clinton foundation raided

And next time you accuse ME of changing the subject of a thread, try to remember what you are currently doing in this thread.
[/COLOR] [/COLOR] Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And the next time you try to misinterpret what I post ...

... try to remember what you are currently doing in this thread!

Go fly a kite, Junior Birdman!

"It" refers to the word "investigation" in the SAME SENTENCE!

And "it" is a reference to the former "AG" instructing Comey what to call an "investigation"! Not your ignorant question.

If you wouldn't try so hard to appear more intelligent than those around you, you wouldn't look so stupid and like the little internet pussy you are!

Now, go listen to Session's testimony you phoney!

This fits you to a "T" ... the BITCH HOLDING THE SANDWICH!

CONGRATULATIONS LLIARMAN, ON BEING NAMED UNDISPUTED DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2017!

You earned it.

http://apv.today/2017/11/18/355/

BREAKING: FBI Raids Clinton Foundation
apvtoday November 18, 2017

The FBI’s BHEM task force is currently in the midst of an operation at the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan. A constant stream of agents was seen carrying boxes for nearly half an hour, filling three extended cargo vans.

While nobody named Clinton was actually onsite, the VP of Operations, Sarah McGillicuddy, was arrested for being in possession of altered tax documents and forged business ledgers.

The Clintons’ lawyer, Fist Hawthorne, says the Clintons had nothing to do with whatever is going on at that Foundation they swear they’re so incredible at running.

The raid was authorized by the Justice Department at the request of Trey Gowdy, whose committee felt they had enough evidence for a warrant. A federal judge agreed.

The Committee To Convict Clinton has been holding a closed-door hearing for over a month now since the Clinton Foundation cargo ship incident.

Hopefully, this investigation will go smoother than some of the previous attempts. Hiccups along the way in the past have caused many of the wrongdoings of the Clintons to go unnoticed or to be swept under the rug as “unsolvable.” Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

While i agree, i hope it goes smoother, i STILL DOUBT hillary, bill or anyone else related to them will ever see the inside of a prison cell..

While i agree, i hope it goes smoother, i STILL DOUBT hillary, bill or anyone else related to them will ever see the inside of a prison cell.. Originally Posted by garhkal

It would be entertaining to see them reporting monthly to a Federal PO after their "pot of gold at the end of their rainbow" gets drained of their ill-gotten "golden parachute"! Perhaps: Bill, HillariousNoMore, and Chelsea can report together!

"The Family Affair"!!!

If they get prosecuted and found guilty, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and mandatory minimums under the various statutes will not be "favorable" to them, particularly if they various international transactions and tax dodges they have employed are proven.

One might want to "visit" the "fine" imposed several years ago on JP Morgan-Chase with the terms and conditions of payment strapped on the financial institution as a model of what can happen ... and that was for "ONLY" money laundering ... out of a New York U.S. Attorney's office.

To make it easy I found this link, which spells it out!

https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/chase-a-6356

See "MadCow's" parallel sentence for ponzi/fraud scheme.

I recognize the "favorable treatment" the Clintons have enjoyed over the years, but I can also see a Federal judge making comments in a sentencing hearing about "trust" and "public confidence" and the obligation of "public officials" in assuring they respect those obligations and the people they sought to REPRESENT!

If MARTHA STEWART can spend time, the Clintons can!

I recognize the "favorable treatment" the Clintons have enjoyed over the years, but I can also see a Federal judge making comments in a sentencing hearing about "trust" and "public confidence" and the obligation of "public officials" in assuring they respect those obligations and the people they sought to REPRESENT!

If MARTHA STEWART can spend time, the Clintons can! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Unfortunately i don't have as much faith that a judge will have the nads to go after them like they did with Martha..
HELL EVEN Sharptongue,, STILL IS NOT IN PRISON for over 4+ mil in unpaid taxes..
ME OR YOU would have already had our house, bank accounts and cars seized to pay it all..

Nice try douche-bag. Let's cover the posts see what info they provide. Other than tanto loves the bottle, that is.
Looks to me like you misinterpreted every post in this batch you commented on.

Interesting. This happened on July 19th according to this website:

http://flashnewscorner.com/fbi-raids...on-foundation/

Strange that no other news source I could find mentioned this "raid". Both the source Dilbert cited and the one I cited are identical, only 4 months different in time published. The article is most definitely anti-Clinton so I would say take it with a huge grain of salt unless further corroboration comes forth - which I doubt will happen. I think Trump refers to such information as "fake news". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

SR points out there at least 2 versions of the same story. July 19 and one that says "Breaking news" with Nov. 18 date. Trump and most people would call that story fake news. You, of course, get it wrong. You called it,
"unfortunate FACTUAL NEWS". After you'd been told about the dates and lack of another corroborating source.

So you see, "I think Trump refers to such information as "fake news", and you respond,The U.S. Attorney General refers to it as an "investigation"!

And one should not hear or see releases of criminal investigation details. It compromises the validity of the investigation and the element of "surprise" that is effective in such endeavors.This from the person who claimed there was no evidence in the Russia investigation because they (Mueller and co.) hadn't announced it (the presence or nature of the proof. You kept crowing about collusion and ignored the fact the could be several different charges, of which collusion might not be one. The point is you didn't understand evidence doesn't have to be identified until an indictment comes down.
I'm glad to see you learned something. Finally.

You probably haven't seen any "tarmac meetings" about it either! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The FBI raids the Clinton Foundation headquarters and carries out several boxes. That is major news and I would expect that at least one of the major networks or newspapers to report on it. Simply reporting that it happened compromises nothing. Instead we get a couple of anti-Clinton rags reporting it supposedly happened. I can find no information on the U.S. Attorney General referring to any such raid on the Clinton Foundation headquarters back in July.

Maybe you can supply a link as to exactly what the U.S. Attorney General said specifically about THIS raid. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Unable to find another source, SR asked you for a link backing up your claim the Attorney General discussed this particular raid after you said,
"The U.S. Attorney General refers to it as an "investigation"! (your response to the "Fake News" comment). When you use "it"
referring to a quote, normal people with normal communication skills see the "it" refers to the subject of the quote. I see corpy has taught you well. You have to be forced to own up to your own statements.

Did I post the AG said anything about "THIS raid"?

I will refer you to his recent testimony in general. Study what he said about "ongoing investigations" particularly as they relate to the question of whether or not a "special counsel or special prosecutor" would be appointed.

The FBI acts after getting approvals from the DOJ....like most Federal LE agencies. On a local level they may go through the "local" U.S. Attorney's Office, which in turn, according to their "policies and procedures" seek approval upstream at the DOJ. (It's not like the TV shows you watch!)You're trying to change the subject.
The point is the OP story is bullshit. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes you did refer to THIS specific raid. The topic subject was about a single "raid". Up until your post the discussion was about a single "raid". Then you comment:
"The U.S. Attorney General refers to it as an "investigation"!""

The word "it" taken in context of the preceding posts can only be taken one way. Now if you want to expand it to some "ongoing investigation" into Hillary Clinton's actions while SOS or some investigation into the Clinton Foundation, those are totally different subjects than whether or not there was a July raid on the Clinton Foundation headquarters. I can find nothing to support that claim.

And next time you accuse ME of changing the subject of a thread, try to remember what you are currently doing in this thread.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yes, you tried to change the subject.

And the next time you try to misinterpret what I post ...

... try to remember what you are currently doing in this thread!

Go fly a kite, Junior Birdman!

"It" refers to the word "investigation" in the SAME SENTENCE!

And "it" is a reference to the former "AG" instructing Comey what to call an "investigation"! Not your ignorant question.
Coming up next, you showing what a douche-bag you are. You thrash and squirm about, hurling insults (stupid, pussy, phoney (sic), a "T", "bitch holding a sandwich".
Your house of cards colapses and you melt down. You project every bad trait you have from drinking to being a pussy, and everything in between. As a true phony, you are unable to spell the word phony.
If you wouldn't try so hard to appear more intelligent than those around you, you wouldn't look so stupid and like the little internet pussy you are!

Now, go listen to Session's testimony you phoney!

This fits you to a "T" ... the BITCH HOLDING THE SANDWICH!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Stop strutting your stupidity.
Get help.
STFU.

Didn't 2-3 years ago the IRS said the Clinton Foundation had massive tax problems but let them off the hook after the non-Clinton head admitted "errors?" Of course, this was during the Obama administration.

quid pro quo

oh yeah...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cl...rticle/2603667

Didn't 2-3 years ago the IRS said the Clinton Foundation had massive tax problems but let them off the hook after the non-Clinton head admitted "errors?" Of course, this was during the Obama administration.

quid pro quo

oh yeah...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cl...rticle/2603667 Originally Posted by gnadfly

Yup. I do remember that. YET another failure of LE we can lay on the feet of the obama Dept of Injustice..

Ah ... another Obama answer to another question.

Lemmings be like ...

Nice try douche-bag. Let's cover the posts see what info they provide. Other than tanto loves the bottle, that is.
Looks to me like you misinterpreted every post in this batch you commented on.



SR points out there at least 2 versions of the same story. July 19 and one that says "Breaking news" with Nov. 18 date. Trump and most people would call that story fake news. You, of course, get it wrong. You called it,
"unfortunate FACTUAL NEWS". After you'd been told about the dates and lack of another corroborating source.




Unable to find another source, SR asked you for a link backing up your claim the Attorney General discussed this particular raid after you said,
"The U.S. Attorney General refers to it as an "investigation"! (your response to the "Fake News" comment). When you use "it"
referring to a quote, normal people with normal communication skills see the "it" refers to the subject of the quote. I see corpy has taught you well. You have to be forced to own up to your own statements.




Yes, you tried to change the subject.



Stop strutting your stupidity.
Get help.
STFU. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Well said.

Unfortunately i don't have as much faith that a judge will have the nads to go after them like they did with Martha. Originally Posted by garhkal

Although the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer "MANDATORY" as they were originally, they are followed rather closely as a guideline to assure consistency throughout the federal court system and the U.S. Attorney's Office can and does appeal serious departures from those guidelines. If the facts support a variance from the sentence handed out by the District Court judge then the Court of Appeals (or SCOTUS) can reverse and remand with instructions on which provisions of the guidelines were not followed, etc.

Well said. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

"Birds of a feather"!

congratulations LLiarMan.

^^^^ AssUp is it difficult for you to type while you're on your knees?

I know you can't be "talking" to the computer ....

..... with your mouth jammed full of cock!