The old “there is no evidence” line doesn’t sell too well, when anyone who has a brain cell knows that the statement is only true because Hillary destroyed that evidence in her private server.
the line “no evidence” infers the word that was omitted and that word is “yet”.
There is “no evidence yet” but even they don’t believe that if one of those financial supporters were to get jilted, that they would surreptitiously release that evidence. The Times knows fully well that the evidence exists, and they have in fact seen it, but have not released it. Since they cannot know if they will be able to keep the lid on it, they are now warning her that if the lid does come off, that she’s on her own.
But Bart, destroying evidence is a felony.
Accepting monies from foreign dignitaries while serving in Federal public office is a crime. Your family's "Foundation"?
How is that tax returns from 5 years ago are just now being amended? Won't there be a penalty for those past the 2 years past due mark? That equates to admission that there was a pattern of concealment and falsified documentation submitted to the United States government (as required by law).
The amending of those returns fits a pattern of lack of transparency, manipulation and deceit, your Honor. We the people have been lied to long enough by this grifter.
Defense Council: Objection! Prosecution just called my client a grifter!
Judge: Sustained. Let the charge of Hillary Rodham Clinton being a grifter struck from the record.
Prosecutor: I withdraw the allegation "grifter" from being narrowly applied to Hillary Clinton, your Honor. It's not just herself...it's also her husband, her relatives (brothers) and yet others who are high echelon white collar grifters who through Hillary's position of influence as Sec. of State have been benefiting themselves and their own private interests while Hillary served in public office.
Defense: Objection!
Judge: Council will approach the bench.