Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Foolmewunz]

Your post makes no sense. All I did was destroy jhunter's post reliance on a universally discredited interview conducted by Clinton stooge Stephanopolous. I claim no familiarity with the film.

By the way, badly written sarcasm, like yours, is worse than no response at all.

Maybe you shouldn't post on topics that you have no knowledge of, then. The Stephanopolous sideshow was a distraction.

(I agree that reporters should disclose their support/interest, though. The only letter to the editor of a major newspaper that I ever got published was on that very subject.)

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, there's this one, where the publisher had to correct seven or eight incorrect passages:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...er-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946

And this one, listing over 20 errors, fabrications and distortions:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

And this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/clinton-cash-bill-hillary-scandal-book

I could go on, there's plenty more, but Schweizer is clearly a partisan hack. Clearly, that is, to everyone except HDS sufferers.

HDS Sufferers, oh dear. I do not think you are using that right.

I see that numerous changes WERE made, it is hard to determine how that is a bad thing, because it is not

By the way, the fact that you call Schweitzer a partisan hack whilie relying on mediamatters is irony of the highest order. Therefore, save your mediamatters links for those really suffering from Hillary Derangement Syndrome: her fans. mediamatters is Goebbels level propaganda run by sleazy Clinton SuperPac pal David Brock and as such has zero credibility, unless one suffers from HDS.

 

[The Big Dog]

Maybe you shouldn't post on topics that you have no knowledge of, then. The Stephanopolous sideshow was a distraction.

(I agree that reporters should disclose their support/interest, though. The only letter to the editor of a major newspaper that I ever got published was on that very subject.)

Your post, again, makes zero sense, although you managed to take a completely unsubstantiated swipe at me despite the fact I obviously know exactly what I am talking about and then you go on to agree with me.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Digging up those skeletons again will shock the consciences of many people who would otherwise be open to voting for her. And Trump not only has a team of people with shovels, he seems willing to drag those skeletons before the cameras and gnaw on their bones.

Well put. The media keeps advising Trump not to go there, but he does it anyway. And his enthusiastic supporters are just loving it.

 

[DavidJames]

Well put. The media keeps advising Trump not to go there, but he does it anyway. And his enthusiastic supporters are just loving it.

Of course they do. Trump knows he can't win on ideas, or experience. The only shot he's got is to energize the idiot vote, which, to his credit, he's been pretty successful. Of course since it's been the Republican primary, the bar was pretty low.

 

[Childlike Empress]

A bit more from the MSNBC article about the film premiering at Cannes next Monday:

[...] But what complicates matters for Hillary Clinton’s campaign is that the book resulted in a series of investigations last year into Schweizer’s allegations by mainstream media organizations from The New York Times and CNN to The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, many of which did not dispute his findings — and in some cases gathered more material that the producers used in the film. More recently, some information uncovered in the Panama Papers has echoed some of Schweitzer’s allegations in the movie and book.

The Clinton campaign loudly denounced the book as a “smear project” last year and Schweizer’s publisher, the Murdoch-owned Harper Collins, had to make some corrections to the Kindle version. But the changes, in the end, involved seven or eight inaccuracies, some of which were fairly minor in the context of the larger allegations, Politico reported.

Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to calls and emails requesting comment about the film Tuesday. [...]

“Other news outlets built on what I uncovered and some of that is in the film,” Schweizer, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, told NBC News Tuesday. “To me the key message is that while U.S. politics has long been thought to be a dirty game, it was always played by Americans. What the Clinton Foundation has done is open an avenue by which foreign investors can influence a chief U.S. diplomat. The film may spell all this out to people in a way the book did not and it may reach a whole new audience.”

Free open air screenings at the next Trump golf course starting in August (or so I was told).

 

[Slings and Arrows]

...two Clinton stooges, George Stephanopolous and David Brock...

George Stephanopoulos was part of the original Clinton team, back in early 90's.

David Brock is Crooked Hillary's chief propagandist; he has worked both sides of the aisle at various times -- professional mudslinger.

 

[dudalb]

Amazing how you see every little flaw in Hillary, but can't see any flaw in Donald the Perfect.

 

[varwoche]

<delete, wrong thread>

 

[PhantomWolf]

Your post makes no sense. All I did was destroy jhunter's post reliance on a universally discredited interview conducted by Clinton stooge Stephanopolous. I claim no familiarity with the film.

By the way, badly written sarcasm, like yours, is worse than no response at all.

Really? All I saw you do was throw out an Ad Hominem Attack on the interviewer. I must have missed the parts where you showed why his argument was actually wrong.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Hillary Clinton Mocks Donald Trump Over Not Releasing Tax Returns

“So you’ve got to ask yourself, why doesn’t he want to release them?” Mrs. Clinton said with a slightly dark edge to her voice. “Yeah, well, we’re going to find out.”

Mr. Trump, in a telephone interview later on Wednesday, said he was following legal advice by not releasing his tax returns until the “very unfair government audit” was complete.

“I will release them as soon as the audit is done. I hope that’s soon,” he said. “I’d like to do it before the election.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tax-returns.html

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is demanding that Crooked Hillary release the transcripts from her $225,000 a pop Goldman Sachs speeches.

"So you’ve got to ask yourself, why doesn’t SHE want to release them? Yeah, well, we’re going to find out.”

 

[The Don]

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is demanding that Crooked Hillary release the transcripts from her $225,000 a pop Goldman Sachs speeches.

"So you’ve got to ask yourself, why doesn’t SHE want to release them? Yeah, well, we’re going to find out.”

Commercial confidentiality would be one reason. If I released any material without my clients' express permission I'd expect to end up having my contract terminated at a minimum and depending on the level of damages they thought there may be I could find myself being sued.

There's also IMO a significant difference between releasing personal tax returns and client confidential material. Trump isn't AFAIK being asked to release transcripts of Trump Org board meetings.....

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Commercial confidentiality would be one reason. If I released any material without my clients' express permission I'd expect to end up having my contract terminated at a minimum and depending on the level of damages they thought there may be I could find myself being sued.

As noted earlier, according to the signed contractual agreements Crooked Hillary owns the exclusive rights to all of her private speeches.

And by the way, is Goldman Sachs one of Hillary's "clients?" I guess they are! How cozy?

 

[The Don]

And by the way, is Goldman Sachs one of Hillary's "clients?" I guess they are! How cozy?

Well that's your (very partial) view of the situation. Another way to view it is that there is an organisation with a requirement for a speaker. Hillary is a high profile public speaker and so it makes sense that she's at least in the frame for one or more speaking engagements there.

What would be more suspicious would be a lack of speaking engagements

 

[catsmate]

Your post makes no sense. All I did was destroy jhunter's post reliance on a universally discredited interview conducted by Clinton stooge Stephanopolous. I claim no familiarity with the film.

By the way, badly written sarcasm, like yours, is worse than no response at all.

So are you denying that, as even the publisher has accepted, the book has serious inaccuracies, that there's no independent verification for most of the claims and most of the claims fail to stand up to scrutiny?

 

[catsmate]

Well put. The media keeps advising Trump not to go there, but he does it anyway. And his enthusiastic supporters are just loving it.

Thankfully for the United States they're too few in number to elect him.

 

[catsmate]

George Stephanopoulos was part of the original Clinton team, back in early 90's.

David Brock is Crooked Hillary's chief propagandist; he has worked both sides of the aisle at various times -- professional mudslinger.

And this has what exactly to do with the false claims in the book?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

FBI Director Questions Hillary Clinton's Description of FBI Email Investigation

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."

One reporter noted that former Secretary of State Clinton often refers to it as a "security inquiry."

The word "investigation" -- "it’s in our name,” Comey responded. “And I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’”

Also this week, it was revealed that almost all the email from Secretary Clinton’s top IT staffer during her tenure at the State Department appears to be missing. That staffer, Bryan Pagliano, has become a key witness in the FBI investigation and has been granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-...ntons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269

FBI Director James Comey may not be familiar with the term "security inquiry", but he's more than well-acquainted with the phrase "criminal investigation."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

FBI Director James Comey may not be familiar with the term "security inquiry", but he's more than well-acquainted with the phrase "criminal investigation."

How typically dishonest.

You put "criminal investigation" in quotes, but he didn't use the word criminal, did he ?

 

[BobTheCoward]

As noted earlier, according to the signed contractual agreements Crooked Hillary owns the exclusive rights to all of her private speeches.

And by the way, is Goldman Sachs one of Hillary's "clients?" I guess they are! How cozy?

And still no leaks. Can't we find one attendee to leak something?