National Security Issue FBI raids Huma Abedin home

Started by walkstall, June 05, 2017, 10:06:42 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Billy's bayonet

Quote from: Solar on June 05, 2017, 01:37:36 PM
What did I tell ya? Bigger than we thought.

FBI NABS HILLARY CLINTON "LOST" EMAILS IN SURPRISE RAID ON HUMA ABEDIN HOME

A stunning Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) urgent action bulletin circulating in the Kremlin today is reporting that the believed to be "lost" emails belonging to former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were recovered on 1 June when special agents of the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided a home in Dearborn, Michigan, owned by a "shell company" belonging to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin's brother and sister-

http://www.starpolitical.com/2017/06/fbi-nabs-hillary-clinton-lost-emails-in.html


This is starting to sound like a major espionage case.
Evil operates best when under a disguise

WHEN A CRIME GOES UNPUNISHED THE WORLD IS UNBALANCED

WHEN A WRONG IS UNAVENGED THE HEAVENS LOOK DOWN ON US IN SHAME

IMPEACH BIDEN

taxed

Holy crap... well, now we know why Weiner's sentence was so light...
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 05, 2017, 07:48:00 PM

This is starting to sound like a major espionage case.
I'm surprised she hasn't taken flight, or maybe they've pulled hr passport. Hillary has to be shittin bricks.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Possum

Quote from: taxed on June 05, 2017, 08:17:18 PM
Holy crap... well, now we know why Weiner's sentence was so light...
Starting to make a little sense now, Huma was safe from obama's D.O.J. they both hated the U.S.A. and as long as obama was in office she was safe. Hillary would not go after huma because huma had the goods on hillary, and kknew where the bodies were buried. BUT now hillary did not win election so, Huma takes the scumbag husband back in because he, not her, has the goods on ole hillary. Scumbag husband agrees because it keeps him out of jail. Goods on hillary will be bargaining chips to keep both out of jail for their little house that fronts for making bombs. :popcorn:  Gotta love how liberals keep knives in the backs of their friends.

Bronx

Quote from: s3779m on June 06, 2017, 01:09:44 AM
Starting to make a little sense now, Huma was safe from obama's D.O.J. they both hated the U.S.A. and as long as obama was in office she was safe. Hillary would not go after huma because huma had the goods on hillary, and kknew where the bodies were buried. BUT now hillary did not win election so, Huma takes the scumbag husband back in because he, not her, has the goods on ole hillary. Scumbag husband agrees because it keeps him out of jail. Goods on hillary will be bargaining chips to keep both out of jail for their little house that fronts for making bombs. :popcorn:  Gotta love how liberals keep knives in the backs of their friends.

A lot of people, accords, crap, legacies, money, favors, agendas, laws, jobs, people staying out of prison, people going to prison, the Constitution, healthcare, etc, etc, and etc was riding on Hillary winning. The American voters thought otherwise.

The backlash of Hillary not winning will go on for a lifetime.
People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

A foolish man complains about his torn pockets.

A wise man uses it to scratch his balls.

Solar

As I pointed out the other day, their faux reconciliation was a CYA move.

Federal Law on Spousal Privilege

Federal (and many state) courts recognize two types of spousal privilege:
Spousal testimonial privilege, barring testimony against a spouse in a criminal trial, and
Marital communications privilege, barring testimony about confidential communications between spouses.
Spousal testimonial privilege

This type of spousal privilege has been recognized throughout history and pre-dates our Constitution and even our country. It arises from the notion that married spouses are one entity and so are not competent to testify against themselves through their other (if not better) half. Under this type of spousal privilege, one spouse cannot be compelled to give testimony against his or her spouse who is a defendant in a criminal trial or the subject of a grand jury proceeding. The accused spouse may claim the privilege or the other spouse may claim it on behalf of the accused spouse. The spouses must be married at the time that the privilege is asserted; so an ex-spouse can be compelled to give testimony about a defendant to whom he or she was previously, but is no longer, married.

It would appear this was a smart move on their part.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Cryptic Bert


Solar

Quote from: The Boo Man... on June 06, 2017, 08:13:53 PM
No one is covering this.
That way the Dim constituency will remain in the dark.
I haven't heard a thing about it either, and not one mention of them trying to disprove the claims on this thread either, so one can assume it's all true or they'd be running block 24/7.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Hoofer

Quote from: Solar on June 06, 2017, 06:12:15 AM
As I pointed out the other day, their faux reconciliation was a CYA move.

Federal Law on Spousal Privilege

Federal (and many state) courts recognize two types of spousal privilege:
Spousal testimonial privilege, barring testimony against a spouse in a criminal trial, and
Marital communications privilege, barring testimony about confidential communications between spouses.
Spousal testimonial privilege

This type of spousal privilege has been recognized throughout history and pre-dates our Constitution and even our country. It arises from the notion that married spouses are one entity and so are not competent to testify against themselves through their other (if not better) half. Under this type of spousal privilege, one spouse cannot be compelled to give testimony against his or her spouse who is a defendant in a criminal trial or the subject of a grand jury proceeding. The accused spouse may claim the privilege or the other spouse may claim it on behalf of the accused spouse. The spouses must be married at the time that the privilege is asserted; so an ex-spouse can be compelled to give testimony about a defendant to whom he or she was previously, but is no longer, married.

It would appear this was a smart move on their part.

Was assuming the same scheme was going on, Huma is waiting on Carlos like she doted over Hillary, maybe even "the brotherhood" is helping to keep Carlos Danger's yapper shut (just scored a nice pad... maybe a new car... and a new phone with unlimited texting.)

This is absolutely hilarious!   :ttoung: :ttoung: :ttoung: :ttoung: :ttoung: The dirtbag, has them dead-to-rights!   Smart enough to label the folder, "Life Insurance".   He/she knew what they were dealing with.
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Cryptic Bert


Solar

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!