Type to search

#EndorseThis: Libertarian VP Candidate Dispels Clinton Email Scandal In 20 Seconds

Campaign 2016 Elections Endorse This Featured Post National News Politics Top News

#EndorseThis: Libertarian VP Candidate Dispels Clinton Email Scandal In 20 Seconds

Share

Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld, who earlier this week joined a ticket with Gary Johnson for the third party’s unlikely lunge at the White House, had his own “sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails” moment Tuesday afternoon with MSNBC host Chuck Todd. “I’m not buying it,” Weld said. “You can’t indict somebody if there’s no evidence of criminal intent, and I don’t see any evidence of criminal intent.”

And he would know. In addition to serving from 1991 to 1997 as governor of Massachusetts, Weld was previously a U.S. attorney and former chief of the Department of Justice Criminal Division under Ronald Reagan — the very official who would have been making decisions about major cases like this one, along with the attorney general.

“I will give you one news tip,” he began. “All this stuff about Secretary Clinton’s use of email accounts and the report that came out, how she might get indicted, I’m not buying it.”

Hear Weld’s full explanation below:


Photo and Video: MSNBC/ Crooks & Liars

Tags:

93 Comments

  1. edbotsko June 1, 2016

    The criminal intent is with the Republicans attempting to falsely accuse her.

    Reply
    1. AgLander June 1, 2016

      Are you a comedian in training?!

      Reply
      1. Vocalic Scissors June 2, 2016

        You have low comprehension!

        Reply
        1. AgLander June 2, 2016

          …..while you suffer high apprehension.

          Reply
    2. Box June 2, 2016

      Falsely? I can prove its true, can you prove its false? Go ahead convince me.

      Reply
  2. tomtype June 1, 2016

    The pep rally atmosphere of the persons ranting against Hillary Clinton is wishful thinking. Especially when it seems that what she was doing was what her immediate predecessors were also doing. Right or wrong, it seems that it was the common assumption of how the SoS works.

    Reply
    1. AgLander June 1, 2016

      You are whistling through the graveyard….she’s toast.

      Reply
  3. greenlantern1 June 1, 2016

    What about Kissinger’s records?
    Remember the PLUMBERS?
    Was Hillary worse than that?

    Reply
    1. AgLander June 1, 2016

      Hillary sets the standard for “worst”….no one compares so don’t even try.

      Reply
      1. King of America June 1, 2016

        Yes she is worse because (???)

        Reply
        1. AgLander June 1, 2016

          Unless you are current day Rip Van Winkle, I suspect a question to you is nothing more than a tactic of reality avoidance.

          Reply
          1. King of America June 1, 2016

            Sorry that you can’t back up what you say – I guess that must be super embarrassing.

            Reply
          2. AgLander June 1, 2016

            I hear nervous whistling! Poor boy…..she’s left you with no way to defend her.

            Reply
          3. King of America June 1, 2016

            See previous post.

            Reply
          4. AgLander June 1, 2016

            Think orange since your glass is empty.

            Reply
          5. King of America June 1, 2016

            Again, it must be embarrassing to find you have nothing but insults to justify your ludicrous statements.

            Reply
          6. AgLander June 1, 2016

            So, when are you going to share your choice for the 11th hour emergency replacement for the fallen pant suits queen? Do you want “Slow Joe” Biden, the last in every class….or do you prefer “Pocahontas” Warren, the make believe Indian…..or is it someone else entirely…please share!

            Reply
          7. Siegfried Heydrich June 1, 2016

            Ag, I really, seriously love your desperation. It tells me how badly you know you’re losing. This is called ‘flailing’. It’s the Cheyne-Stokes breathing of a fantasy that is in extremis, and about expire. There isn’t going to be an indictment. Face it, deal with it, get over it, and move on to your next paranoid delusion.

            Reply
          8. King of America June 1, 2016

            Ah, you have a problem with women wearing pants. What a surprise that isn’t.

            Reply
          9. Blueberry Hill June 5, 2016

            There will be no indictments as there is nothing to indict her for. Get over it. You are in for a big disappointment. Ha ha ha ha!
            By the way, we can tell tell that you are one of the paid Trump Trolls.
            ..

            Reply
          10. Blueberry Hill June 5, 2016

            We need to watch out for the paid Trump Trolls on these sites, I can see a couple of them here.

            ..

            Reply
  4. Aaron_of_Portsmouth June 1, 2016

    The Right Wing and its hoi polloi cannon-fodder rank and file are still smarting over Nixon’s humiliating exit from office, the shameless appealing of Reagan to racists of the South and being called on it, and having that effrontery to human dignity etched permanently on his legacy, and the tragedies of a largely empty-headed yahoo-like leadership from 2000-2008.

    As a result, the Wing Nuts’ desperate attempt to regain composure hinges on the question of email use/misuse. How pathetic.

    And no matter from whomever the voice of rationality comes, the desperate will plug their fingers in their ears and say “Just Go Away—We Don’t Want To Listen To Rational Thought”.

    A condition akin to rigor mortis is encroaching on their neurons and dendrite connections, slowly but surely. May they regain the ability to form new neural pathways and flush out the dead-end circuits in their brains.

    Reply
    1. AgLander June 1, 2016

      There’s a train heading your way…I suggest you get the hell out of the way if you want to avoid being smashed like a pancake……it’s called the “FBI Bullet Express” and Hillary Clinton is its target.

      Reply
      1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth June 1, 2016

        I’ve just called the men in white coats to pay you a visit. They may be able to restore your ability to think more deeply and with some introspection for a change.

        You’ve got an urge to smash people—a preoccupation with “conservatives”.

        I strongly recommend you read “What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains”—you might want to pay particular attention to all of the contents in chapter 7 if reading the book up to that point seems too onerous task to take on.

        Reply
        1. AgLander June 1, 2016

          And I just called Starbucks and told the barista that you’ve had enough caffeine and to stop serving you!

          Reply
          1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth June 1, 2016

            Trite, lame, sophomoric, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Are you an adult, or a junior-high student?? Just curious

            Reply
          2. AgLander June 2, 2016

            Totally appropriate since it was in response to a lame, sophomoric comment. “When in Rome….”

            Reply
      2. Vocalic Scissors June 2, 2016

        Whatever!

        Reply
  5. AJinNYC June 1, 2016

    If she never ran after serving at State the GOper’s wouldn’t have cared about the 4 tragic victims of Benghazi or her email server. They care little for the country as we witnessed after the economy crashed in 2008 on their watch. All they care about is maintaining power, not doing anything good with it once they get it.

    Reply
  6. AgLander June 1, 2016

    As if anyone places any gravitas in the words of a nut job candidate who just finished presiding over a party convention that featured a jiggly fat man he defeated for the nomination stripping down to his underwear on stage!

    Reply
  7. Vocalic Scissors June 1, 2016

    He is not saying what Republican voters want to hear. He makes too much sense!

    Reply
    1. AgLander June 1, 2016

      Uh huh…..the master of ceremonies for the striptease act at the Libertarian convention just completed makes sense…..uh huh! You must be very refined!

      Reply
      1. Vocalic Scissors June 1, 2016

        Weld said. “You can’t indict somebody if there’s no evidence of criminal intent, and I don’t see any evidence of criminal intent.” That makes sense. Republican voters fail that comprehension test.

        Reply
        1. AgLander June 1, 2016

          So…you’re an insider with direct knowledge of the FBI criminal investigation that leads to your conclusion?

          Reply
          1. King of America June 1, 2016

            So are you? I mean you’ve claimed multiple times that you know the outcome.

            Reply
          2. AgLander June 1, 2016

            Only a deaf and blind man would make a statement like that…….The FBI director making multiple pronouncements critical of Clinton and the just recently released scathing report by the IG that scorched Clinton. It appears like you sycophants are cornered and have fallen back into your final and last defense that “there was no criminal intent” which unwittingly acknowledges that if true, it disqualifies Clinton from any consideration for the office of president due to gross incompetence. Your only tactic now seems to be to keep her from serving hard time in a federal pen!

            Reply
          3. King of America June 1, 2016

            So you got nothing. I see.

            Reply
          4. AgLander June 1, 2016

            Whistling is all you can respond with! NEXT!

            Reply
          5. King of America June 1, 2016

            OK, sorry that you are – again – unable to articulate why you are making these sophomoric claims.

            Reply
          6. AgLander June 1, 2016

            Tell it to the Inspector General…..Tell it to FBI Director Comer……attacking the messenger gets you nowhere other than looking foolish which I suspect you have experience at!

            Reply
          7. King of America June 1, 2016

            See previous post.

            Reply
          8. Siegfried Heydrich June 1, 2016

            Absent mens rea, there can be no indictment, no matter how hard you wish, hope, and pray. Get over it. Weld knows what he’s talking about because he has the experience and degrees to do so. All you have is what you read on the internet, hear on the radio, and see on Fox. Which is all GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out.

            Reply
          9. Vocalic Scissors June 2, 2016

            No, I am not an insider. Please refer to what Governor Weld said in the article. Mr. Weld was the DOJ point man who decides whether to charge or not charge someone after an FBI investigation. If Mr. Weld says that he sees no intent, then it does not matter what the FBI investigation concludes. You must prove intent before you can charge someone. Republicans and their supporters like you, are jumping to conclusion!

            Reply
          10. Joan June 5, 2016

            Mr Weld was that person under President Reagan. Mr. Weld will not be the one making the decision in HRC’s case. That being said I appreciate that the Libertarian Party has placed in contention two reasonable and prepared candidates. Candidates that non delusional conservatives can vote for. I am with the democratic candidate whoever it is.

            Reply
          11. Blueberry Hill June 5, 2016

            I so agree with you. The RWs just made up so many lies, that now they can’t tell the difference between their lies and the truth.

            ..

            Reply
          12. dpaano June 8, 2016

            And you are?

            Reply
  8. Aaron_of_Portsmouth June 1, 2016

    Someone named “AgLander” is on a rampage, ranting in the same vein as his lordship—“Lord Fauntleroy”.

    I recommended that he read chap. 7 of “What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains”.

    I’ve noticed over the past years a trend on the Internet, and in this forum, that the vast majority of those who are stuck in a “conservative” mind-set usually make comments that show shallow thinking, a reliance on tiresome slogans, a tendency to repeat what they’ve overheard other like-minded people have said, are prone to talk “at” people rather than with them, and are unable to string together a series of cogent statements.

    I would commend this book to all serious readers and those who like to think, to further explore how the internet and almost total reliance on the electronic media for information has essentially “fried” the seat of deep thinking in their brains. By doing so,one will get a better read on why Right-Wing acolytes generally are incapable of making rational and reasoned responses to the articles presented in this forum.

    Just a thought.

    Reply
    1. Siegfried Heydrich June 1, 2016

      It’s what happens when a delusional fantasy structure upon which their entire reality is based upon is collapsing. The e-mails are the last, desperate hope to bring Hillary down. Failing that, they have nothing to fall back on. And without something that they fantasize will be Hillary’s undoing, what are they left with?

      So, he’ll scream abuse to the heavens, deny brutal reality, scream that nobody knows what’s going to happen but him, that he’s right and everyone else are lying dupes or evil conspirators. Then, when the fantasy crashes into rubble, he’ll claim that it’s all a coverup, and that dark forces are hiding the truth, lather, rinse, repeat.

      Sic Semper Ignoratem et Stuliatem.

      Reply
      1. Kristikdrozd June 2, 2016

        “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!gd287ur

        two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !gd287u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsExcellenceGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!gd287u….,….

        Reply
  9. Bren Frowick June 1, 2016

    Anyone with a teaspoonful of brains already knew there wasn’t the slightest chance of an indictment appearing after the FBI concludes its “investigation”. One need only look at the sweaty desperation of those squealing the loudest in denial of this simple truth to realize that even a teaspoonful of brains may be too high a bar for the fanatics on the right these days.

    Reply
  10. michelle June 1, 2016

    Maybe he should learn the laws a bit better and read up on what Hillary actually did to circumvent laws to hide her corruption.
    http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

    Reply
    1. King of America June 1, 2016

      Paul Thompson is a fringe 9/11 Truther associated with the non-existent “Center for Cooperative Research”; his opinion is worth exactly nothing.

      Reply
    2. Sand_Cat June 3, 2016

      “Corruption”? Why don’t you tell us about the SPECIFIC AND EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED criminal acts and “corruption” rather than right-wing lies and fantasies?

      Reply
  11. Tom June 1, 2016

    Geez, did General Petraeus have criminal intent???

    Or is Bill Weld an idiot?

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat June 3, 2016

      There certainly are a lot of them around these days.

      Reply
    2. Huperetes June 8, 2016

      Yes and yes. Even if Petraeus or Hillary had no criminal intent ,(they did), it is criminal negligence.

      Reply
  12. Box June 2, 2016

    Oh i see! Ok lets start over then. If Snowden, also accused of espionage, says he meant no crime and meant no harm he can go free and come home, correct?

    Reply
    1. Teri Hawkey Silvey June 2, 2016

      Apples to oranges.

      Reply
    2. FT66 June 2, 2016

      Come on now Box, do you need anyone to explain to you how Snowden intentionally committed a crime? I won’t go into details, the act of running away from his country where he was born and go and hide in another country tells all. If he didn’t mean to commit a crime, why can’t he come back home and explain what he did? What is he afraid of?

      Reply
    3. Sand_Cat June 3, 2016

      You really need to try thinking – I know it’s hard, but try it sometime – outside the “Box.”

      Reply
  13. Paul R. Jones June 2, 2016

    Mr. Weld is yet one more politician that is absolutely clueless about national security protocol running for office.
    Hillary single-handedly compromised 22-TOP SECRET-SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS and 2000+ lessor state secrets with her un-secure un-authorized personal server/storage unit.
    THAT IS NOT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL MISTAKE!

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat June 3, 2016

      Speaking about clueless….

      Reply
    2. Blueberry Hill June 5, 2016

      Says who? The lying RWs who no lie is to wrong to tell? They have spread so many lies that even they don’t know the truth any more, nor do their followers.

      ..

      Reply
    3. 788eddie June 5, 2016

      He’s only “cluless” because he doesn’t support your views regarding Hillary.

      You appear to have a “jones” for Hillary, Paul R.

      Reply
      1. Paul R. Jones June 6, 2016

        You are apparently as ‘clueless’ about national security protocol as Mr. Weld. It appears you cannot read and understand the 17-INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AGENCIES are neutral in their findings that Hillary did the deeds the AGENCIES found on her server and duly filed their civil complaint with Congress, and DOJ/FBI nor are you able to read and understand the significance of the Secretary of State’s Inspector General’s report that Hillary’s un-secure and un-authorized private server/storage unit was not sanctioned by the State Department. Hillary single-handedly compromised 22-T.S./S.A.P. and 2000+ lessor state secrets neither Mr. Weld and you do not understand the significance of the damage done. How sad for you and Mr. Weld.

        Reply
        1. tomtype June 6, 2016

          You have yet to explain how any classified material was compromised by Hillary’s email when no classified material was sent or received on that system. The protocol is that any material likely to be sensitive is to be submitted to an independent classification officer who marks it for appropriate level even down to the line and on each page. And any classified material is not to be sent email but only via paper copy.
          Her March Madness picks are not top secret and do not endanger the government or diplomatic relations.

          Reply
          1. Paul R. Jones June 6, 2016

            There is the rub…how did the 22-TOP SECRET-SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS plus 2000+ lessor state secrets migrate from a government secure server to Hillary’s un-secure server/storage unit? That is what DOJ/FBI/NCS investigative personnel are doing now. The fact such material was found by this Republic’s 17-INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AGENCIES on Hillary’s un-secure un-authorized server/storage unit makes it ‘outside’ the security storage systems for such material and as a result is compromised as being outside of government security sanctioned controlled systems. It is irrelevant whether Hillary’s server/storage unit was ‘hacked’ (but the consensus by INTEL/CYBER EXPERTS is it was ‘hacked’), the driving facts are the 22-TS/SAP plus 2000+ state secrets were not supposed to be there and because these documents were found in a storage unit not sanctioned for such, all documents are compromised as no longer viable. What is the national security protocol that states ‘classified material’ must only be sent in hard copy? There is a closed-loop email system that is ‘secure’ to send such material as has been noted in media articles.

            Reply
          2. tomtype June 6, 2016

            The hard copy only protocol is in the state department’s protocols which is on their own website. I take it they do know what their protocols say.

            Reply
          3. Paul R. Jones June 6, 2016

            Very well. Now, the trick is to get State to follow their own protocol.

            Reply
          4. dpaano June 8, 2016

            What’s truly interesting is that (1) the e-mails weren’t classified when they were originally sent; and (2) most of them were already public record and had been published in the WSJ and other newspapers…..so how do they suddenly become classified when they are already public?

            Reply
          5. Paul R. Jones June 8, 2016

            That canard has been debunked over and over and over by INTEL/CYBER SECURITY EXPERTS posted all over the internet….’mishandling of state secrets’ is based on content not classification stamped on the message. Hillary had been repeatedly briefed on the very topic and signed a NON-DISCLOSURE document so stating.

            Reply
        2. 788eddie June 6, 2016

          How sad that you feel that you have more information than Bill Weld, even though he’s has been a governor, a U.S. attorney and an intimate of the Reagan administration.

          Rabid right-wingers have only this “last straw” to hold on to; that Hillary will be indicted. Sorry to disappoint you, but she won’t be (please re-read above article (yes, and weep)

          Reply
          1. Paul R. Jones June 6, 2016

            I can help educate but I cannot fix stupid. Hillary compromised state secrets according to this Republic’s 17-INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AGENCIES. The State Department said she violated protocol. That is what is sad…folks believe she did no wrong. As I said, I can educate but I cannot fix stupid.

            Reply
          2. 788eddie June 6, 2016

            read this: She broke no laws, Stupid!

            Reply
          3. Paul R. Jones June 7, 2016

            Aah. Another reply from a person who has no concept of the damage done by Hillary’s compromising national security.

            Reply
          4. 788eddie June 7, 2016

            Give it a rest!

            Reply
          5. Huperetes June 8, 2016

            Even if Petraeus or Hillary had no criminal intent ,(they did), it is criminal negligence.

            Reply
          6. 788eddie June 8, 2016

            Obviously, the law doesn’t see it that way. Sorry.

            Reply
          7. Paul R. Jones June 8, 2016

            Jumping to your conclusion ‘the law doesn’t see it that way’ is unfounded…1. The prima facie evidence is gross negligence in mishandling of state secrets found on Hillary’s un-secure un-authorized personal server/storage unit.
            and
            2. No decision from the FBI…if the 17-INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AGENCIES had their way, Hillary would be held accountable for her conduct under the RULE OF LAW to include a grand jury hearing, and if a bill of indictment is returned, Hillary would be prosecuted under the RULE OF LAW before a jury to decide if Hillary did, in fact, ‘mishandled state secrets,’ to be held accountable under the RULE OF LAW to its fullest extent.

            The frequently used defense by Hillary and her advocates is:NO INTENT. State Secret statutes do not require INTENT to be violated…gross negligence is sufficient. This is clearly written in the Statutes themselves. Your “NO INTENT” argument has been debunked over and over by INTEL/CYBER SECURITY EXPERTS and yet, you continue to offer it up as an excuse.

            Reply
          8. 788eddie June 9, 2016

            If anything you just wrote were true, she would have been brought up on charges already.

            Ipso facto; she’s innocent.

            Find another conspiracy (and, in my opinion, a life).

            Reply
          9. Paul R. Jones June 9, 2016

            The DOJ/FBI/17INTEL agencies have not completed their investigations. Wait for the RULE OF LAW to finish.

            Reply
          10. 788eddie June 9, 2016

            Snore. . . . . . . .

            Reply
          11. Paul R. Jones June 9, 2016

            Aah. Another reply from someone who is clueless about state secrets and their security.

            Reply
          12. 788eddie June 9, 2016

            Ash. Another conspiracist.

            Reply
          13. Paul R. Jones June 10, 2016

            And once again, another reply from someone who is clueless about state secrets and their security

            Reply
          14. 788eddie June 10, 2016

            FAWOMFT.

            Reply
          15. Paul R. Jones June 10, 2016

            Still, another reply from someone who is clueless about state secrets and their security

            Reply
          16. dpaano June 8, 2016

            Yeah, they lost out on Benghazi….so, they’ve got to find some other outlandish conspiracy to put out there! They live in the land of conspiracies! Unfortunately, they never have to do with their own politicians, have you noticed that?

            Reply
          17. 788eddie June 9, 2016

            Agreed. What empty lives they must live to have to fill their time with such tripe.

            Reply
        3. dpaano June 8, 2016

          Let’s talk about Powell and Condoleeza’s unprotected personal e-mail servers, shall we? Or can we discuss Cheney, GWB, etc., and their sudden erasures of their e-mails! If they find ANY reason to indict Hillary, they’re going to have to also go back and indict the rest of the gang that did the SAME things! Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t seem to care when their OWN people do the same thing as Hillary….whole different story, isn’t it?

          Reply
          1. Paul R. Jones June 8, 2016

            Absolutely. First, neither Powell nor Rice used personal servers…that canard has been debunked over and over again with the latest by the State Department IG’s Report.

            Secondly, neither Powell or Rice trafficked state secrets in any of their transmissions and there is no record of Rice using email at all also noted in State’s IG Report!

            Citing Cheney is a red herring to the issues of Hillary’s compromising state secrets via her un-secure un-authorized personally installed, maintained and financed server/storage unit from her Chappaqua home.

            Anything else you would like to discuss?

            Reply
  14. dpaano June 8, 2016

    Finally, someone with some brains putting it on the line and telling it like it is. No motive, no intent, no indictment!

    Reply
  15. Amy522666 June 14, 2016

    I am making in the range of 6-8 thousand bucks every month with my online job. If you are ready to work easy at home jobs for few h a day from your living room and get valuable payment for doing it… Then this job is for you… http://ur1.ca/p7vx6

    dfrgdrt

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.