Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page >

Solomon: Evidence Mounts Of Clintons' Collusion With Russia

Notices
Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Solomon: Evidence Mounts Of Clintons' Collusion With Russia

 
Old 02-11-2019, 08:42 PM
  #1  
keith5
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
Thread Starter
 
keith5's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Soon to be Spacecoast FL
Posts: 12,198
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default Solomon: Evidence Mounts Of Clintons' Collusion With Russia

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...llusion-russia

[QUOTE]
[color]After Congressional investigations in both the House and Senate have failed to produce evidence that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 US election from Hillary Clinton, [/color]The Hill[color]'s John Solomon points out the deafening silence over [/color]clear links between the Kremlin and the woman who would have been President had Donald Trump lost[color]. [/color]
[color]Aside from the fact that the Clinton-funded[/color] Steele Dossier heavily relied on a Russian source[color]. And the fact that [/color]John Podesta[color] (who would have likely become Secretary of State) sat on the board of an energy company [/color]with a Kremlin official and a Russian oligarch - [color]tangible evidence of Russian collusion exists. Once again, Solomon digs deeper into the upside-down to reveal Russian ties that would see Donald Trump jailed for treason by the left's standards. [/color]
Congressional investigators have painstakingly pieced together evidence that shows the Clinton research project had extensive contact with Russians.

...

Steele’s main source of uncorroborated allegations against Trump came from an ex-Russian intelligence officer. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled. -The Hill

In today's episode of the Twilight Zone, Solomon spotlights Hillary Clinton's close relationship with Russian leaders which raised concerns over a wholesale technology transfer to the Kremlin, right around the time of the Uranium One deal and Bill Clinton's now-infamous trip to Russia (where he hung out at Putin's house) and picked up a $500,000 check for one speech.
As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.






Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally Georgia.
A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved. Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.

The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech. -

The Clinton State Department ignored a 2013 warning from the US military's leading European intelligence think tank over the Skolkovo project - which suggested that it could be a front for economic and military espionage.

"Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise, aiming to promote technology transfer generally, by inbound direct investment, and occasionally, through selected acquisitions. As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently," reads a 2013 EUCOM intelligence bulletin.

"Implicit in Russia’s development of Skolkovo is a critical question — a question that Russia may be asking itself — why bother spying on foreign companies and government laboratories if they will voluntarily hand over all the expertise Russia seeks?"

The FBI followed EUCOM's warning the following year with letters outlining the dangers of US tech companies falling prey to Russian espionage through the Skolkovo project. A Boston FBI agent in particular wrote an "extraordinary op-ed to publicize the alarm," writes Solomon.

The Skolkovo project "may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application," wrote Assistant Special Agent Lucia Ziobro in the Boston Business Journal.

The FBI also sounded the alarm about the Uranium One deal - after an informant named William D. Campbell infiltrated the Russian state-owned energy giant Rosatom and gathered evidence of a racketeering scheme which included bribery, kickbacks and extortion.
The Clintons are some of the most disgusting human beings to have ever been born. They are corrupt at their soul level.The Goddamned horseshit the Clinton's and that piece of **** Obama has forced on this country for the last two years in beyond despicable.It is prosecuteable!!! Now we prosecute!

Last edited by keith5; 02-11-2019 at 08:43 PM.
keith5 is online now  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:43 PM
  #2  
phileaglesfan
CF Senior Member
 
phileaglesfan's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Northern Utah
Posts: 19,131
Thanked 104 Times in 93 Posts
Default

And probably nothing will happen to them. Everyone in DC knows that if you cross the Clinton's you are either done as a politician or 6 feet under.
phileaglesfan is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:45 PM
  #3  
2500 hd
CF Senior Member
 
2500 hd's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,784
Thanked 69 Times in 57 Posts
St. Jude Donor ‘18-'19
Default

I would love to see them prosecuted; but it ain't happening.
Way to protected....
2500 hd is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:49 PM
  #4  
KenHorse
Obama, the worst POS ever
Support Corvetteforum!
 
KenHorse's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: Aurora, OR by way of Maui, HI. I have the heart of a Progressive - I keep it in a jar on my desk
Posts: 101,694
Thanked 649 Times in 440 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13, '16-'17-'18
Default

Democrats have no interest in the criminality of either the Clintons or within their own Party
KenHorse is online now  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:52 PM
  #5  
fyreline
NCM Ambassador
Support Corvetteforum!
 
fyreline's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: Syracuse NY
Posts: 2,741
Thanked 398 Times in 200 Posts
2016 C1 of the Year Finalist
Default

I agree, nothing meaningful will come of any of this. The Clintons are guilty as sin and have blood on their hands, but it just doesn't matter, and they know it. If you want justice, you won't find it on this issue.
fyreline is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:07 PM
  #6  
Cygnus
CF Senior Member
 
Cygnus's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2011
Location: San Francisco's North Bay California
Posts: 3,248
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

This is almost as obvious as Shitcago being the most corrupt city. Everyone knows that the Clinton crime family is corrupt and involved with Russia on many fronts.

However, time and time again that crime family has proven that they are above the law, so why people still waste their time proving the obvious is the only question that remains.
Cygnus is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:13 PM
  #7  
keith5
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
Thread Starter
 
keith5's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Soon to be Spacecoast FL
Posts: 12,198
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
This is almost as obvious as Shitcago being the most corrupt city. Everyone knows that the Clinton crime family is corrupt and involved with Russia on many fronts.

However, time and time again that crime family has proven that they are above the law, so why people still waste their time proving the obvious is the only question that remains.
Why prosecute now?!?! If you read the article it points out that new evidence clearly implicates Hillary and Bill in a pay-to-play scheme while she was Secretary of State.
The ******* bitch sold her country out for personal gain to the Russians.

But, you go on ahead and ignore it... You deserve a Venezuela for your country...


Oops, I just noticed you are form California. My apologies. You clearly know how to live in a shithole, corrupt state...

Last edited by keith5; 02-11-2019 at 09:15 PM.
keith5 is online now  
Old 02-12-2019, 07:26 AM
  #8  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,189
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

I’ll go against the thread crowd on this one.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:08 AM
  #9  
Frankie the Fink
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Frankie the Fink's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: Orlando Metro Area Florida
Posts: 46,635
Thanked 3,165 Times in 2,533 Posts
Default

They can already put so much evidence in warehouses in Wash DC that the earth may tilt and shift in its orbit....
The result ? Nada, zilch, bupkis...
Frankie the Fink is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:27 AM
  #10  
GARYFINN
CF Senior Member
 
GARYFINN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2008
Location: S/W ,Fla-Ohio State Football isn't a matter of life or death,Its Much More serious than that
Posts: 41,486
Thanked 148 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Wait wasn't Hillary declared innocent of all crimes by Comey.
GARYFINN is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:32 AM
  #11  
Grumpy
MONARTOR
 
Grumpy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2001
Location: What I know, is dwarfed by what I pretend to know
Posts: 192,347
Thanked 35 Times in 16 Posts
Cruise-In 5-6-7-8 Veteran
St. Jude '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-10-'11-12-'13-'14-'15-'16-17-'18
NCM Sinkhole Donor

Default

Originally Posted by GARYFINN View Post
Wait wasn't Hillary declared innocent of all crimes by Comey.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
Grumpy is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:15 AM
  #12  
HEB
CF Senior Member
 
HEB's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 1999
Location: New Lebanon.Ohio
Posts: 2,832
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Cruise-In I Veteran
Cruise-In II Veteran
Cruise-In III Veteran
Cruise-In IV Veteran
Default

[QUOTE=KenHorse;1598861628]Democrats have no interest in the criminality of either the Clintons or within their own
Party[/QUOTE

HEB is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:20 AM
  #13  
SpecialTreatmentNeece
CF Senior Member
 
SpecialTreatmentNeece's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2008
Location: Less typey, more stfu
Posts: 39,172
Thanked 162 Times in 35 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18

Default

Originally Posted by GARYFINN View Post
Wait wasn't Hillary declared innocent of all crimes by Comey.
Yes, becaus she didn't intend to **** up. He was judge, jury, and executioner. He thought she would win, so he wasn't worried about his corruption. Hope they both rot in hell.
SpecialTreatmentNeece is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:47 AM
  #14  
DJ_Critterus
CF Senior Member
 
DJ_Critterus's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: FL.... America's Wang! No shrinkage. Winter's not coming!
Posts: 49,211
Thanked 74 Times in 45 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09
Default

Originally Posted by KenHorse View Post
Democrats have no interest in the criminality of either the Clintons or within their own Party
....unless they can learn from it and improve upon their techniques.
DJ_Critterus is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:54 AM
  #15  
Cygnus
CF Senior Member
 
Cygnus's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2011
Location: San Francisco's North Bay California
Posts: 3,248
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by keith5 View Post
Why prosecute now?!?! If you read the article it points out that new evidence clearly implicates Hillary and Bill in a pay-to-play scheme while she was Secretary of State.
The ******* bitch sold her country out for personal gain to the Russians.

But, you go on ahead and ignore it... You deserve a Venezuela for your country...


Oops, I just noticed you are form California. My apologies. You clearly know how to live in a shithole, corrupt state...

Have you bumped your head recently or are you simply blind to all the crimes that the Clinton crime family has gotten away with already?

Who do you think is going to prosecute the head of the Clinton crime family?

Do you honestly believe that anyone in power at the DOJ gives a **** that the Clinton's got rich selling out America?

Just because I happen to live in Commyfornia doesn't make me an American hating liberal, but it has taught me that elite liberals are above the law. Now you can either accept that fact, or you can waste your time wishing that someone is going to put Hillary in jail.
Cygnus is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:56 AM
  #16  
dmaxx3500
CF Senior Member
 
dmaxx3500's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2008
Location: chicago
Posts: 24,055
Thanked 433 Times in 342 Posts
Default

if prez trump didn't do anything on ''day 1'' it will never get done
dmaxx3500 is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:10 PM
  #17  
tikiman
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
tikiman's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: A pirate's life is a good life.
Posts: 18,910
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11
Default

Originally Posted by keith5 View Post
If you read the article it points out that new evidence clearly implicates Hillary and Bill in a pay-to-play scheme while she was Secretary of State.
The ******* bitch sold her country out for personal gain to the Russians.

Which is precisely why she needed that illegal, unsecured email server in the first place. And also why, after it was subpoenaed, she had it and its contents destroyed. That, alone, would be enough to land any of us in jail for a very long time. Her, not so much. Anyone who still supports that lying piece of **** is a traitor to this country.
tikiman is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:24 PM
  #18  
BadUmp
CF Senior Member
 
BadUmp's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2014
Location: Monaco
Posts: 16,855
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
Default

now, if only the Dumbocrat and Liberanal politicians can keep the Mueller investigation(s) going for a few more years. At least until they get another dumbocrat president when all will be right with the world again . . .
BadUmp is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 07:38 PM
  #19  
NBM LS1 M6
CF Senior Member
 
NBM LS1 M6's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2002
Location: I helped our former POSOTUS return the wealth of America to its rightful owners one parcel of real e
Posts: 124,364
Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19

Default

Originally Posted by KenHorse View Post
Democrats have no interest in the criminality of either the Clintons or within their own Party
NBM LS1 M6 is online now  
Old 02-12-2019, 09:58 PM
  #20  
woodman300
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2010
Location: Peoples republic of california
Posts: 4,043
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
Default

Originally Posted by 2500 hd View Post
I would love to see them prosecuted; but it ain't happening.
Way to protected....
u

maybe if enough is exposed, the people they report to will take care of them.
woodman300 is offline  
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Solomon: Evidence Mounts Of Clintons' Collusion With Russia


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: