• 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: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fudbucker said:
Barring some catastrophe, yeah, I'll vote for her. I won't like it, but a Trump presidency is unthinkable.
Click to expand...

I understand. Even members of my Country Club where I'm a closet Democrat the guys around the grill are joking openly that they might do the unthinkable and vote for a Democrat and a Clinton to boot because of Trump. Some have suggested that Hell just might have froze over.
 
Fudbucker said:
Behold, my new Avatar, courtesy of Tony Stark, who gave me a choice between forking over $20 and sporting this <--- for two months.
Click to expand...

It suits you. You might want to think about that. Sanders is not going to be nominated.

It's cuter with my doggie in it. :D
 
Last edited:
RobRoy said:
ETA: I also won on the bet, but with Slings and Arrows, who has completely disappeared . . .
Click to expand...


I haven't gone anywhere. If you win the bet, you'll get the $20; guaranteed.

But it isn't over yet. In the press conference, FBI Director James Comey never mentioned the Clinton Foundation. So, there could still be an indictment:

FBI Widens Clinton Email Probe

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.

This track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

Read more:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/01/11/exclusive-fbi-widens-clinton-email-probe (January 11, 2016)
Click to expand...
 
Slings and Arrows said:
I haven't gone anywhere. If you win the bet, you'll get the $20; guaranteed.

But it isn't over yet. In the press conference, FBI Director James Comey never mentioned the Clinton Foundation. So, there could still be an indictment:

​
Click to expand...

In other words as long as Hillary is still breathing there's a chance?;)
 
Slings and Arrows is back! Apparently he insanely still has hope for a Hillary indictment, he's just crazily moving on to the Clinton Foundation.

Hey, remember when you were so certain that she was going to be indicted for her emails? And you said she had to either plead the fifth, or lie to the FBI, either of which would have disasterous consequences for her? How did that work out for you?

LOL
 
Tony Stark said:
Slings and Arrows is back! Apparently he insanely still has hope for a Hillary indictment, he's just crazily moving on to the Clinton Foundation.

Hey, remember when you were so certain that she was going to be indicted for her emails? And you said she had to either plead the fifth, or lie to the FBI, either of which would have disasterous consequences for her? How did that work out for you?

LOL
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem likely as I am unaware of any investigation of the foundation.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
I haven't gone anywhere. If you win the bet, you'll get the $20; guaranteed.

But it isn't over yet. In the press conference, FBI Director James Comey never mentioned the Clinton Foundation. So, there could still be an indictment:

​
Click to expand...

Just fork over the twenty bucks. That article is from January and it was "widening" the current investigation. The then-current investigation we should say. That investigation has ended. It's over.
 
Fudbucker said:
FoxNews has pushed it for awhile.
Click to expand...

This speaks highly of the acumen of the HDS team. It was added to the investigation. Do they know of another ongoing investigation? Do they think Comey wants to commit career suicide in hopes of being called on once a month to be a talking puppet on Hannity?

We need fewer threads on these interconnected topics. The HDS squad spreads them out, but what it amounts to is they are laying out their scenario for their desperation end game.

> The Benghazi Committee are all commie turncoats and were bought off by Clinton Foundation money and didn't really say she wasn't guilty, so because we need her to be guilty, we'll keep repeating unrelated nonsense like "stand down"... an order that the SoS cannot issue, but in Drudgeworld THIS SoS could have. I mean, she could have, right?
> The FBI report shows that they wanted to indict her, but they weren't able to go after someone so big. No, it doesn't say "Look here's what all the bitching's been about and while we agree that those mis-deeds may have occurred, they aren't serious enough to actually indict someone." Nosirree. It says "She's Guilty. Burn the Witch. Help, I'm being forced to make these statements because they're holding my granddaughter in a safe house. I'd really like to prosecute her, but I'm only human."

We will hear variations on this through November. Good luck to the HDS crackerjack hit team. Played all your cards in the aftermath of the two smack-downs. When you're reduced to praying for help from Julian Assange and Guccifer, you really are done.

Maybe the thread should be re-named? "HDS is Done."
 
Give the GOP history of announcing their investigations and not keeping them secret as they collect evidence, it's almost a certainty they know there is no there there in the Clinton Foundation shenanigans.

I would even wager a gentlewoman's bet that there is a risk to the GOP and they know it that they might end up giving an advantage to Clinton by revealing the charity work the Foundation has actually accomplished with poor women, HIV and Haiti earthquake work.
 
I've only heard the Clinton Foundation investigation story on FoxNews and right-wing sites that source Fox. It's been out there for awhile and hasn't gone mainstream, which suggests a lot of fair-minded journalists (who are pretty good at their jobs, like Chris Cilliza) don't think it's a legit story. So it's probably not anything for the Right-Wing to pin their hopes on.

But with the Clinton's, anything is possible.
 
Fudbucker said:
I've only heard the Clinton Foundation investigation story on FoxNews and right-wing sites that source Fox. It's been out there for awhile and hasn't gone mainstream, which suggests a lot of fair-minded journalists (who are pretty good at their jobs, like Chris Cilliza) don't think it's a legit story. So it's probably not anything for the Right-Wing to pin their hopes on.

But with the Clinton's, anything is possible.
Click to expand...

The Fox approach works with limited information viewers - their mainstay. Back when O'Reilly and Jon Stewart were having their mock debates, they threw in a lot of serious conversation. O'Reilly made the point often that Stewart was confusing commentary with news. He hasn't made that claim lately, but only because no one's engaging with them since they're such loons. But I'm sure he'd still stand by it. The problem is that the Fox NEWS Network as it's called, wants that line blurred. Devoted followers - the tiny minority of the US population that could be described as such - all go by "well, I heard it on Fox News". No, you heard it one an entertainment/commentary segment of a show that happens to be on a network that has "News" in its name. All their prime time programming is opinion. O'Reilly is selling his books and entertainment shows. Hannity says some of the stupidest and most unfounded things one will encounter. Greta ain't much better; but she at least tries to center her shows around actual interviews. Every koffee klatch sort of show is four or five Fox Babes sitting around discussing topics in the news, repeating Drudge rumors and Breitbart innuendo, and the Fox Junkies lap it up as "news".

I also recall people citing Bret Baier as a decent anchor who wasn't part of the Murdoch echo chamber. You have but to see the stuff he does on his "Special Report" to know that's nonsense and those of us who said he was showing his opinions through inflection and innuendo were correct. Just after Comey's "shocker", the Fox Babes got him on the phone and he was right on script with Hannity and their other "fair and balanced" mouthpieces.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
The Fox approach works with limited information viewers - their mainstay. Back when O'Reilly and Jon Stewart were having their mock debates, they threw in a lot of serious conversation. O'Reilly made the point often that Stewart was confusing commentary with news. He hasn't made that claim lately, but only because no one's engaging with them since they're such loons. But I'm sure he'd still stand by it. The problem is that the Fox NEWS Network as it's called, wants that line blurred. Devoted followers - the tiny minority of the US population that could be described as such - all go by "well, I heard it on Fox News". No, you heard it one an entertainment/commentary segment of a show that happens to be on a network that has "News" in its name. All their prime time programming is opinion. O'Reilly is selling his books and entertainment shows. Hannity says some of the stupidest and most unfounded things one will encounter. Greta ain't much better; but she at least tries to center her shows around actual interviews. Every koffee klatch sort of show is four or five Fox Babes sitting around discussing topics in the news, repeating Drudge rumors and Breitbart innuendo, and the Fox Junkies lap it up as "news".

I also recall people citing Bret Baier as a decent anchor who wasn't part of the Murdoch echo chamber. You have but to see the stuff he does on his "Special Report" to know that's nonsense and those of us who said he was showing his opinions through inflection and innuendo were correct. Just after Comey's "shocker", the Fox Babes got him on the phone and he was right on script with Hannity and their other "fair and balanced" mouthpieces.
Click to expand...

Do you agree that Chris Wallace is one of the best moderators of the Sunday talk shows? I think he's first, followed closely by Chuck Todd. Todd backs off from confrontation sometimes. Wallace doesn't like non-answers, and makes whoever he has on squirm a little bit if they won't answer, before he moves on to a new question.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The Fox approach works with limited information viewers - their mainstay. Back when O'Reilly and Jon Stewart were having their mock debates, they threw in a lot of serious conversation. O'Reilly made the point often that Stewart was confusing commentary with news. He hasn't made that claim lately, but only because no one's engaging with them since they're such loons. But I'm sure he'd still stand by it. The problem is that the Fox NEWS Network as it's called, wants that line blurred. Devoted followers - the tiny minority of the US population that could be described as such - all go by "well, I heard it on Fox News". No, you heard it one an entertainment/commentary segment of a show that happens to be on a network that has "News" in its name. All their prime time programming is opinion. O'Reilly is selling his books and entertainment shows. Hannity says some of the stupidest and most unfounded things one will encounter. Greta ain't much better; but she at least tries to center her shows around actual interviews. Every koffee klatch sort of show is four or five Fox Babes sitting around discussing topics in the news, repeating Drudge rumors and Breitbart innuendo, and the Fox Junkies lap it up as "news".

I also recall people citing Bret Baier as a decent anchor who wasn't part of the Murdoch echo chamber. You have but to see the stuff he does on his "Special Report" to know that's nonsense and those of us who said he was showing his opinions through inflection and innuendo were correct. Just after Comey's "shocker", the Fox Babes got him on the phone and he was right on script with Hannity and their other "fair and balanced" mouthpieces.
Click to expand...
Megyn Kelly is OK sometimes.
 
Fudbucker said:
I miss Bob Beckel, from The Five. He had more gravitas than Juan Williams, and was better at presenting the liberal side of the story.
Click to expand...

Juan Williams is pathetic. He's wimpy and has the backbone of a jellyfish. He's nothing more than fodder.
 
Fudbucker said:
Do you agree that Chris Wallace is one of the best moderators of the Sunday talk shows? I think he's first, followed closely by Chuck Todd. Todd backs off from confrontation sometimes. Wallace doesn't like non-answers, and makes whoever he has on squirm a little bit if they won't answer, before he moves on to a new question.
Click to expand...

I don't get to see Wallace's show here. It's on at 1 a.m. and they only re-run it at 5 a.m. I thus have no idea if he fits the Murdoch Stooge model or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom