American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

The State Department has said, more than once, that the email thing was illegal. That would be "the" State Department, not the GOP. The FBI decided to investigate as well, that is a "criminal" investigation by "the" FBI, not the GOP.

If it's illegal what's the point of the investigation ? If it's illegal why hasn't she been charged? Just repeatedly saying its "illegal" doesn't make it illegal.

Compare and contrast with the Trump "University" fraud....

[FourWheelDrift]

whoami said:

amusingduck said:

unrepentant said:

The FBI have already let it be known that there's no indictment coming.

Care to source that whopper?

Made up.

Still ongoing -
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-fbi-inter...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-e...

Just keeps rumbling along - https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dwvcmUY44bH...

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

The State Department has said, more than once, that the email thing was illegal. That would be "the" State Department, not the GOP. The FBI decided to investigate as well, that is a "criminal" investigation by "the" FBI, not the GOP.

If it's illegal what's the point of the investigation ? If it's illegal why hasn't she been charged? Just repeatedly saying its "illegal" doesn't make it illegal.

Compare and contrast with the Trump "University" fraud....

The alleged act is an illegal one. Why has she not been charged yet (if guilty)? Not sure, would the head law enforcement officer in the USA, Ms. Lynch, being an appointee & personal friend of Obama (who endorsed Clinton before the investigation is over) possibly have anything to do with it?

[Countdown]

N

Jimbeaux said:

The alleged act is an illegal one. Why has she not been charged yet (if guilty)? Not sure, would the head law enforcement officer in the USA, Ms. Lynch, being an appointee & personal friend of Obama (who endorsed Clinton before the investigation is over) possibly have anything to do with it?

Is your legal system really that easy to corrupt? You and Trump make the U.S. sound like some tinpot 3rd world dictatorship.

Personally I think you're wrong, and it's more a desperate need to accuse Hillary of something so that it distracts from Trump's shenanigans.

[Jimbeaux]

FourWheelDrift said:

whoami said:

amusingduck said:

unrepentant said:

The FBI have already let it be known that there's no indictment coming.

Care to source that whopper?

Made up.

Still ongoing -
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-fbi-inter...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-e...

Just keeps rumbling along - https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dwvcmUY44bH...

Those are pretty damn telling, aren't they? An email, she failed to turn over when ordered, surfacing discussing the security breach that she swore never happened. Many people have gone up the river for far less. Rules for regular people have never applied to the Clintons in the past, I suppose she thinks why bother now?
The part about FBI and DOJ officials leaking information if politics blocks an indictment is a real possibility; it has happened before.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

N

Jimbeaux said:

The alleged act is an illegal one. Why has she not been charged yet (if guilty)? Not sure, would the head law enforcement officer in the USA, Ms. Lynch, being an appointee & personal friend of Obama (who endorsed Clinton before the investigation is over) possibly have anything to do with it?

Is your legal system really that easy to corrupt? You and Trump make the U.S. sound like some tinpot 3rd world dictatorship.

Personally I think you're wrong, and it's more a desperate need to accuse Hillary of something so that it distracts from Trump's shenanigans.

It is now if the DOJ head blocks the FBI from recommending indictment, or shoots it down if they do. "Shenanigans" of a businessman; spot on. We are talking about numerous potential crimes by public (self)servants for decades.

[amusingduck]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

The State Department has said, more than once, that the email thing was illegal. That would be "the" State Department, not the GOP. The FBI decided to investigate as well, that is a "criminal" investigation by "the" FBI, not the GOP.

If it's illegal what's the point of the investigation ? If it's illegal why hasn't she been charged? Just repeatedly saying its "illegal" doesn't make it illegal.

Compare and contrast with the Trump "University" fraud....

Seriously? Why hasn't she been charged? The FBI has made a deal with the hacker 'Guccifer' who hacked into her private email server. They have also struck a deal with Bryan Pagliano, who administered the server; offering him immunity for his cooperation with their investigation.

From what I understand, James Comey (the current Director of the FBI) is a very scrupulous individual who will not be coerced, intimidated, or bow to political pressure. Under his direction, the FBI are scrutinising every facet meticulously, and in due course will recommend the DOJ persue it criminally. They will go public with their findings if there is any nonsense by the Attorney General.

[unrepentant]

Yawn. Amazing how many Grimley's are experts on the US.

[amusingduck]

unrepentant said:

Yawn. Amazing how many Grimley's are experts on the US.

Still waiting for that source on "The FBI have already let it be known that there's no indictment coming."

[unrepentant]

Meanwhile more life long republicans run away from Trump.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-latino-r...

They'll soon just be Palin, Christie and Jimbeaux left.

[amusingduck]

Countdown said:

N

Jimbeaux said:

The alleged act is an illegal one. Why has she not been charged yet (if guilty)? Not sure, would the head law enforcement officer in the USA, Ms. Lynch, being an appointee & personal friend of Obama (who endorsed Clinton before the investigation is over) possibly have anything to do with it?

Is your legal system really that easy to corrupt? You and Trump make the U.S. sound like some tinpot 3rd world dictatorship.

Personally I think you're wrong, and it's more a desperate need to accuse Hillary of something so that it distracts from Trump's shenanigans.

It isn't possible to criticise Hillary irregardless of Trump?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/emails-clinton-d...

Would you look at that, another coincidence. The Clintons sure rack up a few of those!

I'm sure this guy, who had no experience with matters of international security, was just the right person for the job. His $1-5m donations to the Clinton Foundation were irrelevant. Just like Saudi Arabia.

I mean who doesn't donate millions to a politicians 'charity' for no personal gain? I do it all the time.

[unrepentant]

amusingduck said:

I mean who doesn't donate millions to a politicians 'charity' for no personal gain? I do it all the time.

Really? From reading your posts I wouldn't have had you down as a major donor on the international charity scene. Fair play to you for continuing to drive a Skoda in spite of your huge wealth then.

[Sam All]

unrepentant said:

Meanwhile more life long republicans run away from Trump.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-latino-r...

They'll soon just be Palin, Christie and Jimbeaux left.

Bet the ranch for a Hilary victory, or ask someone to do it for if you think it is immoral to place a bet. You are not confident are you?

[whoami]

unrepentant said:

amusingduck said:

I mean who doesn't donate millions to a politicians 'charity' for no personal gain? I do it all the time.

Really? From reading your posts I wouldn't have had you down as a major donor on the international charity scene. Fair play to you for continuing to drive a Skoda in spite of your huge wealth then.

Why did you feel the need to post that rather than provide a link supporting your assertion that the FBI are not going to indict Clinton?

[unrepentant]

whoami said:

Why did you feel the need to post that rather than provide a link supporting your assertion that the FBI are not going to indict Clinton?

Why do I need to post a link to prove a negative? The FBI haven't indicted her and won't. If you have evidence that the FBI is going to issue an indictment then you post a link to prove it.

[whoami]

unrepentant said:

whoami said:

Why did you feel the need to post that rather than provide a link supporting your assertion that the FBI are not going to indict Clinton?

Why do I need to post a link to prove a negative? The FBI haven't indicted her and won't. If you have evidence that the FBI is going to issue an indictment then you post a link to prove it.

No link then?

No problem.

Oh, and slagging off someone's car is a poor show, but you knew that.

[Sam All]

Some chat about Trump not have given as much to charity as he claims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-prom...

[unrepentant]

whoami said:

No link then?

No problem.

Oh, and slagging off someone's car is a poor show, but you knew that.

Oh? No proof of an impending indictment then? Never mind.

[whoami]

unrepentant said:

whoami said:

No link then?

No problem.

Oh, and slagging off someone's car is a poor show, but you knew that.

Oh? No proof of an impending indictment then? Never mind.

I never stated otherwise.

You, on the other hand stated, "The FBI have already let it be known that there's no indictment coming."

Where and when did they "let it be known"?

[Jockman]

whoami said:

Oh, and slagging off someone's car is a poor show, but you knew that.

Indeed. I would be rightly upset if someone criticised by Vauxhall corsa