Guess Whose House Wasn't Raided by the FBI

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Let us get this straight. Clinton's attorney (Cheryl Mills) gets immunity and is allowed to decide which of Hillary's emails to delete and which to hand over, but Michael Cohen has his office raided because he might be hiding something? If they were worried Cohen might be destroying evidence, then what about the 33,000 emails destroyed by Team Hillary? Michael Flynn was convicted of false statements to investigators, but Andy McCabe, who, according to Rep. Jim Jordan, lied four times to investigators, walks?

Hillary’s attorney Cheryl Mills was given an immunity deal despite smashing up myriads of laptops and cell phones. Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen does nothing and has his home and office raided like he was Al Capone. The FBI never raided Cheryl Mills house, office, and hotel room when Hillary Clinton compromised our national security but they raid Michael Cohen’s because there might be an illegal campaign contribution? Never mind the $145 million that poured into the Clinton Foundation as Hillary shepherded 20 percent of our uranium supply into Russian hands.

According to the Daily Caller, Robert Mueller is interested in a $150,000 donation made to a Trump charity in 2015 by a Ukrainian businessman:

The donation, from steel magnate Victor Pinchuk, pales in comparison to contributions he gave to the charity Bill and Hillary Clinton set up. The billionaire has contributed $13 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2006 and had access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state.

But Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not investigating The Clintons. Instead, he is conducting a broad investigation of Donald Trump, including the flow of foreign money into various Trump-controlled entities.

Mueller began investigating the Pinchuk donation after receiving documents in response to a subpoena issued to the Trump Organization -- the real estate company Trump ran before entering politics.

In September 2015, Trump appeared via video link at a conference Pinchuk hosted in Kiev. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, negotiated details of the event with Douglas Schoen, a former consultant for Bill Clinton, according to The New York Times. Trump did not initially request payment for the appearance, but Cohen contacted Schoen at one point to request a $150,000 honorarium, The Times reported.




https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/guess_whose_house_wasnt_raided_by_the_fbi.html
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Anyone who doesn't see that this is a witch hunt is a fool. We shouldn't have allowed our government to get this powerful, that they can pull this crap.

Too late now.
 

Starman

New Member
Damn an article about Hillary and they forgot to mention Ben Gozzie. Someone’s remiss in their propaganda skillz.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Anyone who doesn't see that this is a witch hunt is a fool. We shouldn't have allowed our government to get this powerful, that they can pull this crap.

Too late now.

Can you tell me how a Trump appointee Judge signing the warrant for Cohens raid is an example of a witch hunt? Or the deep state?

Or do you just repeat whatever Trump says?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member

But the deep state!! Hillary is pulling all the strings. She is the most powerful women in the world.

Just not powerful enough to win the election.


These people don’t even stop and think for a moment or they would realize their idiocy doesn’t hold water.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Damn an article about Hillary and they forgot to mention Ben Gozzie. Someone’s remiss in their propaganda skillz.

I think it was an article about hypocritical law "enforcement", and prosecutorial discretion. Not Hillary. She's merely an example of the corruption, not the be-all and end-all of corruption.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I think it was an article about hypocritical law "enforcement", and prosecutorial discretion. Not Hillary. She's merely an example of the corruption, not the be-all and end-all of corruption.

Please explain how it is hypocritical?

Mueller found evidence of a crime and referred it to the SDNY who decided to pursue it.

It would only be hypocritical if Mueller had uncovered evidence of a crime and referred it to the SDNY who declined to pursue it because it was Hillary Clinton's lawyer.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
the FBI white washed Hillary's misdeeds

Again you can't compare one crime to another especially when you have no idea what you are talking about. And you can't compare one prosecutor to another.


It would only be hypocritical if Mueller had uncovered evidence of a crime and referred it to the SDNY who declined to pursue it because it was Hillary Clinton's lawyer.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Again you can't compare one crime to another especially when you have no idea what you are talking about. And you can't compare one prosecutor to another.


It would only be hypocritical if Mueller had uncovered evidence of a crime and referred it to the SDNY who declined to pursue it because it was Hillary Clinton's lawyer.

Think bigger. :cheers:
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
IMG_5653.jpg
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
the FBI white washed Hillary's misdeeds

But this raises another question: Where the hell were the FBI and DOJ when it came to Hillary Clinton? Trump himself has been enraged by the disparity between law enforcement's treatment of Clinton and its treatment of him. He rightly points out that the FBI and DOJ worked to exonerate Clinton, with former FBI Director James Comey going so far as to change the definition of existing law to avoid recommending her indictment for mishandling classified material. And not only did then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch meet with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in the middle of the election cycle and the investigation of his wife, Lynch's Department of Justice allowed Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's top aide, to claim attorney-client privilege. As Andrew McCarthy of National Review pointed out at the time, Mills was involved in the scrubbing of over 30,000 emails, yet the DOJ "indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI's ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation." Furthermore, Mills was allowed to sit in on Clinton's interview with the FBI as Clinton's lawyer.

And herein lies the problem for the DOJ and the FBI. Let's assume, for a moment, that everything they're doing now is totally honest and aboveboard — that there's no attempt to "get" President Trump and they're just following where the evidence leads. Many conservatives will rightly point to the DOJ and FBI treatment of Hillary Clinton, and state that the agencies ought to be consistent in their application of the law and leave Trump alone. Or they'll suggest that Trump ought to turn those agencies into personal defense organizations, as former President Obama did.

Once supposedly neutral organizations are made partisan, a return to neutrality looks partisan. That means that the FBI and DOJ damn well better have gold-plated evidence against Cohen; they better not leak ancillary information damaging Trump to the press; and they better have dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's. If not, there will be hell to pay, not merely for those agencies but for a country that can no longer trust its own law enforcement agencies.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/29305/death-fbi-and-doj-ben-shapiro
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
But this raises another question: Where the hell were the FBI and DOJ when it came to Hillary Clinton? Trump himself has been enraged by the disparity between law enforcement's treatment of Clinton and its treatment of him. He rightly points out that the FBI and DOJ worked to exonerate Clinton, with former FBI Director James Comey going so far as to change the definition of existing law to avoid recommending her indictment for mishandling classified material. And not only did then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch meet with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in the middle of the election cycle and the investigation of his wife, Lynch's Department of Justice allowed Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's top aide, to claim attorney-client privilege. As Andrew McCarthy of National Review pointed out at the time, Mills was involved in the scrubbing of over 30,000 emails, yet the DOJ "indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI's ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation." Furthermore, Mills was allowed to sit in on Clinton's interview with the FBI as Clinton's lawyer.

And herein lies the problem for the DOJ and the FBI. Let's assume, for a moment, that everything they're doing now is totally honest and aboveboard — that there's no attempt to "get" President Trump and they're just following where the evidence leads. Many conservatives will rightly point to the DOJ and FBI treatment of Hillary Clinton, and state that the agencies ought to be consistent in their application of the law and leave Trump alone. Or they'll suggest that Trump ought to turn those agencies into personal defense organizations, as former President Obama did.

Once supposedly neutral organizations are made partisan, a return to neutrality looks partisan. That means that the FBI and DOJ damn well better have gold-plated evidence against Cohen; they better not leak ancillary information damaging Trump to the press; and they better have dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's. If not, there will be hell to pay, not merely for those agencies but for a country that can no longer trust its own law enforcement agencies.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/29305/death-fbi-and-doj-ben-shapiro

More BS. Just admit you got conned.

"That plays great before the election -- now we don't care, right?"

However, once Trump became President-elect, he said he wouldn't recommend prosecution of Clinton, whom he told New York Times reporters has "suffered greatly."

He also said the idea of prosecuting Clinton is "just not something I feel very strongly about”

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-chant/index.html
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
You can’t be surprised the FBI didn’t raid her.

They saw the Hillary Porn site long before that and won’t go near the place.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
More BS. Just admit you got conned.

"That plays great before the election -- now we don't care, right?"

However, once Trump became President-elect, he said he wouldn't recommend prosecution of Clinton, whom he told New York Times reporters has "suffered greatly."

He also said the idea of prosecuting Clinton is "just not something I feel very strongly about”

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-chant/index.html

Virtually everyone has told you that they don't care what Trump thinks about it, they still believe that her crimes have been documented and she needs to be prosecuted for those.

Virtually everyone has said that they disagree with Trump's position you have on speed-post.

Why do you keep going back to this same line?
 
Top