No Fox News, Hillary Clinton is Not Going To Be Indicted

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: THE DAILY BANTER

URL: http://thedailybanter.com/2016/11/hillary-indictment-again/

by: Jen Froderman


Twitter and Facebook are all abuzz this morning and the Right seem to be re-energized by Fox News running with a story quoting "sources close to the investigation." The investigation, of course, is the ever-present "Hillary Clinton may be indicted for __________"(fill in the blank). This time, it is basically anything and everything: the Clinton Foundation, her emails, and possibly a partridge in a pear tree.

Fox News claims that two sources (anonymous, of course) have said that, basically, everything the public knows is untrue. That Secretary of State Clinton is this close to being indicted and going to hell, er jail, for being bad. The laptops we were told were destroyed by the FBI? They weren't, in fact they are being rechecked as we speak. And all the interviews are happening again. And there is now a lot of evidence, (big league evidence, tremendous evidence, the best evidence, many people say so) that will mean the FBI will, and this is a direct quote from Brett Baier, "continue to likely an indictment."

So, quickly, let's just "Google it" shall we?

52 million responses. 52 million. According to right wing rags like the Federalist and Truth Dig, many quoting Fox News, Hillary Clinton is going to be indicted soon; "soon" being a meaningless word. The date stamps go back years, showing how pervasive this desire to see Hillary behind bars is.

But let that number sink in. 52 Million mentions of that phrase and exactly zero indictments. If even a minuscule fraction of them were true, Hillary would be in jail already. No one is that good. But it's all bullshit and wishful thinking and mindless rage. This is just the continuation of a smear campaign spanning decades. By repeating the words "Hillary" and "indictment" often enough, they hope people will start to believe that she must have committed a crime even though she hasn't. This is how you wind up with an electorate convinced that Donald Trump, the insanely corrupt pathological liar, is more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton, the woman who has dedicated her life to public service.

This is just another attempt by Fox News to tilt the election for Trump because Republicans have given up winning on merit. All they have left is gutter politics and flinging mud.

[driftdiver]

SOURCE: THE DAILY BANTER

URL: http://thedailybanter.com/2016/11/hillary-indictment-again/

by: Jen Froderman


Twitter and Facebook are all abuzz this morning and the Right seem to be re-energized by Fox News running with a story quoting "sources close to the investigation." The investigation, of course, is the ever-present "Hillary Clinton may be indicted for __________"(fill in the blank). This time, it is basically anything and everything: the Clinton Foundation, her emails, and possibly a partridge in a pear tree.

Fox News claims that two sources (anonymous, of course) have said that, basically, everything the public knows is untrue. That Secretary of State Clinton is this close to being indicted and going to hell, er jail, for being bad. The laptops we were told were destroyed by the FBI? They weren't, in fact they are being rechecked as we speak. And all the interviews are happening again. And there is now a lot of evidence, (big league evidence, tremendous evidence, the best evidence, many people say so) that will mean the FBI will, and this is a direct quote from Brett Baier, "continue to likely an indictment."

So, quickly, let's just "Google it" shall we?

52 million responses. 52 million. According to right wing rags like the Federalist and Truth Dig, many quoting Fox News, Hillary Clinton is going to be indicted soon; "soon" being a meaningless word. The date stamps go back years, showing how pervasive this desire to see Hillary behind bars is.

But let that number sink in. 52 Million mentions of that phrase and exactly zero indictments. If even a minuscule fraction of them were true, Hillary would be in jail already. No one is that good. But it's all bullshit and wishful thinking and mindless rage. This is just the continuation of a smear campaign spanning decades. By repeating the words "Hillary" and "indictment" often enough, they hope people will start to believe that she must have committed a crime even though she hasn't. This is how you wind up with an electorate convinced that Donald Trump, the insanely corrupt pathological liar, is more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton, the woman who has dedicated her life to public service.

This is just another attempt by Fox News to tilt the election for Trump because Republicans have given up winning on merit. All they have left is gutter politics and flinging mud.

Rather than agreeing with these folks we should be demanding she be indicted.   We should be burning up the lines to Congress demanding they do their job.

[GAJohnnie]

I love the hypocrise. Everything about "the Russians and Putin are behind the hacking of Hillary" is anonymous sourced from supposed "leakers".

NOW the same people who where pushing this "autonomous source" story line what to deplore the use of "anonymous sources" when it goes against their political agenda.

[Frank Cannon]

Jen Froderman is a radical Communist who supports the far Left. Why in the hell is her garbage from a no name 3rd rate blog being posted as intelligent thought at this cite?

@SirLinksALot

http://thedailybanter.com/author/jen-froderman/

Are you a Leftist troll ?

[sinkspur]

Rather than agreeing with these folks we should be demanding she be indicted.   We should be burning up the lines to Congress demanding they do their job.

Congress can't indict anybody.

[sinkspur]

I'm old enough to remember when Bill and Hillary were "soon" to be indicted over Whitewater.

[GAJohnnie]

Really sad that the #Never Trumpers here have become so pathetically desperate they are now  actively acting as Clinton propaganda bots.

[Frank Cannon]

Really sad that the #Never Trumpers here have become so pathetically desperate they are now  actively acting as Clinton propaganda bots.

I'm about tired of it. I hate Donny too, but to bed down with Commie Pinko filth to make a point or to dismiss what a real criminal and Hitlary is just to bash make him look worse is 100% unadulterated bullshit.

There is enough to go after Donny on that doesn't involve cozying up with Provda to make a point.

[ABX]

It is understandable that people would believe this. Any other citizen, except the mega - connected or influential, would be indicted for a fraction of what we are seeing. Think about what Tom Delay or Martha Stewart did that resulted in their going to jail, then consider that the evidence against Hillary is exponentially more than that.

Another example, think about Julian Assange who has multiple international arrest warrants and has to basically hide in protective immunity in the Ecuadorian embassy in London all because he provided a server (ok, a bit more technically complicated that that) to others who were leaking information. Compare that to Hillary who used an illegal server to traffic government information and hide illegal collusion and money trafficking (and possibly worse).

Richard Nixon lied about destroying 18 minutes of audio tapes and his awareness it took place. Hillary tried to destroy 30 thousand emails, servers, and multiple devices.

In 2014, California State Senator Tom Berryhill was indicted for laundering $40K in donations in the same way we see HRC's camp in Wikileaks laundering millions.

In 2012, ACORN was shut down for illegal moving money from charitable donations to political activities.

Why wouldn't people expect an indictment due to that. Based on those examples, it only seems reasonable.

[ABX]

...a realistic situation... if today and tomorrow there are significant moves or discovery by the FBI, Obama will issue an emergency pardon to Hillary and others under the guise that he is trying to 'shut down a politically motivated witch hunt that is being run to influence the election' (his justification, not my description). He would make a media event out of it that he is 'doing it for the children'.

And before anyone asks, yes, a President can issue a pardon for crimes one hasn't been indicted for. (example, Carter's blanket pardon of draft dodgers).

Obama wouldn't have to worry about political fallout for it, he isn't up for re-election.

[ABX]

At that, per my previous note, here is an exact quote from Wikileaks to know how the Dems think (about a different case but I can see this wording being used)...

It would be timely to issue a pardon before the accumulation of evidence of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct explodes under the Obama administration. The grotesque railroading of a Progressive and good man who Rove could not legitimately defeat at the polls is clearly a scandalous black mark in the history of American justice. Better to rectify it before it's too late.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37898

[INVAR]

Anyone that thinks Hillary is going to be indicted for this - or that anyone of serious importance like Obama also having a hand in the Clinton Foundation - is ever going to face charges over their treason and malfeasance - has no clue about what time we have arrived.

Because you would be talking about indicting and removing most if not all of the entire Federal Beast and all those who shape and profit from it.

So it is never going to happen.

They are a law unto themselves - and they make up law for the rest of us at their discretion.

Recognize what time it is and what condition we have become accustomed.

[Oceander]

Really sad that the #Never Trumpers here have become so pathetically desperate they are now  actively acting as Clinton propaganda bots.

[SirLinksALot]

Jen Froderman is a radical Communist who supports the far Left. Why in the hell is her garbage from a no name 3rd rate blog being posted as intelligent thought at this cite?

@SirLinksALot

http://thedailybanter.com/author/jen-froderman/

Are you a Leftist troll ?

I am not sure what the rules are in this forum.... are only those that are supportive of conservative ideas allowed in the forum?

My personal reason for posting this is for people like you or others to REFUTE IT.

And please, don't get personal.

[Oceander]

I am not sure what the rules are in this forum.... are only those that are supportive of conservative ideas allowed in the forum?

My personal reason for posting this is for people like you or others to REFUTE IT.

And please, don't get personal.

@SirLinksALot
The basic rule is: use your judgment.  The second rule is: if you followed the first rule, don't let others get your goat.   

There is no per se restriction on what gets posted. 

[SirLinksALot]

@SirLinksALot
The basic rule is: use your judgment.  The second rule is: if you followed the first rule, don't let others get your goat.   

There is no per se restriction on what gets posted.

Well, my judgment is this -- this author ( regardless of her political persuasion ) has a point.

People have been talking about a Hillary indictment since long before the primaries and we're not there at all.

Maybe we don't appreciate the DEBTH of corruption that is pervading this country's government.

[Oceander]

Well, my judgment is this -- this author ( regardless of her political persuasion ) has a point.

People have been talking about a Hillary indictment since long before the primaries and we're not there at all.

Maybe we don't appreciate the DEBTH of corruption that is pervading this country's government.

@SirLinksALot

Then, good sir, it would seem to me that you followed the first rule.  So you're entirely within your rights to ignore Mr. Cannon and tell him to take a long walk off a short pier.