Trump investigation of Clinton
11 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Nov. 21, 2018, 7:51 p.m.

In response to lacy:

I think that Trump going after Clinton for the emails or the foundation would end up being very counterproductive. Regardless of her getting a free pass from the justice department with their previous investigation, she already paid a penalty far worse than what some would like to see.

Her loss in the 2016 presidential election and being the first woman president of the United States denied her a place in history that was devastating beyond what you  can imagine. 

The media is already in an all out war to destroy Trump at any cost. An investigation of Clinton would only play into their hands as they interpret it as an abuse of power and vindictiveness................and they would be right this time.

Why is that?

If we took the exact same circumstances of the alleged Clinton crimes and instead, inserted somebody that was friendly to President Trump.............you can bet that there would be no investigation.

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

"The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how Mr. Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies."

metmike: This is exactly how the investigation will be explained by the media, regardless of what they find. Better to pick battles over more important stuff.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clinton Foundation Donations Plummet 90%

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-21/clinton-foundation-donations-plummet-90

"This is jaw-dropping. The Clinton Foundation's 2017 annual report is finally online--WOW. Lots to unpack but digest this nugget:

2015 Total Contributions: $182.5M

2016 Total Contributions: $135.4M

2017 Total Contributions: $22.8M 

WHEN THEY CAN'T PLAY--NOBODY WANTS TO PAY!"

 

        

metmike: In an ideal world, investigations are conducted without bias or politics and corruption results in prosecution of the criminals.  The current world is anti ideal and an investigation already occurred. Hillary Clinton is a rich, free woman(which some think is not right).

The justice department chose not to file charges but the people of the United States were the ones that penalized Hillary Clinton for her corruption. They voted against her and not for her in November 2016. 

Take away what the American people knew about her emails and the Clinton Foundation and she would be our president right now........justice was served!

Comments
By joj - Nov. 21, 2018, 9:49 p.m.
Like Reply

And if the people knew the truth about Trump taking money from the Russian mob throughout his career and laundering it (Illegal) so as to save his bankrupt businesses he would have lost.

So Hillary's corruption is exposed and known by everybody but we don't get to see Trump's taxes (unprecedented).

Actually, she won by 3 million votes but "the people's will was carried out".  Not!

I know, I know.  I'm not allowed to criticize Trump because that makes me deranged.  Carry on.

By metmike - Nov. 21, 2018, 10:18 p.m.
Like Reply

Continuing to bring up the point that  Clinton won the popular vote weakens your credibility when bringing up additional points. 

It would be like your football team losing the Super Bowl by a score of 24 to 17 but gaining more offensive yards. ............and for the next 2 years, you go around telling everybody that your team should have won the game or suggest it was only because of the way the rules are written. 

Football game outcomes are based on rules that use the cumulative score of each team at the end of the game to decide who wins.  If one team gets more yards but fumbles a few times(like Clinton) and they lose the scoring battle.............they lose the game. 

If you think votes cast in an election should be like points scored in a football game............that would be a fair point except for one item. 

One side wasn't squawking about the electoral college process  BEFORE the election. The squawking only happened after Clinton lost because of it.


Watch this video. HILL-arious how Clinton makes it clear that she will accept the outcome of the election........and Trump, after rambling like a crazy man about immigration, say's that "If she wins, I will absolutely support her"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRJ8TLCZdnI


So we have the losing candidate that breaks her promise to accept the outcome of the election and the will of the American people..........and Trump, doing exactly what he said that he would do..........no not support Clinton for winning but aggressively addressing immigration issues........which he is doing right now. 

And you want to focus on speculation that Trump took money from the Russian mob years ago when he was a businessman?

Let's instead discuss what's more important.

Is Trump doing what he said that he would do when running on a platform, making promises to be elected?

Did people vote for him because he was the great Donald Trump, successful business man and star of The apprentice? Did they vote for him because of his impeccable morals and that he never had any affairs, including one with a porn star?

Did they  vote for him because he never cheated on his taxes?

Did they vote for him because he always tells the truth and never embellishes on facts?

They voted for him because he was an outsider with a platform that was different than anybody else and it resonated with what they thought was good for our country and mostly, because they believed him.

Trump has more flaws than Quaker has oats but people that voted for Trump, for the first time in awhile are getting a politician that is exactly what they voted for.


By TimNew - Nov. 22, 2018, 6:18 a.m.
Like Reply

Another of my favorites of late.


Dems won the senate in a landslide of you go by popular vote.


But, the founders set it up that each state gets two senators.  California and Iowa both get two. The reasons for this are similar to the reasons behind the electoral college.  But to take a senate seat in California, you need about 20+ million votes.   In Iowa, a million or so.


In liberal land,  the excess votes the dem candidate received in California would then be applied to the dem candidate in Iowa, easily granting a victory.





By pj - Nov. 22, 2018, 3:29 p.m.
Like Reply

"They voted for him because he was an outsider with a platform that was different than anybody else and it resonated with what they thought was good for our country and mostly, because they believed him."

IMHO the biggest reason they voted for him was he was running against Hillary.

BTW for me it's too bad we lost the old site's threaded option, when responding to someone else's post.


By JP - Nov. 22, 2018, 6:53 p.m.
Like Reply

"BTW for me it's too bad we lost the old site's threaded option..."

Yes, it surely is.

By cliff-e - Nov. 22, 2018, 8:42 p.m.
Like Reply

"BTW for me it's too bad we lost the old site's threaded option, when responding to someone else's post." PJ

You can respond to someone else's post. Just "copy" the line you want to reply to then hit the "reply to post" option then "paste" the line in the space provided.

Just like I just did.

By carlberky - Nov. 22, 2018, 9:16 p.m.
Like Reply

Cliff, it also helps if you address the poster.

just like I just did.


By frey_1999 - Nov. 22, 2018, 10:06 p.m.
Like Reply

and now they seem to rejoice in his attempts to destroy this country and all it used to stand for.


His thanksgiving call to the troops turned in to a political commercial about him instead of thanking the troops.


he has NO interest in Praising anybody but himself, and anybody that will give him money?


He had both houses of congress and the presidency and in 2 years the only thing he did was give himself an 100 million tax break and left the working people of this country holding the bag for it.


His only interaction with the military is when he wants them to be a pawn in his personal wants list, other than that he does nothing but tear them down not sure why maybe out of guilt for getting those deferments.      

By pj - Nov. 23, 2018, 1:17 a.m.
Like Reply

Carl/cliff-e:

"Cliff, it also helps if you address the poster."

Yes, that is exactly what having the old site's threaded option avoided the need for.

By carlberky - Nov. 23, 2018, 8:04 a.m.
Like Reply

"Yes, that is exactly what having the old site's threaded option avoided the need for."

pj, since re-programming the Forum is not an option (per Mike), we should consider the alterative..


By cfdr - Nov. 23, 2018, 8:26 a.m.
Like Reply

I think that Trump going after Clinton for the emails or the foundation would end up being very counterproductive. 

This has always been the problem.  Even more than "very counterproductive" it is that, as Jeff Sessions said, it sets a dangerous precedent to investigate a former administration.  Or, candidate.  

But  -  she really looks to be guilty of some serious criminal actions .  .  .  and without accountability, our system crumbles.  So, it's a big question, isn't it?


The Clinton Foundation, however, is possibly another story.  That is not investigating Hillary Clinton personally.  And, the possibility of the Foundation being investigated does look more and more probable.


I still think the big poker game is just getting started in Washington.  Assuming Nancy does retain the gavel, can she control crazies like liddle Adam Schitt?  Or low IQ Maxine?  I don't think so.  I think TDS is out of control - even extending to the major political parties.  Will all of the massive cans of worms be opened?  

Get the popcorn, the circus has given no indication that it is even contemplating leaving town.  And, in fact, the main acts could just be approaching the rings.