Why the Dossier may be the most serious political scandal the US has ever seen.

All of the results of all of the investigations against Hillary Clinton have been available to the Trump DOJ since January 20th.

Why hasn't there been an indictment if the case against her is clear? If she is guilty of a crime, indict her. Stop the political theatre.

Bob Mueller is about to show, in about a tenth of the time, that the facts from investigations against criminals are to be used to bring justice: indictments coming Monday.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Who are you that you know anything about the investigation, laws and charges? You're just another gossip. That's the ancient term, now it's called bots.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Who are you that you know anything about the investigation, laws and charges? You're just another gossip. That's the ancient term, now it's called bots.

I know about the investigation because the information is public now. Just because you like being ignorant doesn't mean I do.
There were no charges, so that's an easy one too.

I know the laws because those too are public. Intent does not factor into it.

A man and his friends drug a bunch of girls and rape them. Halfway through the investigation the police and DA are already writing exoneration statements. The friends are given immunity, and at the end the conclusion is they did in fact rape the women, but it was never their intent to do so, and are let go with no charges. Are you buying intent? I'm not.

It's a proven fact Clinton did it. she got away with it because she is above the law. If she is not, then please explain why she was exonerated BEFORE her or her aides were interviewed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And yet the highest level lawmakers missed those charges but not you?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And yet the highest level lawmakers missed those charges but not you?

No they didn't. She's above the law. Please explain how someone can be exonerated of wrongdoing before anyone is even interviewed, before the facts are even known. You keep avoiding that like the plague.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trey Gowdy would not have missed a chance to charge her for Jay walking.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trey Gowdy would not have missed a chance to charge her for Jay walking.

She's above the law. Please explain how someone can be exonerated of wrongdoing before anyone is even interviewed, before the facts are even known. Why won't you answer? How is it possible?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trey Gowdy would not have missed a chance to charge her for Jay walking.

She's above the law. Please explain how someone can be exonerated of wrongdoing before anyone is even interviewed, before the facts are even known. Why won't you answer? How is it possible?

It is not possible to conclude one way or another until you have all the evidence. Now those on the left will ignore the question. The facts are in, and they are still supporting that lie Comey got caught doing writing the conclusion before the information was even compiled. They don't care. The rest of us in the middle and jsut to the right side of middle need to concentrate on what we can do to prevent a sitting POTUS and his or her admin from doing similar or this can only get worse.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: burgerbuddy

lol... oh you have FOX Business ?? Oh jeez, that changes everything...

I think I'll go with MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI findings.

Bet definitely keep us all abreast of FOX.

You should watch Fox once in awhile.

I suggest Hannity at 9et.

a reply to: Justoneman

And her "out" was intent. How do you establish intent before you talk to anyone involved? It's literally impossible. Unless they are mind readers, did they read Hillary's mind?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Justoneman

And her "out" was intent. How do you establish intent before you talk to anyone involved? It's literally impossible. Unless they are mind readers, did they read Hillary's mind?

There is no "intent" needed in the laws she broke with the classified emails.

How about the smashed blackberries and broken hard drives and phones the FBI let them get away with?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yes wrap your head around this.

Firing an investigator that does not slow down the investigation, and seemingly incorporating with the investigation by handing over documents and giving statements as requested = obstruction of justice.

Deleting emails requested for in an investigation against you = no problem.

Its mind blowing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

All of the results of all of the investigations against Hillary Clinton have been available to the Trump DOJ since January 20th. Why hasn't there been an indictment if the case against her is clear? If she is guilty of a crime, indict her. Stop the political theatre.

Trump may be the top dog in the show but he has underlings who are supposed to do their job . The left behind problem is that they became foot draggers and obfuscators in supplying FOIA requests that is well documented by Judaical Watch .

And who would have thought?

CNN, who pushed this dossier even before Buzzfeed posted it, and who have pushed the accusations in it non stop, has close ties to Fusion GPS.

CNN’s reporting on the Trump-Russia dossier has left out at least one crucial fact: the close ties between the network and the opposition research firm at the center of the dossier controversy.

CNN’s reporting on the dossier, led by justice correspondent Evan Perez, has been favorable to the firm, Fusion GPS, and hyped the dossier’s credibility. Left out of Perez’s reporting, which has relied largely on unnamed sources, is his personal closeness to Fusion GPS’ operatives. Fusion has repeatedly been described in Senate testimonies as a smear-for-hire operation that manufactures misleading or false media narratives for its clients.

Glenn Simpson, the Fusion co-founder most often associated with the dossier, is used to working on stories with Perez. As reporters at the Journal, Perez and Simpson regularly co-authored stories on national security.

dailycaller.com...

Any wonder CNN doesnt feel that the DNC colluding with russian officials of this dossier is not a big deal.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Justoneman

And her "out" was intent. How do you establish intent before you talk to anyone involved? It's literally impossible. Unless they are mind readers, did they read Hillary's mind?

There is no "intent" needed in the laws she broke with the classified emails.

How about the smashed blackberries and broken hard drives and phones the FBI let them get away with?

Right. Like compare it to her war on drugs scene: There's possession of drugs, and then there's possession of drugs with intent to distribute.

Here it would be mis-handling of sensitive documents (like she DID)
vs.
Transferring those documents to [whoever isnt supposed to have them].

The point is when you have a pound of dope they still lock your ass up for it, its just that when you have it bagged up to sell the charges bear more ironclad sentencing.

But the logic with this case is she can have the pound of dope but we wont but embarrass her for it unless we catch her slinging it on a street corner.

=

Hillary Superpredator Clinton IS Above The Law

originally posted by: Grambler

People are worried about russia influencing our system (which they have every right to be) but that pales in comparison to how dangerous it would be to have a sitting party weaponize the FBI against political opponents.

On the other hand, when you do opposition research, if you uncover some criminal activity, there's a responsibility to hand that over to the FBI so that the appropriate authority is informed.

You're not supposed to keep it secret. Except in cases of national security, etc..

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

OT take a break time with a spoof of Infowars

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yes wrap your head around this.

Firing an investigator that does not slow down the investigation, and seemingly incorporating with the investigation by handing over documents and giving statements as requested = obstruction of justice.

Does it? I think that's yet to be determined. But obstruction of justice, if so determined, is indeed a crime.

Deleting emails requested for in an investigation against you = no problem.

I've said it before - I'm not particularly a fan of HC, but really, what is the potential crime here related to her emails? While she certainly f'd up by using a private server, that's already been found to not be criminal. Her personal emails were also deleted, but again, what is the potential crime there? I actually didn't really know the details of the deleted emails - this site explains it fairly well:

www.factcheck.org...

I see misunderstandings, miscommunications, etc, but no potential crimes. Please point them out to me.

Its mind blowing.

That I will agree with. The current state of the union is mind-blowing.

a reply to: redtic

Well your own source directly explains how she obstructed justice.

The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report.

www.factcheck.org...

Congress subpoenaed evidence, Hillary then destroyed thaat evidence and lied about it.

That is admitted obstruction of justice, clear as day.

Does this help you?

a reply to: redtic

Although this Politifact article says that it isn't all clearcut... one thing is undeniable. Hillary Clinton deleted official State Department records that are required to be preserved by law.
She testified that she had turned over all work related emails. That was a lie.
What was she hiding? A person doesn't go to the trouble and risks that she did if there is nothing there to hide.