Hillary Must Answer Key Email Questions, Federal Judge Orders

The judge left out a VERY important question, which should have been included as Question #6:

"Did you lie under oath when you told Congress that your private email server, upon which you transmitted, received, and re-transmitted classified information was fully protected as required by a government-approved Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)?"

Hint: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/21-things-we-learned-from-the-fbi-notes-on-clintons-emails

. "I could probably answer that question for you...."

 

If you can prove there was criminal intent and wrongdoing then go for it! You may get lucky. But trading sanction-relief for the publication of illegally obtained intellectual property with a foreign entity is what the Trump folks are currently facing. Some pretty serious stuff indeed.

 

You may be right. Still, that's a democracy you're advocating for ~ not a republic.

 

Claiming a guarantee but, unfortunately, not ensuring it. Read the definitions of a democracy and a republic and you will learn that in a republic each individual vote selects its leadership while in a democracy the leadership is selected by a representative body (i.e. the Electoral College). It will be nice if we, as a nation, actually begin enforcing that guarantee. If we did, then Hillary Clinton would be the President today. God help us!

 

Negligence doesn't require Criminal intent.

Let us know when they can prove sanction relief to a foreign entity.

As it stand now.....they got some 20 year old stuff like Bank fraud on Manafort. While giving the Podesta brothers a pass.

 

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/democracy-vs-a-republic-perfectly-explained-for-dummies

 

Seems the GOP can not complain about how long the Russian investigation is going, when they are still on Clinton for the trillionth of times.

 

There is probabe cause with Hillary, none for Trump Collusion

 

WRONG, they had to GUARANTY we would not be a democracy but a republic and more to the course a federal republic else the States would not ratified the Constitution and joined the Union. Do you not know what was The Great Compromise? And you got it backwards. The STATES elect the President and Vice-President not the PEOPLE. And each state can select their Electors in the manner the state legislature chooses and it does NOT have to be by a vote of the People of the State.

 

Non-sequitur

 

Manafort introduced Russian sanction relief into the Republican platform at the time of the Trump tower meetings with Russian representatives. Last I checked Russia is a foreign entity. That's just the surface. We'll someday [soon?] become privvy to Mueller's findings.

 

You sure have a flare for drama.

Anyway, moving on. It isn't at all unreasonable to not have confidence in the investigation that the FBI conducted on Clinton. The person that lead the investigation was none other than the infamous Peter Strzok. Yes, the same Peter Strzok (Chief of the Counter Espionage Section of the FBI) that had the text conversation with Lisa Page where they both agreed that it wouldn't be a good idea to go after Clinton because she was going to be the next president. Here are the texts:

Page - “One more thing: she might be our next president, The last thing you need [is] going in there loaded for bear,” she continued. “You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more [DOJ] than [FBI]?”
Strzok - “agreed”

Or this text conversation:
Page - "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"
Strzok - "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Strzok was in charge of a whole division and the investigation for Clinton's emails. That is just four of the texts out of 10,000 but we can see where this was headed. Moving on....

The State Department was caught lying to a judge. They were willing to risk the wrath a judge in order to cover for her.

Lying to Judge Lamberth:
“t was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials,” the judge said, “and it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.”

Judge Lamberth specified that his problem is that when the government moved for summary judgment, they claimed that they had produced all of the relevant records that had been requested. As it turned out, this was not true, as emails from Clinton’s private email server had not been included. State Department attorney Robert Prince insisted that while their response may have turned out to be inadequate, the information they filed was true at the time.

The judge wasn’t going for it, and things got pretty contentious.

“I don’t understand that,” the judge said. “The State Department told me that it had produced all the records when it moved for summary judgment and you filed that motion. That was not true when that motion was filed.”

Prince disagreed, saying, “it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.”

“It was not,” the judge said. “It was a lie.”

Prince disputed that take, and the judge accused the department of “doublespeak” and “playing the same word game” that Clinton played. Prince insisted that whether the search was adequate or not, 55,000 pages of Clinton’s emails had been searched prior to them filing their affidavit, and that this search was done before Clinton’s private server became publicly known. At that point, Judge Lamberth simply said, “I’ll have to take a look at that.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...early-false-information-about-clinton-emails/

Mills Perjury to Lamberth and her immunity:

"I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case," Lamberth said. "So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...aide-cheryl-mills-was-granted-immunity-by-doj

Those are just a few examples of why we question the veracity of the investigation so yeah, pardon us for not buying off on the smoke they have been trying to pump up our ass.

 

I get the way we're doing it. Just saying it's not a true republic. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one because neither of us is willing to see it the other's way.

 

He did.....link that up showing he intro'd Russian Sanction relief.

Do you even know how long Manafort was on the Trump Team?

Was that like the Podesta brothers giving relief to the Ukraine?

 

You back Trump and claim that I, "have a flare for drama"? How so? Especially when you go on... and on... and on.... with a multitude of unsubstantiated claims, a right wing link, and paranoid quotes pushing the notion that everyone in the FBI must be a Trumplican in order to be trusted... finally closing with a gross whine about, "the smoke they have been trying to pump up our ass." You'll never catch Hillary, and in a few short weeks this lousy reality tv show of yours is going off the air.

 

Smart ass.

 

Because he is a freackin' Dlck.

 

What a bad week for the Dems. CLinton is court ordered to come clean about her corruption within the obama admin, Comey admits he too was reckless with classified material while in the obama admin, then creepy porn lawyer, the new face of the DNC gets evicted by his landlord for owing hundreds of thousands of dollars and then he gets a felony charge for beating a woman....tough! Meanwhile the GOP holds the Senate, as the Dems have one of the worse midterm performances by an out of party group in decades, and the economy continues to boom!

 

You didn't even read the post. That confirms to me that you are just here to troll and not interested in facts. The texts are factual history. I guess you can't rebut those texts so you ignore them while diving into some dramatic rant while denying that you don't have a flare for drama. If you want it straight from the dog's mouth then try this link from the DOJ OIG:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

And the transcript of the hearing with Judge Lambert:
https://www.scribd.com/document/391...-Talking-Points-Transcript-01242-1#from_embed

I know from your post that you just accept what the left feeds you but I am not that gullible or naive. Maybe you should question the smoke that they pipe up your ass. It takes some effort but it's worth it.

 

Now there's a real intelligent and substantive response. People that obsess that Trump eats Big Macs and Melania wears high heels are obsessed with a dick? That's a little weird.

 

I don't care what happens with the Clintons. Hillary is a shrew and Bill, though charming, is a sickening misogynist. So much for trying to share that smoke pipe you claim to have stuck, "up your ass." Your post is entirely old news.

 

Again, no rebuttal, no substance. Then that "Lock her up" statement you made really didn't mean anything. Just TDS drama.

 

If you don’t care why are you commenting on a thread about them?

 

Okay...how's this.
Donald Trump has systematically attacked and debased the laws and justice department of this country, debased millions of Americans and many of it's institutions as well as leaders. He has tried or succeeded at eliminating popular and helpful legislation while forwarding the opposite, used the once revered office of President for personal gain, consistently been dishonest and inconsistent in his words and policy direction, Alienated our traditional friends throughout the world while embracing totalitarian leaders and being played a fool on the world stage. Donald Trump has shown limited knowledge of our Constitution and the limitations it places on his office while often dismissing the finer points if not intent of societal norms.

Is That Better?

 

There's no way "I'm doing it", I'm citing history and the Constitution correctly where you are citing it fallaciously. There is only one way, the historically and constitutional way.