Surprise!!!!

[Mr. ManParticipant 2916]

My last (and final) relations~~~ was with a woman who worked for a defense contractor. She had Top Secret security clearance. Had she made even a single violation of the many that Clinton is guilty of, she’d be in jail right now.

But no, we’ve had two justice systems in America for a quite a while now — one for the ruling class and one for everyone else — and this case is probably the most in-your-face-F~~~-YOU-PESANTS of them all.

Now where did I put my pitchfork?

[experiencedParticipant]

Atton wrote:

there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

Future:
There’s no clear evidence that she actually intended to start WWIII.
There’s no clear evidence why she didn’t react in a timely manner when another country started WWIII.
There’s no clear evidence that she intended to throw the country and the world into a depression worse than any other in history.
There’s no clear evidence that she knew she would do such a horrible job that the masses welcomed in a dictator after she was thrown out that made
Stalin/Mao/Hitler look like cub scouts in comparison. Please, put in someone with absolute power so they can clean up the mess she’s made!!

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[Mr. ManParticipant 2916]

Experienced, here’s another one for the list:

There’s no clear evidence she will keep all of those dissenting citizens in her re-education camps for another year.

[Anonymous 24]

Prefer Peace to Piece wrote:

To me, this outrageous decision means the rule of law is over in our country.

The non-prosecution of the Bush administration for lying to go to war with Iraq, (correction, to commit genocide in Iraq, was not much of a war) without congressional approval, then the following destruction of Libya by the Obama administration, once again, without congressional approval, and based on lies is all one needs to know about the rule of law in the U.S. Corporate/Military Industrial Complex/Banking/Zionist interests took over the U.S. long ago. It is now clearly a rogue state, without a shadow of a doubt. Puppet presidents… All is going as planned as well in the Mid East. Expect more invasions of countries who did nothing to anyone, and more terrorism as a result of straight ass raping entire countries based on lies…

Tell me, if you saw no names, just actions, how could one tell the Bush admin apart from the Obama admin? And don’t say Obamacare, cause that was going to happen even if Romney had won. There is nothing… We do not have presidents, we have puppets.

[FaxmodemParticipant 1415]

I am a Woman, I didn’t do anything wrong. It was someone else’s fault.

Us men didn't start the battle of the sexes, but we're clearly going to win it via the simple tactic of just leaving the battlefield in contempt."

[Mr. ManParticipant 2916]

JoeBauers, I have to agree with your point that there’s never been legal accountability by the ruling class — but at least they used to hide that fact.

This instance however, shows that they no longer fear exposure. They think the people are asleep — and many are. But not everyone is. And that will be their downfall.

Certainly there is an army of quiet, angry Americans who watched today as the FBI proclaimed that yet another member of the ruling class are above the law of the land, and cast an internal ballot of No Confidence for this rogue state you speak of.

[Anonymous 11]

There’s no clear evidence it actually has a vagina.

A few weeks back one of the posters over at Zerohedge made a chronological listing all of her corruptions starting from 1975 when a Democratic Senator on the Watergate investigation committee got rid of her for being sleazy all the way through the present. It was a trip down memory lane for me and astoundingly long.

Watch this video of her laughing over Gaddafi being killed. She’s a f~~~ing psychopath.

[RennieParticipant]

Well, now we know what FBI stands for – f’ing bureau of imbeciles.

Help us all of she gets voted into the presidency.

You’ve gotta be pretty sick to find having a knife stuck up your ass and then killed, funny.

[sidecarParticipant 35851]

Anonymous wrote:

without congressional approval,

Bush-II did get congressional approval with 70% in the house and 77% of the senate voting for it.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

And I was always told ignorance of the law is no excuse…disgusting how corrupt our government is.

[HitmanParticipant]

shocking….
her husband had a meeting with FBI officials ,
then they don’t want to prosecute.
the Clinton Foundation is filthy rich..FILTHY.
millions donated to them by middle east countries that kill gays and lesbians..
yet she SAYS how great diversity is.
the power of these hypocrites is astonishing.
seems like a giant set-up playing out..

[ConstantineParticipant 4420]

I recently had an argument with my sister about this. She said, “There have been some good female leaders over the years.”

Perhaps. There have also been some good male leaders over the years. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Trump will be. Same goes for his opponent.

The performance of previous leaders is no inducement of what the next one’s going to offer. Maybe the world has produced some good female leaders, but it has also produced some very bad ones, so you can’t assume from a few small mercies that the next runner is going to be a godsend. I don’t know why it’s so hard to put that together.

How much did England really change for the better when Thatcher was in power? Unemployment in Britain soared to about 80% during her time in office, and that ended up being the country’s most notable benchmark from that period. I notice that The Iron Lady conveniently left that out. Any questions?

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. -Orwell

[The Moth Attracted to the FlameParticipant 2982]

There was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

Firstly, it was shown that she broke the law.

Second, the President, the person who appoints the FBI director and essentially oversees him and the entire FBI, endorsed Clinton, with whom he had terrible relations with, and from what I can tell, said was “everything wrong with politics”.

Three, how could they know that there was no intent? Does it matter? If I didn’t intend to kill someone, I’d probably still go to jail. If I stole something from a store “unintentionally”, I would still go to jail.

F~~~ this whole gynocentric favoritist system. The US is a joke.

[Anonymous 24]

sidecar wrote:

JoeBauers wrote:

without congressional approval,

Bush-II did get congressional approval with 70% in the house and 77% of the senate voting for it.

Uh, what the hell was the talk about the Obama administration prosecuting the Bush administration about it then? Oh, 500 lies or something right? A genocide based on lies with Congressional approval I guess? Either way, the administration should have been prosecuted. Instead Obama said, lets move on… to Libya I guess…without Congressional approval, cause I got no time to make up 500 lies.

[Anonymous 24]

Rennie wrote:

Well, now we know what FBI stands for – f’ing bureau of imbeciles.

Help us all of she gets voted into the presidency.

You’ve gotta be pretty sick to find having a knife stuck up your ass and then killed, funny.

From what I understand Ghadaffi was planning to only accept gold for his oil, and wanted to create a gold backed currency and supposedly much of Africa would have been on board. This would have undermined the Federal Reserve note as the petro dollar and world reserve currency. Can’t have that… So, we supported fundamentalist rebels and burned the place down. Sound familiar? Ghadaffi brought stability to a very secular country, his coup was fairly bloodless as well. He was doing well for his country, and was very progressive in that part of the world, this is partly why the fundamentalists hated him so much… I followed the whole thing as it unfolded… Hillary is a f~~~ing psycho, celebrating the bowie knife up the ass of a man who did great things for his region, and one of the only men in the world who would speak out against the U.S. I dove deep into Youtube years ago watching him speak on many occasions over the years. He even stood up in an Arab summit after the Iraq war and said if we do not unite now who will be next? The Saudis laughed at him, they knew it would be him, not them. They chop heads off people all the time, U.S./Isreal care? Nope, they are in bed together… 9/11…? Saudis. What the U.S. did in Libya is 100% a war crime of epic proportions, and I will go to my grave believing that the Obama administration should be swinging from the trees. Oh, and Libya is in great shape now… Fantastic idea… if the idea was to create more terrorism…which I actually think it was. Now socialist E.U. countries with slow population growth get their influx of refugees to prop up the system over the next few decades, Ghadaffi gone, no threat to the petro dollar or world reserve currency, and more terrorism to aid their cause, that of never-ending war. Three birds, one stone, brilliant.

[sidecarParticipant 35851]

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, what the hell was the talk about the Obama administration prosecuting the Bush administration about it then?

Pure political posturing for gullible democrats. And nothing more.

Either way, the administration should have been prosecuted.

Any such prosecution would have been an abysmal failure and would have played right into republican hands.

Instead Obama said, lets move on… to Libya I guess…without Congressional approval, cause I got no time to make up 500 lies.

No. Because he’s an appalling hypocrite. Bush-II stated that he didn’t need congressional approval to follow through on a U.N. joint resolution (people forget the U.N. approved action in Iraq before it actually happened and suddenly they didn’t – flippity floppity), but went to get congress’s approval anyways.

Obama staunchly insisted that congressional approval was mandatory – except when he wanted to go play shoot-em-up in some third world s~~~hole.

[Anonymous 24]

sidecar wrote:

No. Because he’s an appalling hypocrite. Bush-II stated that he didn’t need congressional approval to follow through on a U.N. joint resolution (people forget the U.N. approved action in Iraq before it actually happened and suddenly they didn’t – flippity floppity), but went to get congress’s approval anyways.

Obama staunchly insisted that congressional approval was mandatory – except when he wanted to go play shoot-em-up in some third world s~~~hole.

Ah, I think I know why I thought there was no Congressional approval…Cause Bush said he did’nt need it and because I have this vivid memory of Ghadaffi reading the U.N. charter at an Arab summit, and he noted that according to U.N. rules of war the Iraq war was illegal, yet they backed it as you are saying now. I think you can find the video of Ghadaffi at this Arab summit reading the U.N. charter or rules of war or something and then throwing it over his shoulder, as clearly the U.N. itself was not following it’s own rules. At the same summit he gave the speech about any of them being next, and the Saudis are literally chuckling…

Either way, the Iraq war was proven to be based on fabricated lies, and people in power should have been held accountable, but alas, they never are, are they?

Ok just looked really quick, looks like the “we could be next” speech was at Arab summit, and the Saudis laugh at him, knowing he is next. The U.N. charter he throws over his shoulder after reading rules of war was at a U.N. summit. He is the only man on the planet to stand up the U.S./Isreal/U.N. all at once, and likely the last.

Also, not clear if you back Bush saying he needed no congressional approval because U.N. approval…That would be giving our countries sovereignty away to outsiders… Not a great idea my friend, in fact, that would be as un-American as one can be.

[sidecarParticipant 35851]

Anonymous wrote:

Ah, I think I know why I thought there was no Congressional approval

No. There was no congressional approval for Obama’s actions because he’s an unprincipled hypocrite. He knew he wouldn’t get approval, but also knew he wouldn’t be impeached for such gross violations of the constitution and the war powers act (among other things) thanks to his Race Card™.

Either way, the Iraq war was proven to be based on fabricated lies,

That’s certainly one narrative that gets widely promoted.

However it’s also a fact that Iraq was in direct and blatant violation of multiple U.N. resolutions and the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Funny how people seem to keep forgetting that.

Also, not clear if you back Bush saying he needed no congressional approval because U.N. approval

Any time the president uses military force that isn’t absolutely necessary to counter an immediate threat he needs to get congressional approval. And if there is an imminent threat he needs to get congressional approval at the first opportunity. It doesn’t matter if it’s Bush or Obama, republican or democrat, or whatever the f~~~ the U.N. says. Regardless of his personal position on the matter and regardless of the justification he used, Bush stayed within the limits placed on the presidency and obtained congressional approval. Obama did not.

[Anonymous 24]

sidecar wrote:

JoeBauers wrote:

Ah, I think I know why I thought there was no Congressional approval

No. There was no congressional approval for Obama’s actions because he’s an unprincipled hypocrite. He knew he wouldn’t get approval, but also knew he wouldn’t be impeached for such gross violations of the constitution and the war powers act (among other things) thanks to his Race Card™.

Either way, the Iraq war was proven to be based on fabricated lies,

That’s certainly one narrative that gets widely promoted.

However it’s also a fact that Iraq was in direct and blatant violation of multiple U.N. resolutions and the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Funny how people seem to keep forgetting that.

Also, not clear if you back Bush saying he needed no congressional approval because U.N. approval

Any time the president uses military force that isn’t absolutely necessary to counter an immediate threat he needs to get congressional approval. And if there is an imminent threat he needs to get congressional approval at the first opportunity. It doesn’t matter if it’s Bush or Obama, republican or democrat, or whatever the f~~~ the U.N. says. Regardless of his personal position on the matter and regardless of the justification he used, Bush stayed within the limits placed on the presidency and obtained congressional approval. Obama did not.

The first part of your reply is a misread. I was not talking about Obama, I was talking about why I thought Bush did not have congressional approval, and I was clearly wrong.

The U.N. is useless, they clearly pick and choose who to go after when violations occur. Currently Turkey is funneling oil out of Syria via ISIL controlled territories… Nada from the U.N. Also I am pretty sure U.S. involvement in Syria is also against U.N. regulations, but once again, nada. And the fact that there was no punishment for what the U.S. did in Libya is all one really needs to know without having a long argument about it, the U.N. is bulls~~~. And the fact remains, the invasion of Iraq was prompted by the lie that they had WMD’s. Once again, invading a country based on lies and committing genocide, no matter how you want to justify it, is disgusting in my opinion.

And the last part, I agree, and because of this it almost all feels like a setup. Bush says he does not need Congressional approval because the U.N. is all the approval he needs, but gets it anyhow, then down the road Obama does not get Congressional approval and re-defines the meaning of the word “war” and gets away with it. It’s all linear man, they planned all this s~~~ out years ago. Administrations have nothing to do with it, just f~~~ing puppets. Here is a former general spilling the beans years ago… Is he Nostradamus? Highly unlikely. All planned, which puppet is in the White House really does not matter at this point.

March 2, 2007.

[Anonymous 11]

Don’t get even me started on the UN.

I was once at a Ted Nugent concert where he had 5,000 people screaming “F~~~ the UN!” in unison. It was an awesome experience.

[Author]

Posts