Author Topic: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)  (Read 329309 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3551 on: April 23, 2018, 06:20:39 AM »
It would be a hoot if she cost the Democrats to lose the mid terms.  The wild wild left supported her and see this election as a war to annihilate Trump or to stymie his agenda.  Her  constant yapping is going to fire up Republicans.  The wild card is Trump.  But it may be vote for anything else than a Clintonommunist.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3552 on: April 25, 2018, 01:39:39 AM »
Pro Trump PAC files suit against Federal Election Commission for failing to oversee DNC state strawman illegal money funneling during 2016 election.  Which they claim illegally funneled $84 million dollars contributed at the state level back through the DNC and to the Clinton Campaign.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3553 on: June 20, 2018, 03:58:09 PM »
Trey Gowdy. What a treasure. TL:DNR version: James Comey drafted his exoneration of Clinton based on a lack of intent, months before he even interviewed Clinton, which would have been the best and perhaps only way to prove intent.

Quote
REP. TREY GOWDY: Inspector General Horowitz, I want to go back to a couple minutes on the issue of intent. I mean am I correct, is that your understanding from what Jim Comey said that the missing element was -- was some element of intent that he was reading into the statue?

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL: That's what he said. I think what the prosecutors were looking at was knowledge and--

GOWDY: Knowledge that the wrongfulness of her conduct or knowledge that -- that her arrangement with herself may have allowed classified information to traverse her server?

HOROWITZ: Knowledge that classified information actually did transit through her server.

GOWDY: All right.

HOROWITZ: Because of the absents of markings.

GOWDY: Well, the questions I have for you are equally applicable, whether the missing intent is knowledge or intent. Can you think of a better way to determine was an actor knew than to ask the actor what he or she knew? Am -- am I missing some better repository of evidence than to actually interview the target or the suspect yourself?

HOROWITZ: I would say there could be instances where there would be better evidence like contemporizing recordings as opposed to the interview where the person might not be candid but ...

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: I'm not aware -- I'm not aware of those in this case. But perhaps you know something I do not?

HOROWITZ: No I'm not. But I'm just saying you asked hypothetically is there a better way to get evidence of someone's state of mind ...

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: Given the evidentiary restrictions in this case, can you think of better way to -- to resolve that issue of knowledge than to actually interview the target herself?

HOROWITZ: No, I think you would want to interview the target herself.

GOWDY: All right. And what would you ask the target? You -- you were a highly decorated federal prosecutor from one of the most prestigious districts in the country, what would you ask the defendant if you were trying to determine whether or not that person, that suspect had knowledge.

HOROWITZ: Well you'd certainly want to start at the beginning, which is why did the server come to be set up? What was the rationale behind it? What did you understand it would be used for? Questions like that because so much of it would be focused on what the intent rationale thinking was behind creating the -- your own separate server or domain name from the outset.

GOWDY: You have multiple explanations have been given in the past on that very issue. Would you ask the suspect or the target to reconcile those different explanations?

HOROWITZ: Presumably, you would ask the subject during the interview, in any area where there might be differing reports of testimony or recollections.

GOWDY: If there had been false exculpatory statements made in connection with fact pattern, will you ask the target or the suspect to explain those false exculpatory statements?

HOROWITZ: I think if you were interviewing any witness you would want to ask them about information that was out there that would suggest there was a false exculpatory.

GOWDY: When I use the phrase consciousness of wrong doing, what does that mean to you?

HOROWITZ: That means you have an awareness, perhaps unstated, that the conduct that you've engaged in is wrongful in some way.

GOWDY: What about concealment?

HOROWITZ: Well that can mean, I guess, different things depending upon the nature of the concealment. It can be active. It can be passive at some level. But it's keeping something from somebody else and we have a concern here about concealment on what happened in connection with July 5.

GOWDY: How about the destruction of evidence?

HOROWITZ: Again, that can be personal or it can be knowing that someone else is going to do it, but it is, obviously, destroying evidence or information that's -- has (inaudible) value.

GOWDY: I guess what I'm, kind of, struggling with a little bit -- I was asked over the weekend whether or not I think she should've been charged. I can't answer that question because I don't think she was interviewed properly. And it's very difficult to go back and conduct a proper interview after one has already been botched.

Did you see all of the questions that you and I just went over in the 302? Were all of those asked of her during that July interview?

HOROWITZ: I think one of the concerns that's been raised is that a 302, only being a summary of what was said, that there isn't a transcript or other more definitive report on, precisely, all of the questions and answers. So, we have a summary and that's what we're working off of, that. It's an extensive summary, but it's still not a transcript.

GOWDY: Well, given the fact that you and I agree that actually talking to the witness, the suspect, the target might be, absent of contemporaneous recordings, some of the better evidence on knowledge and intent. How in the hell was Jim Comey able to draft an exoneration press release, six weeks before that interview took place?

HOROWITZ: I -- you know, I think it -- it's clear from looking at what we uncovered that by that point in time, they had largely concluded what they had concluded. And as you--

GOWDY: But my question is, if what you're missing was knowledge and, or intent and the single best repository for that evidence is the person you've yet to talk to, how in the hell can you make that conclusion?

HOROWITZ: I think -- I'll give you what the answer was that we got back which was, of course we kept open the possibility that we would find some evidence that would change that -- that view. That was the explanation we were given.

GOWDY: If that were true, did you find drafts of inculpatory press releases?

HOROWITZ: No, we did not.

GOWDY: You found no memos or drafts where he had decided to charge her?

HOROWITZ: That's correct. We were told, by the way, by the prosecutors, as you see here, that they did not draft anything until after the interview, precisely because they wanted to wait before making a final judgment for the interview.

GOWDY: Isn't that we normally do? Wait until the last interview is.

HOROWITZ: Correct.

GOWDY: This is my last question I'll have for you. Back when you did trial work, do you remember the judge ever admonishing the jury that you are not to make up your mind until the last witness has testified and the last piece of evidence has been introduced? Do you remember you remember a jury ever being told that by a judge?

HOROWITZ: Not only do I remember that as a prosecutor, but I actually served on a jury last year. So, I remember that from the judge's instruction.

GOWDY: It's kind of one of the basic precepts of our justice system is that you wait until it's over before you draw a conclusion and I am just dumbfounded that Director Comey would draft a press release and cite the missing element, when the single best repository of potential evidence on that element had yet to be talked to. I just -- I find that stunning, but I'm also just stunningly out of time.

By the way, intent was never a requirement under the pertinent criminal statute, but that's a different issue.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3554 on: September 13, 2018, 01:24:59 PM »
Man, Trump hates Puerto Rico and Hillary hates Unites States soldiers.  :frown:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/benghazi-hillarys-stranded-heroes/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=conservativetribune&utm_content=2018-09-13&utm_campaign=manualpost

Quote
When the heroes of Benghazi finished their mission, the State Department, run by Hillary Clinton at the time, told them they had to foot the bill for their own plane fare home from Germany, according to former congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3555 on: March 27, 2019, 01:24:50 PM »
Rumors of an investigation into Clinton/DNC ties to the Ukraine (finally).


Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3556 on: March 27, 2019, 01:29:53 PM »
Dax, expect an email from kdub about how dangerous speculation is
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3557 on: April 04, 2019, 04:39:31 PM »
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article109203352.html

Dang, Hillary and those in her orbit were the centerpieces in hundreds of millions of dollars in Russian "investment".

Uncle Joe and Joe Jr. in the Ukraine.  Ukrainian entities trying to help Hillary get elected.    Unsecured email server a payoff to the Russians (and Chinese)?


Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3558 on: June 10, 2019, 07:25:05 AM »
63 million votes and a 2.5 year meltdown because this mega corrupt person wasn't elected president . . . 

https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1137090107033493504

https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1137092180844134400

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3559 on: August 15, 2019, 04:52:34 PM »
Carter Heavy Industries aka ChiCom Heavy Industries, very big in the wedding and yoga business.   This person was almost our president and her loss triggered a 1000 plus day meltdown of epic proportions by LibDerp Nation.    :lol:

https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1161930684954550272


Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile

Offline DaBigTrain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11635
  • stuxnet, meltdown, spectre, Bitcoin, ffChamp
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3562 on: January 09, 2020, 09:57:49 PM »
Poor Dax :frown:
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

https://blockstream.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3563 on: January 09, 2020, 11:12:48 PM »
Poor Dax :frown:
Tbt, do you think Hillary is a squeaky clean politician? Just asking. I don’t think libs constantly posting twitter endorsements down here in the pit and the great fight with Dax is really doing anything IRL for your “I just don’t want another war” endorsement. You seem to move the goalposts a bit. I honestly don’t care, nothing has really changed since 2016. Our prez is an embarrassment, but the market is good and all this end of the world stuff was played by liberal media, who continues to play the same card, because they’re getting nowhere. Focus on backing a reasonable candidate in 2020 and endorse them, fund them (with this new fun $ you seem you don’t know what to do with), and rejoice. #SomeNewPerson2020

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3564 on: January 10, 2020, 06:53:47 AM »
Oh man, I just didn’t see this happening.   

Everyone has had suicidal hard drives. 




Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3565 on: January 10, 2020, 07:36:06 AM »
I'm somewhat embarrassed that I fell for the "Hillary is literally Satan" propaganda that conservatives have pushed for 20 years. It makes me empathize for people like dax who continue to be fooled though.

Live and learn.
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3566 on: January 10, 2020, 07:56:51 AM »
Nothing says I've done nothing wrong like taking ball peen hammers to hard drives, doing so much bleach biting, bleachbit.org actually considered a public IPO and deleting 35K emails.

It's not a crime, if you can get away with it aka the Costanza variation.

 




Offline DaBigTrain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11635
  • stuxnet, meltdown, spectre, Bitcoin, ffChamp
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3567 on: January 10, 2020, 09:27:37 AM »
Oh Dax :lol:
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

https://blockstream.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3568 on: January 10, 2020, 09:41:38 AM »
Oh Dax :lol:

Grats Bud, glad your hero got away with it.  I know you're thrilled.

Everyone knows hard drives fall down the stairs all the time.  I mean, duh. 


Online mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39041
    • View Profile

Offline DaBigTrain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11635
  • stuxnet, meltdown, spectre, Bitcoin, ffChamp
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3570 on: January 11, 2020, 10:57:05 AM »
But....her emails :lol: :lol: :lol:
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

https://blockstream.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3571 on: April 13, 2020, 08:31:26 AM »
She's baaaaaacccckk...   :peek:

https://therepublicpost.wordpress.com/2020/04/12/state-dept-releases-phone-transcript-of-hillary-admitting-she-knew-benghazi-was-planned-attack/

Quote
The State Department released a phone transcript this week that proves Hillary Clinton knew the Benghazi massacre was a planned attack and not a protest.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents this week.

DEVELOPING
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 08:39:01 AM by Bqqkie Pimp »
bears are fast...

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
bears are fast...

Offline DaBigTrain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11635
  • stuxnet, meltdown, spectre, Bitcoin, ffChamp
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3573 on: April 20, 2020, 10:44:02 PM »
Gregg’s timeline is something else :sdeek:

I don’t know how anyone could believe some of this garbage, but apparently a lot do.
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

https://blockstream.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
« Reply #3574 on: April 20, 2020, 10:57:05 PM »
Gregg’s timeline is something else :sdeek:

I don’t know how anyone could believe some of this garbage, but apparently a lot do.

I take it you've been drinking the CNN koolaid all this time and haven't really been following along, huh?

 :gocho:
bears are fast...