Hillary Clinton, former US Secretary of State

Remove this Banner Ad

Why am I not surprised you jump in and get triggered for the sake of it without understanding what the post was about!

The quote on nullification ("THAT is called Nullification. She didn't care if he lied or if the lie was material. She disagreed with the bringing of the case.") was a quote I linked from Bill Shipley, 22 years as federal prosecutor and 6 year defence veteran attorney, in response to the jury forewoman's statement after the trial, "If the people who were lied to by the defendant didn't care, why is the jury going to care?"

Why is that not correct?

Otherwise I said I'm not surprised by the verdict of not guilty to the one charge of lying to the FBI in the Baker interview in 2016, because of the Judge's direction to the jury.
Triggered, lol. By your drivel? Merely correcting another of you glaring misrepresentations. The tweet you pasted from the “shipwreckedcrew“ (who as far as I can see has been shilling for those moonbats at redstate.com) said “she didnt care if he lied or if the lie was material”- she quite clearly said the government failed to prosecute its case. A juror can still register an unbiased decision even if they think the case is much ado about nothing. In this case not guilty.

The quote about “bigger things effecting the nation” was in response to a separate second question. Hard to argue with that.

Anyway, good to see you’ve switched focus from claiming Ukrainian special forces were responsible for January 6, and are now in a lower level of orbit.
 
Triggered, lol. By your drivel? Merely correcting another of you glaring misrepresentations. The tweet you pasted from the “shipwreckedcrew“ (who as far as I can see has been shilling for those moonbats at redstate.com) said “she didnt care if he lied or if the lie was material”- she quite clearly said the government failed to prosecute its case. A juror can still register an unbiased decision even if they think the case is much ado about nothing. In this case not guilty.

The quote about “bigger things effecting the nation” was in response to a separate second question. Hard to argue with that.

Anyway, good to see you’ve switched focus from claiming Ukrainian special forces were responsible for January 6, and are now in a lower level of orbit.
Yes, triggered by ignoring the post and the quote that Shipley was commenting.

“There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” Jury Forewoman

"THAT is called Nullification. She didn't care if he lied or if the lie was material. She disagreed with the bringing of the case." Bill Shipley, 22 year federal persecutor and 6 years defense.
 
It is all very interesting. My understanding of nullification is that there is an imbalance in the FBI being able to lie to suspects and those suspects are then charged with lying. And therefore, let's nullify the process. Also that evidence of billing of certain people for you time is not allowed as evidence. Also that the judge has certain relationships via spouse. Aaron Mate, as usual, is able to cut through the murkiness and provide some clarity.

 

Log in to remove this ad.

It is all very interesting. My understanding of nullification is that there is an imbalance in the FBI being able to lie to suspects and those suspects are then charged with lying. And therefore, let's nullify the process. Also that evidence of billing of certain people for you time is not allowed as evidence. Also that the judge has certain relationships via spouse. Aaron Mate, as usual, is able to cut through the murkiness and provide some clarity.


The comment of nullification was in direct repose to the jury forewoman saying, "there are bigger things that affect a nation than a possible lie to the FBI." I'm sure many including Flynn, and Papadopolous would agree. However it is a federal crime and her comments according to Shipley was nullification "THAT is called Nullification. She didn't care if he lied or if the lie was material. She disagreed with the bringing of the case."

There doesn't seem to be any doubt Sussman lied by saying he wasn't working for any clients, while known to be a Clinton campaign lawyer, supported by texts, direct billing to the Clinton campaign of time spent in the interview and for USB sticks he handed over.

However, did the FBI know or care that he was lying and were the directions by the judge about this, important in acquittal?

Submitted evidence showed FBI'd discredited or proved the information handed over was false within weeks, but Comey and the "7th floor" wanted to continue the investigation, with former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith admitted lying and falsifying documents to the DOJ to get FISA approvals spy on a Trump campaign associate.

Good interview by Mate as was his longer Callen discussion in the previous link I put up. These articles provide earlier summaries away from the blast of much of the media, seen on the video.


 
Aaron Mate, as usual, is able to cut through the murkiness and provide some clarity.
Mate lol. Those west loathing Grayzone lefties love themselves a bit of authoritarianism. No bigger Putin apologists outside Russia than those dingbats.
 
Big China apologist too is Mate…

 
Last edited:
Saw Hillary being interviewed last night. She is as sharp as, quick witted and still has a great grasp on topical matters.

Not bad at all for 74.

Would have been interesting as President.

She would have been competent. She is very intelligent and very ruthless. Bill is very intelligent and very horny. They were a very effective power couple. You have to assume the country would have been in safe hands with her as POTUS.
Corruption levels would not have changed at all, which has DC's and Wall St's support. Whatever she had personally was to my view garden variety corruption.
What I held against her and her campaign was that sense that it was HER TURN. She'd been part of the brains and power behind Bill's career, then she'd lost to Obama and did the SoS gig well. So now it was her turn and the DNC backed her. I hated that, but at that point it was anyone but Trump.
 
She would have been competent. She is very intelligent and very ruthless. Bill is very intelligent and very horny. They were a very effective power couple. You have to assume the country would have been in safe hands with her as POTUS.
Corruption levels would not have changed at all, which has DC's and Wall St's support. Whatever she had personally was to my view garden variety corruption.
What I held against her and her campaign was that sense that it was HER TURN. She'd been part of the brains and power behind Bill's career, then she'd lost to Obama and did the SoS gig well. So now it was her turn and the DNC backed her. I hated that, but at that point it was anyone but Trump.
Agree, lost it due to arrogance thinking she had it in the bag and Trump outsmarted her in politicking in the right states, and here we are.:(
 
“The election of the first woman prime minister in a country always represents a break with the past, and that is certainly a good thing,” Hillary Clinton said to an Italian journalist at the Venice International Film Festival earlier this month. She was speaking of Giorgia Meloni, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, who could make history if the Brothers of Italy party does as well as expected in Sunday’s elections.

That would be one sort of break with the past. But Meloni would also represent continuity with Italy’s darkest episode: the interwar dictatorship of Benito Mussolini. As Clinton would surely concede, this is not such a good thing.


It's good to see girl power getting ahead somewhere.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top