So, Hillary got offered a plea?

[~Rocktar~]

As the title says, apparently Hillary may have been offered a plea deal by the Justice Department.

I dunno, we know she has perjured herself to Congress so why offer a deal? What else is about to come along? Are they actually going after the pay for play?

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2017/08/report-hillary-email-investigation-reopened-plea-bargain-offered-3541748.html

Apparently Newsmax is the origin of the story. So here is their article on it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-hillary-plea-bargain/2017/08/08/id/806488/

We can only hope that this long time scumbag will get her comeuppance after decades of dirty dealings that make Capone look as innocent as a newborn babe.

[Androidpk]

In before time4fun cries fake news.

[time4fun]

Ahhh yes, a single sourced story that's ONLY running in right wing news outlets. How very credible. I mean, why wouldn't a "Clinton lawyer" go running straight to Newsmax, of all publications, with this story instead of a reputable news source like WaPo, CNN, or NYT? And, why wouldn't Newsmax go try to confirm the story by getting some DoJ sources to back it up?

And if they DID go to Clinton and offer not to investigate something in return for admitting guilt after the formal investigation found nothing- then there's a massive scandal here. But it's not about Clinton. So, again, why would they go to a right-wing news outlet with this information? How would that benefit Clinton or the lawyer? And- still- something this big would be easy to corroborate with someone from the DoJ.


BTW the entire premise of the story is ridiculous. That's not how the FBI operates: they don't make agreements not to investigate things, and they don't return to old investigations unless new information was found (in which case, they continue the investigation quietly until they've come to a conclusion).


Given how much garbage you all have fallen for in the past by following disreptuable news sources, you'd think you would have learned to be more careful.

[Tgo01]

In before time4fun cries fake news.

Called it.

[Androidpk]

Yes, the FBI investigation was so formal that no search warrants were ever issued and not a single office raided for evidence. Typical FBI.

[Fortybox]

Ahhh yes, a single sourced story that's ONLY running in right wing news outlets. How very credible. I mean, why wouldn't a "Clinton lawyer" go running straight to Newsmax, of all publications, with this story instead of a reputable news source like WaPo, CNN, or NYT? And, why wouldn't Newsmax go try to confirm the story by getting some DoJ sources to back it up?

And if they DID go to Clinton and offer not to investigate something in return for admitting guilt after the formal investigation found nothing- then there's a massive scandal here. But it's not about Clinton. So, again, why would they go to a right-wing news outlet with this information? How would that benefit Clinton or the lawyer? And- still- something this big would be easy to corroborate with someone from the DoJ.


BTW the entire premise of the story is ridiculous. That's not how the FBI operates: they don't make agreements not to investigate things, and they don't return to old investigations unless new information was found (in which case, they continue the investigation quietly until they've come to a conclusion).


Given how much garbage you all have fallen for in the past by following disreptuable news sources, you'd think you would have learned to be more careful.

GO AWAY.

I thought these forums were so horrible for you.

[Wrathbringer]

Ahhh yes, a single sourced story that's ONLY running in right wing news outlets. How very credible. I mean, why wouldn't a "Clinton lawyer" go running straight to Newsmax, of all publications, with this story instead of a reputable news source like WaPo, CNN, or NYT? And, why wouldn't Newsmax go try to confirm the story by getting some DoJ sources to back it up?

And if they DID go to Clinton and offer not to investigate something in return for admitting guilt after the formal investigation found nothing- then there's a massive scandal here. But it's not about Clinton. So, again, why would they go to a right-wing news outlet with this information? How would that benefit Clinton or the lawyer? And- still- something this big would be easy to corroborate with someone from the DoJ.


BTW the entire premise of the story is ridiculous. That's not how the FBI operates: they don't make agreements not to investigate things, and they don't return to old investigations unless new information was found (in which case, they continue the investigation quietly until they've come to a conclusion).


Given how much garbage you all have fallen for in the past by following disreptuable news sources, you'd think you would have learned to be more careful.

You have your safe space forum now, so gtfo plsthx. Bye.

[Savageheart]

rofl this is a joke story repost by newsmax. Rejoice.

Here's the thing, if the first line is "you wont read this on (insert credible news source) you should just admit your reading fan fiction.

[Methais]

In before time4fun cries fake news.


Ahhh yes, a single sourced story that's ONLY running in right wing news outlets. How very credible. I mean, why wouldn't a "Clinton lawyer" go running straight to Newsmax, of all publications, with this story instead of a reputable news source like WaPo, CNN, or NYT? And, why wouldn't Newsmax go try to confirm the story by getting some DoJ sources to back it up?

And if they DID go to Clinton and offer not to investigate something in return for admitting guilt after the formal investigation found nothing- then there's a massive scandal here. But it's not about Clinton. So, again, why would they go to a right-wing news outlet with this information? How would that benefit Clinton or the lawyer? And- still- something this big would be easy to corroborate with someone from the DoJ.


BTW the entire premise of the story is ridiculous. That's not how the FBI operates: they don't make agreements not to investigate things, and they don't return to old investigations unless new information was found (in which case, they continue the investigation quietly until they've come to a conclusion).


Given how much garbage you all have fallen for in the past by following disreptuable news sources, you'd think you would have learned to be more careful.

:lol: what a predictable can of AIDS.

[Latrinsorm]

person a: posts something incorrect
person a: [to self] lol people are going to call this incorrect!!
person b: hey, that's incorrect
person a: LOL CALLED IT OMFG ROFL

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/614/734/8a5.gif

[Tgo01]

person a: posts something incorrect
person a: [to self] lol people are going to call this incorrect!!
person b: hey, that's incorrect
person a: LOL CALLED IT OMFG ROFL

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/614/734/8a5.gif

Latrinsorm made me laugh. Now I know I'm going to hell :(

[Methais]

person a: posts something incorrect
person a: [to self] lol people are going to call this incorrect!!
person b: hey, that's incorrect
person a: LOL CALLED IT OMFG ROFL

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/614/734/8a5.gif

Was anyone factually incorrect about the response though???????????&?&,&,&;;@@

[~Rocktar~]

Ahhh yes, a single sourced story that's ONLY running in right wing news outlets. How very credible. I mean, why wouldn't a "Clinton lawyer" go running straight to Newsmax, of all publications, with this story instead of a reputable news source like WaPo, CNN, or NYT? And, why wouldn't Newsmax go try to confirm the story by getting some DoJ sources to back it up?

And if they DID go to Clinton and offer not to investigate something in return for admitting guilt after the formal investigation found nothing- then there's a massive scandal here. But it's not about Clinton. So, again, why would they go to a right-wing news outlet with this information? How would that benefit Clinton or the lawyer? And- still- something this big would be easy to corroborate with someone from the DoJ.


BTW the entire premise of the story is ridiculous. That's not how the FBI operates: they don't make agreements not to investigate things, and they don't return to old investigations unless new information was found (in which case, they continue the investigation quietly until they've come to a conclusion).


Given how much garbage you all have fallen for in the past by following disreptuable news sources, you'd think you would have learned to be more careful.

Well, until Comey threw the FBI credibility under the bus, they didn't make judgments on if a crime had been committed either, they handed the decision to the prosecutor or a grand jury to decide.

[~Rocktar~]

rofl this is a joke story repost by newsmax. Rejoice.

Here's the thing, if the first line is "you wont read this on (insert credible news source) you should just admit your reading fan fiction.

If it doesn't involve any Danny/John Snow sex scene or something like that, how can it be fan fiction?

[~Rocktar~]

person a: posts something incorrect
person a: [to self] lol people are going to call this incorrect!!
person b: hey, that's incorrect
person a: LOL CALLED IT OMFG ROFL

I posted with a question mark in the title, sorry my suspicion on the accuracy of the article wasn't posted in large bold red letters so you could understand that. I posted no other assertions. Please at least try and be accurate since you can't seem to make coherent sense.

[time4fun]

Well, until Comey threw the FBI credibility under the bus, they didn't make judgments on if a crime had been committed either, they handed the decision to the prosecutor or a grand jury to decide.

Riiight. DISTRACT, DISTRACT!

Your entire take on what Comey did is inaccurate. Prosecutors DID handle the case, and they decided there was no reason to push for prosecution. Comey didn't invent that. He invented press conferences in violation of long-standing FBI protocol.

More importantly though- I'll bet you'll just keep reading Newsmax in the future. You've demonstrated time and again that inaccurate reporting doesn't bother you as long as it fits your political outlook.

[Methais]

Riiight. DISTRACT, DISTRACT!

Your entire take on what Comey did is inaccurate. Prosecutors DID handle the case, and they decided there was no reason to push for prosecution. Comey didn't invent that. He invented press conferences in violation of long-standing FBI protocol.

More importantly though- I'll bet you'll just keep reading Newsmax in the future. You've demonstrated time and again that inaccurate reporting doesn't bother you as long as it fits your political outlook.

Does this mean you're not going to back up your claim that you still refuse to back up?

It's ok to admit when you're wrong. Watch I'll show you...

I was wrong when I thought you had enough integrity to admit you were wrong instead of just bailing on the discussion and hoping nobody would notice!

(I actually thought the opposite and was correct but I know how you relate well to make believe things so it's worth a try!)

See how easy that was? Now you try.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?110544-Trump-Bans-Transgenders-from-the-Military&p=1970300#post1970300

Or should we just chalk it up to more of your inaccurate reporting?

[SHAFT]

person a: posts something incorrect
person a: [to self] lol people are going to call this incorrect!!
person b: hey, that's incorrect
person a: LOL CALLED IT OMFG ROFL

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/614/734/8a5.gif

I have everyone but you and time4fun in this thread ignored. Thanks for the rundown.

[Methais]

I have everyone but you and time4fun in this thread ignored. Thanks for the rundown.

When did you become such an angry person? Unless I'm confusing you with someone else I remember you being normal.

Back in the old days!

[SHAFT]

When did you become such an angry person? Unless I'm confusing you with someone else I remember you being normal.

Back in the old days!

Forgive me; you're not ignored either. You're special to me.

Love, Shaft

[Methais]

Forgive me; you're not ignored either. You're special to me.

Love, Shaft

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQecFVjuna-9F-4kpSBVjntH1LNxr6TPq1_4AEX7qbw2fKDhw

(I'm the blue one btw because pink is gay)

[Tgo01]

I have everyone but you and time4fun in this thread ignored. Thanks for the rundown.

Snowflake forums are that way.

[Methais]

Snowflake forums are that way.

Which way? I don't see anything in your post indicating which direction to go. Like that fucking desert on King's Quest V fuck that place with a dick full of AIDS jizz without pulling out!

[Androidpk]

When did you become such an angry person? Unless I'm confusing you with someone else I remember you being normal.

Back in the old days!

That's what I've been wondering. SHAFT used to be synonymous with cool. Now he's just a liberal crybaby. Sad times.

[Parkbandit]

When did you become such an angry person? Unless I'm confusing you with someone else I remember you being normal.

Back in the old days!

11/9/17 2:00am

He was majorly triggered and hasn't been the same since.

Poor thing. Now he's just a delicate little bitch who can't seem to get over Trump. I think Trump touched him in his pussy when he was younger.. and he hasn't been the same since.

[Latrinsorm]

I have everyone but you and time4fun in this thread ignored. Thanks for the rundown.h/t

[Androidpk]

RSN

[subzero]

I think Trump touched him in his pussy when he was younger.. and he hasn't been the same since.

https://i.imgflip.com/1ue6z8.jpg

[Kobold]

Calling it here first: Trump resigns by Christmas this year