State Department Reopens Clinton Investigation

[PartySick 172,545]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

King

Same goes for you 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Same goes for you 

I am but a humble messenger to the Queen.

[MJHolland 12,725]

8 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

"FBI is investigating"? The investigation under the FBI is over. It was under a Republican chairman, the GOP expressed confidence in his capabilities a few weeks ago, and now that he and his team decided to not follow up on charges, suddenly his integrity is held into question.

The State Department already released the results of its main investigation and now is looking into potential sanctions after waiting for the FBI's decision. Did you already forget the results of the State Department's own investigation released prior?

Now you're trying to obfuscate the results of the investigations by making the implication that the president is exerting influence into the investigations because he's a Democrat.

You talk about the Democratic pressures as if they exist in isolation. You have a Republican controlled congress that finds a Hillary witch hunt as time well spent as opposed to actually legislating for the country you supposedly like.

All the while you are forgetting that these investigations only resulted as a result of the GOP's persistent partisan attacks. Hillary's own email practices came to light as a result of the Benghazi witchhunts which after a dozen or so investigations and millions of dollars wasted all exonerated her. They failed in that and pressed forward on the e-mails despite the fact that she was not in a unique position either currently (lmao the hearings even showed that Lyin' Ryan himself has his private e-mail address on a business card) or previously (other SoS's exhibited similar behavior with no investigations) and even got the FBI involved (do you really think they saw the news and were like: Let's investigate Hillary!... someone has to call the shots), who also concluded there is no reasonable grounds for prosecution.

Now that the results are out, the GOP is still not satisfied with the decision and called for a hearing to question the decision of the FBI. The GOP then used the hearing in order to smear Hillary, even failing at that because an avid Republican (Comey) had to stand up for Hillary several times.

Straight from the horse's mouth you have someone saying that Hillary 

1) spoke the truth according to her knowledge

2) did not obstruct justice and fully cooperated

3) did not display any intentional breaking of the rules and only operated on convenience not malevolent motive

4) has a case incomparable to Patraeus since he did not do all the above and even then only received a misdemeanor

5) would not have been prosecuted for gross negligence as that has only happened once in a hundred years in a circumstance exponentially more dire than this one

Comey

1) revealed with no lack of certainty that the deleted e-mails which contained classified information did not have the appropriate "CLASSIFIED" headers in the title and therefore were not properly formed e-mails.

2) insisted that there was no White House interference

3) outright stated that no reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary for the case.

4) kept a friendly face with the Republicans saying he understands where they come from but if they were actually part of the year long investigation they would get similar results

5) was a hair from outright calling out the Republicans from being armchair prosecutors questioning a process they barely understand only because the results weren't appealing.

...

Now the GOP is pushing for another investigation because that's what they always do, to find some bites here and there to use against Hillary because clearly the results will be same.

All the while you applaud that movement, unwittingly contributing to an waste of more taxpayer money and time, all because you're so desperate to support any smearing of Hillary because you hate her for no reason at all other than "because I said so".

Ironically, the House Republicans always end up helping Clinton because if they didn't overzealously blow every ****up Hillary has done out of proportion only to ultimately be vindicated, Hillary would have received far less sympathy for her ****ups.

So good job. Thank you for contributing to Hillary's vindication rather than doing the politically smart thing and let people **** their own reputations over (Look at Bush for example) 

 

I'm still laughing at the fact that you the she's now vindicated, when the FBI report exposed that she's lied about EVERYTHING on her email server (including while under oath lmao!).

HAHAHAHA

[Himeros26 1,688]

12 hours ago, MJHolland said:

It means that the FBI came out with a report contradicting every narrative Clinton has pushed about her email server.

She said she never sent classified information at the time. The FBI called her out on her lie, 113 times. She said her email server was secured. The FBI called her out on that lie. She said her and her lawyers deleted NO work emails, just personal emails. The FBI found THOUSANDS of work related emails that she deleted, including ones with classified information in them. She said she kept it for convenience. Her right hand woman, Huma Abedin, said under oath that she kept the server to keep her emails a secret (so one of them is telling the truth, and one of them is lying. You be the judge, but one has nothing to lose and one has everything to lose). 

She also said she emailed Bill a lot. Bill says he never emailed her. So another lie. 

But you have Hillary supporters like the ones on GGD that still think she isn't a liar.

What this reopened investigation means is that the State Department knows she f*cked up real bad, and this is an attempt not to tarnish their reputation after the FBI declared that the Clintons are yet again above the law. 

I know we don't agree on much, but well said. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

12 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

I am but a humble messenger to the Queen.

I have to know, did you make this?

If so, how much time a day do you spend making Hillary gifs and memes because I'm pretty sure I've seen some rare ones from you  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, ItsTommyBitch said:

I have to know, did you make this?

If so, how much time a day do you spend making Hillary gifs and memes because I'm pretty sure I've seen some rare ones from you  

I plead the fifth  

[DiscoStyx 3,355]

On 08/07/2016 at 2:50 AM, Gaga Monster said:

No she hasn't. he had over 100 buisnesses and only 4 went bankrupt. And no he has never said anything bigot like, he was talking about Illegal Immigrants and only wants to ban Muslims from countries that have a proven history of terroism. I see a man who got a million and turned it into $4 billion. Our country is $19 billion in debt, minority families have fallen these past 8 years in both housing and income, and ISIS has grown significantly these past 8 years. People all over the country are suffering. It is time to change and it is time for these corrupt, lying politicians to get out of office and it is time to secure our border so undocumented people can't jump over a fence into our families neighborhoods (perfect way for terroists to get in by the way). Donald got you shook dear

I can't believe someone can actually think this.

[teo 609]

This is literally a witch hunt at this point. And it's easy to confirm this by seeing who are the users that are having a field day over this. 
So let me burst your bubble and tell you what's gonna happen - they will "investigate" her some more and find nothing(again), bacause they've already did that over and over in every way possible and the people will care less and less about this cause they're already tired of this story. Meanwhile she's gonna become the next president of the US and you can all choke on that. 

[Goosey 3,017]

4 hours ago, teo said:

This is literally a witch hunt at this point. And it's easy to confirm this by seeing who are the users that are having a field day over this. 
So let me burst your bubble and tell you what's gonna happen - they will "investigate" her some more and find nothing(again), bacause they've already did that over and over in every way possible and the people will care less and less about this cause they're already tired of this story. Meanwhile she's gonna become the next president of the US and you can all choke on that. 

How is it a witch hunt? The State Department is not the Republican Party. If they felt it was necessary to reopen the case, I assume they still have some legitimate questions or concerns.

[teo 609]

38 minutes ago, Goosey said:

How is it a witch hunt? The State Department is not the Republican Party. If they felt it was necessary to reopen the case, I assume they still have some legitimate questions or concerns.

The FBI director used the phrase "celebrity hunting" to highlight the fact that the so called double standard could go both ways. In other words there are people out there who are doing the most to put her on trial even though the US highest law enforcement agency said it shouldn't happen. 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

On July 7, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Gaga Monster said:

Good. When a woman lies to the public over and over about her emails, puts emails that contained hundreds of classified information onto a non secure system and send it to people who should not have seen it should defiantly be re opened. If anyone else was so careless they would be fired and not be allowed to be associated with anything like that job. And now she thinks she should run for president when she is so careless and lied over and over which the meeting today confirmed

Do you anything about the Bush/Rice emails? Does that compare to Hillary's case?

[Economy 52,859]

On July 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, LebaneseDude said:

RIP you ignoring Trump university, the fact that most of his businesses have FAILED, the fact that four of those failures were SO HUGE he had to file for bankruptcies is nothing to be proud of, him starting off with millions of dollars of capital gave him a lot of lee-way and a cushion whenever he failed, and assuming that just because he is actually much less rich than he claimed to be as we can see from his released statements that he'll be able to solve the USA's problems.

You inserting a hor emoticon doesn't make your paragraph any cuter dear. You don't try to change the country by supporting someone who is homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, jingoist, xenophobic, racist, and borderline sociopathic.

You are too cute. It's going to be fun when the cheeto-faced ferret-face shitgibbon gets his due.

Im no fan of Trump myself so dont think im trying to endorse him

 

But 1/3 of new businesses fail within first 3 years...

 

Simply put, investments dont always pay off as expected and u can never really be 100% sure of how the public will respond to your product in your Location until you open it.

 

I dont know how many businesses hes owned but even if it was just 20 or 30, then 4 going under is nothing putrageous

 

Also it doesnt mean the failures were so bad that he was bankrupt...

 

By law if 1 of your businesses has no correlation whats so ever to another business of yours, then you dont have to transfer funds from another business, the business can claim bankruptcy even if the owner isnt bankrupt

 

So i wouldnt blow 4 failed businesses out of proportion 😑

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

37 minutes ago, Economy said:

Im no fan of Trump myself so dont think im trying to endorse him

 

But 1/3 of new businesses fail within first 3 years...

 

Simply put, investments dont always pay off as expected and u can never really be 100% sure of how the public will respond to your product in your Location until you open it.

 

I dont know how many businesses hes owned but even if it was just 20 or 30, then 4 going under is nothing putrageous

 

Also it doesnt mean the failures were so bad that he was bankrupt...

 

By law if 1 of your businesses has no correlation whats so ever to another business of yours, then you dont have to transfer funds from another business, the business can claim bankruptcy even if the owner isnt bankrupt

 

So i wouldnt blow 4 failed businesses out of proportion 😑

Oh I get it.

The number four pertains to bankruptcy not business failure. The latter is a far higher count.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:53 PM, Goosey said:

How is it a witch hunt? The State Department is not the Republican Party. If they felt it was necessary to reopen the case, I assume they still have some legitimate questions or concerns.

They are not reopening they are continuing. It was never completed. They completed their investigation, waited for the FBI to finish as to not interfere, and are now resuming to assess potential repercussions.

The witch hunt is the hearing, not the investigations.

[Economy 52,859]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

Oh I get it.

The number four pertains to bankruptcy not business failure. The latter is a far higher count.

Yeah i suppose that would be the case

 

Its very possible he closed down or sold off businesses that didnt do well but never claimed bankruptcy on them. But i dont know his entire history so i cant say

 

But as far as ones hes actually declared bankruptcy it was 4 of them which is a small percentage of whatever amount hes run

 

May be hard to believe that 1/3 of new businesses fail within 3 years but its tough. U never really know for sure what will happen

 

That being said, although i dont hold a few bankrupcies against him (normal in his business), I still dont like him.