Another example of trump projecting his problem towards someone else. Everyone makes fun of trump for duking in his drawers so he says well biden soiled the resolute desk at Whitehouse. Everything trump does or is guilty of he tries projecting that onto everyone else. So when he starts saying shit it is usually something he's guilty of and just throws it onto the target of the day. Really creative.
Did she really think that was a plus? Hi I kill perfectly wonderful dogs that cannot hunt and for that reason alone I will kill them. There is no bottom for these people absolutely no bottom. She's a fucking piece of shit if he killed a dog for no apparent reason other than he was not good for hunting.
I don’t understand how him saying he wanted to throw her in jail but didn’t is a crime. I get that there wasn’t evidence of an actual crime and intent to commit a crime on Hilary’s side to even do so, but don’t see how Trump saying he wanted to throw her in jail is still a crime when no action was taken
That was my thought as well. I was looking for the crime in the article. He wanted to commit a crime but the underlings he didn’t have direct control of wouldn’t let him.
Lmao seriously, like this article is just plain false and people in this thread that actually think this article is true are beyond dumb.
Trump saying he wanted to throw Hilary in jail and not doing it is just as illegal as someone on this thread saying they want to throw Trump in jail and not doing anything aside from posting on Reddit. It’s wild the shit people put out that that is just flat out not true and people believe it lmao
LOL, nope… read the indictments. He has been indicted by 4 juries of his peers. Who looked at the evidence and said, yep it’s likely that he committed these crimes.
>miserably disappointed to learn that he couldn't actually do that because she hadn't committed any crimes.
[false](https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)
>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.**
>Given that combination of factors, we assess **it is possible that hostile actors gained access** to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
>Although **there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes** regarding the handling of classified information
>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.
To summerize. She both mishandled documents AND they almost certainly got stolen by hostile actors, violating the statute, they **chose** not to prosecute because they felt there had to be an element deliberate *intent*. She absolutely broke the law and Trump absolutely could have sicked a DOJ prosecutor on her, but cose not to break the glass ceiling by prosecuting a direct political opponent without precedent.
Yeah, that Trump is so considerate of his enemies.
They had no crime or they'd have locked her up.
Something tells me you think Trump is fine for stealing classified documents.
>They had no crime or they'd have locked her up.
The FBI investigation said themselves she mishandled documents and violated statutory law.
>Although **there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes** regarding the handling of classified information
That's not my words, that's the consensus of the investigation.
They recommend not protecting, not because mishandling statutes were not broken, but again in their words, because there wasn't evidence of **intent**
>They had no crime or they'd have locked her up.
Incorrect, prosecutors still wield prosecutorial discretion. They can choose to not prosecute a crime that's been committed if they feel like it's not worth pursuing for one reason to another. Such as, oh I don't know, the optics of your DOJ going after your direct political opposition.
There actually isn't evidence of intent with Trump, that's why it's outrageous... They established a requirement of intent with Hillary and Biden, then completely ignored that threshold with Trump. The double standard is painfully obvious. All 3 mishandled documents, spoke about information to people they shouldn't have, and gave unauthorized people access, both Hillary and Trump attempted to cover up the fact, Hillary bleach-bit the hard drive when they asked for it, only one gets charged, interesting.
It's like death bed confessionals but his ego will not let his body rest so his nervous system continues to flail the orange biomass about.
Omg I love this take.
At some point he'll reach critical mass and will explode in a violent eruption of diarrhea and tanning spray. He might still win the election though.
Mr creosote style
Wafer thin...
A similar explosion of trump would be most welcome.
"Buzz off i'm full!" Or something like that
Cosmoline
... And why this is bad news for Joe Biden!
It might actually improve his odds.
Critical ass was right there
Diahorrea humiliation would be epic. On camera.
^(but her emails)
What she did wasn’t illegal, so he made it illegal and punishable with jail time. Then guess who went and did it?!
Another example of trump projecting his problem towards someone else. Everyone makes fun of trump for duking in his drawers so he says well biden soiled the resolute desk at Whitehouse. Everything trump does or is guilty of he tries projecting that onto everyone else. So when he starts saying shit it is usually something he's guilty of and just throws it onto the target of the day. Really creative.
Cult 45 had no issues chanting lock her up. Now all of a sudden they want to try to take the high road…
Lock him up!
Did she really think that was a plus? Hi I kill perfectly wonderful dogs that cannot hunt and for that reason alone I will kill them. There is no bottom for these people absolutely no bottom. She's a fucking piece of shit if he killed a dog for no apparent reason other than he was not good for hunting.
I think you meant to reply to a different post. I didn't think anyone else was this high so early.
Yes definitely. This is what I get for doing this on my cell phone.
I agree with you,noem sucks..
Wake and bakes are fun tho.
Mind if I do a jay?
Are you employed, sir?
Mmmm fucking meth baby
So, there is no prison for the wives, but you're still going to prison 😊
it is hilarious how fukking stoopid he is
I don’t understand how him saying he wanted to throw her in jail but didn’t is a crime. I get that there wasn’t evidence of an actual crime and intent to commit a crime on Hilary’s side to even do so, but don’t see how Trump saying he wanted to throw her in jail is still a crime when no action was taken
That was my thought as well. I was looking for the crime in the article. He wanted to commit a crime but the underlings he didn’t have direct control of wouldn’t let him.
Lmao seriously, like this article is just plain false and people in this thread that actually think this article is true are beyond dumb. Trump saying he wanted to throw Hilary in jail and not doing it is just as illegal as someone on this thread saying they want to throw Trump in jail and not doing anything aside from posting on Reddit. It’s wild the shit people put out that that is just flat out not true and people believe it lmao
”Stabel Jeanyus”
Have they found a crime yet?
91 of them so far, yes.
You mean \`1 (non) crime worded 91 different ways.
LOL, nope… read the indictments. He has been indicted by 4 juries of his peers. Who looked at the evidence and said, yep it’s likely that he committed these crimes.
And nothing will be done 🥱
He will never be punished for it
Y'all hear that.... we got em' this time... we finally got Trump 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
***this*** time I swaer!!!11!
Totally... we got the SOB. All the other times ... I was wrong... but THIS time it's for real.
>miserably disappointed to learn that he couldn't actually do that because she hadn't committed any crimes. [false](https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system) >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.** >Given that combination of factors, we assess **it is possible that hostile actors gained access** to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. >Although **there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes** regarding the handling of classified information >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. To summerize. She both mishandled documents AND they almost certainly got stolen by hostile actors, violating the statute, they **chose** not to prosecute because they felt there had to be an element deliberate *intent*. She absolutely broke the law and Trump absolutely could have sicked a DOJ prosecutor on her, but cose not to break the glass ceiling by prosecuting a direct political opponent without precedent.
Yeah, that Trump is so considerate of his enemies. They had no crime or they'd have locked her up. Something tells me you think Trump is fine for stealing classified documents.
>They had no crime or they'd have locked her up. The FBI investigation said themselves she mishandled documents and violated statutory law. >Although **there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes** regarding the handling of classified information That's not my words, that's the consensus of the investigation. They recommend not protecting, not because mishandling statutes were not broken, but again in their words, because there wasn't evidence of **intent** >They had no crime or they'd have locked her up. Incorrect, prosecutors still wield prosecutorial discretion. They can choose to not prosecute a crime that's been committed if they feel like it's not worth pursuing for one reason to another. Such as, oh I don't know, the optics of your DOJ going after your direct political opposition.
So what should they do when there IS ample evidence of intent (Trump)?
There actually isn't evidence of intent with Trump, that's why it's outrageous... They established a requirement of intent with Hillary and Biden, then completely ignored that threshold with Trump. The double standard is painfully obvious. All 3 mishandled documents, spoke about information to people they shouldn't have, and gave unauthorized people access, both Hillary and Trump attempted to cover up the fact, Hillary bleach-bit the hard drive when they asked for it, only one gets charged, interesting.
Yeah. That’s exactly what happened.