I have to say, if the evidence is there, why no indictments yet?

danivon wrote:I have to say, if the evidence is there, why no indictments yet?

1. Indictments come from action by the Attorney General. She will move against Hillary when pigs fly. After all, who would the Democrats have to nominate if she was indicted? Bernie? Don't make me laugh.

2. The investigation is not finished. However, Mr. Skeptic, ask yourself this: why would the FBI task 150 agents to investigate "nothing?"

Fate

1. Indictments come from action by the Attorney General. She will move against Hillary when pigs fly. After all, who would the Democrats have to nominate if she was indicted? Bernie? Don't make me laugh

.

So you're saying there will never be an indictment?

Fate

2. The investigation is not finished. However, Mr. Skeptic, ask yourself this: why would the FBI task 150 agents to investigate "nothing?"

Or you're saying there will be one despite the fact that the Attorney General would never indict?

Make up your mind.

By the way, the nature of all these disclosures concerning the email investigations all follow the same pattern. Someone makes a claim, that Breitbart, Hot Air and Fox News report as "Huge!" and which the other media dutiful follow on...
There's rarely scrutiny to the claim and when there is its not reported by the originators of the story, nor focused on by much of the MSM...
Witness the claims by some guy named Schindler
Schindler Cites Anonymous "Intelligence Community Officials" To Claim Clinton Emails Contain "Colossally Damaging" Information
Turns out Schindler was making stuff up...
And had a pattern of doing so... But that was never reported by the Brietbarts...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... cli/208369

This is the same pattern with everything concerning Hillary's supposedly criminal behaviors...Wishful thinking... bad reporting, and lousy journalism...
She has been damaged by the constant attacks, but hasn't been put out of commission.
And won't be ...

rickyp wrote:Fate

1. Indictments come from action by the Attorney General. She will move against Hillary when pigs fly. After all, who would the Democrats have to nominate if she was indicted? Bernie? Don't make me laugh

.

So you're saying there will never be an indictment?

Never is a long time. I'm saying I doubt there will be one under the corrupt AG we have.

On the other hand, if the FBI recommends prosecution based on their investigation and the AG refuses, we may well see resignations that will be followed by statements that will explain why.

Fate

2. The investigation is not finished. However, Mr. Skeptic, ask yourself this: why would the FBI task 150 agents to investigate "nothing?"

Or you're saying there will be one despite the fact that the Attorney General would never indict?

Make up your mind.

Duh.

There is no conflict. The FBI investigates criminal activity. That's what they do.

By the way, the nature of all these disclosures concerning the email investigations all follow the same pattern. Someone makes a claim, that Breitbart, Hot Air and Fox News report as "Huge!" and which the other media dutiful follow on...
There's rarely scrutiny to the claim and when there is its not reported by the originators of the story, nor focused on by much of the MSM...
Witness the claims by some guy named Schindler
Schindler Cites Anonymous "Intelligence Community Officials" To Claim Clinton Emails Contain "Colossally Damaging" Information
Turns out Schindler was making stuff up...
And had a pattern of doing so... But that was never reported by the Brietbarts...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... cli/208369

This is the same pattern with everything concerning Hillary's supposedly criminal behaviors...Wishful thinking... bad reporting, and lousy journalism...
She has been damaged by the constant attacks, but hasn't been put out of commission.
And won't be ...

Right, so she doesn't have hundreds of classified emails on her server? Has she been treated as others have for LESSER violations? http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... for-emails

Until and unless Comey gives a statement saying "Our investigation shows Secretary Clinton broke no laws," don't get too cocky.

Fate

Right, so she doesn't have hundreds of classified emails on her server? Has she been treated as others have for LESSER violations

Jeffery Sterling is an impeccable source... Who undoubtedly, even from his jail cell, has specific knowledge that is worth reporting upon..

As I said.

By the way, the nature of all these disclosures concerning the email investigations all follow the same pattern. Someone makes a claim, that Breitbart, Hot Air and Fox News report as "Huge!" and which the other media dutiful follow on...
There's rarely scrutiny to the claim and when there is its not reported by the originators of the story, nor focused on by much of the MSM

rickyp wrote:Fate

Right, so she doesn't have hundreds of classified emails on her server? Has she been treated as others have for LESSER violations

Jeffery Sterling is an impeccable source... Who undoubtedly, even from his jail cell, has specific knowledge that is worth reporting upon..

He's an impeccable source on his case, which was handled a lot differently than hers is being.

Do you deny she had hundreds of classified emails, including national security information, on her unsecured, private server? Yes or no?

As I said.

By the way, the nature of all these disclosures concerning the email investigations all follow the same pattern. Someone makes a claim, that Breitbart, Hot Air and Fox News report as "Huge!" and which the other media dutiful follow on...
There's rarely scrutiny to the claim and when there is its not reported by the originators of the story, nor focused on by much of the MSM

That's a logical fallacy. Not that you care about such things.

The only thing that matters is the truth. And, the truth is anyone else would be indicted. That's NOT the equivalent of "convicted," but there is obviously enough here to warrant a trial.

So, Donald Trump. Is he close to incitement yet?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... cruz-rubio

At his rally in Las Vegas, Trump said of the Texan senator: “This guy Cruz has lied more than any human being. He holds up the Bible, and he lies.”

Trump went on to complain about a “phony” Cruz ad airing in Nevada that accuses Trump of wanting to leave the state’s federal lands in the hands of the government. “This guy is sick, there’s something wrong with this guy,” Trump said.

When one of two hecklers interrupted the businessman, the property magnate openly talked of violence. “You know what they used to do with guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks,” he said.

Noting the protester was smiling as he was escorted out, Trump quipped: “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell you that.” It was a remarkable comment from a presidential candidate who appears to be building a momentum that could soon be unstoppable.

danivon wrote:So, Donald Trump. Is he close to incitement yet?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... cruz-rubio

At his rally in Las Vegas, Trump said of the Texan senator: “This guy Cruz has lied more than any human being. He holds up the Bible, and he lies.”

Trump went on to complain about a “phony” Cruz ad airing in Nevada that accuses Trump of wanting to leave the state’s federal lands in the hands of the government. “This guy is sick, there’s something wrong with this guy,” Trump said.

When one of two hecklers interrupted the businessman, the property magnate openly talked of violence. “You know what they used to do with guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks,” he said.

Noting the protester was smiling as he was escorted out, Trump quipped: “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell you that.” It was a remarkable comment from a presidential candidate who appears to be building a momentum that could soon be unstoppable.

Yes.

So here's a question. If someone at one of his rallies does get assaulted (especially if he has himself said something like he did in LV), would a lawsuit hurt him, or just endear him to the yahoos?

I see that he had the largest share of the "Evangelical" vote in SC.

fate

Do you deny she had hundreds of classified emails, including national security information, on her unsecured, private server? Yes or no

Link me to your source and I'll link you to a debunking of the source..

Here's a bunch of claims debunked.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... cla/207919

We have the "proto-fascist" candidate--Trump; the "Manchurian Candidate"--Rubio; "Batista II"--Cruz; and "Eugene V. Debs, Jr."--Sanders. I can't really place Hillary. Maybe that means she wins?

rickyp wrote:fate

Do you deny she had hundreds of classified emails, including national security information, on her unsecured, private server? Yes or no

Link me to your source and I'll link you to a debunking of the source..

Here's a bunch of claims debunked.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... cla/207919

Not an answer.

Meanwhile, someone who KNOWS what he's talking about and worked for Obama. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/ ... stigation/

freeman3 wrote:We have the "proto-fascist" candidate--Trump; the "Manchurian Candidate"--Rubio; "Batista II"--Cruz; and "Eugene V. Debs, Jr."--Sanders. I can't really place Hillary. Maybe that means she wins?

Manchurian?

Hahahahahahaha!

You voted for the empty suit and you're going to complain about Rubio?

Shameless.

danivon wrote:So here's a question. If someone at one of his rallies does get assaulted (especially if he has himself said something like he did in LV), would a lawsuit hurt him, or just endear him to the yahoos?

I see that he had the largest share of the "Evangelical" vote in SC.

Which only shows "evangelical" is a meaningless term.

"Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing"..."Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing"...Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing"...Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing"...