This is getting good, an army of fed agents has been assembled to go after Hillary, and the head of the FBI is working on it directly, there is not way the feds will spend this much resource and not get her in prison.

FBI tasks 147 agents to deal with Clinton investigation as bureau zeroes in on interviewing the Democrat over her secret emails as they tell her aides to prepare for questioning

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z44EMpzveA

I'll believe it when she actually gets charged and convicted. I thought she would be above the law, if a corrupt president orders the FBI to stop investigating his former secretary of state, will they listen?

FBI told Nixon to fuck off over Watergate, but those were different times. Today FBI's interests as part of the military-industrial complex are more closely aligned with the establishment politicians and they probably wouldn't discard such a useful pawn.

Either way, I would love for her to not be indicted until after the election date or possibly just before it.

(03-28-2016 03:21 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

Is this is poster for Kill Bill 37?

I want her to get the nomination, Bernard the cuck extraordinaire to endorse her and then be indicted right before going up against Trump. I think I would spontaneously bust multiple nuts if that happened.

I'm not going to get my hopes up, if she was going to be in any sort of trouble for the email server, why is the FBI waiting so many years to act?

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary...over-says/

Hillary ‘had several abortions’, kept Chelsea for political appearances: Bill’s former lover
Even having a child was a political calculation for Hillary Clinton, one of Bill Clinton’s former lovers says — and it’s those types of actions that she believes should give every woman pause before making Hillary the first female president.

Miller, who had a three-month affair with then Gov. Bill Clinton in 1983, recently shared with The American Mirror some of the intimate secrets Bill told her, including that even having a child was a political calculation for the current Democratic front runner for president.

“She had several abortions before she had Chelsea and it was only because Bill convinced her that if they were ever going to move up in politics that they had to have a child because that is what the political analysts had said,” Miller says.

“They’ve gotta see her as a human. They have to see her — I think in society they always say, ‘If you were a mother, you can’t be half bad. There has to be some love or gentleness or compassion within in you birth a child,’ but that’s not true.

“There’s some pretty bad mothers. I had one,” Miller says. She said her mother had abused her for years.

Referring to Clinton again, Miller tells The American Mirror, “She is a Gloria Steinem kind of feminist. If you’ve ever seen picture or heard Gloria Steinem, just a cold, conniving bitch. That’s just it.

RELATED: Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says

“And they don’t care about anyone but themselves. That’s what most feminists are all about. It’s about themselves,” according to Miller.

“And most of them don’t like men, incidentally. They only use men for income (and) appearance.

“Hillary could never had made it to Washington, DC without Bill. He was the song and dance routine. He’s the one that played the sax and he could laugh and joke and talk and Hillary can’t do that.

“She can’t put on her black nightie and run around and she can’t play the sax,” Miller says, referring to her previous claim that, during their trysts, Bill Clinton would wear Miller’s nightie and play his instrument.

“I’m sure if she is a lesbian it’s not fun,” Miller says frankly.

When she was asked about where she heard Hillary Clinton was a lesbian, she responded, “Bill told me!

“Because I said why do you think she is so cold?” recalling her conversation with Bill. “Why do you think she is so uninterested in kissing and holding and just being close physically?

“He said that when she was in college that she and some girls experimented and she liked it. And that’s when the big feminist movement was moving forward and lesbianism was hot.

“It was more vogue for a woman to have a female partner than to have a male partner,” Miller says.

“She’s been an imposter all these years and yet even my own daughter said, ‘But mother, she deserves it. She’s worked for it.’

“I’ve worked for a lot of things in my life that I didn’t get. I worked to be Miss America,” the former Miss Arkansas says. “I wasn’t awarded Miss America. But did I want to go out and end other people’s lives and mistreat them because of it? No, you can’t do that.”

I think we should create a thread for contingency plans if the hag wins. Let's face it, the demographics are on her side and Trump has never once beaten her in the polls. But what do we do? Do we run, and if so how long will conservative conditions last in other countries before Hillary's feminist agenda inevitably destroys them? Do we do like Aaron Clarey and register for as many entitlements as possible and ride the gravy train to collapse? Or do we take... darker measures?

^^What polls show Hillary leading against Trump? I've heard and seen so far the opposite. I'm suspect of most of the polling data. The sample sizes and methodology tend to be trash.

(03-29-2016 01:12 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  ^^What polls show Hillary leading against Trump? I've heard and seen so far the opposite. I'm suspect of most of the polling data. The sample sizes and methodology tend to be trash.

In my state you wouldn't believe the "poll" they keep showing on Arizona Fox10 News @9. It compares how hillary is polling against Cucksich, Rato and the Emperor. If any of you guys could dig it up as I can't you would see what horseshit it is.
They have CUSKICH AND RATO running almost DEAD even with Hillary and Trump LAST with a very low%. Total horseshit.

This older man who's on the morning show had some red pill "advice" on that polling but he keeps his place for the most part lest he lose his job.

I will place a link to RCP. I will be the first to admit I am skeptical of these polls, as in the past they have had both Cruz and Rubio defeating Hillary in the polls, when any sane man could realize that they don't have a chance. Nonetheless, Clinton beats Trump by a big margin in every poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-5491.html

Once again, the demographics are on her side. It may simply be impossible for a conservative man to ever again be elected president in this country.

If that's true that a republican can never win, then someone should go full Machiavelli and run as a Democrat promising free everything and get elected. Then just turn around and tell everyone that it was all bullshit and ridiculous and run a republican presidency.

(03-28-2016 05:47 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 03:21 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

Is this is poster for Kill Bill 37?

It was posted in the Trump thread, a joke about Trump saying he heard about Hillary's scandal, and her trying to guess which one, can someone repost it here please? I can't figure out how to search a thread itself for it.

(03-29-2016 02:42 PM)rw95 Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-5491.html

Once again, the demographics are on her side. It may simply be impossible for a conservative man to ever again be elected president in this country.

Clinton has almost no politicking skills to begin with outside of playing the gender card and generally being a cunt. She has so many skeletons in her closet the only reason her scandals haven't sunk her is because the DNC doubled down early and propped her corpse up like it's a Weekend at Bernie's. Voting democrats tend to fall in line when their local leftists endorse her, which they assuredly did. Besides which, I don't know a single person who actually likes her as a human being or has attended a single rally of hers and I live in an uber-blue state.

Even if Trump doesn't increase his voting bloc one iota, he's got seven or eight months to destroy Clinton's favorability to the point where if a third-party libertarian candidate ran, the MSM would give him press just to intermittently spare Clinton the embarrassment of getting BTFO every twenty minutes on 24 hour news media.

Been a while since I laughed this hard: https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/...ton_bingo/

^^ That's what we call "the preemptive hamster".

This one is the best

Quote:The sexist attack I see the most, but is not attributed to sexism, is that she has been bought by wall street and will do anything someone pays her to do. It's a codified way to call her a gold digger. It directly plays into the trope that all women are just after mens wallets.
Disliking someone whom you think has taken a bribe is not sexist in itself, but the reasons people think that Hillary was bribed during a speech are rooted in sexism. It's within the same vein as wanting a president who is a natural born citizen of the US but only asking for a birth certificate when the president happens to be black.

I think unfortunately there is a lot of misdirected creative potential in this one

That's one hell of a low-energy sub.

Average upvotes for top 5 posts:

r/hillaryclinton: 81
r/the_donald: 1,095

Judge Andrew Napalitano:

Quote:The FBI investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s failure to protect state secrets contained in her emails has entered its penultimate phase, and it is a dangerous one for her and her aides.

Federal law enforcement sources have let it be known that federal prosecutors and the FBI have completed their examination of raw data in the case. After the FBI acquires raw data — for example, the nature and number of the state secrets in the emails Clinton failed to protect or the regular, consistent, systematic nature of that failure — prosecutors and agents proceed to draw rational inferences from that data.

Then they proceed to corroborate those inferences, looking for other sources to support or even to contradict them. With one exception, all of this work has been done with neutral sources of evidence — documents, email metadata, government records and technical experts.

The exception is Bryan Pagliano, the one member of Clinton’s inner circle who, with either a written promise of non-prosecution or an order of immunity from a federal judge, began to cooperate with federal prosecutors last fall.

Here is what he told the feds.

Pagliano has explained to federal prosecutors the who, what, when, how and why he migrated an open State Department email stream and a secret State Department email stream from government computers to Clinton’s secret server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. He has told them that Clinton paid him $5,000 to commit that likely criminal activity.

He has also told some of the 147 FBI agents assigned to this case that Clinton herself was repeatedly told by her own State Department information technology experts and their colleagues at the National Security Agency that her persistent use of her off-the-shelf BlackBerry was neither an effective nor an acceptable means of receiving, transmitting or safeguarding state secrets. Little did they know how reckless she was with government secrets, as none was apparently then aware of her use of her non-secure secret server in Chappaqua for all of her email uses.

We know that the acquisition and corroboration phase of the investigation have been completed because the prosecutors have begun to ask Clinton’s top aides during her time as secretary of state to come in for interviews. This is a delicate and dangerous phase for the aides, all of whom have engaged counsel to represent them.

Here are the dangers.

The Department of Justice will not reveal to the aides or their lawyers what it knows about the case or what evidence of criminal wrongdoing, if any, it has acquired on each of them. Hence, if they submit to an FBI interview, they will go in “blind.” By going in blind, the aides run the risk of getting caught in a “perjury trap.” Though not under oath, they could be trapped into lying by astute prosecutors and aggressive FBI agents, as it is a crime — the equivalent of perjury — to lie to them or materially mislead them.

For this reason, most white-collar criminal defense lawyers will not permit their clients to be interviewed by any prosecutors or FBI agents. Martha Stewart’s lawyers failed to give her that advice, and she went to prison for one lie told in one conversation with one FBI agent.

After interviewing any Clinton aides who choose to be interviewed, the DOJ personnel on the case will move their investigation into its final phase, in which they will ask Clinton herself whether she wishes to speak with them. The prosecutors will basically tell her lawyers that they have evidence of the criminal behavior of their client and that before they present it to a grand jury, they want to afford Clinton an opportunity blindly to challenge it.

This will be a moment she must devoutly wish would pass from her as she will face a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma.

Here is her dilemma.

If she were to talk to federal prosecutors and FBI agents, they would catch her in many inconsistencies as she has spoken with great deception in public about this case. She has, for example, stated many times that she used the private server so she could have one mobile device for all of her emails. The FBI knows she had four mobile devices. She has also falsely claimed publicly and under oath that she neither sent nor received anything “marked classified.” The FBI knows that nothing is marked classified, and its agents also know that her unprotected secret server transmitted some of the nation’s gravest secrets.

The prosecutors and agents cannot be happy about her public lies and her repeated demeaning attitude about their investigation, and they would have an understandable animus toward her if she were to meet with them.

If she were to decline to be interviewed — a prudent legal but treacherous political decision — the feds would leak her rejection of their invitation, and political turmoil would break loose because one of her most imprudent and often repeated public statements, in this case, has been that she can’t wait to talk to the FBI. That’s a lie, and the FBI knows it.

Some Democrats who now understand the gravity of the case against Clinton have taken to arguing lately that the feds should establish a different and higher bar — a novel and unknown requirement for a greater quantum of evidence and proof of a heavier degree of harm — before Clinton can be prosecuted. They have suggested this merely because she is the likely Democratic presidential nominee.

The public will never stand for that. America has a bedrock commitment to the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is beneath the law’s protections or above its requirements. The DOJ is not in the business of rewriting the law, but the Democrats should get in the business of rethinking Clinton’s status as their presumptive presidential nominee, lest a summer catastrophe come their way.

source

I am rooting for Hillary's candidacy to last past the nomination lol.

Here's the thing. From here on out the mainstream media is going to go hell for leather to plaster fake polls in every second of air time they can muster.

The idea will not be to get Hillary a majority of votes.

The objective will be to make plausible the results of a rigged outcome: ie a Hillary win.

(03-29-2016 02:42 PM)rw95 Wrote:  I will place a link to RCP. I will be the first to admit I am skeptical of these polls, as in the past they have had both Cruz and Rubio defeating Hillary in the polls, when any sane man could realize that they don't have a chance. Nonetheless, Clinton beats Trump by a big margin in every poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-5491.html

Once again, the demographics are on her side. It may simply be impossible for a conservative man to ever again be elected president in this country.

Polls are shit. Discussions of demographic are shit. Because they assume that Democrats will continue voting as Democrats.

Politics is about *changing* the odds. Anything can happen, and probably will.