Hillary Lost Popular Vote And More To Come

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: VengefulGhost

you prefer we let people get away with crimes in our country?

no, we wont stop until they all pay the price of admission.

you let Trump off for violating the constitution....emoluments clause is in the original document...ask yourself, why would the authors of our constitution put that in there, if it wasn't for a good reason?.......but to you, violating the basic tenants of the constitution is not a crime......

Sorry, he didn't break the clause. Hillary did by demanding bribes to get access to the US government.

Funny how you care about Trump's breaking the clause when there is no court case showing Trump did and not Hillary where it clearly was broken.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I guess you didn't read the article.

"Dilley says this is because he is trustworty and can be relied on to release only approved intel without embellishing it."

Pladuim

originally posted by: VengefulGhost

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: VengefulGhost

you prefer we let people get away with crimes in our country?

no, we wont stop until they all pay the price of admission.

arrest the evil bitch and the rest of the corrupt bastards and send them all to prison where they belong instead of all the arguing over pointless bull# .

you mean like the Nazi's did to the jews, how did that work out?
did you get your paycheck from the Kremlin yet, or are you missing your beer time.

originally posted by: VengefulGhost

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: VengefulGhost

you prefer we let people get away with crimes in our country?

no, we wont stop until they all pay the price of admission.

arrest the evil bitch and the rest of the corrupt bastards and send them all to prison where they belong instead of all the arguing over pointless bull# .

I agree but unfortunately Democrats and the media shielded her. Now it's simply settled history unless we make it still relevant. Like you I don't want to hear it though, I want actual action.

a reply to: jimmyx

Yes going after corruption makes you Hitler.
Yawn. You get your paycheck from Hillary yet?

a reply to: Pladuim



No, just no. Hillary did not lose the popular vote, and she won by millions. The investigation into voter fraud turned up nothing.

Why do you guys like to talk about fantasy? Just like Uranium One.


Use a real source please....

Trump wont let the Dems release their memo....


So what does that mean 4 more Republican only memos are going to be released?


Utter fantasy nonsence.....

a reply to: jimmyx

Gifts to Hillary for access. Nothing wrong though right?

www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: VengefulGhost

you prefer we let people get away with crimes in our country?

no, we wont stop until they all pay the price of admission.

you let Trump off for violating the constitution....emoluments clause is in the original document...ask yourself, why would the authors of our constitution put that in there, if it wasn't for a good reason?.......but to you, violating the basic tenants of the constitution is not a crime......

Sorry, he didn't break the clause. Hillary did by demanding bribes to get access to the US government.

Funny how you care about Trump's breaking the clause when there is no court case showing Trump did and not Hillary where it clearly was broken.

he's directly making money off of Russian and other foreigners payments into his businesses....that the definition of what the emoluments clause is all about.....the words in that clause are simple to understand, apparently you don't

a reply to: jimmyx

Actually it's not. Please show me where the word business is used, maybe I missed it when I read it.

Hillary didn't do business, she demanded gifts, the thing the clause actually prohibits.

Remember when Hillary was reported to have shouted, after a difficult interview with Lauer at NBC:

If I lose, we all go down and that fascist **** will have us swinging from nooses!

Yeah, that.

I'm waiting. Please, please, please...

:

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jimmyx

Gifts to Hillary for access. Nothing wrong though right?

www.usatoday.com...

in the very article you cited above, it reads that, there is no evidence that Hillary put money into her pocket, the money went into a charity that files a tax return each year....."access" has nothing to do with the emoluments clause, nor is it even mentioned....so yeah...nothing wrong

a reply to: incoserv

Remember when Hillary emails showed she was taking bribes for access?

But Trump has businesses that a foreigner can make a purchase at, crucify him!

When Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a 2009 meeting with Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment until Band intervened. According to the Clinton Foundation website, Salman helped establish a scholarship program for CGI, and by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative.

a reply to: jimmyx

You mean the foundation the podesta emails show was paying Clintons and paid their daughter's wedding and was used as a slush fund?

www.independent.co.uk...

But hey who cares Clinton donors bought special access, it's a Dem doing it so let's stop looking there.

originally posted by: Pladuim
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I understand your skepticism, but something big is coming up.

www.theepochtimes.com...

Pladuim

"something big is coming" says a known fake news propaganda website, but I will take it as fact. Dude, stop, you might as well be reading the Onion

She’s been investigated more than anyone in US history. Nada, except lawyers getting rich. And we just gave Hillary and friends a trillion dollars.
Lol.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

Did we really?

Not at all. We didn't need the first one.

a reply to: VengefulGhost

Duh,grand treason,where are you from?,when someone sells a country out,what do you call it where your from?racist?,liberals crime is ok,as long as it isn't against them

a reply to: VengefulGhost

If there was a reason to arrest her don't you think it would have been done by now?

Get a clue.

a reply to: MOMof3

Actually they admitted she committed all the crimes, not nada, then created a reason to let her off that is not in any law.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No, because she's above the law. Are you saying they did not find she did indeed Break the law, but claim they didn't think she intended to so it was alright?