Trump won’t pursue charges against Clinton, as Conway throws shade
Finally, the Flip-Flopper-in-Chief has flip-flopped in the right direction.
Trump won’t subject Hillary Clinton to a criminal inquiry — instead, he’ll help her heal, his spokeswoman said Tuesday.
“I think when the president-elect who’s also the head of your party … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,” Kellyanne Conway told the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” who first reported that the president-elect would not pursue his campaign pledge to “lock up” Clinton, his Democratic opponent.
“Look, I think, he’s thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign are not among them,” Conway, who is now on the Trump transition team, said in her interview.
She should have stopped there.
Click here for reuse options!She continued: “I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing.”
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
66 responses to Trump won’t pursue charges against Clinton, as Conway throws shade
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
nola878 November 22nd, 2016 at 12:30
Hey Donald, if you’re so sure she’d “crooked”, why don’t you appoint the prosecutor?
If I were Hillary, I’d demand he do so to clear my name.
mea_mark November 22nd, 2016 at 12:39
Betrayal is a powerful emotion. If the right wingers feel betrayed, impeachment may come soon and easily.
Larry Schmitt November 22nd, 2016 at 12:47
We can dream, can’t we?
crc3 November 22nd, 2016 at 12:52
Yes but what about Pense? That man is probably much more dangerous than Rump…
mea_mark November 22nd, 2016 at 12:58
But he wasn’t elected and he won’t have a full 4 years. If the public is against him he will have a hard time doing much without jeopardizing the GOP in the midterms and further upcoming elections. He will be placeholder till 2020, doing what needs to be done to keep the country running.
crc3 November 22nd, 2016 at 13:07
I’m not as “optimistic” as you are but I hope you are right…
arc99 November 22nd, 2016 at 12:55
“””She continued: “I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy,”””
Woman, what in the blue hell are you talking about. Some pertinent numbers as of this morning.
Trump 61,917,320
Clinton 63,515,588
When you ask a group of 125,432,908 people who they prefer as President, and 63,515,588 of them tell you it is not your boss, how do you conclude that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy. When it comes to the majority of Americans, looks like it is the President-elect who is found not to be honest or trustworthy.
And take that healing BS and shove it….
crc3 November 22nd, 2016 at 13:01
The msm NEVER ask those kinds of questions nor do they present facts and corner idiots like her. I’d smack her into the next century if given the chance…
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 13:05
The objective was to win the election….
Seems that Hillary fell well short of that objective.
Tell me, how many electoral votes did she win???
Weren’t you all predicting an electoral college triumph?
arc99 November 22nd, 2016 at 13:08
Please explain how Ms. Conway’s statement
“””She continued: “I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy,”””
is supported by the vote count. She said nothing about the EC. No spin. No deflection.. Just tell us how her statement about the “majority of Americans” reconciles with the undisputed fact that the majority voted for Hillary. Or you can acknowledge that her statement is a lie, and we can move on.
mea_mark November 22nd, 2016 at 13:18
My dad and my brother both voted for Hillary. Neither thinks that she is honest or trustworthy. They just thought that the orange, thin skinned one would be a disaster. I bet there are a lot of people that felt the same way.
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 13:30
Yes, you’re correct.
Jimmy Fleck November 22nd, 2016 at 16:33
I think a lot of people that voted for Clinton do not view her as honest or trustworthy. There was not an option for honest and trustworthy on the ballot this year (or most years for that matter). Yes the majority of people that voted pulled the lever for Clinton. That does not automatically assume that all of them found her honest or trustworthy. In addition, a great number of people (~50%) did not vote at all. How do they fit into the equation of how the majority of people in America feel about Clinton?
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 13:25
Simple, a lot of people, something like 40% who voted for her, voted for her regardless of the fact that she is neither honest, nor trustworthy….
“She’s smart enough to get away with it, and that’s good enough for me”
They voted straight party line.
You had Bernie supporters voting for her, after she, and your fellow Dems in high places, made sure Bernie wasn’t going to get the nomination. Bernie himself endorsed her..lol..
arc99 November 22nd, 2016 at 13:37
I asked for no spin and no deflection.
Your response is 100% spin and deflection, garnished with a healthy dose of conjecture about 40%.
You are entitled to your opinion. I will stick to the facts.
63+million is a larger number than 61+million.
Ms. Conway’s statement is not supported by the numbers.
And your hypotehtical about the reasons behind my personal vote are ridiculous.
I voted FOR the candidate of the party which will work to restore the Voting Rights Act, select court nominees similiar to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and who would ensure that the progress we have made under the ACA continues. So please, next time you are curious about the motivations behind my vote, ask me instead of engaging in foolish, inaccurate generalizations.
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 23:26
I voted FOR the candidate of the party
You voted party line.
My point stands.
Obewon November 23rd, 2016 at 00:56
Arc99 & most voted for the smartest, most qualified, best prepared candidate. But you claimed you wrote in a bozo who wasn’t even on the ballot!
Smart Money: Clinton won where 64% of U.S. Record $18.65 T+ GDP grows 4.4% APR.
Trump lost most of the American economy in this election.
The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64% of America’s economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36% of the country’s economic activity last year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 00:09
Hillary Clinton’s unfavourable rating is through the roof. Nobody voted for her because they thought she was honest and trustworthy….
Her past is like a chain around her neck.
The Democratic primary was a charade.
What’s funny is…
You guys could have run anyone other than Hillary, and won.
Obewon November 23rd, 2016 at 00:35
Trump Unfavorable 56.0% | Least favorable Trump 39.5%. Latest 2016 Polls. Via right leaner RCP Average 10/28-11/20-Trump Tanked -16.5%.
Trump 4% Truth rating Vs 2/3+ Truth rating of Most honest U.S. politician factchecked BHO44, 2nd is HRC. Deadlast is Donnie.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/54915d760fc980304ca38088ad0fc48ec3c4920f20a7ce1cf050aea57631209a.jpg
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 10:26
From Bernie Sanders own internal polling….
Among her own party, Clinton polls better with 37.8 percent disagreeing that she is honest and truthful and 35.9 percent agreeing and 26.3 percent undecided.
Did you catch that??
37.8% of her own party find her dishonest and untruthful.
ROTF…
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 13:29
I’ll bet if we could get you to be candid for a moment, that you, yourself, would admit that she is not honest, or trustworthy. I think your vote was really a vote against Trump, not a vote in favor of Hillary….
arc99 November 22nd, 2016 at 13:43
btw, I am not a right wing Obama-hater. Unlike those people, I am always candid.
William November 22nd, 2016 at 13:57
Hillary Clinton has been cleared by Comey-the clown, TWICE, and 9 Benghazi investigations and an 11 hour hearing. Your idiot paid 25 million dollars the other day to settle one of his many lawsuits.
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 14:21
By your own admission,
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc0cc2c0859e16885bb7f72eb6a451b6d7ec88c2ff41bf228990396fb6df352a.jpg
Yours wasn’t a vote for Hillary, but was simply a vote against Trump….
Larry Schmitt November 22nd, 2016 at 14:37
Because she was more qualified, and still the better choice.
William November 22nd, 2016 at 15:38
That’s not my admission, that’s a meme by an author known as Mindy Fischer.
Do you want to try again, or stay at your current level of ignorance and quit while you’re ahead?
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 23:17
You posted that meme, which means you agreed with its sentiment. Or, are you denying that?
William November 22nd, 2016 at 23:30
Yeah….of course…because everyone knows the middle east is awash with 7-11’s that double as abortion clinics. Seriously do you simply not understand, humor, parody and sarcasm, or are you just numb from the neck up?…..Oh and by the way, your candidate just paid 25 million dollars to settle a fraud case. (I’m going to remind you of that routinely from now on)
trees November 22nd, 2016 at 23:41
The point of your meme was to express indifference to her personal failings…
In effect, you’re saying, “I couldn’t care less”. We both know that she deleted and destroyed material that if ever to see the light of day would be jaw dropping…as a former cop you know this.
But, like a good soldier you voted party line, and defend your side in your epic battle of perceived “good vs evil”
He’s not my candidate. My opposition to Clinton does not equal admiration of Trump.
William November 23rd, 2016 at 00:09
AGAIN. It’s not my meme. Get an adult to read the part at the bottom that indicates who wrote it. It’s still hysterical, and reflects what many voters feel. BTW. Hillary got more votes than Cheeto-Hitler.
” We both know that she deleted and destroyed material that if ever to see the light of day would be jaw dropping…as a former cop you know this.”.
Uh…No as a former cop I was trained to submit EVIDENCE. When and if you clowns ever get some EVIDENCE, feel free to submit it to Comey. (he said there isn’t a case).
Speaking of evidence…
Your boy said he settled his fraud case for a “fraction” of what he was being sued for. Well I guess 25 millions is a fraction of 45 million, LOL. Hillary on the other hand? Clean, nothing pending.
Try again when you’re a little less stupid.
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 00:25
You see, you keep trying to make him, “my candidate”. He’s not my candidate. You keep deflecting….
Question, “Is Hillary honest and trustworthy?”
The sentiment of the meme you posted is, “I don’t care, I’m voting for her regardless.”
oldfart November 23rd, 2016 at 00:36
Answer, obviously more than your candidate…for example,
NO wall, NO Hillary in prison…and still backpedaling.
Honest ? Trustworthy? Exactly who are you talking about ?
Your turn, deflect.
William November 23rd, 2016 at 01:05
Yes she is VERY Honest and trustworthy. You may now submit your PROOF that she isn’t. So far all you have is innuendo, rumor and whatever the clowns over at the fair and balanced network dumped into your skull. independent fact checkers find her to be honest and truthful. Seriously, you morons have been spouting tales of e-mail fraud and Benghazi for years and have so far not submitted one single incident of anything that rises to a level of criminal activity. So here is your big chance to astound me with your wisdom and proof that will once and for all convince everyone that Hillary Clinton has been charged, indicted or convicted of a crime. I’ll wait. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/297dae5e52c64bc7c3dc4440b79d985b2fd56795b7716526e904c2184ab55d71.jpg
oldfart November 23rd, 2016 at 01:21
Point of order…
It’s Morans…just saying.
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 04:35
Yes she is VERY Honest and trustworthy. You may now submit your PROOF that she isn’t.
From Celina Durgin, a quick summary of Hillary Clinton lies involving her, Clinton’s, email
1. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.”
Clinton told this to reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015. She repeated it at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser July 25 and at a Democratic debate February 4, 2016.
Once the investigation into Clinton’s e-mails began, the FBI began retroactively classifying some of the work-related e-mails she had released. So Clinton probably opted to dodge the issue by qualifying her statement, saying that no e-mails she sent were classified “at the time.”
Truth: Comey said that the FBI found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.
2. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.
Clinton made this claim most recently July 3, 2016, on Meet the Press. She first made the claim August 26, 2015, at an Iowa news conference. She repeated it at Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; at a Democratic debate March 9; at a New York news conference March 1; and on Face the Nation May 8.
Clinton again appeared to spin the facts emerging in the investigation. This time, she suggested that even if the FBI were now classifying some of her e-mails, she couldn’t be held responsible since the e-mails lacked any mark of classification at the time they were sent or received. Some wondered what she even meant by “marked” classified, while others pointed out that lack of markings was no defense for mishandling the information — which the secretary of state, of all people, should have judged to be sensitive.
Truth: Comey confirmed suspicions about Clinton’s claim by noting that a “small number” of the e-mails were, in fact, marked classified. Moreover, he added: “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
3. Lie: She turned over all of her work-related e-mails.
Clinton said this on MSNBC September 4, 2015; at a Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; and at a New York press conference March 10.
It’s important to remember that Clinton made this claim about the 30,000 e-mails she and her attorneys chose to provide to the State Department. After turning over paper copies of these 30,000, she and her attorneys then unilaterally deleted another 32,000 that they deemed personal.
Truth: The FBI found “thousands” of work-related e-mails other than those Clinton had provided; they were in various officials’ mailboxes and in the server’s slack space.
Clinton’s attorneys “did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails,” Comey said. “Instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014.”
Though Comey denied he saw evidence of ill intent, he said:
It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them. . . . It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
(Remember the “server-wipe” speculation?)
4. Lie: She wanted to use a personal e-mail account for convenience and simplicity, streamlining to one device.
Clinton said she used one device on CNN July 7, 2015, and at a New York press conference March 10.
Truth: Clinton used multiple servers, administrators, and mobile devices, including an iPad and a Blackberry, to access her e-mail on her personal domain.
“As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways,” Comey explained. “Piecing all of that back together — to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work — has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.”
5. Lie: Clinton’s use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation.
Clinton made this claim in an interview on CNN July 7, 2015; in a campaign statement in July 2015; and at the Democratic primary debates in Las Vegas on October 13, 2015.
Truth: No: A May report issued by the State Department’s inspector general found that it has been department policy since 2005 that work communication be restricted to government servers. While the IG allowed for occasional use of personal e-mail in emergencies, Clinton used her personal e-mail exclusively for all work communication.
6. Lie: All of Clinton’s e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.
Clinton made this claim at a New York press conference May 10, 2015.
Crucially, Clinton told reporters that she exclusively used her personal e-mail because she thought her messages were always saved in the e-mail threads of senior department officials who used @.gov accounts.
Truth: The State Department did not begin automatically capturing and preserving e-mails until February 2015, two years after Clinton left the State Department.
7. Lie: There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking.
Clinton made the “safeguards” claim at a New York press conference March 10, 2015, and her former tech aide made the “no evidence” claim March 3, 2016.
Truth: Among the “safeguards” of Clinton’s server were Secret Service members — but this is no safeguard at all where the Internet is concerned.
Further, Comey noted:
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Your Gmail account is more secure than Hillary’s personal e-mail.
Which is to say: Your Gmail account is more secure than Hillary’s personal e-mail.
There is some evidence of a possible breach. Comey said:
Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Clinton’s “no evidence” claim is less of a bald lie than a concealment of strong possibility. She also failed to report several hacking attempts.
8. Lie: Clinton was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.
Clinton said this in a CNN interview July 7, 2015.
Truth: The next day, July 8, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, accused Clinton of lying about not receiving a subpoena.
Gowdy said in a statement: “The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy.”
— Celina Durgin is a Collegiate Network fellow at National Review.
whatthe46 November 23rd, 2016 at 04:56
you wrote an essay w/o an ounce of substance. tRump is a rapist, racist, bigot, homophobe, pedophile, fraud, pathological liar, etc., etc., and if you wanna go there with emails, tRump dumped emails that were requested by the court and now brown nose pence wants to go to court to protect his emails. fk off! you’re nothing but a damn joke.
William November 23rd, 2016 at 09:49
To be more precise, he pasted an essay.
whatthe46 November 23rd, 2016 at 09:55
thanks.
William November 23rd, 2016 at 09:39
Proof is something that you can submit for evidence in a court of law. Innuendo, rumor and Limbaugh talking points are NOT evidence. Cutting and pasting crap from right-wing-wacko internet land is CERTAINLY not evidence. You failed. So far you idiots have spent 3 decades slandering Hillary, and more than 20 million dollars just on Benghazi, and you don’t even have enough for a probable cause hearing. Comey spewed how much he didn’t like Hillary, but in the end he admitted there was nothing that rose the level of criminal culpability. (I guess you were yelling up from the basement for mom to put a hot pocket in the microwave for you and missed that part)
So again
Please list your evidence and proof.
You know…maybe something to the effect of someone describing in great detail and on tape how they sexually assault someone.
When you’re done looking up the definition of proof and evidence perhaps you can tell me precisely https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ccd95211c765aa5a01eae2f70375596c63454e66f0194c1765bf550eeac0d230.jpg why Hillary has never been charged with anything. No really, I REALLY want to read that.
oldfart November 23rd, 2016 at 10:40
“President-elect Donald Trump won’t subject Hillary Clinton to a criminal inquiry — ”
Maybe you’re the one that needs healing…
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 10:18
Yes she is VERY Honest and trustworthy. You may now submit your PROOF that she isn’t.
A simple Google search will get you there…
William November 23rd, 2016 at 10:25
If you post a link that will also get me there. Try it.
Comicus November 23rd, 2016 at 23:23
Belief is not corroborative evidence. 29% of all Americans believe in Bigfoot. 36% believe UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft. 42% believe in ghosts. People believe many things for which there is no proof. You asked him to answer your question. He did and provided facts to corroborate his answer. If you have any supporting facts, lay them out. I’ll wait.
trees November 24th, 2016 at 02:02
Yes she is VERY Honest and trustworthy. You may now submit your PROOF that she isn’t.
Honesty, is a quality. Trustworthy? It’s a quality. These things are components of something we call integrity.
Lying? Deliberately suppressing the truth?
These are identifiable. We have actual words, and actions, by which we can measure, by which we can determine.
Clinton has changed her story over time. She has been inconsistent and evasive. She has not been truthful. Because of this she has been the target of an ongoing FBI investigation.
Facts?
I’ve provided facts.
The simple fact that an overwhelming percentage of Americans distrust her….
Is undeniable.
It’s an opinion shared by most of the country. It’s an opinion held by those who voted for her. It’s an admission by those who support her. It’s an opinion of those who oppose her….
Her moral character and lack of integrity…
Is why she wasn’t elected.
At the end of the day elections are about trust.
That’s incontrovertible fact.
Comicus November 25th, 2016 at 00:30
You’ve provided no facts. You cannot even distinguish between opinion and fact.
Obewon November 24th, 2016 at 02:40
Proof “Hillary Clinton Is One of America’s Most Honest Politicians” http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/hillary-clinton-one-americas-most-honest-politicians
‘trees’ faux news delusional. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b47d6ffba0489cae21f066cbd8d5f9a25776c2564ac0c96bdb7683feeaca331a.jpg
FNLED November 24th, 2016 at 04:03
Hey trees.
Are you the same trees that posted at alans comment section about ten years ago?
I have a question for ya…:)
FNLED November 24th, 2016 at 04:11
About the same percentage that approve of Republicans in Congress
What’s the point trees?
bpollen November 23rd, 2016 at 03:54
No, the author is saying that Trump was such a horrible candidate that she would be hard pressed to not find Clinton preferable. “Don’t care” is what YOU are interpreting it to mean, but AT NO POINT is that phrase used. If I say that I would rather have met Ted Bundy than Andre Chikatilo, that doesn’t mean that me and Ted are bosom buddies and I don’t care what he does.
Value judgement seems to elude you. So does the fact that posting a meme does NOT mean that you agree or support it because SOME people can find humor where YOU can’t. Which probably happens a LOT with you.
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 04:26
If I say that I would rather have met Ted Bundy
Then it stands that you would like to meet Ted Bundy, or do you not admire Hillary?
that doesn’t mean that me and Ted are bosom buddies and I don’t care what he does.
What would be the point of meeting him? In the context you’ve chosen its because he’s someone whom you feel obligated to meet. You seem to feel it necessary to meet one, or the other…
You could choose to meet neither.
But you chose.
Very few said they find Hillary Clinton as trustworthy and honest.
bpollen November 23rd, 2016 at 04:39
It does NOT stand (I’m guessing you meant “stand to reason”) that I would LIKE to meet Ted. I would prefer to be shot in the foot than the head, but that doesn’t mean I would WANT to be shot in the foot. I suppose the phrase “the lesser of two evils” is just gibberish to you? As is value judgement…
You also don’t understand the concept of “context.” Where does “context” saying anything about obligations? Preference and obligation are NOT synonyms. Just like “don’t care,” “context” appears to be what YOU want it to be rather than how it is expressed. If I say I would prefer a million dollars to 6 bucks, how does that mean I am obligated to get the big bucks?
No, I don’t feel it’s “Necessary to meet one, or the other…” Preferring the flu to cancer doesn’t mean it’s necessary to have one or the other. Again, “lesser of two evils” and “least harmful choice” and “relative benefit” and “value judgment.”
Bunya November 23rd, 2016 at 13:51
“… or are you just numb from the neck up?”
Of COURSE he is. Being numb from the neck up is a requirement to be a republican.
Larry Schmitt November 22nd, 2016 at 14:38
After he had claimed several years ago, “I never settle. It only encourages them to sue again.”
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 09:54
Well, you said it yourself, Comey’s a clown. He allowed himself to be manipulated by Loretta Lynch and a politicized DOJ. (Lynch you recall met with the target of the investigation’s husband for close to an hour in a secret meeting) There is an investigation into the Clinton Foundation ongoing. Those two investigations need to be linked. A Grand Jury needs to be empaneled, suponeas issued. None of this occurred under “Comey the clown”. Ask yourself this question, ” what kind of investigation grants immunity to primary targets, while also foregoing a Grand Jury and never issuing a single suponea?
William November 23rd, 2016 at 10:23
“He allowed himself to be manipulated by Loretta Lynch and a politicized DOJ. (Lynch you recall met with the target of the investigation’s husband for close to an hour in a secret meeting)
Proof please. Please provide the evidence of conspiracy to influence a federal official, because that is a serious charge. By the way, (and I’m laughing here). How is a meeting everyone knows about a secret?
Just because a right wing troll thinks two investigations need to be linked, doesn’t mean it’s reality. You need to accept that. As far as a chance meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch, on that very same location back in the 80’s I met with the flight engineer (by chance) for the Chief of Naval operations aircraft. My aircraft was parked nearby…and guess what? That meeting had absolutely nothing to do with my career. We talked about airplanes. Later on during my law enforcement career I would occasional have a conversation with a local district judge who worked out at the same gym. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the outcome of any of my cases.
“Ask yourself this question, ” what kind of investigation grants immunity to primary targets, while also foregoing a Grand Jury and never issuing a single suponea?”
That’s easy. One that was grasping at straws from the beginning.
An investigation that has embarrassingly spent countless man-hours and a fortune and come up with nothing. That’s what kind.
As a police officer if I had spent a fraction of those resources and found nothing, and then went on TV explaining that the suspect is not criminally culpable…BUT I really don’t like her and let me tell you why, I would have been decertified by the end of the day, and rightly so. Comey interjected his personal opinion into an investigation. There is nowhere in the criminal justice system where that is applicable or acceptable. . Essentially he nullified the credibility of the investigation for all time.
Let me try to put it in some terms that even you can understand.
Some cop doesn’t like you and spends a fortune in taxpayer money investigating you.
He concludes that he hasn’t evidence to charge you with anything. He then goes all over town telling everyone that you’re an a&&hole.
THEN a few days before you are in the final stages of applying for a new job he goes to your potential employer and tells him he has new and damning evidence. As the hiring process starts, he whispers, “oops, I was wrong I have nothing”.
That’s an analogy.
The reality is that despite all your “theories” Clinton has no charges pending…Trump on the other hand….
William November 22nd, 2016 at 13:57
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3f57d16bbeb985e726e730a8b1011bb3e8c85a7af014a0fd96882b0535955a1b.png
Larry Schmitt November 22nd, 2016 at 14:41
Obviously two different situations entirely. I know because Fox and Breitbart told me so.
StoneyCurtisll November 23rd, 2016 at 21:23
Willie, stop trying to cloud the lunatics minds…
:)
david7134 November 22nd, 2016 at 22:12
Now, take Clinton’s number and subtract all the dead people, the people that vote twice or more, the illegal aliens and the “new” citizens that were railroaded through the process (I know several) and the felons that were unethically and illegally allowed a vote. The number comes in much less.
oldfart November 23rd, 2016 at 00:45
“the people that vote twice or more,”
And of coarse you can prove that right ?
I can, a trump supporter did.
Something tells me you would believe the world is flat
if your pus*y grabber in chief told you so.
you won the electoral NOT the popular, get over yourself.
Jungle_Bhoy November 23rd, 2016 at 12:25
Source? Hint – KKK Crusader and Breitbart don’t count.
StoneyCurtisll November 23rd, 2016 at 21:22
Felons are allowed to vote in most states…(if they have served their time)
trees November 23rd, 2016 at 07:48
US population 318,900,000…
That was in 2014.
Your number, 63,515,588
That’s roughly 20%
2 out of 10 Americans identify as liberal.
This accounts for the numbers.
2 out of 10 is hardly a “majority”
Obewon November 23rd, 2016 at 08:13
“More than half of November 2016 Voters”-True vs delusional nuts. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6da9b51c2a60dac005b5b07adb9493e6f9609dafce90772e48be7fb3d7042c5.png
Jungle_Bhoy November 23rd, 2016 at 12:23
2 out of 10? Source? Hint – KKK Crusader and Breitbart don’t count.
StoneyCurtisll November 23rd, 2016 at 21:21
Derp…