FBI Director James Comey REFUSES to answer whether or not THE CLINTON FOUNDATION REMAINS UNDER INVESTIGATION!

Keep fcuking that chicken

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/07/megyn-kelly-stuns-fox-news-and-rips-republicans-for-hillary-email-hypocrisy-video/

Megyn Kelly got this right.

Anyone still calling for an investigation is just wasting mine and their tax dollars. This is pointless and trying to distract against their sub par nominee.

Mr. Markle.....please explain the legal connection of Hillary Clinton to the Clinton Foundation? This should be fun......I mean watching a dog chase their tail does give you a grin for a moment, but you have been chasing your tail for eight years.....here is a suggestion......stop.......that TALE is all you.

Nothing will matter... literally nothing... ever under obama. The least accountable administration in our history.

The letter of the law does matter. Nobody would want a family member to be smeared and accused of a crime and expect the standard to be changed just to get a show trial. The law does matter. The integrity of the FBI does matter. I spoke with a neighbor who is retired and has been helping me on my project, and he hates Hillary and is voting for Trump. This is the first person I have met who actually wants to vote for Trump, but he is convinced that Hillary broke the law. I spent five minutes explaining that she did not, and he agreed he understood that she did not break the law, but she is a liar. I am pretty sure she was telling the truth that she had no knowledge of classified information when receiving or sending........and without that intent, how could she lie.....he got that, and finally said, well there are a lot of people who died or were killed around the Clintons......at that point I understood that I could not give him enough truth to debunk the twenty year smear campaign on a women running for office.

You don't want a trial in this case because you're biased. Every other time you want the process to be held.

But to be honest that's normally just lowly police officers... not your hopeful dear leader. Very useful comrade.

NBC News has conceded that the flimsy anti-Clinton allegations contained in a New York Times report fail to deliver on the hype surrounding them. The Times report was based in part on a chapter from discredited conservative author Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash, and a series of facts surrounding the story's allegations supports NBC's negative conclusion.

The Times story suggested that donations to the Clinton Foundation may have influenced Hillary Clinton's State Department, when they signed off on the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with uranium mining claims in the U.S., to Rosatom, a Russian atomic energy agency. Alleging that individuals who had previously donated to the Clinton Foundation may have benefited from the deal, the Times' reporting has been used as the springboard for commentary hyping the supposed connection, despite the lack of evidence.

But the April 24 First Read column on NBCNews.com admits, "upon reflection, that Times article doesn't hold up that well 24 hours after its publication."

Indeed, a series of facts supports NBC's conclusion and unravels the innuendo in the Times piece:

Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.

Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.

The State Department only had one vote on the nine-member Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that approved the deal. Other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, also weighed in.

The chairman of the CFIUS is the Treasury secretary, not secretary of state.
Rosatom had to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency outside of the secretary of state's influence.
Utah's local nuclear regulator also had to sign off on the deal, as it involved mills in the state.

Former assistant secretary of state Jose Fernandez, who was the State Department's principal representative on CFIUS, said, "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

Other media outlets have found that this and additional allegations in Schweizer's book about donations to the Clinton Foundation are unpersuasive. Time magazine noted that Schweizer's allegation about Uranium One "is based on little evidence," and "offers no indication of Hillary Clinton's personal involvement in, or even knowledge of the deliberations," while CNN's Chris Cuomo noted that the "the examples that have come out so far in [The New York Times] were not that impressive." ABC News reported that Clinton Cash "offers no proof that Hillary Clinton took any direct action to benefit the groups and interests that were paying her husband," while Fox News' Ed Henry noted "there's a lot that's murky" in Schweizer's claims.

Even Times writer Patrick Healy admitted that the allegations are "not smoking guns."


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/24/nbc-news-just-admitted-the-ny-times-story-based/203412

The one vote thing will be ignored and you only need to read the title of this thread.........It creates a lie by asking a question......the FBI will not answer a question......and then slips in the lie......remains under investigation. Just like Markle telling us Hillary committed a crime, he assumes that the FBI has at any time investigated the Clinton Foundation.......such sophomoric attempts.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/most-americans-disagree-fbi-decision-hillary-clint/

PkrBum wrote:http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/most-americans-disagree-fbi-decision-hillary-clint/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Washington_Times

"The Washington Times is a newspaper owned by Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, through its company News World Communications. The paper was first published on May 17, 1982. [1]..."

A newspaper founded by a cult leader from Korea...great source.

Its hilarious when you do that... considering the sources you use.

PkrBum wrote:Its hilarious when you do that... considering the sources you use.

I have never been a member of a cult. This man was as dangerous as or more dangerous than Jim Jones. I would never trust him, nor do I trust anything in the sick rag he founded.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Its hilarious when you do that... considering the sources you use.

I have never been a member of a cult. This man was as dangerous as or more dangerous than Jim Jones. I would never trust him, nor do I trust anything in the sick rag he founded.

You gobble up everything soros excretes. The fact that you can't see past that is the proof of your indoctrination.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Its hilarious when you do that... considering the sources you use.

I have never been a member of a cult.  This man was as dangerous as or more dangerous than Jim Jones.  I would never trust him, nor do I trust anything in the sick rag he founded.

You gobble up everything soros excretes. The fact that you can't see past that is the proof of your indoctrination.

Bullshit. I know very little about Soros, except that he's a rich man...he's no hero of mine.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Its hilarious when you do that... considering the sources you use.

I have never been a member of a cult.  This man was as dangerous as or more dangerous than Jim Jones.  I would never trust him, nor do I trust anything in the sick rag he founded.

You gobble up everything soros excretes. The fact that you can't see past that is the proof of your indoctrination.

Bullshit. I know very little about Soros, except that he's a rich man...he's no hero of mine.

You posted a soros sponsored propaganda piece in this thread from media matters... you rarely use the msm.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/10/james-comeys-newspeak-around-hillary-clintons-emai/

Newspeak Arrives in America

Orwell was right about how an unwary society can ride language into tyranny.

George Orwell recognized the seductive drift into a totalitarian society more than six decades ago. He predicted such a society would arrive with a new language he called “Newspeak.” This would disguise truth with subtle elisions from word to word, concept to concept, in a simplistic fashion that would be easily propagated. The new language was to become the lingua franca by the year 1950, leading to a new tyranny that would descend by the year 1984.

Orwell was wrong about the timetable, but not about the drift. Signs of the drift lie all about us. Public figures are so taken with their own egos they spin monstrous lies into accepted truth before our very eyes.

James Comey’s explanation to Congress of his conclusions of what his agents learned about Hillary Clinton’s email adventures dramatically illustrates the peril in the drift. Mr. Comey has a reputation for probity and integrity, which cannot easily be set aside. But he nevertheless showed that he, too, is vulnerable to Washington’s intricate political intrigues. His “explanation” was less explanation than confession that he let Hillary off the hook where she put herself.

Mr. Comey mercilessly parsed every word of his confession. Mrs. Clinton — a woman who occupied high and significant roles in U.S. political life — was in his view wanting only in “technical sophistication” about guarding government classified material. He drew an unpersuasive distinction between “reckless disregard” for American security and “extremely careless” handling of material plainly prohibited by the law.

Mr. Comey, as Orwell predicted the government would, used language to escape the logical progression of language following his revelations of the FBI investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had indeed violated the law protecting national security. After citing the reasons why and how she violated the restrictions on access to classified documents — including the probability that by destroying thousands of emails on her email servers she obstructed justice — he retreated into a convoluted argument for why the government should not proceed against her: There was no “intent” to violate the law, and besides, the law at issue had been on the books for decades, and only a few people had been successfully prosecuted for breaking it.

Mr. Comey had to disregard the text of the law to make his argument, which brings the logical argument back to language, and how he manipulated it.

This new language comes into creation just at the time that the common speech of Americans generally is becoming less and less specific, and given more to bending meaning with clever slang invented to sell something, to be quickly discarded for the next adroit turn of phrase.

When words lose their meaning, so does the law, and the understanding of the rules necessary to make a free society work. This widens the gulf between the self-appointed elites in Washington, New York and Los Angeles on one hand, and everybody else on the other. This in turn produces the amorphous but energized political revolt represented by Donald Trump and his “movement” (similar to what happened in Britain with the revolt of the masses against the unelected bureaucrats of the European Union). The common folk react to what they perceive, if occasionally incoherently, as oppression by a favored elite with their hands on the levers of power.

They often pick up the first weapon at hand. The division of opinion dividing America is often unfocused and angry, a reflection of the growing differences between the head and the heart of the body politic. Polarization is evident elsewhere in American life, complicated by the arrival of large numbers of immigrants with no experience or knowledge of the language and traditions of the law.

As the Trump phenomenon demonstrates, this new cultural divide will have an enormous influence in the future, acting as spur and complement to the far-reaching digital revolution. It will affect and change all aspects of American life. We have been warned. Orwell’s drift quickens.

You have just illustrated a prime example of NEWSPEAK. Dolt.