Have I ever mentioned how much I love being proven correct...

[Puzzling Evidence]

You're a liar to say Clinton is clean.

???

I don't know anyone who is clean, but you don't have ONE DAMNING BIT OF EVIDENCE....real, CONCRETE evidence against Clinton.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

Feel free to put them on trial, and give them a trial with a jury of their peers so we can settle this once and for all. Until then it's all just political bullsh*t.

That will NOT fix anything. NOTHING - rabid loyalist (on both sides, by the way) are never happy with any conclusion that does not lead to jail time.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

How come they aren't just sticking to predicting the next recession is right around the corner. They likely would have been right for once. Instead here they are making accusations cobbled together from what looks like a firm created for a frame up.

It does not look good that's for sure.

https://twitter.com/mrspanstreppon/status/1072116382727397377

Lets see…John Soloman or "mrspantstreppon?" Who should we believe? If you were referring to "mrspantsreppon's" twitter feed as "not looking good," I can certainly agree with you. She sounds like a homeless person who is off their meds.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I don’t think anyone is questioning that one guy alleged wrongdoing.

Chelsea's a "guy?"

 

[Raoul_Luke]

It would be interesting to compare your standard of justice and evidence between the Clinton accusations and those aimed at Trump. You seem to set a pretty low bar when you talk about accusations against the Clintons.

back and review my exchanges with @middleview regarding the almost certainty that the Clintons were not only using their Foundation to make deals that enriched them, but also to subsidize their larger than life, well, style.

So you have no evidence that money donated to the foundation actually enriched the Clintons. You do have evidence that Bill may have used foundation money to pay travel expenses for his own personal business...There is an investigation under way. You may argue that his $500k fee for speaking was a quid pro quo, but the fact is that he'd charged others the same fee, both before and after the Uranium one deal. You also fail to show how Hillary had anything at all to do with that decision.

There are also a number of projects, particularly in Haiti that are questionable, but I'll wait for the investigation to complete before I proceed with the conviction....that is also my opinion of the Mueller investigation, which you seem to want shut down a little early.

Well well well, we're finally making progress. So you admit that there is, at least, some evidence that the Clinton's activities were not entirely always on the up and up. And there, of course, was/is. But there was never any evidence of Trump's campaign "colluding" with the Russians. At least none that wasn't manufactured by Obama administration intelligence & justice officials. Of course they will find evidence of some crime(s) against Trump, as a result of his "investigation." But it won't have anything to do with the purpose of that "investigation." That is, of course, because large private companies are every bit as likely as private foundations to have skirted the letter of the law. So when this is all said and done, if the outcome is that the Mueller investigation finds evidence of business crimes but no evidence of "Russian collusion" while the investigation of the Clintons finds that they did in fact use their foundation to fund their expensive lifestyle and provide leverage to increase their personal wealth, you will claim you were as "right" about that as I was about the CGI. And that, of course, will be a lie.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Wow...that smells like communism to me

The rich and powerful taking money from the "little" people to support their own interests? Yes, in fact it does...

 

[Spamature]

Lets see…John Soloman or "mrspantstreppon?" Who should we believe? If you were referring to "mrspantsreppon's" twitter feed as "not looking good," I can certainly agree with you. She sounds like a homeless person who is off their meds.

One has actual factual records and the other has a rumor he heard from someone who heard a rumor about discussion.

I'll take the word of the person who presented dates and facts.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

One has actual factual records and the other has a rumor he heard from someone who heard a rumor about discussion.

I'll take the word of the person who presented dates and facts.

Of course you will. What the "facts" don't say is anything whatsoever nefarious in the conduct of the people involved. It simply says they exist. This is analogous to the Trump "dossier" that you guys claim has been "largely corroborated." Only in the sense that the people and places it mentions in fact exist. The nexus that suggests any sort of "election collusion" or, frankly, any untoward behavior, remains, of course, unverified. But the left points to these "facts" as evidence of Trump - Russia "collusion" when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Spamature]

Of course you will. What the "facts" don't say is anything whatsoever nefarious in the conduct of the people involved. It simply says they exist. This is analogous to the Trump "dossier" that you guys claim has been "largely corroborated." Only in the sense that the people and places it mentions in fact exist. The nexus that suggests any sort of "election collusion" or, frankly, any untoward behavior, remains, of course, unverified. But the left points to these "facts" as evidence of Trump - Russia "collusion" when nothing could be further from the truth.

It does point to something nefarious. This sounds just like Cohen setting up Trump's payoff shell companies. Only the objective is to smear Clinton rather than to facilitate a cover up. I wonder whose deep pockets on the right funds the operation ? Is it the usual smear masters or do you think a new player has taken the field ?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

It does point to something nefarious. This sounds just like Cohen setting up Trump's payoff shell companies. Only the objective is to smear Clinton rather than to facilitate a cover up. I wonder whose deep pockets on the right funds the operation ? Is it the usual smear masters or do you think a new player has taken the field ?

We'll see, won't we?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-fbi-is-investigating-the-clinton-foundation/2018/01/05/1aca0d4a-f1cf-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.0e65bb6a84de

And, I suppose, you think Chelsea has thrown in with this den of right wing reactionaries, do ya?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/chelsea-clinton-foundation-conflicts-emails-229605

 

[Winston]

You're a liar to say Clinton is clean.

Have you sniffed

 

[Spamature]

We'll see, won't we?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-fbi-is-investigating-the-clinton-foundation/2018/01/05/1aca0d4a-f1cf-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.0e65bb6a84de

A. This was a result of the Trump temper tantrum where he forced Sessions to open this investigation even though Sessions said there was nothing to investigate.

B. Her time in govt is beyond the statue of limitation for even bringing charges.

And, I suppose, you think Chelsea has thrown in with this den of right wing reactionaries, do ya?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/chelsea-clinton-foundation-conflicts-emails-229605

How is it a Clinton scandal if SOMEONE ELSE is trying to cash in on the Clinton name. If that were a crime the entire right wing book industry would be under indictment.