You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

AreWeSure ago

You talk about crimes, but I see no evidence for the claims. The sale of Uranium One involved no crimes and multiple federal agencies confirmed it posed no threat to US security. You are using this for your claim of treason?

Joule is an American company. It is not controlled by Moscow or by Russian investors. And not a single word of that email concerns bribes.

You seem to alleging lobbying crimes, but it's not clear at all the specifics. The Panama Papers didn't reveal any crimes on behalf of the Podesta Group. Sberbank only became their client this year and they are publically registered as a lobbyist for Sberbank. See here

https://archive.is/ANo1b*

The issue they were hired to lobby on is US sanctions against the bank.

*Also there's a bonus there!

witch_doctor1 ago

Using your position as SOS to enrich yourself is absolutely 100% illegal. And if the Clinton Foundation wasn't about buying influence, why has the funding dried up now that HRC is at the back of the bus?

AreWeSure ago

There zero evidence of her enriching herself by using her position.

They were buying prestige, not influence. It was an ago thing.

witch_doctor1 ago

That's crazy talk. If you can't see that the Clinton's got rich by using their status, then you aren't really looking, because that is crystal clear and irrefutable.

"They were buying prestige, not influence. It was an ago thing." This is cognitive dissonance.

AreWeSure ago

You are making a vastly different claim from she used her office to enrich herself. You don't even seem to understand it.

There still hasn't been a single quid pro quo shown even after more emails revealed than any other figure in public life.

witch_doctor1 ago

I understand it perfectly...not one quid pro quo? I'll give you a bunch...Clinton Foundation donors get private meetings with Secretary of State if their donations are big enough. End of discussion on my part...not gonna feed the shills.

AreWeSure ago

nope!

DarkMath ago

AreWeSure, please look up RICO violations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

When the ongoing FBI investigation wraps up they'll be using RICO to charge Hillary. And that's bad news because in a RICO case you don't have to show Quid Pro Quo explicitly. All the FBI needs is to show two violations, most likely financial harm to someone(Haitian earthquake victims) and criminal intent (deleting emails, destroying phones etc would show criminal intent. Deleting massive amounts of emails means Hillary knew what she did was a crime).

She'll also be charged with Money Laundering through IHRC. Please watch Clinton Cash to get a better idea of how badly Hillary screwed over the Haitian people. It's unconscionable.

Hillary will also be charged for using the Clinton Foundation to set up a private army to invade Libya. Private citizens can't set up armies and invade other countries. Sorry. I don't make the rules. And actually now that you mention it, there's very strong evidence that Hillary sent Qaddafi's stock of Sarin gas to Syria via Qatar and Turkey. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the following since by your own admission you want to be sure:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/doubts-syria-chemical-weapons-attacks

Finally to wrap it up, George Webb does a great job laying out what the FBI case will look like. Here he is with the email of Hillary asking Sidney Blumenthal to set up a private army via gmail: https://youtu.be/x9VyrKB88DM?t=217

The party is over AreWeSure.

May Godspeed The Plow.

;-)

AreWeSure ago

I'm quite aware of RICO law. I have no idea why you say

And that's bad news because in a RICO case you don't have to show Quid Pro Quo explicitly. You of course still need to prove a crime.

Your example of RICO predicate crimes are extremely vague. Financial Harm? What crime is financial harm? Deleting emails is not evidence of criminal intent. Good Lord, people delete emails all the time. It can be evidence of intent, but it's not automatically so and in the case of her turning over her emails to the state department, the State Department has confirmed she was well within her rights to delete personal emails. So deleting massive amounts of emails is zero evidence, I'm afraid.

She created a private army to invade Libya? I've read Seymour Hersh's article and I've read all the reasons it falls apart. Such as the UN report that shows the chemical munitions being launched from Government controlled areas. We disagree on this strong evidence.

DarkMath ago

"Deleting emails is not evidence of criminal intent."......You don't use bleach bit to remove emails about yoga and your daughters wedding: https://www.bleachbit.org/

"She created a private army to invade Libya?".......Hillary HIRED a private army via Sid Blumenthal.

"launched from Government controlled areas"......The Porton Down testing showed the Sarin gas didn't come from Assad.

"I've read all the reasons it falls apart"........Did you? You'd heard of the Porton Down testing? Why did the Porton Down evidence "fall apart"?

What's up AreWeSure? You aren't conceding on anything. I conceded your point about warm traffic. I can be rational and objective. Can you?

;-)

AreWeSure ago

Trying to determine truth is not a one for me and one for you kind of thing. I'll have to look at the warm traffic thread again. I didn't see that.

The Sarin gas at Ghouta contained hexamine. Only Syria is known to use hexamine in their sarin recipe. When they gave up their chemical weapons, they declared 80 tons of this stuff as a chemical precursor specifically for Sarin. It makes sarin more stable and allows for more concentrated/more potent sarin. Syria had very strong control over it's chemical weapons stocks. That and the fact that the trajectories of the rockets trace back to government controlled areas leaves very little doubt, Assad's forces launched this Sarin attack. Speaking of criminal intent, Syria continuing shelling the area for days before letting the chemical weapons inspectors in to inspect the area.

She hired a private army through Sidney Blumenthal. That's a good one. I thought you were serious for second. You got me.

DarkMath ago

Ok AreWeSure that's just about 24 hours and you didn't respond. You didn't address the Porton Down testing. That means you have no interest in objectivity here. That's not good.

All you have is spin. Remember this gem: "Deleting emails is not evidence of criminal intent".

Remember my response? No? Here it is again: "You don't use bleach bit to remove emails about yoga and your daughters wedding: https://www.bleachbit.org/"

BleachBit is clear evidence of criminal intent. Full Stop. End of story. It's not debatable. You know it isn't even close so instead of admitting you were wrong you go to your Safe Space. That's pathetic.

Actually arrogant would be a better word. And arrogance is why you Leftists lost the election. We're talking about killing 1300 innocent men, women and children in cold blood. You don't sweep that shit under the rug. You don't pretend there's no evidence. You don't run to your Safe Space. There's strong evidence innocent PEOPLE DIED A FUCKING HORRIBLE DEATH. You should be ashamed of yourself AreWeSure.

AreWeSure ago

Blah, blah, blah.

DarkMath ago

Lol! Were your fingers in your ears and did you end it with "I can't hear you!". Of course you did. You're a spineless chump.

http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Related-Conditions/Anosognosia

;-)

DarkMath ago

"hexamine".....A chemical weapons lab in England tested the Sarin but you don't even mention it. An objective person would address their opponents argument. You ignored the argument and hoped I wouldn't notice. Sorry but you can't do that. You need to explain why the Porton Down testing was invalid.

Hillary used gmail to instruct Sid Blumenthal to consider hiring a private army to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya. Instead of addressing that well documented fact you suggest I'm joking. You then end your rhetorical coup de grace with "You got me.".

Uummmm yeah. I'm still getting the impression you're not being objective and dispassionate about all of this. You've closed off your mind to new evidence. That's not good. Let's review:

Good: Observation -> Conclusion

Bad: Conclusion -> Observation

;-)