Lynch meets Clinton right before JD files motion to withold Clinton Foundation emails

[Naxere]

Trump claims Clinton will not be charged
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonal...50193095667713

Of course she won't. The first witness called would be the President, since he had to have known his SecState was using a private email server.

[lockedout]

No, your copy and pasted text is decidedly not from the CNN article.

"John Ashe, 61, was pumping iron in his Westchester, New York home when authorities say he dropped a barbell on his own throat, crushing his larynx, according to the local medical examiner, reports CNN."

[Orbitus]

Plus the fact that people who don't watch the news are more informed than people who do watch Fox News. That always amazed me.

Yep. Same with people that watch the Daily Show. They are more informed from a COMEDY show than an actual news station.

[Cebel]

In all seriousness: Don't you think Bill and the AG would have met more discretely if they wanted to do something illegal? I'd give them that much credit.

Then you dont know Bill very well.... His affairs were very discreet.

[Stacyrect]

Aggressive, passive aggressive, angry...these are all things that don't matter regarding the subject of you drawing conclusions based on fabrications by you.

Your "opinion" isn't something I took issue with. Your insinuation that something had to have happened because you believe it does. Your incredulous attitude regarding someone suggesting you provide proof supports the idea that you've fabricated a scenario in your mind and present it as a fact. There's really nothing to debate about it. That's exactly what you've done.

I don't know what the limits of Clinton's discussion were. I know Lynch is widely thought of as a serious, respected professional. I find it difficult to believe she'd so blatantly destroy her reputation and it's going to take more than "do you really think??" to convince me otherwise. There are more than just the Clintons involved here.

It's wrong to demand proof of something that to counter an assertion that in and of itself has no proof. That's a basic thing in life, let alone MMO GenOT.

Once again what fabrications?

Do you understand what is going on here, or are you just being some adderall crazed liberal monstrosity?

You admit you dont know the limits of the discussion, but you somehow seem to know that this attourney general is the light in the darkness. A respected individual, who you believe under no circumstances would blatantly destroy her reputation.

Despite your entire arguement, we just agreed on everything

without all that negative nancy shit

All were waiting for now is a john cena meme

QUICKLY SOMEONE INSERT MY LITTLE PONIES THEME BEFORE HE TURNS

[Deleted]

UN Diplomat John Ashe Dies While Awaiting Trial To Testify Against Clinton Foundation Donor

In what some are calling convenient timing, a top suspect in a bribery case involving Clinton Foundation donors and the former United Nations General Assembly President has suddenly died of asphyxiation from a barbell

John Ashe, 61, was pumping iron in his Westchester, New York home when authorities say he dropped a barbell on his own throat, crushing his larynx, according to the local medical examiner, reports CNN. The autopsy report will take around 16 weeks to complete.

This report comes as a shock to many, including the U.S. government who believes Ashe to have been complicit in accepting and facilitating more than $1.3 million in bribes from Chinese billionaire business magnate Ng Lap Seng, a major Clinton Foundation donor. Ashe was awaiting trial and was set to testify on his role in the scandal soon.

http://imgur.com/gallery/cDrseRN

I mean, you have to be incredibly naive or willfuly ignorant to not realize what's going on here.

[Orbitus]

http://imgur.com/gallery/cDrseRN

I mean, you have to be incredibly naive or willfuly ignorant to not realize what's going on here.

Oh you mean the "Clinton Death List" I debunked earlier when someone stupid posted it on Facebook? http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp Sorry but posting something that has been debunked isn't going to help your case.

[Deleted]

Oh you mean the "Clinton Death List" I debunked earlier when someone stupid posted it on Facebook? http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp Sorry but posting something that has been debunked isn't going to help your case.

Ugh. This doesn't actually debunk anything. For most of those it just says: ''It's perfectly possible that it was just an accident''.

Well obviously.

[Cyberowl]

Then you dont know Bill very well.... His affairs were very discreet.

Because once an idiot, always an idiot, right?

[NYC17]

Yea, I agree. For one, just to get it out there, I think the fix is in. I think everyone at least suspects that. And I can't even say that if I was Obama I wouldn't order the same thing. I just can't see anyway to believe for a second that he would tell Lynch to prosecute her. Not when there's virtually no risk or penalty for doing so. All they have to do is say that the case doesn't have proprietorial merit. It happens all the time. FBI guys can bitch, Comey can resign and even write a book, but it won't matter. All that will matter is that there were no charges brought. If it hurts her bad enough, and she loses in November, Obama will just pardon her.

Moving on from all that, my main point is this; I wasn't that hostile to Obama from the start. I think a lot of people felt the way I did when he fell into the trap of "what to do with Hillary." (The answer is, you don't do anything with her) I felt like he was giving hostage to fortune putting her in his cabinet, that something like this inevitably would come up. He even told her, no Blumenthal, and she ignored him. Whatever you think of her email scandal, one thing I think we could agree on is that it was avoidable. For whatever reason she did it, or says she did it, the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Same thing with the Clinton Foundation (which, it goes without saying, does great work). These types of things are inevitable with the Clintons. Which brings me back to my first point. I think the fix is in. I think it was already in. And they didn't need this. They didn't need Bill Clinton sauntering across the tarmac like he's on his way to give someone a room key to his suite at the Four Seasons and fucking everything up. It's like you're the Globetrotters playing the Generals and you get caught cheating. You don't need to cheat, you already had it won.

I'm sure Hillary was furious too. She just left my city talking about how she needs to earn peoples trust, and Bill goes and pulls this. It's really unbelievable. Anyway, just my .02.

Edit - to make clear, I didn't mean to imply that the Clinton foundations negatives outweigh the benefits. I was referring to her co-mingling foundation work with her duties as SoS.

The likelihood of Obama "ordering a fix" is pretty miniscule IMO. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is I don't believe he personally likes Hillary enough to risk that for her. I think the most likely outcome is that this stupid, easily avoidable email nonsense is a legal/policy grey area whose outcome will satisfy neither side. I think someone linked an article earlier that had a decent summary of why this won't end in an indictment for her. I think some sort of grand conspiratorial"fix" is the least likely.

I'm sure she is furious with him. I'm also certain she's furious at him like 70% of the time anyway so...

I also think Lynch isn't pleased with him at all. I can only imagine what went through her mind when he walked into her plane.

- - - Updated - - -

"John Ashe, 61, was pumping iron in his Westchester, New York home when authorities say he dropped a barbell on his own throat, crushing his larynx, according to the local medical examiner, reports CNN."

Reporting of Ashe's death itself isn't what I'm referring to. Your choice of source is. Your half-assed "news" site, which you copy and pasted from, is.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again what fabrications?

Do you understand what is going on here, or are you just being some adderall crazed liberal monstrosity?

You admit you dont know the limits of the discussion, but you somehow seem to know that this attourney general is the light in the darkness. A respected individual, who you believe under no circumstances would blatantly destroy her reputation.

Despite your entire arguement, we just agreed on everything

without all that negative nancy shit

All were waiting for now is a john cena meme

QUICKLY SOMEONE INSERT MY LITTLE PONIES THEME BEFORE HE TURNS

We agree? So you're in agreement that your earlier incredulity in regards to the mere idea of proof being necessary was prettttttttty prettttttttttttyyy prrreeeeeeeeetttty pretty dumb?

We agree that your counter argument of "how about common sense" isn't a viable one to make? Here's what you said, in case you forgot:

"Proof? How about invoking some common sense. How many people do you know meet up in airports on private planes to talk about their grand children? I hear ignoring every form of communication is all the rage for the wealthy when discussing mundane things."

So yea, if you're in agreement that your own post was pretty dumb, then I'm cool with that.

[Draco-Onis]

Of course she won't. The first witness called would be the President, since he had to have known his SecState was using a private email server.

Why would the president know what kind of e-mail service the secretary of state is using? do presidents moonlight as IT guys or something?

[Ghostpanther]

They may be the number 1 rated as watched but they are also the least trustworthy news channel ever as well.

And you are basing that on a organization which has it's own bias also. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-d-williamson when those organizations are run by people who have a tendency to favor one political party over another one, bias is bound to happen. So rather than auto accepting something from any source, make up your own mind based on the reporting.

Such as if they support something with a factual video of something one person said, you can be pretty sure they did. Otherwise we all will make up our own mind and our own bias will have a impact. It is human nature at work.

[Rukh]

What else would they have talked about?

Do you want an admission of guilt or what? Why play these retarded games?

Um literally anything? You're making a specific accusation. It's the definition of baseless unless you actually have some information. Why play these retarded games?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would the president know what kind of e-mail service the secretary of state is using? do presidents moonlight as IT guys or something?

Her predecessor, Rice, didn't use email. Powell before Rice, used his own nongovernment email. (All the Bush administration used their campaign emails instead of govt emails to keep them off govt servers so they didn't have to turn them in) and no sec. of state before that used email.

- - - Updated - - -

Ugh. This doesn't actually debunk anything. For most of those it just says: ''It's perfectly possible that it was just an accident''.

Well obviously.

Pointing out an assertion is not the conclusion of a piece of information is the definition of debunking something.

- - - Updated - - -

The likelihood of Obama "ordering a fix" is pretty miniscule IMO. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is I don't believe he personally likes Hillary enough to risk that for her. I think the most likely outcome is that this stupid, easily avoidable email nonsense is a legal/policy grey area whose outcome will satisfy neither side. I think someone linked an article earlier that had a decent summary of why this won't end in an indictment for her. I think some sort of grand conspiratorial"fix" is the least likely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...7b7_story.html

[Gheld]

I have a list of five hundred(498) leading scientists who say the laws of physics prove that Hillary is the one for the job.

And then some psychologist says Donald Trump is crazy (even though it's a massive breach of ethics by the admission of the DSM that to even attempt a clinical diagnosis of a mental illness without actually being able to examine the subject in person).

The world is saved. Hillary is going to bring about change we can believe in. She will end all of the wars, and redistribute all of the wealth and ban AR-15s which are responsible for 99% of all deaths.

#SomethingsomethingHERyeahiknowwerenoteventryinganymore

[alexw]

http://imgur.com/gallery/cDrseRN

I mean, you have to be incredibly naive or willfuly ignorant to not realize what's going on here.

Yeah its pretty obvious. The policy positions of the republicans are at odds with what a substantial majority of the population want. Ergo republicans can only win the presidency by fabricating and perpetuating conspiracies, and by convincing enough idiots that they are real. So Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim, Clinton had Vince Foster assassinated, and so on and so forth. You don't see similar things from democrats because they don't need nutjob conspiracy theories to win, they just campaign on the issues because their issue stances are what the majority want.

[Draco-Onis]

Her predecessor, Rice, didn't use email. Powell before Rice, used his own nongovernment email. (All the Bush administration used their campaign emails instead of govt emails to keep them off govt servers so they didn't have to turn them in) and no sec. of state before that used email.

I am sorry but I don't understand how he would still need to testify, even among IT people what kind of e-mail service / server you use isn't exactly hot topic. I fail to see how the use of e-mail to a president that is used to e-mail something he would inquire upon.

[Rukh]

I am sorry but I don't understand how he would still need to testify, even among IT people what kind of e-mail service / server you use isn't exactly hot topic. I fail to see how the use of e-mail to a president that is used to e-mail something he would inquire upon.

I'm just pointing out that it's never been a precedent. I guess Colon Powell used AOL for his unclassified email communication. That's fun. He also didn't back anything up, which is actually probably breaking a regulation, but it's not a big deal because its an unclassified email account and unless you're trying to create a witch hunt over nothing, it's not a big risk.

[Merkava]

The likelihood of Obama "ordering a fix" is pretty miniscule IMO. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is I don't believe he personally likes Hillary enough to risk that for her.

Well that's the thing, I don't think he'd be risking anything. There's no concept of mandatory prosecution. They have the discretionary power to choose what they want to prosecute. It happens all the time. As to why he would do it, I would agree that he probably doesn't like Hillary as much as most people would think, but he clearly wouldn't want a Republican to become president. They would repeal the ACA, they'd loosen controls over Wall Street, and scrap the Iranian nuke deal and the Paris global warming accords, not to mention turning over all of his executive orders and appointing 2 or more suprememe court judges. A huge part of his legacy depends on Hillary Clinton winning this election, and he risks nothing by telling Lynch not to prosecute.

I'm sure she is furious with him. I'm also certain she's furious at him like 70% of the time anyway so...

RIght, lol.

[RickJamesLich]

Plus the fact that people who don't watch the news are more informed than people who do watch Fox News. That always amazed me.

There is a lot of with this statement. Jon Stewart made a similar comment many years ago and Politifact called him out as being false:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...news-are-most/

A few things, first many of the survey's that do this will ask very general questions, such as "Who is the secretary of state" or a question about politics in the UK. This doesn't take into account that some people are more interested in news on a local level, or in fact watch the news, but are less interested in certain subjects of it. That being said, the polls that Stewart cites in some cases do suggests that Fox news viewers are more informed on average than the typical news viewer, depending on which shows they watch (the O'Reilly factor rated very high), it's just that is not the case with every single Fox news program.

[Orbitus]

Ugh. This doesn't actually debunk anything. For most of those it just says: ''It's perfectly possible that it was just an accident''.

Well obviously.

But it doesn't mean that Clinton killed them or that they had them killed. That is the ultimate conspiracy theory.