No way man, there's a good guy and a bad guy and the solution is for the good guys to win and get everything they want, duh.

Except that she is. Take your lies elsewhere.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/14/doubt-it.-federal-judge-confirms-hillary-clinton-criminal-investigation/

A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.

Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton's private server set-up.

However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a "security review"—is actually a criminal probe.

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

No, she isn't. It's pretty sad when even Politifact's shitty researchers can figure this out: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/jeb-bush/heres-whats-wrong-jeb-bush-saying-hillary-clinton-/



While they're stupid to rate his statement the way they did (one of many reasons why I don't usually bother with their amateur organization), they get the crux of this right: the way Jeb Bush (and you) are characterizing the investigation is incorrect. That's not how their investigations actually work in reality. It's fine to say that the FBI opened an investigation into the email practices at the State Department, but to say that Clinton's under investigation, or especially to say that Clinton is "under criminal investigation," is just patently false. If the nature of the investigation changes later, only then should the characterization change.



Yeah no. But thanks for the laugh on linking to RedState. This is going to remain pretty simple: until the FBI actually confirms that Clinton is the subject (or target) of the investigation, it remains completely disingenuous to claim that she's, you know, under investigation. The FBI confirming that Pagliano received immunity in connection with a criminal investigation does not in any way mean that Clinton is "under criminal investigation." That designation has a specific meaning, and there's no evidence to suggest that it fits the investigation we're aware of.

Even if the FBI came out and confirmed that the probe into the State Department email practices was criminal in nature, it STILL wouldn't be correct to claim that Clinton is "under criminal investigation" unless or until Clinton herself is identified as the subject. That's just reality. Nothing is going to change that.

That was a couple of months ago. But even then, why did White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest say that Hillary Clinton was under a criminal investigation by the FBI?



More importantly, why did U.S. District Court judge Emmet Sullivan say the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton was a criminal investigation in a court filing?

who would need another bush piece of shit doing same thing again? or do it at home, on yourself, then it will be fine, allright.
conclusion: build a wall and die in it.

edit; that is my view of best foreign policy...

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jun 15 2016 01:59pm

You know, every single time you thank someone for posting something, you do nothing but reinforce your image as a slack-jawed fool. The source clearly referenced directly to court documents which indicate a criminal investigation is underway, and that the investigation centers on Clinton's server (which by extension means Clinton). That other sources have already published that the investigation may indeed focus on RICO only doubles down on Clinton's unofficial indictment. You can dance and spin until you're blue in the face that nothing official has come down, but that in no way takes away from the very reasonable conjecture that the bitch is under investigation.

It's not complex to choose which side is the oppressor and which side is the oppressed.

It may be complex to figure out a 2 state solution or something similar, but I wasn't referring to the complexity of solutions, only the complexity of what is morally right.

Nice strawman and ad hom 2 in 1, you lose bogie

so i guess the bern is going to wait until the convention to unite the clans? LIke a scene from braveheart

It doesn't matter how long ago it was; we have no reason to believe the nature of the investigation has changed. The FBI could confirm to Clinton if she was the target (it hasn't), and if the investigation had proceeded to the point where the FBI was able to further investigate whether wrongdoing had taken place, she would stand accused of an actual crime. They haven't even determined if any wrongdoing actually happened yet.

Earnest didn't say what you're claiming either, he was only reiterating Obama's commitment to the basic idea that all investigations should be decided based upon fact and not political calculus. We don't know if the investigation Emmit Sullivan referenced involves Jake Sullivan mishandling classified information or selling state secrets to Lithuania. It could pertain to Clinton mishandling classified information. We don't know what it is. But we do know that Hillary Clinton isn't "under criminal investigation," because those words actually mean something, and you're using them incorrectly.



Yes, obviously the fact that the FBI investigation hasn't proceeded to such a point where it can be characterized as such is a nagging little detail. You're still getting the methodology wrong (that might be the fault of relying on such shitty sources, who knows). I can't say I care what kind of image you may have of me, either.

Directed to every Hillary supporter from the beginning:

I want to know your main reasons for supporting Hillary over Bernie. The only thing I've ever gotten out of asking you guys this question was that you knew that she was more likely to win..
What policy differences, etc. made you more apt to support her?