Anti Hillary Fox News Expert Admits The "quid pro quo" allegations are BS.

youtu.be...

(Can't get the link to work on my phone..)


In this video Judge Napalitano admits that the wiki leaks email scandals are over blown and weren't even written by hillary.


The Emails are private correspondence never meant to be made public. So hypothetically we should know exactly what they are up to. If you hack my text log you know what I am up to. ...lol

So why isn't there a smoking gun??

Why can't the media even quote an email without spending 5 min explaining why we should be offended by it??

Why are none of the emails highlighted written to or from Hillary?


From what I have seen it is because they have nothing....

30 years as a public figure and all the dirt on her is so thin if you pull a thread it all falls apart?!?!

How clean is this chic that they could hack her private emails and find ]!€€?!?!

I am sure most of her communications do not occur through email for the specific reason of hiding things.

In the video below she says:

As much as I've been investigated, why would I ever want to do email?

LOL

The emails are "to and from" Hillary employees.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


I think you need to watch that video again!


What you said in your OP is NOT what the Judge alluded to at all.

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

The emails are "to and from" Hillary employees.

as of june 2016, there were 700 paid staff workers for Hillary. volunteers number in the thousands........so of course....Hillary PERSONALLY OK'ED OR WROTE all of those e-mails.....republican logic at work

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

The emails are "to and from" Hillary employees.

In reading various emails at random, it is difficult not to get the opinion that every move of every one of her underlings was done explicitly for her betterment. And this particular set of emails does exactly that. --That's politics, you say, let it go?

a reply to: jimmyx

LOL

Podesta is the Clinton Campaign Chairman.

And he has investments in Russian companies (proven true).

Now what Watson?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Did you even watch this video? There is no discussion about any illegality on Clinton's part (other than a blurb about her mishandling of classified documents), this is about possible illegalities on the part of a 'current' State Department employee (Kennedy).

a reply to: JoshuaCox

"" Anti Hillary Fox News Expert Admits The "quid pro quo" allegations are BS. ""

You got it ssa sdrawkcab.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The offer of a quid pro quo is legit, it was technically written by an FBI agent as interview notes from Clinton staffers - taken during their investigation & subpoenaed by Chaffetz for public release. The Judge reiterates this.

you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours - win/win........and dodgy because it's circumventing law and shirking transparency.

This is huge

Congressmen Chaffetz interview on CNN about the 302s regarding the Bribing of FBI. Interview starts 4 min in.

www.youtube.com...

Double post

So I just had some thoughts regarding Clinton and E-mail servers. I'm in IT so beer with me

If Hillary employs all of these fantastic individuals, and has control over the e-mail server/s, what's stopping her from sending e-mails from anyone under her financial blankets' e-mail accounts? Having control over the servers she also has the ability to destroy all traces on her side of the hardware.

I think anyone working for HRC is scared crap-less to set a foot in the wrong direction, they will have protocols, people approving things from managerial positions etc...

Being at the top, she has the power to abuse.
Would she?

a reply to: primespickle

Yeah I heard they use telepathy most of the time.
And astral projection too for the face to face time. Mental Skype.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

It was a mere suggestion by an FBI agent and both sides said no.

You scratch your back I'll scratch mine

originally posted by: misskat1
Double post

it shouldn't have even been said once. And the FBI suggested it. And both sides rejected it.

I really don't expect you guys to get it I don't know why I bother.

a reply to: misskat1

It's not hugh. It's nothing at all.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
oh well, it looks like the Clinton campaign has gotten to Napolitano. I wonder what his price was?

Trump's plans for America are far better than Hillary's anyway. So it doesn't matter what Talking Heads say, one way or the other.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
... I don't know why I bother.

Many on here wonder that same point--why do you bother to jump through hoops in order to defend Hillary Clinton?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The offer of a quid pro quo is legit, it was technically written by an FBI agent as interview notes from Clinton staffers - taken during their investigation & subpoenaed by Chaffetz for public release. The Judge reiterates this.

you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours - win/win........and dodgy because it's circumventing law and shirking transparency.

But Kennedy did not suggest the quid pro quo, the FBI agent did and he is now under investigation.

There was never any declassification of the notes document not was there any more space opened up for FBI agents in foreign countries.

There is no wrong doing on the part of the Sate dept at all.

Why is this even a thing?? A Rep spoke about hearings without even looking at the doc himself before launching into a pile of outrage-BS.

Sigh