Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  7 months ago  •  128 comments

By:   Sanjana Karanth Huffpost

Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Politics

Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report







1b7bcfa0-ffe6-11e8-abbe-535ccd54ed26 January 9, 2020, 11:26 PM EST








5e17f47f2500009729990528.jpg

Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

Department of Justice  inquiry into  Hillary Clinton  that began after conservatives demanded more investigations into the former Democratic presidential candidate is reportedly ending with no actual results.

Then-Attorney General  Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber  in 2018 to look into concerns raised by President  Donald Trump  and his Republican allies that the  FBI  did not properly look into Clinton’s involvement in a uranium deal while she was secretary of state in the Obama administration.

Huber allegedly reviewed documents and spoke with federal law enforcement officials in Arkansas who were handling an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. 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.  HuffPost has not been able to independently confirm that the inquiry has ended.

Canadian mining company Uranium One, which had major U.S. holdings,  was sold in 2010 to a Russian firm  while Clinton was secretary of state. The sale required approval from nine U.S. agencies, including the State Department, before it could proceed. Conservative media and critics of the 2016 Democratic nominee  have falsely claimed that   the sale was a quid pro quo for donations  to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.

The State Department did not have the power to unilaterally approve or reject the sale, and Clinton was  not actually directly involved  in the approval process. The original FBI investigation into whether Clinton had ties to the deal  found no evidence  of wrongdoing, but  Sessions revived the inquiry in late 2017  after facing pressure from Trump. 

Huber’s effective conclusion of his review is likely to anger many Republicans who hoped the top prosecutor from Utah would validate their long-held conspiracy theories about Clinton.

Attorney General William Barr, a Trump nominee who succeeded Sessions,  has previously supported  the president’s call to investigate Clinton  and has questioned the need  for Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

But Trump has largely shifted his focus away from Huber’s investigation and toward U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which concluded with a report that  Russia had interfered in the 2016 election  in order to help Trump win.  Barr appointed Durham to the review  last year, though he allegedly sees  no evidence so far that the Russia probe was a setup  by intelligence officials,  as Trump claims.





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    7 months ago

I'm sure tRump supporters will still keep dredging this up at every opportunity despite being debunked incessantly.  

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1  lady in black  replied to  Tessylo @1    7 months ago

They have to bitterly cling to conspiracy theories since they can't handle the truth.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.1  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @1.1    7 months ago

Who is they?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @1.1.1    7 months ago
Who is they?

See Wally at 1.2

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1.3  dennis smith  replied to  lady in black @1.1    7 months ago

Just like the Dems who are still bitter about Trump being elected POTUS and have been trying to get him out of office for years with no proof.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @1.1.3    7 months ago

There's plenty of proof.  You're talking nonsense as usual.  

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    7 months ago
There's plenty of proof.

Which is?

Be specific...

BTW...feeeeeeeelings and "I hate Trump" do not count

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1    7 months ago

Erroneous information. Investigation has wound down but is not formally over.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.3.1  cjcold  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3    7 months ago

Hillary is the most exonerated politician ever. 

The long time baseless accusations and inquisitions from the far right border on psychotic. 

Were it not for Obama I would have voted for her for president.

On another note;

My Chiefs just came back from being down 24 to zip in the first quarter to win it 51/31 over Houston. One hell of a knuckle biting game.

Used to live a couple of blocks from Mile High back in the Elway days when he made many last minute comebacks, but have never seen a comeback like this. 

GO CHIEFS!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.2  MrFrost  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3    7 months ago

Ed, if they had anything coming close to prosecuting her for anything up to and including an unpaid parking ticket, it would be front page news on fox news for the next 20 years. They found nothing, again. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3    7 months ago

So do tell me then when these ridiculous and bogus and endless investigations will be over then?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.2    7 months ago

Hello Frosty! Welcome back. Hope you had a nice trip. I never said they did orvdid not find anything or that they would or would not. I merely stated that the investigation was not officially closed yet as the article title seemed to suggest, that's it.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.3    7 months ago

Sorry, I'm not in the fortune telling business.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.4    7 months ago
I merely stated that the investigation was not officially closed yet as the article title seemed to suggest, that's it.

Lloyd Christmas:
What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?

Mary Swanson:
Not good.

Lloyd Christmas:
Not good like one in a hundred?

Mary Swanson:
I'd say more like one in a million.

Lloyd Christmas:
So you're telling me there's a chance!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.5    7 months ago

So you'll apologize for saying it's erroneous then?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.7    7 months ago

No, I will not because the investigation is not fully over. It has just wound down.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.8    7 months ago

Exactly what I expected.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.8    7 months ago
No, I will not because the investigation is not fully over. It has just wound down.

"Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report"

"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."

Effectively: adverb - actually but not officially or explicitly

Perhaps the problem lay with some not understanding what the word "effectively" means? The headline and the article were accurate.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.3.11  Split Personality  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.10    7 months ago

Well in all fairness to Ed, the UN action against North Korea is not technically over either jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

The Huber investigation has been on life support for a year or so.

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/10/investigation-into-hillary-clinton-pushed-by-trump-comes-up-empty-after-two-years-report/

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/clinton-justice-department-investigation/index.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/10/nation/justice-department-winds-down-trump-backed-inquiry-into-hillary-clinton-without-any-significant-findings/?p1=AMPArticle_Recirculation

I thought Barr took it away from Huber and gave it to Durham.  Perhaps that was the other rabbit hole.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.11    7 months ago
The Huber investigation has been on life support for a year or so.

Good point, and yes, we're still technically at war with North Korea and have been since 1953. A truce is not a treaty and does not end a declared war, just like the Republican attempts to find something, anything, against Hillary will likely go on for another 60 years. Do zombies ever stop hungering for brains? We'll be hearing the droning groans of "Hillary..." and "Lock her up..." coming out of them well into the next century.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.13  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.12    7 months ago

Well the US or UN never declared war on NK so "technically" we are not at war with NK.   Never were technically.   

Although my Dad will disagree with me on that.   He was with the 1st MarDiv in 1950.   Not a good time for him .....

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.13    7 months ago

Technically, as there were no official declarations of war.  Korea and Vietnam were considered police actions. Although when I was in Vietnam, it sure as hell was a war to me and everybody else there

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.15  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.14    7 months ago

I know Ed.   Both were BS in that regard.  

Like you my Dad was lucky enough to come back from that hellhole.   Missing some pieces/parts but home just the same.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.3.16  Split Personality  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.12    7 months ago

Nothing is ever as easy as we would like to believe.

After WWII the US was responsible for watching over South Korea

and USSR was responsible for North Korea as the spoils of the previous Japanese empire.

Through the UN they negotiated the 38th parallel as a border.

The Russian proxies in NK trained, armed and planned the invasion of the South.

The UN reacted with force from 21 nations but more than 90% was by the  USA which was protecting

it's mandate.

Through back channels Truman promised Stalin he would only kick the invasion back to the 38th parallel.

MacArthur disobeyed those orders and invaded NK bringing China into play. ( MacArthur was later fired)

All of this was being called a UN police action,

yet the US and Soviets were trying out everything in their arsenals and the US was winning this cold weather disaster

until China committed hundreds of thousands of infantry to throw the Americans back

although they didn't stop at the 38th...

Seoul  changed hands 4 more times before the American dominated UN forces reclaimed the 38th.

During the conflict America dropped more bombs and napalm on NK than the entire WWII Pacific campaign which NK officially calls the American "original sin".

Regardless of whether we call it war or jihad, NK has not finished with the USA or UN officially.

They are still on a war footing, still tunneling under the DMZ, still trying to jamb radio and air traffic communications,

still sending moles, spies and rats into every nation in SE Asia killing people like Kim's own brother. 

Still developing ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.

It dangerously naive to think they are no longer dangerous because they don't play by the same antiquated European rules.

jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.16    7 months ago

Actually, it was not MacArthur's invasion of NK per se so much as it was the fact that he went almost all the way to the Yalu river bordering China and wanted to press on into China. That is what alarmed China. MacArthur was relieved for disagreeing with Truman publicly in the press and stating the U.S. should use nukes against NK. That is what led him to being replaced with General Matthew Ridgeway.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.3.19  Split Personality  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.18    7 months ago
https://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Why-Truman-Fired-General-MacArthur/Why-Truman-Fired-General-MacArthur.html

Mac Arthur had many issues, not the least of which was being in his 70's and being the absolute power in Japan.

After that, which he did magnificently, he was used to absolute power and did not feel that he needed to heed Truman.

This is a pretty good read, bottom line was that Mac Arthur was fired for being Mac Arthur.

Maybe some of his brilliance came from serving for 52 years

The "experience" with Mac Arthur led the military to eventually limit O-10's to 40 years of active duty.

Another issue which will never be repeated was that MacArthur was overseas since 1937, only returning to the US after being relieved of command in 1951.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.19    7 months ago

Agreed on all points.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @1    7 months ago

Trump will still encourage his deplorables to chant LOCK HER UP.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.4.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.4    7 months ago

Which they did at his most recent 'rally' in Wisconsin 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2  Trout Giggles    7 months ago

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

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    7 months ago

Nope, we'll still see the same garbage posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.1    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    7 months ago
removed for context

Lol try not to flatter yourself.   Can't speak for others here but I rarely report posts when they should be reported.   I for one prefer to leave that nonsense up for everyone to see.   Better to evaluate the true character of the poster in question.

Always a lot of empirical data coming in here to collate in that regard.   [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.6  Sparty On  replied to    7 months ago

What "C" word are they talking about?

Comey?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.3    7 months ago

Sure you don'tjrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

I was correct about the fans.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to    7 months ago

[Deleted]

[Enough meta, folks.]

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.7    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.8    7 months ago

[ Deleted...but ] can you imagine this hag being the Commander in Chief and knowing the launch codes.

5e17f47f2500009729990528.jpg

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.10    7 months ago

She and Pelosi have facial similarities and that is very scary.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.11    7 months ago
'She and Pelosi have facial similarities and that is very scary.'

That's stupid.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.12    7 months ago
That's stupid.

When they have nothing, they resort to personal insults.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    7 months ago

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

Nature of the beast here.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.1  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @2.2    7 months ago
Nah, they'll still be plenty of trash being spewed by both sides.

That's as certain as death and taxes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3  seeder  Tessylo    7 months ago

I see lots of trash/outright lies/projection spewing from the republicons, not democrats/liberals/progressives.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @3    7 months ago
I see lots of trash/outright lies/projection spewing from the republicons, not democrats/liberals/progressives.

Then your eyes aren't truly open but that is nothing new now is it?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3    7 months ago

Of course not. Progressive leftist liberal Democrats are pure as newfallen snow and incapable of error in your book, thus they get a free ride and a pass from you.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago
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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1    7 months ago

The report does not exonerate her. True or false?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    7 months ago

READ MY PRIOR COMMENT MORE CAREFULLY. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.2    7 months ago

5e05ed73ffdff7ab0f434b2fc7f5c8c1.jpg

 
 
 
katrix
4.2  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.2    7 months ago

Simple question. Does this report exonerate her or not?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    7 months ago

You can stop trolling now.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.2    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.3    7 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.5  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    7 months ago

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).

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.2.5    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.6    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.2.5    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.2.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.8    7 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.10  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.9    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.6    7 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.10    7 months ago
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? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.12    7 months ago
there is till no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing

Imagine writing that unironically. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.14  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.12    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.15  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.14    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.14    7 months ago
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? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.17  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.14    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.17    7 months ago

"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”, 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.13    7 months ago
Imagine writing that unironically. 

Imagine truncating a comment to pretend to make a point. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.18    7 months ago
That’s all Clinton supporters have claimed for years..

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

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.19    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.20    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.23  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.18    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.23    7 months ago

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...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.22    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.21    7 months ago
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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.27  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.24    7 months ago

I'll take that as a no. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.26    7 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.29  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.28    7 months ago
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. 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-23-mn-44043-story.html

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. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.30  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.28    7 months ago
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.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2011/01/21/judge-dismisses-suit-faulting-dallas-for-crash-that-killed-motorcycle-officer-escorting-hillary-rodham-clinton/

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/05/27/Judge-dismisses-wrongful-death-suit-against-Clinton-over-Benghazi/5811495910092/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/19/hillary-clinton-campaign-payment-dossier-author-ch/

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/federal-judge-ruling-against-hillary-clinton/

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-medias-inexcusable-double-standard-in-covering-the-trump-and-clinton-civil-lawsuits/

Later

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.29    7 months ago
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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.32  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.31    7 months ago
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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.30    7 months ago
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."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

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.    

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.35  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.24    7 months ago

'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.'

In other words, ya got nothin', as usual.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.36  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.33    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.37  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    7 months ago

The report hasn't been written yet.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
4.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago

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

 
 
 
PJ
5  PJ    7 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
PJ
7  PJ    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
JBB
8  JBB    7 months ago

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...

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @8    7 months ago

Someone named Nader has also just been convicted of child trafficking/pornography charges.  He was listed 100 times in the Mueller report as a liaison between Putin and tRump.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @8.1    7 months ago

Trump only has the best people don't ya know? s/

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Gordy327
Tacos!


34 visitors