Breaking: Hillary Clinton's Plea Bargain?

originally posted by: slapjacks
a reply to: burntheships

I have mixed feelings, a plea deal seems to kind.

Agreed. In this day and age though, it's better than nothing.

That's how I feel. It would be a de facto admission of guilt from Hillary, and it would totally ruin Comey's credibility. It's probably the most we can really hope for.

a reply to: burntheships

Why would she ever agree to a plea bargain when she could just waive her right to a jury trial and pay off/arrange for some crony/corrupt judge to acquit her?



ETA: My vote is for fake-news, too.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bknapple32
I feel like theres a lot of


"if this is true.."- Then anger sets in. Except then most folks just go home assuming this was true. The anger is therefor justified. And then boom. We have a "fact" It then cascades into more situations like this where the cycle therein repeats itself, however the original story was never proven.

You argued in support of P-Gate (which is fine by me)

Was their anger generated from that?

Did you prove anything?

You are kinda making my point. I rely on un named sources. Its how intelligence has worked. Im fine with it. My commentary is more based on the fact that some of the same people who BLAST MSM because of un named sources, usually rely on the same un named sources, and they never bat an eye

Amazing. If a media outlet with even the slightest hint of Left Wing bias publishes an article with anonymous sources it immediately gets decried as fake news (while at the same time crying that the leakers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.) And yet here we have a media outlet that has a reputation of being THE Conservative website publishing an article dependent on anonymous sources and it is pretty much treated as gospel.

If this does turn out to be true I hope all of you clamoring for the WH leakers' heads also demand that this anonymous attorney be disbarred. I mean this does seem like a breach of Attorney/Client Privilege.

originally posted by: interupt42


If she goes down lots of people will likely go down. Aint happening

Hmmm, I am remembering a little wave a few weeks ago
by the media about how she shouldn't be prosecuted
because she lost.

This could be real, would she rather have a public
spectacle of the prosecution?

originally posted by: slapjacks
a reply to: burntheships

I have mixed feelings, a plea deal seems to kind.

Agreed. In this day and age though, it's better than nothing.

Is there a Nobel Prize for Murder awarded?

Couldnt we just do that?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

This would be a FBI/DOJ leak

Nothing to do w Trunp or WH

My question is: Who does Clinton throw under the bus for this plea deal? If there is no useful information that can be used against another person, then there is no reason to give a plea deal. Clinton would have to give up a lot for her to be truly deserving of this plea deal. Still this could just be clickbait for Ed Klein.

originally posted by: bknapple32
I feel like theres a lot of


"if this is true.."- Then anger sets in. Except then most folks just go home assuming this was true. The anger is therefor justified. And then boom. We have a "fact" It then cascades into more situations like this where the cycle therein repeats itself, however the original story was never proven.

it kind of sucks when it turns around, doesn't it.

a reply to: burntheships

I think its painfully obvuous what Im saying. The fact yo ucant disscern it is beyond me.

Im not saying she ISNT under investigation. Im sayin I doubt her lawyers are just telling folk,"yea shes gonna take a plea." Un mitigated


Keep in mind I didnt vote for that reptilian.

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bknapple32
I feel like theres a lot of


"if this is true.."- Then anger sets in. Except then most folks just go home assuming this was true. The anger is therefor justified. And then boom. We have a "fact" It then cascades into more situations like this where the cycle therein repeats itself, however the original story was never proven.

You argued in support of P-Gate (which is fine by me)

Was their anger generated from that?

Did you prove anything?

You are kinda making my point. I rely on un named sources. Its how intelligence has worked. Im fine with it. My commentary is more based on the fact that some of the same people who BLAST MSM because of un named sources, usually rely on the same un named sources, and they never bat an eye

Ok gotcha.

I guess I swing the other way. I don't trust any of these stories with unnamed sources. Until I can see proof for myself, I am skeptical of those stories relying on them.

That doesn't mean they are never accurate; I just want to see the source and proof for myself.

However, I don't see the harm of discussing what it would mean IF a story is true.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: bknapple32
I feel like theres a lot of


"if this is true.."- Then anger sets in. Except then most folks just go home assuming this was true. The anger is therefor justified. And then boom. We have a "fact" It then cascades into more situations like this where the cycle therein repeats itself, however the original story was never proven.

it kind of sucks when it turns around, doesn't it.

Annnnnnnd my point proven. I have never been a hypocrite about this. Un named sources are valid.



Have you spouted on ATS about un named sources against Trump?

a reply to: Grambler

I dont see the harm in discussing this either. We agree completely there. Discuss away. But all I ask from some *other* Trump supporters is some G D consistency. One second un named sources are bad and fake, and then one second later they are fine.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

I think a plea would be grand.
Hillary having to admit she committed a crime.
It would be cause for celebration here.

We would certainly whoop it up!



I wonder what the one charge would be?

I also thought there were mandatory sentences
for mishandling classified info.?

But ...yeah Clintons are special, right?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Just thinking off the cuff but Clinton may take this deal to make sure other information does not leak to the public. There may be a lot that is swept under the rug by taking this deal. (If true) It also may stop any other investigations that may uncover more. It all depends on how much dirt there really is and that this plea deal is true.

I got a slap when I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar when I was 5 !

Hope she goes to jail !

But she won't even get a slap on the wrist !

The sour taste of democracy 💩

As many of you know I'm not a Hillary fan, but once again why should we know of this, how in hell is this being leaked!!! As far as I know these type of talks are rather confidential and we should not have this information out in the open. We talk about this all the time, this is no different...

originally posted by: RainyState

Am I understanding this correctly? Basically she gets a deal if she admits to breaking the law?

Yes, though we don't know any specifics of the charge.

a reply to: feldercarb

If she were to take a plea bargain, she would never be able to run again. And I think she will run again.

Eh, I think this story is probably fake.

a reply to: bknapple32

I was thinking the same thing--I highly doubt that her attorneys would be saying anything, especially at this point, and especially to Newsmax.