Trump

Hawkeye10 said:

Sometimes one loses a battle yet wins the war.

The fact that the country has risen up to challenge the elite is in itself a great victory for the nation.

Click to expand...

MickeyW said:

A very good post Maggie. :applaud

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

If it were not for the Supreme Court I think a set back would be temporary. In fact a Hillary Presidency could be the final nail in the coffin of completely unacceptable and even reprehensible government policy that is contrary to the best interests of the people they are supposed to serve and we would start electing common sense representatives again. But with the next President likely appointing two or three Supreme Court justices, to lose the court to unbridled liberalism of the worst sort cannot be undone by a divided Congress or whomever is in the White House. And if we lose the Court, there is no restraint on a bad government left to us for decades, perhaps a generation, perhaps ever.

Click to expand...

Hawkeye10 said:

Sometimes one loses a battle yet wins the war.

The fact that the country has risen up to challenge the elite is in itself a great victory for the nation.

Click to expand...

• FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
• FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
• SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...roundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1

Click to expand...

MickeyW said:

From a source I cannot name.

The statute that was used to judge HRC’s actions, makes it a criminal felony violation to mishandle classified information intentionally OR with gross negligence. Director Comey stated that HRC acted with “extreme carelessness” in the handling of classified info. Extreme Carelessness is Gross Negligence. She violated this statute which Congress, not Director Comey created. As an executive branch member, he has no authority to ignore the express language of a statute created by Congress. His mission is to follow the law, not abolish congressional statutory language that he does not like. He decided to arbitrarily modify the statute by de facto elimination of the “Gross Negligence portion of the statute. By doing so, he acted outside the scope of his authority.

I was never involved in or even heard of an investigation which ignored evidence of “other crimes” uncovered while investigating the original crime under investigation.` But in this case, the FBI began by investigating mishandling of classified info on a private email system – then recovered thousands of emails that HRC and her team destroyed (recovered from recipients' computers). Some of those emails disclosed that certain donors to the Clinton Foundation gave huge amounts of money to the Foundation and in return rec’d meetings with HRC at the State Dept. Many of the donors were from Foreign Countries. While access alone is not criminal, it provides a “Reasonable Indication” (which is sufficient to open a new investigation under DOJ Guidelines,) into the likelihood of Quid Pro Quo/Bribery.

No one donates thousands/millions of dollars to a Private Foundation for a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about the NFL football season/ or the weather forecast. What deals were made or discussed in those meetings? The FBI had blinders on and refused to widen the investigation when there was clear probable cause to do so. In my career, if we started with a stolen property case and it lead to drugs, guns and murder, we expanded to include all the new crimes. It is unprecedented that it did not happen with the HRC investigation. This is wrong. I don’t know whether DOJ ordered the FBI to ignore other avenues of investigation or whether the Bureau restricted itself to ignore these obvious avenues of inquiry.

Hillary is as guilty as sin itself....and the obama regime DOJm swept it under the rug.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

The issue of which direction the court justices appointed will take is moderated by the Senate, also realizing this, the Democrats want to win a majority there, and even if they do, there is still a modicum of moderation.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

The fix was in all along. This president, his administration, his DOJ, and his FBI are as corrupt as Hillary, her campaign, and her political machine, as is being revealed by the WikiLeaks postings and Project Veritas videos.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

all of this corruption exists you insist

yet when pressed, you cannot offer one shred of evidence of any corruption

such inability to evidence your assertions eliminates your posts from being thought credible

Click to expand...

“Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part if it, meeting was a non-starter,” Abedin wrote in a January 2015 *email to Mook and campaign manager John *Podesta.

“CGI also wasn’t pushing for a meeting in Morocco and it wasn’t their first choice. This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the [foundation’s] endowment and to support the meeting,” Abedin continued.

“It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it.”
​

The king gave the money to the Clinton Foundation and underwrote the CGI summit with the quid-pro-quo understanding that Hillary would attend, and other dignitaries attending were led to believe that she would be there.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/21/huma-o...iasco-she-created-this-mess-and-she-knows-it/

Click to expand...

MickeyW said:

I'll be saying if forever......a Hillary win, will not silence me....just make me more angry that she is even allowed to be in this race.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Bubba, if you don't believe the entities mentioned aren't corrupt, you aren't paying attention, probably on purpose.

Take this single meme for example.

View attachment 67208975

The Clinton Foundation received $81 million in “donations” from the controversial Swiss HSBC Bank.
True: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

1999: Loretta Lynch is nominated by President Bill Clinton to be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of NY.
True: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch#Early_career

2001-2010: Lynch is made a partner at Hogan and Hartson, the Clinton private law firm.
True: Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. - Dictionary definition of Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary

2010: Lynch in nominated by President Obama to again be the US attorney for the Eastern District of NY.
True: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch#Early_career

2012: Lynch makes a sweetheart deal with HSBC bank in their drug-money laundering scandal: tiny fines, no jail.
was involved in the US$1.2 billion settlement with HSBC over violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.[SUP][2][15][16] [/SUP]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch#Early_career)
Not so sure that $1.2B is 'tiny fines'.

2013: James Comey is a director of the HSBC bank, until he is nominated by President Obama to be FBI Director.
True: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey#Post-Bush_years_.282005.E2.80.93present.29
(Here it states the fine was $1.9B for failing to comply with basic due diligence requirements for money laundering Mexican drug cartels.
HSBC positon was after the DOJ settlement)

2014: Lynch is nominated by President Obama to be the U.S. Attorney General, replaced Eric Holder.
True: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch#Attorney_General_of_the_United_States

2016: Lynch holds a secret and private Gulfstream jet meeting in Phoenix with ex-President Bill Clinton.
True.

​

So, really, knowing this history, is it really any surprise Comey invented the ‘no intent’ loop hole and gave it to Hillary? He's been cleaning up after Hillary since White Water.

Hillary's duplicitous nature is clearly shown in this video.

She lectures the State department staff on cyber security, to never use their private email to conduct government business, what was she doing the entire time? Setting up and running her own private email server, wholly outside of government oversight and her own issued directive.

How is that not corrupt?

Huma Abedeen has confirmed Hillary's pay to play while SoS.


How is this not corrupt?

Granted, while these things are not what the biased colluding media wants to talk about, or cover in any great detail, rather trumpeting questionable accusations of Trump's behavior, but that doesn't mean that these things don't exist, such as your appear to be asserting.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

And even if some of your presented evidence turns out to be impeachable, it is a near 100% certainty that it all cannot be discredited. But those who are gung go to vote for Hillary will turn a blind eye as they always have. And those who are 'neverTrump' people who will vote for Hillary as the default candidate don't care how corrupt or dangerous she is.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Agreed.

So the choice is between a known corrupt, flawed candidate with a corrupt political machine behind them, and a flawed candidate.

Hey, it's not a good choice the but it's the only choice presented at this time. I chose the flawed candidate over the known corrupt, flawed candidate with a corrupt political machine, as the former may damage the nation to some extent, the latter, feeding known corruption even more power, will surely damage the nation far more, and far worse.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

We are definitely on the same page. I don't like Trump much, have little appreciation for his campaign or his principles or his methodology, and have found many things he has said thoroughly offensive and uncalled for--mostly in how he expressed himself rather than what I think he actually meant though.

But when it comes down to who I think will be the most dangerous, least effective, or unacceptable in the White House, Hillary tops that list every single time. So I will vote for Trump as our best chance to break the status quo, save the Supreme Court, and actually get something done that should get done.

Click to expand...