Latest Breaking News

pnwmom

(110,193 posts)

47. She donates to the foundation. She doesn't get any funds "through" the Foundation. n/t

Reply to DemMomma4Sanders (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:32 PM

Jun 2016

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Experts: Clinton emails could have compromised CIA names [View all] NWCorona Jun 2016 OP

How many went to jail over releasing Plame's name? And that action really was a crime. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #1

How is my desperation showing? NWCorona Jun 2016 #3

They don't care about the law; just winning! Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #5

innueundo and desperation. disgusting MariaThinks Jun 2016 #6

Hillary was cleared about her emails: these " experts" are GOP hacks lewebley3 Jun 2016 #8

cleared by whom? Jack Bone Jun 2016 #56

How long do you think we'll be waiting for a link? nt Chezboo Jun 2016 #89

Actually, only ONE hack Maeve Jun 2016 #100

They broke the law so everyone else gets a freebie? TipTok Jun 2016 #16

Let's see. Looks like about 7 more days. Kingofalldems Jun 2016 #44

In 7 days the Truth will still be allowed on DU askeptic Jun 2016 #65

Never a denial... TipTok Jun 2016 #68

Denial of what? Kingofalldems Jun 2016 #73

Actually - your desperation is showing. 840high Jun 2016 #22

The fact that you think any of that is OK disgusts me. peace13 Jun 2016 #30

...!100++++ 840high Jun 2016 #96

This is exactly what I was about say vdogg Jun 2016 #31

Scooter Libby. So at least one did. notadmblnd Jun 2016 #36

Libby went to jail. 7962 Jun 2016 #49

That was yesterday's talking point.....click and refresh Segami Jun 2016 #51

hardly, just blatantly gross hypocrisy stupidicus Jun 2016 #70

No one was convicted of leaking her name, but someone hughee99 Jun 2016 #75

That's OK because Cheney, Rove were involved in Valerie Plame & they weren't punished Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #2

You are comparing Hillary’s actions to Cheney and you say I'm the fool NWCorona Jun 2016 #7

I'm not comparing them at all Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #9

Ok I'm sorry for taking that wrong and I agree NWCorona Jun 2016 #14

No is not excused necessary: Hillary was cleared: the was no clarity to the rules lewebley3 Jun 2016 #17

Valerie Plame is going to be working for Hillary: She trusts Hillary lewebley3 Jun 2016 #15

Comparing Clinton to Cheney? HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #62

You're twisting my meaning and you know it! Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #67

Believe me, there will be more to come about this. Duval Jun 2016 #4

No this is over except for a political attack on Hillary that has not worked. lewebley3 Jun 2016 #10

I'll call the FBI and tell them it's over. 840high Jun 2016 #24

HA!! 7962 Jun 2016 #54

The Rethugs demanded the release of her emails under the FOIA. They wanted pnwmom Jun 2016 #11

Yes and I agree that they are abusing the FOIA in the hope to find something. NWCorona Jun 2016 #18

not LBN - could have/may have is analysis and opiniion not news. AP? the reviled enemy AP lol nt msongs Jun 2016 #12

This news broke today on AP today and within the 12hr guideline. NWCorona Jun 2016 #23

It's not news metroins Jun 2016 #60

Which means absolutely zilch... TipTok Jun 2016 #91

Oh, I'm sorry metroins Jun 2016 #92

No worries... Just addressing some false information... TipTok Jun 2016 #98

This OP is bs innuendo metroins Jun 2016 #101

I'd rather wait till investigation is DONE MFM008 Jun 2016 #13

No he wouldn't! Peachhead22 Jun 2016 #52

For those of you who didn't know what louis-t Jun 2016 #19

I thought you guys hated the AP. Aren't they some kind of Hillary shills? TwilightZone Jun 2016 #20

I've never bad mouthed the AP. I've only questioned their motives of their announcement NWCorona Jun 2016 #25

If it's their content, you should probably provide a link to the source. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #28

I've updated the op with the link. Sorry about that. NWCorona Jun 2016 #33

Link please. ReRe Jun 2016 #21

Dang sorry about that! And thanks for the heads up!!! NWCorona Jun 2016 #27

Two Big Problems videohead5 Jun 2016 #26

My answers NWCorona Jun 2016 #32

He is a terrible liar. Such shame upon a nation. yourpaljoey Jun 2016 #94

Another story about nothing. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #29

And all the same problems would have occurred if she'd used a .gov account. pnwmom Jun 2016 #34

And this would have been nothing if she used a government account. NWCorona Jun 2016 #41

No, the same situation would have occurred. They would have seen the exact same emails -- pnwmom Jun 2016 #46

What proof do you have of her using a terminal in the sciff at her residence? NWCorona Jun 2016 #55

Here: pnwmom Jun 2016 #82

I appreciate the links but they don't tell me much. NWCorona Jun 2016 #90

Yes, whether the same situation would have occurred relies on... thesquanderer Jun 2016 #72

They know that the .gov system was hacked. They have said that there is no evidence pnwmom Jun 2016 #83

semantic interpretation. thesquanderer Jun 2016 #87

My point remains. The problem isn't with whether she used a private server or pnwmom Jun 2016 #88

The emails are small cake compared to accepting money, through her foundation, from saudi royals DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #37

Ding Ding Ding: We have a winner! Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #40

Not to mention the Saudi's are directly connected to 9/11 phazed0 Jun 2016 #42

The money did not go to her, it went to charities to help the poor. nt SunSeeker Jun 2016 #43

She donates to the foundation. She doesn't get any funds "through" the Foundation. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #47

Bullcrap DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #59

None of them get paid any salaries, so I don't know why you included the salary info. pnwmom Jun 2016 #64

I only get four paragraphs for the excerpt but I'm open to debate that with you if you'd like nt NWCorona Jun 2016 #38

Yes, you got the irony right. thesquanderer Jun 2016 #69

There's an awful lot of "could" in this post vdogg Jun 2016 #35

I think that's because no one is privy to what the FBI knows. NWCorona Jun 2016 #39

It is unconscionable to push right wing talking points on DU. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #45

First, I didn't say that they have evidence of wrongdoing NWCorona Jun 2016 #48

You implied it with you assertion that FBI said there is "evidence," so stop playing coy. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #57

You should look up the pdf. of the court filing the FBI just made. NWCorona Jun 2016 #58

There is no there there. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #61

I'll be just fine after the 16th NWCorona Jun 2016 #63

"or the State Department system" - This is just more partisan "speculation." PSPS Jun 2016 #50

We'll just hear the same responses to this. And NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. 7962 Jun 2016 #53

re: "the FBI officially confirmed that they recovered files from Hillary's server" thesquanderer Jun 2016 #66

The pdf of the court filing on Monday specifically mentioned materials gathered from NWCorona Jun 2016 #71

AP giveth, AP taketh away AntiBank Jun 2016 #74

SO WHAT? libodem Jun 2016 #76

This appears to be the kind of of post PDittie Jun 2016 #77

"Could have" well let's not find out and just run with speculation Ohioblue22 Jun 2016 #78

A fricken joke.. these experts are clueless when they give an actual traitor like Darth Cheney gohuskies Jun 2016 #79

So the FBI considers her "recovered files" as "evidence"... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #80

Coulda, woulda, shoulda... ReRe Jun 2016 #81

The marks don't only indicate agents creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #84

Stewart Baker was on Cruz's national security team - not an impartial observer Justice Jun 2016 #85

Oh don't spoil the celebration. chapdrum Jun 2016 #86

enough emails mehrrh Jun 2016 #93

stewart Baker - Federalist and Bushie!! asiliveandbreathe Jun 2016 #95

At this stage I would say it would be inappropriate for anyone to endorse her Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2016 #97

AP uses GOP donor as sole source for this story Maeve Jun 2016 #99

Could and May are not WhiteTara Jun 2016 #102

Locking as opinion, not Latest Breaking News George II Jun 2016 #103