Okay, this was lost on Drek (what a surprise!) but Pat, what do you think?

Okay, this was lost on Drek (what a surprise!) but Pat, what do you think?
Re: Reads like an opinion piece and wishful thinking, Jim. -- eDrek	Top of thread	Post Reply	Forum

Posted by:
Jim ^®

11/05/2017, 12:35:06
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Forum Admin

Post Reply

Drek doesn’t do discussion well and evidence is a bit much for him to process. But, to me, this timeline is ridiculously strong circumstantial proof of bribery. Now factor in the FBI agent who just now escaped the Obama’s admin’s gag order and who, according to his lawyer, is prepared to testify about direct knowledge of Clinton bribery. Or the fact that the related Clinton Foundation donations were made to the org’s Canadian sub to escape detection. And so much else!

Tell me this, Pat. I know you’re not in the states but neither am I. From what you’ve seen so far, all the many scandals including now this latest re buying the Dem primary, do you think I was smart or foolish to bet the prosecutor on my current case that Hillary will be indicted by November 1st next year?

Current page

Replies to this message

Jim, have you actually watched it? --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 12:38:58 ) ( 76 bytes ) +1

Of course I have! --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 13:43:53 ) ( 5896 bytes ) +1

Here's something that might explain it to you, Jim --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 14:34:46 ) ( 2073 bytes ) +1

Wrong --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 14:48:52 ) ( 26.2 KB ) link +1

First, it doesn't matter that Clinton was "only" the Chair of CFIUS. --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 14:52:14 ) ( 126 bytes ) +1

I may be wrong about that -- can't find where I first saw it -- petty difference --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 15:33:41 ) ( 179 bytes ) +1

Re: I may be wrong about that -- can't find where I first saw it -- petty dif... --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 15:38:13 ) ( 513 bytes ) +1

What the hell?! --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 16:39:49 ) ( 6560 bytes ) +1

Sorry, Jim --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 16:42:49 ) ( 47 bytes ) +1

What possible excuse do you have for saying that? --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:06:32 ) ( 165 bytes ) +1

Re: What possible excuse do you have for saying that? --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:17:16 ) ( 83 bytes ) +2

Impossible to reason with someone who lacks both information or sincerity --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:29:38 ) ( 2 bytes ) +1

When stumped and angry: Throw mud and disparage. --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:33:14 ) ( 236 bytes ) +1

It doesn't matter if you "care" for my sources of "so-called f... --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:42:59 ) ( 358 bytes ) +1

Jim, no offense, but I don't think you really care about the TRUTH --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:49:41 ) ( 133 bytes ) +1

Impossible .... --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 22:33:09 ) ( 2 bytes )

Re: What possible excuse do you have for saying that? --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:30:34 ) ( 352 bytes ) +1

Re: What possible excuse do you have for saying that? --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 20:01:55 ) ( 166 bytes ) +1

Jim's Playbook: When out of answers call people more names --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 20:21:06 ) ( 385 bytes )

strong circumstantial proof? --- 13 ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 14:30:31 ) ( 281 bytes ) +1

Oh my god, don't tell me that 13 doesn't know what he's talking about! No! --- Jim ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 14:41:46 ) ( 4106 bytes ) link +1

13, you've blown your credibility. What do YOU know? --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 14:46:27 ) ( 9 bytes ) +1

Re: 13, you've blown your credibility. What do YOU know? --- 13 ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 15:13:50 ) ( 381 bytes ) +1

I think you're guilty as charged --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 15:25:11 ) ( 1722 bytes ) +1

Re: I think you're guilty as charged --- 13 ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 16:36:19 ) ( 843 bytes ) +1

Re: I think you're guilty as charged --- eDrek ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 16:47:44 ) ( 493 bytes ) +1

Re: I think you're guilty as charged --- 13 ( Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 16:54:22 ) ( 361 bytes )