Clinton Campaign Chair Podesta Tipped Off on “Gross Negligence” Phrase BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well I was gonna reply but then it woulda looked like I was just having a conversation with myself

I deleted it to do some more research on it.. My bad.

A source using the phrase "BOOM!" in the title of an article loses credibility in my eyes. What an obnoxious thing to put in the title and clearly shows the bias. Not that the allegations are untrue, I wouldn't doubt if they are true, I just find it tacky.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: olaru12

uhm no.. When you said this -

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

please explain what you meant when you noted "Hillary lost ..." and "I fail to grasp the obsession with her".

If you werent saying she lost and should be left alone then by all means clarify your comment.

I don't care what happens to her. It's your obsession, not mine. Start a petition to get her indited and prosecuted if it makes you happy!
It would probably be more effective than posting on ATS.

Thats nice.. Now care to answer my question or are you just going to deflect?

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. "I don't care what happens to her"

Lock her up!!! You happy now?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope!

Without a conviction she's INNOCENT.

If you think you may be in hot water and you ask your people to come up with relevant case law, you're going to get these emails back: "Here's some examples of liability... *statute quote*, *example of prosecution*"
In a sense, as it reads to me, it shows the opposite of what you're suggesting. They were looking seriously at potential avenues for an investigation to play out. "Should we be worried? Does this meet criteria by statute for prosecution? Are there other examples/precedence? What next?"
You don't do that if you know the fix is in.


What you need for a "smoking gun" is a contact between HRC and the FBI. And while I'm sure there was political pressure exerted elsewhere, I doubt they were dumb enough to document direct contact so you need a lot of supporting circumstantial evidence, not the smoking gun. *Oh, look, there's Bill and Loretta talking about grandchildren, and the FBI is pissed... That it leaked... * etc, etc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: olaru12

uhm no.. When you said this -

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

please explain what you meant when you noted "Hillary lost ..." and "I fail to grasp the obsession with her".

If you werent saying she lost and should be left alone then by all means clarify your comment.

I don't care what happens to her. It's your obsession, not mine. Start a petition to get her indited and prosecuted if it makes you happy!
It would probably be more effective than posting on ATS.

Thats nice.. Now care to answer my question or are you just going to deflect?

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. "I don't care what happens to her"

Lock her up!!! You happy now?

Nope but since you arent going to answer the question I wont help you derail the thread.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

She broke the law.
Podesta broke the law.

Whats difficult to understand? Being a loser does not grant a person immunity from prosecutions.

Until she is indited and tried by a jury of her peers she skates. same with P. As a cop, you should know this.

Yup - its why I corrected you on your "she lost the election leave her alone" position. Its nice to know though you do understand how the law works. Now we just need to work on understanding that the law applies to Clinton and Cronies along with everyone else.

"she lost the election leave her alone"

I didn't say that. Why are you putting words in my mouth. I said, I don't understand the obsession....

you know how some folks can't get enough of Hating on Trump or those who wish him well? yea, it's kind of like that, but on the side of those who value rule equal to all.

originally posted by: truthguru123
wHAT'S THE GIST OF ALL THIS?

That Podesta was given a heads up about the gross negligence part of the statute, how it applies to Clinton, and the best way to defend against it all before Comey started drafting his exoneration letter. His letter used exact phrases from the washpo article in the email and Strzok was the agent who changed Comeys exoneration letter, removing gross negligence and changing it to extremely careless.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

You repeat that one line over and over and over and over (ad infinitum)
And you get the same correct answer over and over and over and over (ad infinitum)
Clinton broke the law (for the 330,001 time)
Comprehension problem ?

a reply to: Gothmog

It's been like 2 years since all this came out, if she's not in jail by now then it's not going to happen, I think y'all should just come to terms with that instead of continuing to beat the dead horse. At this point she's just a punching bag being used to offset Trump's ineptitude.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

You repeat that one line over and over and over and over (ad infinitum)
And you get the same correct answer over and over and over and over (ad infinitum)
Clinton broke the law (for the 330,001 time)
Comprehension problem ?

You aren't the judge and jury to determine her innocence or guilt. Innocent until proven guilty in a jury trial by your peers. Has she been indited even? Trump said he was going to indite her during his first year...didn't happen and never will.

Just because your obsession has convicted her in your own mind; that don't mean jack ****. Start a petition if you're so motivated....



Comprehension Problems indeed....

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Gothmog

It's been like 2 years since all this came out, if she's not in jail by now then it's not going to happen, I think y'all should just come to terms with that instead of continuing to beat the dead horse. At this point she's just a punching bag being used to offset Trump's ineptitude.

Too busy battling Democratic opposition and road blocks
Those are over now.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

You repeat that one line over and over and over and over (ad infinitum)
And you get the same correct answer over and over and over and over (ad infinitum)
Clinton broke the law (for the 330,001 time)
Comprehension problem ?

You aren't the judge and jury to determine her innocence or guilt. Innocent until proven guilty in a jury trial by your peers. Has she been indited even? Trump said he was going to indite her during his first year...didn't happen and never will.

Just because your obsession has convicted her in your own mind; that don't mean jack ****. Start a petition if you're so motivated....



Comprehension Problems indeed....

Neither are you. So stop parroting the remark.....
Repetitive inane remarks shows you in a bad light...
Almost as if the lights are on , but no one is at home...
And ancient age old emoticons doesnt help

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

a reply to: Xcathdra

Amazing revelations XC, another typically informative thread by you

It is ridiculous to continually see the level of corruption involved with the Clinton crowd. Bill Clinton is a former President and Hillary a former FLOTUS/SOS. Shame on them for engaging in so many criminally corrupt self enrichment schemes. John Podesta, Peter Strozok, Lisa Page and everyone else involved in this BS should be ashamed of themselves as well.

Apparently crime is the life style of choice for the Clinton's (and their vast network of co-conspirators), given the sheer magnitude of evidence against them. They probably committed twice as many crimes just trying to cover all of this up and play damage control, and I sincerely hope for a thorough investigation and successful prosecution

WL and Assange as usual contributing to the pursuit of truth, justice and knowledge. No wonder they're regarded as an enemy by most governments. Given the circumstances, that isn't such an insult.

Intended to send this via U2U

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

LOL.. I needed that.

a reply to: JBurns

Thanks although a good chunk of people on both sides of this issue disagree and rightfully so for this thread. The article title is misleading in the sense the article supports both - pro and con - arguments. I take the view that given everything else that has come out with this whole mess is it is highly likely Podesta was given a heads up and worked with FBI agents running the investigation to clear Hillary by reviewing the exoneration letter and making the changes.

Since that is supposition without direct evidence it cant be proven (yet imo) so I get the other side of the argument.

@ other members repeating the innocent until proven guilty line for Hillary. Keep in mind that also applies to President Trump. Thus far there is no evidence of the non existent crime of "collusion" with Russia.

The same cant be said for Clinton where there is a mountain of evidence of her crimes. Hopefully she gets her day in court.

ETA -