FBI not only never subpoenaed her, they didn't bother to record interview. Or her aides.

"Hur tapes" for her crew, don't even exist.

-That- is Above The Law.

Who cares, if immunity is formal or practical - same result.

It wasn't immunity per se, but rather by claiming that she didn't have men's rea (criminal intent) that effectively gave her immunity. If you watched the Congressional hearings, that was the reason she was not prosecuted.

Strangely, criminal intent isn't required to prosecute her for the illegal email server and violating the Congressional subpoena. Smashing hard drives under subpoena with hammers and trying to smuggle others out of the country screams criminal intent. But anyway.

Strzok

I admit I don't know much about the case; I wasn't following it at the time. I've just read this:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-reached-agreement-with-clinton-lawyers-to-block-fbi-access-to-clinton-foundation-emails-strzok-says

There is no mention of her being granted "immunity," but rather an agreement not to access her emails related to the Clinton Foundation.

I don't really have an opinion on this; as I said, I wasn't following it.

Sorry, Peter Strzok.

He was one of the top FBI guys. He was fired.

He was banging Lisa Page, a top FBI lawyer.

He infamously told Paige that he had an insurance plan to keep Trump from winning, as well as many other things.

Strok (you should know who he is) granted her immunity

Sorry, I don't know who that is and can't find any reference to him online. Is that the correct spelling?

Strok (you should know who he is) granted her immunity by saying she didn't intend to commit a crime, mens rea, when she violated the Congressional subpoena (destroying 33,000+ emails) and the illegal email server.

Hillary Clinton got out of going to trial because she and all of her co-conspirators were granted immunity before they were even charged.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-suggests-hillary-clinton-received-fbi-immunity/story?id=42457118

Associates of Clinton were granted immunity in and investigation of her (standard legal practice). Why would Hillary be granted immunity when she was the focus of the investigation? You need to stop listening to Trump. He's making you believe bullshit is real.

They can't put Biden on trial because he was found to be too senile.

Hillary Clinton got out of going to trial because she and all of her co-conspirators were granted immunity before they were even charged.

Hillary Clinton got out of going to trial because she and all of her co-conspirators were granted immunity before they were even charged.

They can't put Biden on trial because he was found to be too senile.
Hillary Clinton got out of going to trial because she and all of her co-conspirators were granted immunity before they were even charged.

Would you like to try that again?

Hillary Clinton got out of going to trial because she and all of her co-conspirators were granted immunity before they were even charged.

You know the steps.

Let them have their day in civil court with the 50.01% burden of proof.

As for Clinton and Biden....where's the evidence?

Don't you find it strange that Clinton and Biden have never had their days in court?

It's comical how you liberals always ignore the sins of your side.

In a civil suit, the burden of proof is 50.01%.
The jury didn't find that he put his dick in her, as she claimed.
Somehow the judge found that, despite the jury's verdict that he didn't rape her, her claim that he raped her was "substantially true".

And yet this is a discussion we are having about someone who wants to be POTUS. You don't find that strange? Remember when the minimum requirement for that position was a clean criminal record? I remember when John Edwards had to drop out because he cheated on his wife. But here we are discussing which crimes of the candidate are "not so bad." It's absurd.

When she meets Xi, Zelensky, any hetero male - they glance & think "Was she good?"

Nothing misogynistic about that You are definitely wanting in the self-award dept. lol

In a civil suit, the burden of proof is 50.01%.

The jury didn't find that he put his dick in her, as she claimed.

Somehow the judge found that, despite the jury's verdict that he didn't rape her, her claim that he raped her was "substantially true".

Even if it were someone else (not Trump), I'd have a hard time believing her because of her decades of comments about how good rape and other sexual abuse is.

Only kook-Manhattan civil jury, could give her time of day.

& only kooked-up lib could think such result, where even lib jury said "NO" on forms, means convicted

Here we are tho

@jaroonn "keep pushing" - Sure, here it is again.

Reportedly, Vice Blow Job Kamala only got her career by suck cocks of Willie Brown, Montel Williams & Terence Hallinan.
In pre-Biden career, she accomplished truly nothing - except she jailed some people who didn't deserve it & failed to jail others who did.

When she meets Xi, Zelensky, any hetero male - they glance & think "Was she good?"

& you want people to vote for it Which makes you the misogynist.

My comments are only anti-Harris. You're the one taking it to anti-woman.

Reportedly, Vice Blow Job Kamala only got her career by suck cocks of Willie Brown, Montel Williams & Terence Hallinan.
In pre-Biden career, she accomplished truly nothing - except she jailed some people who didn't deserve it & failed to jail others who did.

You forgot the DEI hire? Please keep pushing this typical misogynistic line. It will get her elected for sure.

They did not not believe he raped her

And you do? But why?

There's no evidence he even met her. None.

Her story came from a Law & Order episode & with freaky grins, she publicly admitted to extensive rape fantasies.