No, they decided not to press charges. They found she lied repeatedly and was grossly negligent with classified information.
You are claiming that Trump invented this?
From what Iâve seen her campaign definitely had dealings with the Ukranians during a period when we know they were trying to subvert Trumpâs campaign. Definitely worthy of an investigation.
Well, right now the left is falling all over themselves trying to make Trump look bad (as if he doesnât make himself look bad enough). They are violently ill that Hillary actually lost as no one saw it coming. Okay, I did but enough about me.
SoâŠthey are in mega attack mode. âIt was the RussiansâŠthey helped him otherwise he would have lost. If it were not for those nasty Russians our Hillary would have won.â
Secondly, they are trying to stall his agenda with the Russian nonsense.
Yeah, this movie plays non-stop at this level.
An ending that I would not expect (and will not happen) is that all of the allegations about Trump and Russia are true and Trump is impeached. Thereâs an ending I donât see coming and will not happen.
kinda screws up your whole idea of obstruction when under investigation.
Just heard something monumentally hilarious. One of Hillaryâs top advisors intimated that she might give it another try in 2020 and said she lost because of the Russia involvement. Thatâs called believing your own propaganda,âŠnothing good ever comes from this.
Will the democrats be stupid enough to step aside and give this wretched evil old hag another run?
Oh I certainly hope they do. Can the republicans get that lucky twice?
Even though I donât want to see HRC run again, nor do I think she will, the popular vote numbers sure do show a ton of support compared to Trump.
Yes she won big time in the big Cities. The urban vote was hers. Limousine liberals, Professors, government employees, welfare recipients, teachers unions, African Americans those are the heart of the democrat party. And most of the prior live in or around large metropolitan areas. Not a huge surprise.
But, she lost two categories she needed to assure a democrat win and that is blue collar workers and white women. I thought it amusing that the first white woman to capture a major party nomination for the Presidency actually lost white women to a guy who bragged about grabbing womenâs puxxyâs.
If I were a close confidant of Hillary Clinton I would advise her to never run for anything againâŠoutside of New York state that is.
As I said repeatedly during the election and was roundly insulted for it Hillary Clinton had zero chance of becoming the next POTUS. Her likability factor was far too low. And time will not change that. The average person just doesnât like her.
Even in retrospect, this simply isnât right.
Again, the popular vote would disagree with you here. IIRC one of the largest margin popular votes in history without winning the electoral.
I agree wholeheartedly that sheâs not likable, but she completely destroyed Trump in the pop vote, so saying she didnât have support is just a little silly.
It is spot on. I was pounding the table about how Hillary would never become President and several people thought I was dead wrong. Anyone who was on PWI remembers how it went down.
I explained that scroll back and take another look. The dems have a certain built in constituency that will vote for anyone as long as they are a democrat.
Iâm not sure how, especially in retrospect, the winner of the popular vote had a 0% chance of winning.
Is the implication that Republicans havenât done the exact same thing? Because I have quite a few branches (nearly all) of my family tree that would disagree with you.
My prediction was that Hillary Clinton would be defeated and she was. I have no more to say about this argue with someone else about minutia.
Stop with the straw man argument. I never said such a thing.
Have a good day pfuryâŠI have to get back to work in order to pay the local, state and federal government about 50% of every dollar I makeâŠhopefully that will change soon.
Bye.
I straight up opened with asking if that was the implication instead of presuming if that was your statement, not sure how you got so confused.
Good luck with your business! Have a good one.
I believe that is an incorrect characterization. First off, the Feds NEVER let anyone get away with perjuryâit would set a bad precedent. Second, while Comey did take the unprecedented step of publicly excoriating her handling of information, he didnât recommend charges because what she did failed to meet the criteria for charging her. In other words, he didnât âdecide not to press charges;â rather, he didnât recommend them because thatâs what the law dictated.
And yet, the Republican-controlled Congressâthe same Congress that investigated HRC what, 11 times?âis electing not to investigate it? Câmon man.
Not really. Thereâs a big difference between a Congressional investigation and a DOJ one.
Itâs pretty clear you didnât watch or donât remember his testimony. He directly and expressly contradicted her narrative and testimony and explicitly stated she was grossly negligent with classified information.
Read the link I provided; it will clear up your confusion.
The link that backs me up?
âComey added, however, that Clinton and her aides were âextremely careless.â Comey continued, saying the âsecurity culture of the State Department in generalâand with respect to the use of unclassified systems in particularâwas generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information thatâs found elsewhere in the U.S. goverment.â And although the FBI found no proof her server had been hacked, Comey said that âit is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clintonâs personal e-mail account.ââ
watch this for a detailed breakdown of all the lies Comey confirmed Hilary told. Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails 7/7/16 - YouTube
I acknowledged previously that Comey excoriated her publicly. The purpose of the link is to disabuse you of the notion that Comey âdecided not to press chargesâ in a âprosecutorial discretionâ sense. Comey didnât recommend charges because, under the law, Clintonâs actions did not warrant themânot because (as you imply) Comey was cutting her some sort of break.
My claim was that what the FBI concluded was damning. I never said anything about charges. She was grossly negligent with classified info exposing it to sever security risk and repeatedly and overtly lied to try to cover it up. That isnât exoneration. And it is incredibly damning. Again, she was just short of a pathological liar on the subject and was grossly negligent with classified information violating pretty much all the government rules for such information. What youâve posted so far confirms exactly what I stated.
OK, thatâs your opinion.
Go back and read the whole conversation. You said the FBI exonerated her and I contradicted that by reminding you that not pressing charges isnât exoneration. My statement conveys the notion that legal charges are immaterial to my assertion. The exact OPPOSITE of what you are trying to claim by taking it out of context. And youâve still again failed to address the only thing I actually did say. The result of the FBI investigation into Clintonâs email was damning. Period.
You actually quoted me stating the same thing I am now as evidence of contradiction. Impressive.