Posted by Guest (Post 1423342)

I find it quite funny that the left is still in denial about the guilt of Hillary. There is so much evidence that is availible on the Inernet, including her own testimony, that only someone in complete denial would ignore it. I have listed time and time again all the federal statutes that she has violated. I have listed testimony and her statements under oath. It is not the public's fault if congress was too weak to follow up on the evidence and that the last administration was too corrupt to indict based on obvious evidence of crimes committed. Shoot, we have crimes committed and no special prosecutor for Hillary's malfeasance, but on the other hand one for suspicion that something may have occurred, but no evidence when it comes to election tampering. The left is perfectly able to excuse Hillary because they have no one else to represent their side, with enough Soros backing to provide them with a power base. They do not care about her corruption. They have never cared about corruption on their side. On the other hand, the right will clean their own house when there is evidence of corruption.

So, before screaming that Hillary is not guilty because no one has charged her, remember how our system works. She has not been indicted YET, so she has not been found innocent or not guilty. She just hasn't been charged or convicted yet. That can still happen. Just because one administration was too corrupt to indict her on obvious evidence that she committed felonies, does not mean that someone else can't indict her.

Posted by Guest

Only time will tell on this, but he sure skirted the law and with the lies the last few days, skirted more.

We will find out in time.


"One law that might come into play is the Federal Election Campaign Act, which makes it illegal for a foreign national to contribute to a U.S. political campaign. The campaign is also prohibited from soliciting such contributions.

A contribution does not have to be monetary in nature, according to Paul S. Ryan, an attorney with watchdog group Common Cause. He said incriminating information about Clinton could be considered a contribution under the act.

Ryan said Trump Jr.'s "enthusiastic response" to the offer for information and particularly his proposal in his email to have a follow-up call the next week constituted "solicitation."

"That to me is an indication, a concession by Donald Trump Jr. that he wants and is requesting this information," Ryan said.

Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, said Trump Jr.'s emails made it "more plausible" that there could be a criminal case against him."



Trump Jr.'s Russia emails could trigger probe under election law | Reuters

"Federal investigators might have reason to examine whether Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of the president, broke campaign finance law when he attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer who he believed would offer damaging information about Hillary Clinton, legal experts told NBC News.

Trump Jr., who has claimed that there was nothing untoward about the meeting last summer, may have violated a federal statute that says a political campaign cannot "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive" any "contribution or donation" from a foreign national, experts said.

No expert consulted by NBC News would be in a position to know whether potential campaign finance law violations are now part of the federal Russia investigation, and key facts about the meeting are still unclear. But nearly all the experts said Trump Jr. was apparently legally vulnerable under regulations governing how U.S. elections are funded, rather than the accusations being tossed around by Democrats that might have engaged in espionage or treason."

Did Trump Jr. Break Laws When He Met Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya? - NBC News

Posted by Guest

i find it quite funny that the left is still in denial about the guilt of hillary. There is so much evidence that is availible on the inernet, including her own testimony, that only someone in complete denial would ignore it. I have listed time and time again all the federal statutes that she has violated. I have listed testimony and her statements under oath. It is not the public's fault if congress was too weak to follow up on the evidence and that the last administration was too corrupt to indict based on obvious evidence of crimes committed. Shoot, we have crimes committed and no special prosecutor for hillary's malfeasance, but on the other hand one for suspicion that something may have occurred, but no evidence when it comes to election tampering. The left is perfectly able to excuse hillary because they have no one else to represent their side, with enough soros backing to provide them with a power base. They do not care about her corruption. They have never cared about corruption on their side. On the other hand, the right will clean their own house when there is evidence of corruption.

So, before screaming that hillary is not guilty because no one has charged her, remember how our system works. She has not been indicted yet, so she has not been found innocent or not guilty. She just hasn't been charged or convicted yet. That can still happen. Just because one administration was too corrupt to indict her on obvious evidence that she committed felonies, does not mean that someone else can't indict her.