• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
HDS Team: You know, you could really embarrass her. Just get 675,000.00 together and tell her campaign you want to buy the speeches just like Goldman Sachs did. I mean, this is Murka, right? Your money is as good as their money. And if she then won't give 'em over, you have a civil rights suit, not just FOIA. Heck, the ACLU would probably take up the case.

Of course, you might be paying six hundred Gs for some Rotary Club Rah Rah, but I'm sure you can quote mine something out of it.

Run out of material in the emails, have we?

I'm surprised no one's gone after her fan letters to Elvis she wrote when she was 12. There's gotta be some dirt in there somewhere. I'll bet, like most pre-pubescent girls, she had one of those little diaries with a ten cent lock. Maybe we could get our hands on that?
 
Foolmewunz said:
HDS Team: You know, you could really embarrass her. Just get 675,000.00 together and tell her campaign you want to buy the speeches just like Goldman Sachs did. I mean, this is Murka, right? Your money is as good as their money. And if she then won't give 'em over, you have a civil rights suit, not just FOIA. Heck, the ACLU would probably take up the case.

Of course, you might be paying six hundred Gs for some Rotary Club Rah Rah, but I'm sure you can quote mine something out of it.

Run out of material in the emails, have we?

I'm surprised no one's gone after her fan letters to Elvis she wrote when she was 12. There's gotta be some dirt in there somewhere. I'll bet, like most pre-pubescent girls, she had one of those little diaries with a ten cent lock. Maybe we could get our hands on that?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:


talk about run out of material
 
Foolmewunz said:
HDS Team: You know, you could really embarrass her. Just get 675,000.00 together and tell her campaign you want to buy the speeches just like Goldman Sachs did. I mean, this is Murka, right? Your money is as good as their money. And if she then won't give 'em over, you have a civil rights suit, not just FOIA. Heck, the ACLU would probably take up the case.

Of course, you might be paying six hundred Gs for some Rotary Club Rah Rah, but I'm sure you can quote mine something out of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is a legal requirement that she accept the money, nor that she would have to give the exact same speech. Even if she said it was the same speech there is no means to verify that.
 
The_Animus said:
I'm not sure there is a legal requirement that she accept the money, nor that she would have to give the exact same speech. Even if she said it was the same speech there is no means to verify that.
Click to expand...

Then there is this!
Hillary Clinton, who faces mounting pressure to release transcripts of her paid speeches, routinely demanded that a stenographer be present at her events so she could maintain a record of what she said.

At least four of Clinton’s contracts include a clause stating a transcript would be produced for Clinton and that the former secretary of state would own them and control their release, according to contracts obtained by McClatchy.

“The sponsor will transcribe Speaker’s remarks as they are being delivered, which should be solely for the Speaker’s records,” according to her contract with the University of Buffalo, which paid her $275,000.

Identical words appear in contracts between the Harry Walker Agency, which represents Clinton, and the University of Connecticut, which paid her $250,000; the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, which paid her $225,000, and the University of California at Los Angeles, which paid her $300,000.

[Get the political buzz of the day, every day from McClatchy]

Clinton has been dogged for days about whether she would release transcripts of her speeches, including those from Wall Street firms, that earned her millions of dollars before she launched her second presidential run.

As is her practice, Clinton’s chosen to stay firm against releasing the transcripts.

In January, a reporter asked her after a town hall in Manchester if she would release the transcripts. She laughed and turned away.
Click to expand...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article59010478.html
 
Dog Town said:
Yeah, not sexist! But those really concerned knew that!:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

You got bitch on Hillarie's shirt and your first name resembles that of a femaile dog! Actually only feminists are concerned not anyone at this not this site. Carry on. Apparently the row is about exactly two posts on some forum. Let me go find it in a sec for a laugh. Clinton implied that Sanders was two nuts shy of a loaf of nutbread go see that.
 
Looks like a full "reboot" of Hillary's campaign is in the offing;

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-staff-shakeup-218955?cmpid=sf#ixzz3zbgFeZZo

Hillary and Bill Clinton are so dissatisfied with their campaign’s messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes after what’s expected to be a loss in Tuesday’s primary here, according to a half-dozen people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Clintons -- stung by her narrow victory in Iowa -- had been planning to reassess staffing at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters after the first four primaries, but the Clintons have become increasingly caustic in their criticism of aides and demanded the reassessment sooner, a source told POLITICO.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
As I said before, I knew they were still interviewing people. Now comes confirmation that a law enforcement investigation is ongoing.

Stick a fork in her; http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-form...hillary-clintons-email-server?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You haven't been keeping up, that's not new. They've always been investigating the server.
Click to expand...

Read the article. This is the first actual confirmation. And it confirmed that the investigation is ongoing. And this is going to cost Secretary Clinton as badly as her proxy attacks on young feminists.

Many people believed the investigation was done or that it was all a smear. Now we know for fact that neither supposition was true.
 
BenBurch said:
Read the article. This is the first actual confirmation. And it confirmed that the investigation is ongoing. And this is going to cost Secretary Clinton as badly as her proxy attacks on young feminists.

Many people believed the investigation was done or that it was all a smear. Now we know for fact that neither supposition was true.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Good grief.
 
Cited a long way upstream.
The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. [Reuters, 7/24/15]
Click to expand...
She turned the server over to the State Department that I'm sure passed it on to the FBI. How is that not investigating Clinton's server?

The news media is once again trying to make something trivial into something bigger than it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom