Thursday, July 21, 2016

Clinton keeps Lying about those Damn Emails!

Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire!
Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire!

July 19, 2016 - In a recent interview (video embedded below and a transcript at the bottom of this post) with Charlie Rose of CBS News, the presumptive Democratic nominee is grilled about the FBI investigation into her use of a private e-mail server as Secretary of State.

Clinton almost seemed to imply that FBI director James Comey had all but completely exonerated her, saying she was grateful that Comey had "clarified" the comments he had made at his news conference two days later during the congressional hearing (links below).

FBI director James Comey (who said he wasn't present at Clinton's interrogation) told the House committee Clinton wasn't sworn to oath when being questioned at FBI headquarters in Washington DC -- and her testimony wasn't video taped either, even after the FBI had changed it's policy in 2014 to start recording all FBI "interviews".

* Compare the remarks Clinton made to the remarks James Comey made at his news conference on July 5, 2016:

* Proof in 30-seconds that Clinton deliberately set up her private email server to avoid Freedom of Information requests:

* Clinton's first interview after James Comey's news conference

* Congressional hearing with James Comey on July 7, 2017:

* The Media Blasts Clinton on FBI Report

Is Hillary Clinton a Pathological Liar? (She can't be indicted for lying because she doesn't even know she's lying!)

(January 8, 1996) New York Times: "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar."

Hillary Clinton Lies about Lying!

Seriously, could Hillary Clinton be a Psychopath?

Is Hillary Clinton's Condition Neurological?


CHARLIE ROSE, CBS NEWS: Do you think the e-mail crisis contributed to the question of trust?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I have said that I am very sorry about it, that I made a mistake. It was certainly not a choice I would do again.

ROSE: I want to hear you out on this. You've said, 'I'm sorry, I made a mistake.'

CLINTON: That's right, that's right.

ROSE: It was the wrong thing to do.

CLINTON: That's right, I have said that.

ROSE: And some say, what were you thinking about the national security risk when you made this decision. Because of the capacity, and it hasn't been determined that there was no hacking?

CLINTON: Well, there's no evidence of it.

ROSE: There's no evidence.

CLINTON: There's no evidence of it.

ROSE: But some would suggest that's the reason that they were very good at it because there's no evidence of it.

CLINTON: Charlie, there is no evidence of that.

ROSE: Comey, the director of the FBI, said but we don't know.

CLINTON: No, that's not what he said.

ROSE: What did he say?

CLINTON: He said --

ROSE: You can't rule it out, he said.

CLINTON: Well, you can't rule it in either. There is no evidence. So we can go back and forth on this. I go where the evidence leads and there is no evidence.

ROSE: Let me go to what he said, he said is careless.

CLINTON: Well, I would hope that you like many others would look what he said when he testified before Congress because when he did, he clarified much of what he had said in his press conference. And I appreciated that.

ROSE: But he said it was sloppy.

CLINTON: No, he did not.

ROSE: Real sloppiness is what he said.


ROSE: What did he say -- correct me if i'm wrong, somebody said what's the definition, he said real sloppiness.

CLINTON: Let me say this, there was three -- probably at least 300 people on those e-mails. The vast majority of whom are experienced professionals in handling sensitive material. And I have no reason to have second guessed their decision to send or forward me information. Do I wish I hadn't done it? Of course. Was it a mistake? Yes.

ROSE: Was it wrong?

CLINTON: Well, it was wrong, because look at what it has generated.

ROSE: But was it careless?

CLINTON: Well, I think you would have to say 300 people who communicated with me on e-mail are among the most careful people I've ever had the privilege of working with.

ROSE: Do you think it contributed and became a controversy because it fed the trust issue?

CLINTON: Well I'm sure it didn't help. Yes, I'm sure it didn't help. But I'll tell you this, I'm the last person you'll ever have to worry about, ever, not being 100% as specific and precise as I can be so that nobody ever raises any questions like that ever again.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Why Sanders might have endorsed Clinton. So she'd lose!

Bernie Sanders's Master Plan

There might be a very intriguing political game plan being played right now (aka THE MASTER PLAN) that many people have been talking about — a psych-op if you will. And it's very fascinating to say the least. Bernie Sanders might still be in the race, and he just might be engaged in a very highly strategic game of Chess. Like any good game plan, it's usually best not to broadcast it to your enemies. But in this case, is it being implemented by deliberately having it leaked into social media to influence a few opinions — and that Bernie can't come out publicly and say so himself?  Is there a secret strategy involving Bernie Sanders, Dr. Cornel West, Nina Turner and Dr. Jill Stein that we don't know about? Or are Berniecrats still in denial, and just reaching for any possibility?

First, a few Q and A's....

Q. Why did Bernie endorse Hillary Clinton?
A. They threatened to completely shut him out of the convention if he didn't.

Q. Couldn't he have said "screw them", and go and fight at the convention anyway?
A. No. Hillary has more delegates, Superdelegates, and supporters on the DNC rules committee. They would have voted down every one of our platforms, denied Bernie the opportunity to speak, and basically shut him out of the entire process. All the leverage he has gained up to this point would be gone.

Q. So wait, Bernie DIDN'T quit today [when he endorsed Clinton]?
A. No. He had to say she won the primary, he endorses her and say she will help the party defeat Trump (yadda yadda_ — but he DID NOT concede. There is a very big and important difference. Had he conceded, all of his delegates would go to Hillary, and then he would no longer be an option for nominee.

Q. So Bernie can actually still win??
A. YES. And if he wasn't still TRYING to win, he would have conceded. The ONLY option he had left was to get to the convention with his delegates behind him — and have a chance to still win. He is not a traitor. He didn't sell us out. He did the only possible thing he could have done to keep fighting for the nomination.

Q. So how can Bernie still win if he's losing the delegate count while saying he will help Hillary win the election?
A. By far the most important thing to the DNC, even more important than making sure Hillary beats Bernie, is making sure the Democratic nominee beats the Republicans in November. They scrutinize every poll, every opinion of the public, every event to judge whether a candidate is strong enough to win in November. There are A LOT of things going on right now that show how weak of a general election candidate Hillary Clinton is:

  • 66% of the country sees her as untrustworthy.
  • 60% thinks she should have been indicted for the email scandal.
  • A lot of Bernie supporters won't vote for her.
  • Congress has requested the Department of Justice investigate her for lying under oath about the email scandal.
  • There's a possibility more emails will be leaked by Wikileaks or hackers further proving her guilt.
  • Many believe the FBI is secretly investigating the Clinton Foundation.
  • Her "wins" during the primary have been tainted with accusations of fraud, suppression, lawsuits, and investigations.
  • And then there's Bernie. An honest candidate that people trust — and whose approval rating and trustworthy rating crushes Clinton's.

This is the argument Bernie will make at the convention. With all his 1,900 delegates inside arguing this case and 100,000 supporters outside arguing this case, we hope the DNC realizes he's the only choice. He CAN win the convention, but he has to get there first. That's why he endorsed her today.

Q. So it's still important that all of his delegates go to the convention, and that we all still March on it like we planned?
A. Yes! It's more important now than it ever was before.

Q. What if the DNC still refuses to nominate him at the convention? Can he still run third party now that he endorsed her?
A. Yes. In fact, running third party has never been an option until AFTER the convention. We need to stick with Bernie and see this through to the convention. He's led us this far. Do not abandon him now.

Q. What if he loses at the convention and doesn't run third party, but instead endorses Hillary 100% and asks us to vote for her?
A. Then our revolution continues without him — and we continue to fight against Hillary Clinton and the DNC all the way up to November and beyond by voting for someone like Jill Stein or writing Bernie in. But the time for that is NOT here yet.

Q. So what did Bernie accomplish with this move?
A. He was backed into a corner, facing the entire political pressure of the Democratic Party and the DNC, robbed of a right to claim he should be winning if not for a rigged process, and faced with the threat of being shut out of the convention completely. What Bernie did was:

  1. He managed to stay in the race and secure a prime speaking slot at a contested convention, which he can turn into a floor fight.
  2. He kept all of his delegates to use as leverage in that floor fight.
  3. He got tens of thousands of people to "Like" and "follow" Green Party candidate Jill Stein on social media.
  4. He amplified the #NeverHilliary screams of his supporters for all the media and Superdelegates to see just a few days before the convention.

So anyone trashing Bernie today needs to wake up and respect the masterful move he just made. He's playing Chess, not Checkers. (* SOURCE: )

Watch the 3 videos below for a better understanding (and see the related links).

Dr. Jill Stein will be spending several days in Burlington Vermont. And guess who lives in Burlington Vermont? And it's rumored that she might be traveling from Vermont to the DNC convention with a Bernie surrogate. It's also rumored that Bernie will be leading a March in Philly during the DNC convention, and he'll be marching with Jill Stein!

#JillStein #BernieSanders #HillaryClinton #PoliticalRevolution #OPJillStein #PlanB #neverhillary #crookedhillary #whichhillary #bernieorbust
#SeeYouInPhilly #bernieorbust #feelthebern #writehimin #stillsanders #PoliticalRevolution #AlwaysSanders #FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary #DropOutHillary #dumphillary #whichhillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts #ifwebernyoubernwithus #IfNotBernieTrump

Friday, July 8, 2016

Highlights: James Comey Testimony in Clinton Email Hearing

Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R - Utah) grills FBI Director James Comey
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R - Utah) grills FBI Director James Comey

IMHO: Embedded below are 36 minutes of the most damaging testimony from the 4½ hour hearing yesterday on July 7, 2016 — edited into three separate 12-minute segments. Only die-hard Clinton supporters (and those who didn't actually watch the entire hearing) could ever believe the Democrat's spin afterwards.

Just like after the Inspector General's report last month, and after the FBI director's news conference last Tuesday, the Democrats acted as though Hillary Clinton was somehow vindicated, rather than excoriated by James Comey's testimony. Democrats (as usual) were already spinning their web of obfuscation and distraction long before this YouTube video was posted.

Earlier yesterday after the hearing, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told CNN that Clinton's setting up the email server was a "mistake" and "not the wisest choice" — and that Clinton "would not do it over again". This afternoon on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Hillary Clinton gave an interview (embedded below) and put her own spin of the hearing's revelations.

Most people are still wondering ... how much "intent" and "gross negligence" is necessary to indict someone? Because it appears from the testimony yesterday that Clinton was guilty of breaking MANY federal laws.

The FBI director had also admitted that Clinton gave her lawyers (who didn't have security clearances) access to her classified emails, including some that were top secret. Of course, the Clinton campaign denies all this -- so Clinton is essentially accusing the FBI of lying!

But never fear dear --- there's still might be an ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton's foundation. At the hearing when committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked James Comey about this, he would neither confirm nor deny an other pending investigation.

Also, the #Republicans will formally request that the FBI investigate Hillary Clinton for perjury during the Bengazhi hearing.

And add to that, the State Department is also reopening an internal review of Clinton’s email use. So the Hill-bots may end up with lots of egg on their faces after all ;)

Full hearing at C-SPAN:

My edited links:

Part 1 of three parts at YouTube:
Part 2 of three parts at YouTube:
Part 3 of three parts at YouTube:

Other links:

At Thursday’s hearing, Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R - Utah) asked if the FBI had looked into whether Mrs. Clinton perjured herself in an October 2015 hearing before the Republican-led House Benghazi committee. Mr. Comey said the FBI director would have needed a referral from Congress to do so. So now House Republicans might ask for a new FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, this one focused on whether Mrs. Clinton lied to Congress about it.

FBI Director James Comey told U.S. lawmakers on Thursday that FBI employees who mishandled classified material in the way Hillary Clinton did as secretary of state could be subject to dismissal or loss of security clearance.

Comey Tells Congress There's No Transcript of Hillary’s Interview with FBI Agents and Won’t Confirm She Didn’t Lie

FBI JAMES COMEY: Hillary Clinton Lied About Email Defense and Mishandled Classified Intelligence

FBI JAMES COMEY: Hillary Clinton Wasn't Smart Enough To Realize She Broke Laws With Email Servers

James Comey's news conference last Tuesday (July 5, 2016)

#FBIPrimary #HillaryClinton #HRC #ImWithHer #MostQualified #FBI #neverhillary #crookedhillary #DropOutHillary #dumphillary #whichhillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts #JamesComey #EmailHearing #FBIdirector #SeeYouInPhilly #bernieorbust #feelthebern #writehimin #stillsanders #PoliticalRevolution #AlwaysSanders

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

FBI Director James B. Comey News Conference July 05, 2016

FBI Director James B. Comey

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — Washington, D.C. July 05, 2016 — FBI National Press Office (202) 324-3691 — Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing. (Source)

(Video of the news conference embedded below.)

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. [But there WAS intent!] Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

.@BernieSanders @taddevine @j_weavTU @rosariodawson @HAGOODMANAUTHOR @DFAaction @MoveOn @WorkingFamilies @Bernlennials @CA4Bernie @Latinos4Bernie @laforbernie @BayArea4Bernie @SenWarren @NJ4Bernie @NJ4Bernie2016 @RUforBernie2016 @GovHowardDean @brains4Bern

#SeeYouInPhilly #bernieorbust #feelthebern #writehimin #stillsanders #PoliticalRevolution #AlwaysSanders #FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary #DropOutHillary #dumphillary #whichhillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts #ifwebernyoubernwithus #IfNotBernieTrump

* Your "protest vote" against a corrupt government should be to vote for Trump if Bernie Sanders doesn't run as an Independent.  My Tweets below:

Foreign headlines on November 9th: "Stupid Americans Re-Elect Corrupt Clinton Cartel to Lead their Nation with Help from FBI."
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 6m6 minutes ago

#Obama endorses #HRC - #BillClinton meets with #LorettaLynch - #FBI exonerates #HRC - #Obama campaigns with #HRC on #AirForceOne. Got it.
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 12m12 minutes ago

"There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent." HRC had intent!
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 14m14 minutes ago

"Although there's evidence of potential violations of the statutes...our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 16m16 minutes ago

#FBI: "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary #Clinton’s personal e-mail account." (But not even a fine.)
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 17m17 minutes ago

Of all those emails the #FBI recovered that were deleted, NONE pertained to the #Clinton foundation's business dealings?
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 23m23 minutes ago

Congrats to the #Clinton cartel for out-smarting the highest levels of our law enforcement agencies for the past 25 years. We're very proud!
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 29m29 minutes ago

.@HAGOODMANAUTHOR @FBI > OK, the #Clintons dodged a bullet on the email investigation, but what about the Clinton's foundation/cartel/#CGI?
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 37m37 minutes ago … #FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary #DropOutHillary #dumphillary
0 retweets 1 like
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 42m42 minutes ago

Now my "protest vote" will be for #DonaldTrump if #BernieSanders doesn't run as an #Indy. #FBIPrimary #neverhillary #IfNotBernieTrump
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 43m43 minutes ago

If we're "careless" at our jobs, we're fired and denied unemployment benefits. But #HRC can be POTUS. …
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 47m47 minutes ago

Have hope . . . Maybe the @FBI director #JamesComey will appoint #BernieSanders as the next president. #bernieorbust #IfNotBernieTrump
0 retweets 0 likes
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 1h1 hour ago

#FBI director #JamesComey didn't even have the balls to recommend a misdemeanor charge or small fine. Normal people go to jail for FAR LESS!
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 1h1 hour ago

#FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary #dumphillary #whichhillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts #IfNotBernieTrump
H. A. Goodman and Debbie Lusignan
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 1h1 hour ago

Barney Fife could indict a ham sandwich, but the #FBI can't indict a career criminal.
#FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 2h2 hours ago

If not #BernieSanders, it's #TrumpOrBust! Fu*k #HRC, the corrupt government and the corrupt #FBI! America is an embarrassment to the world.
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 2h2 hours ago

When any one else "breaks a rule", they pay a heavy fine and sent to prison. #HRC gets to be President of the Frigging USA!!! Fu*k the #FBI!
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 2h2 hours ago

It's IMPOSSIBLE that #HRC didn't tell the #FBI one single lie during her #FBI interview during her security review. Fu*k the #FBI.
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 2h2 hours ago

If we're "careless" at our jobs, we're fired and denied unemployment benefits. But #HRC can hold the highest job in the US. Fu*K the #FBI!
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 2h2 hours ago

If #BernieSanders doesn't run for #POTUS, I'm voting against a career criminal and voting for @realDonaldTrump. Fu*k #HRC and the #FBI!
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 2h2 hours ago

#FBI confirms: #HRC above the law. America is banana republic. If #Sanders doesn't run as #Indy, #HRC is #POTUS for 8 years. Fu*k the #FBI!
Bud Meyers ‏@BudMeyers99 7h7 hours ago

Friday, July 1, 2016

Trust Sanders or Trump on TPP, not Clinton or Obama

Hillary4Prison Song (Hip-Hop/Rock)

#SeeYouInPhilly #bernieorbust #feelthebern #writehimin #stillsanders #PoliticalRevolution #AlwaysSanders #FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary #DropOutHillary #dumphillary #whichhillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts #ifwebernyoubernwithus #IfNotBernieTrump?

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Popular Vote Means Nothing to Republicans

Clinton's Sex, Lies and Video Tape

There are three types of Americans living in a nation governed by a two-party political system: 1) those who are unequivocally loyal and totally believing in the Democratic Party, 2) those who are unequivocally loyal and totally believing in the Republican Party, and 3) those who question both parties and seek the truth (Independents, the largest third of the populace.)