Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
For me the only interesting thing is the number of charges she could face --- over 100 ?
That is , how long the trial would last and whether there is a reasonable chance of any key members of the Bush -Clinton Crime Syndicate still being alive when the guilty verdicts are finally pronounced .
 
Malbec said:
For me the only interesting thing is the number of charges she could face --- over 100 ?
Click to expand...

As usual, evidence ?

Malbec said:
That is , how long the trial would last and whether there is a reasonable chance of any key members of the Bush -Clinton Crime Syndicate still being alive when the guilty verdicts are finally pronounced .
Click to expand...

I doubt there'll even be a trial on the grounds that there is no case to answer.
 
Malbec said:
For me the only interesting thing is the number of charges she could face --- over 100 ?
That is , how long the trial would last and whether there is a reasonable chance of any key members of the Bush -Clinton Crime Syndicate still being alive when the guilty verdicts are finally pronounced .
Click to expand...
LOL
 
Foolmewunz said:
Note the "A Democrat", boy that's damning. Until you learn that he's never uttered a thing about politics and served as a bureaucrat under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Funny how there's no mention of the party affiliation of the other legal opinions you cite. Wanna guess which party they're affiliated with. C'mon, just a guess.

This is a partisan debate, always has been. As a progressive, don't you begin to feel like you need a shower citing such obviously partisan crap by people whose motivations and principles, were they saying anything about Saint Bernie of Burlington, you would be attacking.

When you've checked out the OTHER legal opinions of that myriad assortment of experts, get back to me and tell me how much YOU respect their opinions.

Please stop Googling "Bad Crap About Hillary". Leave that to 16.5 and Slings and Arrows.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: :D
 
jhunter1163 said:
No post-clinching bounce for Hillary, but still a double-digit lead over Trump, and still 19 percent not supporting either one.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ouse-race-reuters-ipsos/ar-AAgTMPn?li=BBnb7Kz
Click to expand...

Reuters/Ipsos results are spotty. I don't trust on-line polls, anyway. The value from bad polls is getting aggregate data.

Jun 4-8 Hillary +8
Jun 6-10 Hillary +11

That's a bump, I'd say. Especially considering that, at best, some form of bye-bye Bernie bump would've only been showing in responses starting on the 8th,... if then. News of Bernie's meetings and his pledge to "work with her" and Biden's/Warren's endorsements only made the repeating news cycle on the 10th.

The Republicans ARE NOT running around like chickens with their heads cut off for no reason. The parties have much better polls than the pollsters. My bet is that she'll average another few points in the next few days as more polls come in from the 10th and after.

ETA: Fox, Rasmussen, Reuters/Ipsos all have her at +3 from their preceding poll to the most current. This, of course, is the most insignificant polling, good only for bragging rights. The important numbers - those in the key/swing states are not being updated as frequently. That's where the spectre of doom will start putting the writing on the wall.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
<snip> ETA: Fox, Rasmussen, Reuters/Ipsos all have her at +3 from their preceding poll to the most current. This, of course, is the most insignificant polling, good only for bragging rights. The important numbers - those in the key/swing states are not being updated as frequently. That's where the spectre of doom will start putting the writing on the wall.
Click to expand...

For His Orangeness, that is.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Note the "A Democrat", boy that's damning. Until you learn that he's never uttered a thing about politics and served as a bureaucrat under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Funny how there's no mention of the party affiliation of the other legal opinions you cite. Wanna guess which party they're affiliated with. C'mon, just a guess.

This is a partisan debate, always has been. As a progressive, don't you begin to feel like you need a shower citing such obviously partisan crap by people whose motivations and principles, were they saying anything about Saint Bernie of Burlington, you would be attacking.

When you've checked out the OTHER legal opinions of that myriad assortment of experts, get back to me and tell me how much YOU respect their opinions.

Please stop Googling "Bad Crap About Hillary". Leave that to 16.5 and Slings and Arrows.
Click to expand...

"Metcalfe notes he is a registered Democrat and will vote for the former first lady if she runs for the White House. That makes his criticism even more damaging."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/237012-the-backer-who-could-hurt-hillary

People have MADE this a partisan issue, but all it boils down to is an FBI security review investigation that may or may not result in criminal charges. The people who think there's zero chance are partisan and the people who are sure she'll be indicted are partisan, then there's people in the middle, who realize the FBI doesn't care how high-profile you are, doesn't invest this much time and effort into chasing red herrings, and the person at the center of all this deliberately violated State Dept. procedures by exclusively using a private email account for State Dept. business.

If this were a Republican in this situation, the Democrats here would be convinced he would be in deep trouble, and don't try to tell me any different. You're one of the most partisan people who post here.
 
Without expressing any opinion on Hillary's actions, if the FBI's job is criminal investigation, then if they investigate anything at all, is it not de facto a criminal investigation? Although it's customary among many these days to confuse an investigation with its result, speaking of it as if it were done seems a bit premature until it's actually done.
 
This story is why Americans cannot trust 'crooked' Hillary Clinton

It’s only now, thanks to a freedom of information request covering the State Department, that we have a clearer idea. Newly released emails show that when ABC began its inquiries, the State Department acted quickly to “protect the name” of Mrs Clinton and to “stall” ABC’s investigation – before accepting Fernando’s resignation.

And how did Fernando’s name get added to a list of potential Board members in the first place? Simple: Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then counsel and chief of staff, insisted that it be put there. In an email exchange, a member of staff wrote: “The true answer is simply that [Clinton’s] staff (Cheryl Mills) added him… Raj was not on the list sent to [Clinton]; he was added at their insistence.”
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...ericans-cannot-trust-crooked-hillary-clinton/

Hillary Clinton, the Champion of the 1%. Money talks with the Clintons, don't it?
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
Thank you for (somewhat) clarifying that you're a Trump supporter, which most of us suspected all along.
Click to expand...

That was the actual headline of the actual article that I actually linked.

Nothing to say about the actual article and Clinton's appointment of a grossly unqualified high frequency trader to an intelligence advisory board and the subsequent cover up?
 
16.5 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...ericans-cannot-trust-crooked-hillary-clinton/

Hillary Clinton, the Champion of the 1%. Money talks with the Clintons, don't it?
Click to expand...


Excerpt from the article:

"Throughout their careers, the Clintons have been accused to being too comfortable with the attentions of the rich and powerful – of even trading money for access. One might argue that most presidential hopefuls do this. But the Clintons are alleged to have turned it into a fine art. When Bernie Sanders complains loudly about Mrs Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street execs, one of which earned her $225,000, he is articulating the feeling of many on the Left that the nominee is tainted by a lust for money. Likewise, one of the reasons why Trump garners some support is because people believe that his personal fortune puts him above influence peddling. Trump calls Clinton "Crooked Hillary". He might be a bigot, he's sort of saying, but he is his own bigot. No one can buy him.

"Some are hailing Clinton’s nomination as a breakthrough for feminism and the beginning of the fightback against Trump. They’re wrong. She’s might turn out to be the weakest candidate the Democrats could field against The Donald."​


Crooked Hillary has yet to release the transcripts from the 3 speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs -- which was essentially a $675,000 bribe.

Nor has she released the missing emails from her unencrypted private server. It is suspected that the 30,000 missing emails are directly related to The Clinton Foundation -- a bribe factory that masquerades as a charitable foundation.

Reference:
#CrookedHillary
#ClintonFoundation
#ReleaseTheTranscripts
 
Fudbucker said:
"Metcalfe notes he is a registered Democrat and will vote for the former first lady if she runs for the White House. That makes his criticism even more damaging."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/237012-the-backer-who-could-hurt-hillary

People have MADE this a partisan issue, but all it boils down to is an FBI security review investigation that may or may not result in criminal charges. The people who think there's zero chance are partisan and the people who are sure she'll be indicted are partisan, then there's people in the middle, who realize the FBI doesn't care how high-profile you are, doesn't invest this much time and effort into chasing red herrings, and the person at the center of all this deliberately violated State Dept. procedures by exclusively using a private email account for State Dept. business.

If this were a Republican in this situation, the Democrats here would be convinced he would be in deep trouble, and don't try to tell me any different. You're one of the most partisan people who post here.
Click to expand...

I don't get it? Are you saying you're a Republican? Or are you saying you're the only non-partisan and the rest of us are lying?

You need to do your research. Take the following statement as fact: I am only a Hillary supporter by default. I laugh at your progressive pretensions. I am a socialist pragmatist. If you know anything about the revolutionary socialist movement, you will know that burrowing into an organization and taking it over, which I repeatedly recommend, is a tried and true practice. See Marx, Karl, Lenin, Trotsky, et al
I'm partisan in stopping the GOP, who represent, in their current guise, an actual threat. You are taking the 911 CT version of partisanship... anyone who doesn't blame Bush and Cheney must be a Republican. I actually had a starry-eyed poster accuse ME of being a Republican conservative. The take-down was legendary. It is possible to hate the politics of an individual and still not be willing to slander and smear them. Think about that, then go re-examine the posts you think of as partisan. I'm taking down irrational monomaniacal rhetoric.

Go. And err no more.
 
16.5 said:
That was the actual headline of the actual article that I actually linked.
Click to expand...
When you put words in the title they are yours. When you link to an article and don't offer any criticism of it we assume that you agree with it. If that is a misinterpretation then it is your fault, not ours.

Would you like to clarify your position? Is Hillary 'crooked' or not?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
When you put words in the title they are yours. When you link to an article and don't offer any criticism of it we assume that you agree with it. If that is a misinterpretation then it is your fault, not ours.

Would you like to clarify your position? Is Hillary 'crooked' or not?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Anything about the article and her appointment of the schmuck?

Anything at all?
 
Foolmewunz said:
I don't get it? Are you saying you're a Republican? Or are you saying you're the only non-partisan and the rest of us are lying?

You need to do your research. Take the following statement as fact: I am only a Hillary supporter by default. I laugh at your progressive pretensions. I am a socialist pragmatist. If you know anything about the revolutionary socialist movement, you will know that burrowing into an organization and taking it over, which I repeatedly recommend, is a tried and true practice. See Marx, Karl, Lenin, Trotsky, et al
I'm partisan in stopping the GOP, who represent, in their current guise, an actual threat. You are taking the 911 CT version of partisanship... anyone who doesn't blame Bush and Cheney must be a Republican. I actually had a starry-eyed poster accuse ME of being a Republican conservative. The take-down was legendary. It is possible to hate the politics of an individual and still not be willing to slander and smear them. Think about that, then go re-examine the posts you think of as partisan. I'm taking down irrational monomaniacal rhetoric.

Go. And err no more.
Click to expand...

I'm a moderate. There are aspects of both parties that appeal to me.

You post frequently in this sub-forum. Can you link to any post where you've been critical of Hillary (or just agreed with someone else's criticism)? Possible criticisms include Iraq, Libya, Wall Street speeches, violations of State Dept policy, past lies/exaggerations, support of DOMA, etc.
 
Regarding partisanship in general...

When one cannot see that one cannot see, one does not even know one is blind.
 
varwoche said:
Thank you for (somewhat) clarifying that you're a Trump supporter, which most of us suspected all along.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Trump supporter, and I think she's as crooked as the day is long. How many lies did the IG report alone reveal?

"As we have written before, Clinton has said her email arrangement was “allowed” by her department and “fully above board.” Even after the report came out, Clinton continued to make this claim, saying in an ABC News interview on May 26 that “it was allowed.”
The IG report says that that was not the case.

"Clinton has insisted that she complied with that records requirement, too, because she sent emails to department staffers who had government email addresses. At a March 10 press conference, when she first took questions about her unusual email arrangement, Clinton said “the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.”
The IG report said that is not the case. It said Clinton’s method of preserving work-related emails was insufficient under the Federal Records Act.

"On multiple occasions, Clinton has said she was not alone in using personal email for government business. That is correct, but she distorts the facts when saying that what she did was the same as other secretaries of state, as she did in a CNN interview on July 7, 2015, in a March 9 debate, and again in the ABC interview on May 26 after the report came out."
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/#

And that's just from the IG report. How many lies and distortions does one need to hear before one begins to distrust a person? If a known liar takes gobs of money from one of the shadiest banks in financial history and won't talk about what she said...

Why on Earth would anyone assume good intentions on this person's part?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom