that agree with you. What if I linked a Senator who DIDN'T think she should be indicted? Does that cancel out Rand's opinion?

It's funny that you care about what a politician says when he says something you agree with though. Every other day of the year politicians can go DIAF, right?

No, you should listen to both sides and then draw a conclusion. If you want to disagree with Rand, then fine, that's your own judgement and it's not for me, Rand or anyone else to tell you what you should believe. My response was to your question about why should listen to him.

Oh I can take his opinion into consideration, sure, but at the end of the day his opinion is worth as much as YOUR or MY opinion. Nothing.

Comey's opinion is the only one that matters and he already gave it weeks ago.

Incorrect - Comey was not assessing a purjury case.

FBI director says “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton over emails

However, despite this carelessness, Comey said, he didn’t believe the offenses here rose to the level of past prosecutions related to classified information.

"In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

"We do not see those things here," he said. So, he continued, "we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

Comey added that "no outside influence of any kind was brought to bear" on the investigation. "This investigation was done honestly, competently and independently."

So Comey was assessing ALL possible avenues of legal indictment. Comey said that perjury cannot be shown to a reasonable extent because intent cannot be proven.

FBI Director Dismantles Most Damaging Claims Against Hillary Clinton

Comey said unequivocally that there was no evidence Clinton lied to the FBI.

It's going to be hard to get any perjury charges to stick considering all this stuff that Comey said. Though I'm sure you'll pretend it's irrelevant anyways.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

So I care about his opinion, why?

He's a senator and has been involved in directly questioning Clinton during congressional hearings, looking her in the eye as she gave here answers under oath. I think he'd have a lot more knowledge of the subject than you do. When someone has more knowledge than you, it's a good idea to listen to them.

I only listen to the people in charge of indicting since their opinion is the only one that matters. Clearly you only care about people's opinions that agree with you. What if I linked a Senator who DIDN'T think she should be indicted? Does that cancel out Rand's opinion?

It's funny that you care about what a politician says when he says something you agree with though. Every other day of the year politicians can go DIAF, right?

No, you should listen to both sides and then draw a conclusion. If you want to disagree with Rand, then fine, that's your own judgement and it's not for me, Rand or anyone else to tell you what you should believe. My response was to your question about why should listen to him.

Oh I can take his opinion into consideration, sure, but at the end of the day his opinion is worth as much as YOUR or MY opinion. Nothing.

Comey's opinion is the only one that matters and he already gave it weeks ago.

Incorrect - Comey was not assessing a purjury case.

FBI director says “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton over emails

However, despite this carelessness, Comey said, he didn’t believe the offenses here rose to the level of past prosecutions related to classified information.

"In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

"We do not see those things here," he said. So, he continued, "we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

Comey added that "no outside influence of any kind was brought to bear" on the investigation. "This investigation was done honestly, competently and independently."

So Comey was assessing ALL possible avenues of legal indictment. Comey said that perjury cannot be shown to a reasonable extent because intent cannot be proven.

FBI Director Dismantles Most Damaging Claims Against Hillary Clinton

Comey said unequivocally that there was no evidence Clinton lied to the FBI.

It's going to be hard to get any perjury charges to stick considering all this stuff that Comey said. Though I'm sure you'll pretend it's irrelevant anyways.

Have you even listened to what Rand Paul said? He referenced the testimony given to congress relating to weapons sales. The email case discussed by Comey is different. We know Hillary was allowed to skate on that one with the admission she is 'extremely careless' with national security. You do realise that letting her walk after emails were reviewed does not protect her for ever more from the crime of corruption, right? It's not a life time pass.

a reply to: UKTruth

I already told you that I don't care what Rand Paul said as I don't care about some politician toeing the Republican line. Didn't I already tell you to get back to me with the opinion of the person in charge of indicting? Go enjoy your echo chamber politician agreeing with you. I demand a higher standard of evidence. Sorry, mate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AmericanRealist

If the government droned Hillary Clinton for "terrorism", there would be QUITE a few "patriot" groups that would be bombed before her. It's sad that you are for kangaroo courts and don't care for our judicial system though... Just declare people guilty based on popular opinion.

Except we all know incredibly F'ing guilty Hillary is, so to see her droned dead would be a parade day in the USA. Dancing in the streets afterwards..

Except. No. You don't. You just assume so, but you haven't reviewed ANY of the official evidence to determine guilt. You are just basing your opinion off of what the media told you. Internet lawyers...

No, totally wrong you are.

The last 20 years plus of evidence, scandals galore, umpteen books written on Clinton corruption, friends of Clinton's dead, people tied to Clinton's turned whistle blowers all dead and dying.

A very long list of EVIDENCE, not just what the MEDIA tells people all offer up a preponderance of Clinton GUILT that CANNOT BE DENIED.

Unless you are in denial which is OBVIOUS...

WAKE UP and smell the prison food.

The Clinton's are guilty of so many murders and fraud, money laundering, kick-backs, GRAFT, you name it, they will do it, (for a fee)..

Where have you been? living in a dream somewhere?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I see a bunch of words and no evidence. *YAWN* Keep trying, Mr. Internet Lawyer. I love reading how you guys pretend to know how the law works.