Think this will be the end of the trash spewed around here?

Nah, they'll still be plenty of trash being spewed by both sides.

Nature of the beast here.

Nah, they'll still be plenty of trash being spewed by both sides.

That's as certain as death and taxes.

But it doesn't say she's exonerated, right? If it doesn't say she's exonerated, it must mean she's guilty. Of something. I learned this from Democrats, so I know it's true.

But it doesn't say she's exonerated, right? If it doesn't say she's exonerated, it must mean she's guilty. Of something. I learned this from Democrats, so I know it's true.

No report has been written yet. If it says that the investigation could NOT exonerate her, your innuendo might have some relevance. 

The report does not exonerate her. True or false?

READ MY PRIOR COMMENT MORE CAREFULLY. 

I learned this from Democrats, so I know it's true.

Wrong. Mueller specifically said that he COULD NOT exonerate Trump. This report apparently just shows that the TDS sufferers who screech "lock her up" are nothing but partisan hacks with a vendetta based on fantasy. But then, we already knew that.

Simple question. Does this report exonerate her or not?

Oh come on. It's so much fun. People could just laugh or shake their heads and walk away, but they aren't, so this must be reaaalllly important.

From what I've read, yes, it does exonerate her.

Of course, we all knew her charitable foundation smells like roses when compared to Trump's. It regularly received high ratings on how it was managed. Funny how his followers don't give a shit about the PROVEN crimes he committed with his foundation, while desperately trying to pretend ethics and laws actually matter to them (but only liberals are expected to have ethics and morals, and obey laws).

Funny how his followers don't give a shit about the PROVEN crimes he committed with his foundation

I'm not a fan of his particularly, but I actually don't care very much about his foundation. I also don't care about Hillary's. These things just don't impact my life and I know that in less heated times, what usually happens when there is some kind of wrongdoing in this area, is that the guilty party pays a fine and it's over.

what usually happens when there is some kind of wrongdoing in this area, is that the guilty party pays a fine and it's over.

As was the scenario in Trump's case.

From what I've read, yes, it does exonerate her.

From what I have been hearing for the last several months, unless something says the words “Hillary is exonerated” then she’s probably still guilty of something. That’s certainly what they say about Trump.

From what I have been hearing for the last several months, unless something says the words “Hillary is exonerated” then she’s probably still guilty of something. That’s certainly what they say about Trump.

Hillary hasn't claimed Exoneration, that was TRUMP, and Mueller came right out and stated

TRUMP HAS NOT BEEN EXONERATED, just not charged with a crime, that he WOULD HAVE BEEN, if he was not a sitting potUS. Do you see the difference, as Hillary is not and has never been immune to charges, that would be the current LYING POS in the Oval office.

Though the inquiry has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to Congress, Huber has effectively finished his assignment and found nothing worth pursuing, current and former officials told The Washington Post    in a report published Thursday.

There has been plenty to be found WORTH PURSUING in Trumps case.

How does it not bother you the the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES was benefitting from his OWN DAMN CHARITY ?

Please do explain.

The Clinton charity continuously got triple A ratings,

Trumps

was closed down.

Do YOU NOT SEE A DIFFERENCE ?

WTF after WTF

Whether you care about it or not, don't trivialize 

More of TRUMPS LIES !

They Matter as to our standing in the world, as we used to be the beacon and leader of the free world,

now,

the JOKE of it, but keep downplaying the disaster in chief, it makes you look so intelligent...to some, whose factors add up to none. 

Hillary hasn't claimed Exoneration

I didn’t say anything about her claiming it, though she has - even if she hasn’t used the actual word. So have all of her supporters, including those in the media and the FBI.

Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy. It won’t matter.

Another DOJ investigation into Hillary Clinton finds she did nothing wrong

Clinton apologizes for email 'confusion' but says she did nothing wrong

What do you think “exoneration” means? It means saying someone did nothing wrong. “We did nothing wrong” is practically the family motto. And you Otto know that.

Trump paid 2 million for defrauding a veterans charity and YES, as with all things Trump, it was over with barely a peep from his sycophants. 

What do you think “exoneration” means? It means saying someone did nothing wrong. “We did nothing wrong” is practically the family motto. And you Otto know that.

After 35 years, 8 Committee investigations and about 50 million, there is till no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing.  

So where is that outrage about the hoax witch hunt against Clinton? Where is the outcry about the millions wasted on investigating Clinton over and over and over again? 

there is till no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing

Imagine writing that unironically. 

So where is that outrage about the hoax witch hunt against Clinton?

Should there be any? That’s the real question. There is plenty, though, and it has been coming from Hillary, the Democrats, and the media for 25 years. It’s not that hard to find. Just look up “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Then I suggest you do a little reading on the conspiracy tour for her book in the wake of her election loss. You’ll need an abacus just to keep track of all the nutty theories she can generate.

there is till no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing

That’s not even true. James Comey famously found wrongdoing but decided it shouldn’t be prosecuted.

That’s not even true. James Comey famously found wrongdoing but decided it shouldn’t be prosecuted.

Probably because people in congress and other appointments were doing the same thing. They changed the rules after.

Should there be any? That’s the real question.

Only from the non-hypocrites. 

There is plenty, though, and it has been coming from Hillary, the Democrats, and the media for 25 years. It’s not that hard to find. Just look up “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

If the right can decry the 'deep state' it's only right for the left to decry the vast right wing conspiracy'. 

Then I suggest you do a little reading on the conspiracy tour for her book in the wake of her election loss.

No thanks, I have plenty of reading that actually interests me. 

You’ll need an abacus just to keep track of all the nutty theories she can generate.

That's become acceptable in the last three years hasn't it? 

And yet Mr Trump settles out of court routinely paying yuuuuuuuuge settlements while admitting "no guilt"

and his loyal people point and say

"No convictions", Show me the "convictions", no convictions = innocence.

Others want to split hairs over civil  liabilities versus criminal liabilities.

The double standard is laughable.

How many times has HRC been sued or charged with civil or criminal complaints

Answer Zero.  After too many investigations to count.

How many times has DJT been sued ?  Over 3,500.  Most  he simply outspends until the cases are dropped.

Too many are settled out of courts at every level, Federal etc. with no admission of guilt and huge fines or cash settlements

like his questionable charities.

"No convictions", Show me the "convictions", no convictions = innocence.

Now you are attacking the defense Clinton  supporters use and Attributing it to Trump! Comedy. Have you read a single thread, here, ever? That’s all Clinton supporters have claimed for years..

 
Others want to split hairs over civil  liabilities versus criminal liabilitis

Bravo. Just keep doubling down and make more and more absurd claims.   Sure is easy to argue when you make massive, embarrassing mistakes and then just claim “it’s splitting hairs” to point out the truth.

It’s the bluto blutarsky school of hidtory, where it’s okay to say the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, because claiming there is a difference between the Germans and Japanese when discussing  WWII is just “splitting hairs

How many times has HRC been sued or charged with civil or criminal complaints

Answer Zero.

 Wrong again. She’s been sued hundreds of times. But, lemme guess, that’s “splitting hairs”, 

Imagine writing that unironically. 

Imagine truncating a comment to pretend to make a point. 

That’s all Clinton supporters have claimed for years..

In those instances, it was true. For Trump, not so much. 

As if the entire sentence somehow  makes it better for you.  

Double down on it though. It's always fun to watch your fairy tales get exposed by reality.

[deleted]

I have read that President Trump has been sued 1500 times over business transactions and has sued other people 1900 times

and had been named in 150 bankruptcies.

Can you lead me to the secret vault of information where Hillary was similarly sued?

A grateful nation awaits your research.

n you lead me to the secret vault of information where Hillary was similarly sued?

If you aren't aware of it just from paying attention to the news, I'm sure this thing called Google will provide you with the information you seek if you use appropriate key words in a search.  It's pretty common knowlege.

But I'll save you the trouble of finding that out and then coming back and writing that "sure she's been sued 300 some odd times, but that's not as much as Donald. Therefore the 300 times she's been  sued are meaningless, while the X amount of times Trump has been sued means he's history's greatest monster." Because that's where this is heading...

[Deleted]

As if the entire sentence somehow  makes it better for you.  

Double down on it though. It's always fun to watch your fairy tales get exposed by reality.

The entire sentence makes your comment moot, that's reality. 

I'll take that as a no. 

you should probably read something, anything, about the many investigations into Hillary Clinton.  Because if you claim they found “no evidence of wrongdoing,” then I can only assume you are not familiar with them.

I’ll even make it real easy for you. This is just one special prosecutors’ report mind you, but it’s enough to expose the fraudulent nature of your argument.

“There is “substantial evidence” that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that she played a role in the 1993 White House travel office firings, independent counsel Robert W. Ray reported Thursday.”

If you are not just gaslighting the forum as Clinton devotes tend to  do and still think that your post isn’t laughably ignorant, purchase a dictionary and look up the words “no evidence of wrongdoing”, individually if need be. Then look up the word “substantial”. If you compare the phrase “no evidence” you used, with the phrase, “substantial evidence”  used by Robert ray in the Travelgate report, You can figure out they are incompatible. 
 
i’m confident that with that kind of [effort,Deleted] you’ll  recognize the folly of your post. Of course they found evidence of wrongdoing, it’s an Orwellian assault on reality to claim otherwise.  

I’ll even make it real easy for you. This is just one special prosecutors’ report mind you, but it’s enough to expose the fraudulent nature of your argument.

Actually Sean, your quote isn't from the Special Counsel's report, it's from an article and the NEXT paragraph in that article states: 

But Ray, summing up his findings in the so-called Travelgate scandal for a panel of appeals court judges, said that he will not seek to indict Mrs. Clinton because he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of her testimony was false.

Unlike you, I WILL make it real easy by actually providing the proper link for my quoted content. 

latimes

So the sum total of your support for evidence of Clinton wrongdoing is two words, quoted out of context, in an article.

I also note that your quote doesn't provide any EVIDENCE of Clinton wrongdoing.

definition of evidence:

1. Something legally submitted to a court or other tribunal to prove or ascertain the truth of a matter.
2. Something that tends to prove or disprove another thing.

Innuendo does not cut it now any more than it did then. 

you should probably read something, anything, about the many investigations into Hillary Clinton

So you have moved the goal posts ?

You were going to provide proof ( Via Google ) of 300 lawsuits against HRC.

Now you want to include investigations?  How about traffic citations? Again where was she convicted of anything?

To my limited knowledge there is no equivalency between being charged, sued or investigated and your apparent gut

feelings that you ( and many, many others ) feel that she is guilty of something.

I've never been sued, but I have been investigated several times, so I do not see the equivalence.

As to lawsuits I found more than ZERO cases, I was wrong about that, lol.

4 articles about four different suits and one which references FOIA requests of the Federal government.

I don't suppose that FOIA lawsuits against the government are actually lawsuits against Clinton, but I suppose it cannot be ruled out without inspecting the elusive original filing.

dallasnews

upi

washingtontimes

thepoliticalinsider

lawandcrime

Later

our support for evidence of Clinton wrongdoing is two words, quoted out of context, in an article.

If you don't understand the context it's not my fault. Let's review.

You claimed no evidence, ever, has been found of any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton by an investigator.

That, as Ray's statement (one of many examples I could chose from) demonstrates, is categorically false. He found SUBSTANTIAL evidence. I'll make it simple. In the English language, where words have meanings, a substantial amount of something is not consistent with the absence of that thing. Y

Pointing out that Ray didn't think the substantial evidence he found was enough to overcome the prosecutor's burden to prove a felony beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't change that.  I don't have to prove there was enough evidence to convict her, just that evidence exists, which is clearly the case.  I trust you understand our legal system enough to know that a decision not to prosecute does not mean that  no evidence of wrongdoing exists, right? There's a huge range between no evidence at all, and enough evidence to secure a conviction. 

If you want to dig up his report and prove he's lying about its  contents go right ahead.  But you can't.  And you know you can't. Because you know he's not lying. And you know you are wrong, again. So I know you won't make a substantive response. 

If you don't understand the context it's not my fault.

I understand the context perfectly. 

Let's review. You claimed no evidence, ever, has been found of any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton by an investigator.

Everyone can read what I actually said Sean. 

That, as Ray's statement

Which, based on your post is "substantial evidence'. PERIOD full stop. 

(one of many examples I could chose from) demonstrates, is categorically false.

Yet you don't and instead blather. 

Pointing out that Ray didn't think the substantial evidence he found was enough to overcome the prosecutor's burden to prove a felony beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't change that. 

I merely quoted from your link to put your quote in context. 

I don't have to prove there was enough evidence to convict her, just that evidence exists, which is clearly the case. I trust you understand our legal system enough to know that a decision not to prosecute does not mean that  no evidence of wrongdoing exists, right? There's a huge range between no evidence at all, and enough evidence to secure a conviction. 

Yet you haven't DOCUMENTED any of it Sean. You can't site a word of it. All you've got it 2 words from Ray. 

If you want to dig up his report and prove he's lying about its  contents go right ahead.  But you can't.  And you know you can't. Because you know he's not lying. And you know you are wrong, again. So I know you won't make a substantive response. 

Actually Sean, since you made the assertion and originally cited Ray, you have the burden of proof. 

you have moved the goal posts ?

No. She's been sued many times. That was my point. 

. e g oing to provide proof ( Via Google ) of 300 lawsuits against HRC.

No, I said it's common knowledge. There have been seeds on this site dealing with some some of them.  It's a trolling technique mastered by some here to constantly demand proof that 2 plus 2 is four and those requests aren't in good faith. 

It turns out my estimate was wrong and I will happily admit my mistakes. She's been sued significantly more than  300 times. 

"During her time as first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of State, Clinton has been named in more than 900 lawsuits, mostly as a defendant, a review of state and federal court records fin ds."

usatoday

Now you want to include investigations?  

No. You are conflating discussions. Another poster made the equally false claim that zero evidence has ever been found of any wrongdoing by Clinton. 

o my limited knowledge there is no equivalency between being charged, sued or investigated and your apparent gut

feelings that you ( and many, many others ) feel that she is guilty of something.

What? You falsely claimed she'd never been sued and you used that false fact to differentiate her from Trump. I simply pointed out you were wrong.  

You used Trump being named as a defendant in civil cases as evidence of wrongdoing, not me. I've never claimed being sued is, in and of itself, evidence of anything other than a person was sued. Anyone with a couple hundred dollars can sue someone.    

Well wasn't that squirmy? lol.

It must have taken more than a quick google search to find one paragraph on the internet in a USA article that

claims she has been named as a defendant in 900 cases as a government official.

No, I said it's common knowledge.

No Sean it isn't common knowledge or the conservative press like Breitbart would have used it like a hammer against HRC in defense of Trump throughout the campaign.  They did not, because they were either ignorant of them or knew the frivolous nature of those law suits against HRC had no weight in the court of public opinion.

It is however a nice article about Trumps legal issues, complete with pie charts.

An exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits.

The sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements.

...

And despite his boasts on the campaign trail that he “never” settles lawsuits, for fear of encouraging more, he and his businesses have settled with plaintiffs in at least 100 cases reviewed by USA TODAY.

In the vast google search you must have done, can you tell me how many times that Clinton settled out of court as the First Lady, Senator from NY or the SoS or personally?

I was impressed by Trump's legal imitation of Bill Clinton though;

Trump’s history of legal actions provides clues about his style as a leader and manager. While he is quick to take credit for anything associated with his name, he is just as quick to distance himself from failures and to place responsibility on others. In one lawsuit — filed against him by condo owners who wanted their money back for a Fort Lauderdale condo that was never built — he testified in a sworn deposition: “Well, the word ‘developing,’ it doesn't mean that we're the developers.”

Here is the sum total of words wasted on HRC is this USA article.

To be sure, likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has had her own legal challenges, including an ongoing FBI investigation and civil lawsuits into her exclusive use of an email server while secretary of State. When husband Bill Clinton was president, she was involved in investigations by special counsels looking into the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas and other controversies. None resulted in legal charges against her. During her time as first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of State, Clinton has been named in more than 900 lawsuits, mostly as a defendant, a review of state and federal court records finds. More than a third of the lawsuits were filed by federal prisoners, political activists or other citizens seeking redress from the government by suing a list of high-ranking officials.

I am glad that we could both admit we were wrong.

The report hasn't been written yet.

So...  Lock her up!!  was all a lie too then?

Off course there was nothing there.  Only the utterly stupid would think there was.   It's funny reading comments from the desperately crazed Hilary haters as they grasp for anything to keep there conspiracy theories alive.   I especially love the comments that pretend they don't care but they turn around and claim they're sure she's guilty of something.  

Just wanted to point out again that Hilary has been fully exonerated.  The facts are in and the issue has been closed no matter how much the Hilary haters lie, speculate, and project.

Zero zip nada no ranking Obama campaign or administration officials have ever been indicted for official malfeasance. Trump's team is going to need a whole new wing added to the FCA in Terra Haute just to house all their convicted felons...