0
5

[–] nomenimion 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Just one pardon washes it all away.

1
2

[–] KosherHiveKicker [S] 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It won't wash away the taint on undecided, and informed voters who understand the bullshit used to save her from 5 years in prison.

Name one active member of the U.S. Government that survived an election, or reelection after being saved via a presidential pardon.

0
2

[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

A pardon implies guilt, which means conviction. If she is pardoned then she is no longer allowed to continue her campaign. Another problem with pardoning her is that even though presidential pardons have not yet been challenged, they can be.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] 8_billion_eaters 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

She's finished. You can't lie to congress and get away with it. Expect a health issue to be announced on CNN just before she steps down. She'll use the health issue to avoid prison, but she's finished.

0
4

[–] ISlooshyYou 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I wish you were right, but it really looks like the oligarchs are going to do whatever it takes to get her to be the next POTUS.

They don't care about congress. They don't care how the people vote. They don't care about laws. They don't care that she's not physically or mentally capable of ruining running the country. They just need her to have the title of "President of the United States" so they can continue with their raping the constitution and the cattle.

0
2

[–] Phish555 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So... Then the democrats have to run somebody more electable?

0
2

[–] puggy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So Russian Television (RT) does a clear story with video clips while NBC/CBS/CNN/ABC/MSNBC/FOX don't seem to be able to this.

0
1

[–] KosherHiveKicker [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Exactly. To be fair FoxNews is actually covering it as well.

0
2

[–] 8_billion_eaters 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's over. Trump just won. Listen to the Youngstown speech.

0
0

[–] 6096806? ago 

I want to share this speech with some friends who think that Trump is too crazy to be President, what is the best way to sum it up?

0
0

[–] NotWearingPants ago 

A prerequisite for conviction is an indictment. The Obama justice department is going to do that?

0
0

[–] KosherHiveKicker [S] ago  (edited ago)

You really believe that with direct video evidence of SHillary lying, and the sworn testimony of the Director of the F.B.I. that the DOJ will actually cock-block it again?

The shit-storm that will follow that scenario is something most governments wouldn't risk.

0
1

[–] NotWearingPants 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Considering that the media is completely complicit in the corruption? They will not only block it, they will spin it as yet more proof of the vast right-wing conspiracy. It's called the "big lie". Trumpet it loud enough, for long enough, and a large number of idiots will believe it.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] KosherHiveKicker [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

We have direct, indisputable evidence.... as in each instance video taped as testimony before Congress.

Clinton will fold after the indictment is announced because she can't escape a conviction. A felony conviction will bar her from ever holding any government office for life. She couldn't even get a job with the Post Office pushing stamps.

0
0

[–] Ruston ago 

Watching the video I only see 1 count that could possibly stick. the other 3 she has ways around (and 1 of them is straight up a bogus charge).

take a look at her actual testimony (emphasis added to her weasel words...)

when questioned about sending/receiving classified information:

there was nothing MARKED classified on my emails....

the question to Comey was whether she sent or received classified information. not whether she sent or received information MARKED classified. she's going to use her husband's "that depend on what the definition of the word 'is' is" defense for this one.

when questioned about sorting her personal emails from business emails:

THEY went through every single email...

she didn't say "lawyers" and the answer was in response to being asked if "someone" went through the emails. So once again, this is a technicality that can get her off. "they" (not lawyers) probably did go through every email...by looking at the email subject or something minimal like that. the questioner should have followed up by making her explain who "they" is, but I don't think he did.

when questioned about the number and location of her server(s):

no, there was a server that was already being used by my husband's team...

the question to Comey was about devices, not servers. so if she upgraded her iPhone during her time as SOS, but only used the one server that Slick Willy was already using, then both of those statements are correct.

When questioned whether she turned over all of the emails to the investigators:

I provided the department ... with all of my work related emails...all that I had...

This is the one that can get her. the other 3 I believe she can weasel her way out of, but that last one seems to be on pretty solid ground of being actual perjury.