Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
What makes this backwards? Comey could have sent the innocuous letter (which I guarantee he didn't think was innocuous) in order to give Clinton time to respond. He knew they'd leak it (if that's what happened.) He's part of the executive branch.

Investigations often are performance pieces. They shouldn't be, but cops "leak" things to the press all the time. IMO, the timing could be construed as helping Clinton. Any later, she would not have time to go on the offensive which she immediately did. Not leaking it would be a coverup, worse than leaking it.

That's my thinking but I could easily be wrong. However when something breaks in the news IMO I'm better equipped than most to imagine the hidden agendas behind it. I say IMO for a reason; it is just an opinion, but a relatively informed one.
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp:confused: You think sending a letter like that 11days before an election helps Clinton? You can't be serious. Comey is a Republican who investigated Whitewater in the 90s. Not leaking it is NOT a cover up. Not telling the world about something that may or may not be meaningful or meaningless is simply the prudent thing to do.

While I don't disagree with you that some investigations are played out in the media by unscrupulous prosecutors or police it is nevertheless a subversion of the process.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
:jaw-dropp:confused: You think sending a letter like that 11days before an election helps Clinton? You can't be serious. Comey is a Republican who investigated Whitewater in the 90s. Not leaking it is NOT a cover up Not telling the world about something that may or may not be meaningful or meaningless is simply the prudent thing to do.
Click to expand...
Comey is also the guy who basically exonerated Clinton, so there's that. He may have known the world was going to find out anyway - from internal FBI leaks, for example. Then Comey risks further criticism that he suppressed something potentially damaging to Clinton.

Eleven days before beats 3 days before. Particularly in this whiplash-inducing news cycle. Hillary gets out on front by demanding full and complete accounting ASAP, with plenty of time to smear Donald with whatever has been held back so far.

Wheels within wheels, I know, but I have a theory that still seems plausible to me.
 
During the 2006 Federal election campaign in Canada the incumbent Liberal party had about a 6 point lead (and had led in every single poll during the election) when a couple weeks before election day the RCMP, violating their own policy of not interfering with elections, dropped a bombshell that they had opened up a criminal investigation which included the Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale. Despite publicly saying that they had opened up a criminal investigation which included Goodale, in the next sentence they stressed that there was no evidence of wrongdoing or illegal activity against anyone, including Goodale - likely knowing full well that their specific and repeated singling out of Goodale for no reason would ensure that everyone understood that there must be evidence of wrongdoing or illegal activity from Goodale or else there would be no reason to single him out (and incidentally naming specific people in such an announcement also went against policy, and was directed in this case by the RCMP commissioner). The Conservative party led in every subsequent poll and won the election by 6 points. Goodale was later completely cleared, but the damage was done.

I doubt that what is happening currently will change the election results, but these things do happen and policies should be changed to stop this kind of electoral interference.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Comey is also the guy who basically exonerated Clinton, so there's that. He may have known the world was going to find out anyway - from internal FBI leaks, for example. Then Comey risks further criticism that he suppressed something potentially damaging to Clinton.

Eleven days before beats 3 days before. Particularly in this whiplash-inducing news cycle. Hillary gets out on front by demanding full and complete accounting ASAP, with plenty of time to smear Donald with whatever has been held back so far.

Wheels within wheels, I know, but I have a theory that still seems plausible to me.
Click to expand...

No offense, but it makes little sense to me.

You got nothing, you say nothing and if you don't know what you got you also say nothing. Unless you're ready to file charges you don't play games with a presidential election. It's just not done.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Wait. What makes Clinton corrupt?
Click to expand...

Well we can start with making obscene "profits" trading futures to using the Clinton family foundation as a pay for play vehicle for access to the state department, plus all the sleazy things in between.
 
acbytesla said:
No offense, but it makes little sense to me.

You got nothing, you say nothing and if you don't know what you got you also say nothing. Unless you're ready to file charges you don't play games with a presidential election. It's just not done.
Click to expand...

Withholding info IMO also could be seen as playing games. In this election there's already been a ton of stuff that just isn't done. Like, I'm not sure what other candidates were the subject of criminal investigations in an election year. There may have been some, but I don't know of any.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes indeed she does lie much, very much, eagerly and avidly.

Nice contribution!
Click to expand...

It's been proven (to non hyper partisans) that the Clinton Foundation is not pay for play.

You should probably drop that.

The problem with you people is your insistence to fabricate scandals and hype them as if they had real teeth. This hasn't worked yet, has it?

What makes you think it's all of a sudden going to work?
 
How exactly are donations to the Clinton Foundation bribes again?

Oh that's right, it is some huge slush fund and not a charity. Sure the evidence to support this claim is nonexistent, but fanatical Clinton hating conspiracy theorists really want it to be true and so therefore it must.
 
NoahFence said:
It's been proven (to non hyper partisans) that the Clinton Foundation is not pay for play.

You should probably drop that.

The problem with you people is your insistence to fabricate scandals and hype them as if they had real teeth. This hasn't worked yet, has it?

What makes you think it's all of a sudden going to work?
Click to expand...

Uh huh, have not kept up with the wikileaks have you?

To non-hyper partisans? Hee hee!
 
The Big Dog said:
Well we can start with making obscene "profits" trading futures to using the Clinton family foundation as a pay for play vehicle for access to the state department, plus all the sleazy things in between.
Click to expand...

What laws did she break trading futures and where has it been proven anyone benefited by donating to the CFF?
 
Tony Stark said:
How exactly are donations to the Clinton Foundation bribes again?

Oh that's right, it is some huge slush fund and not a charity. Sure the evidence to support this claim is nonexistent, but fanatical Clinton hating conspiracy theorists really want it to be true and so therefore it must.
Click to expand...


When private people benefit to the tune of millions of dollars, especially when such benefits are non-cash benefits in the way of flights, accommodation, meals, speaking fees and so on, it is not a charity. The Clintons should be donating their own money, and their own time, in a charitable manner.

Many charities are fronts for schemes to benefit a select group. When a charity rents very high priced offices, takes expensive trips, are given the highest price vehicles then it is a scam, not a true charity.

Having being involved in a properly run African charity, and seen the competition, it is not hard to spot the difference.

Why do you think the Revenue services do lifestyle audits?

Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are trying to defend the indefensible.
 
Minoosh said:
Withholding info IMO also could be seen as playing games. In this election there's already been a ton of stuff that just isn't done. Like, I'm not sure what other candidates were the subject of criminal investigations in an election year. There may have been some, but I don't know of any.
Click to expand...

But that's the point. Comey didn't release info. Data is not evidence of anything. All it does is invite conjecture. Look at it like a doctor. The first priority as a doctor is to "do no harm".If you're not sure, you do nothing.
 
The Big Dog said:
Uh huh, have not kept up with the wikileaks have you?

To non-hyper partisans? Hee hee!
Click to expand...

Which wikileaks email(s) prove that Hillary used the power of her office to give favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Hint: I know they don't exist.
 
acbytesla said:
But that's the point. Comey didn't release info. Data is not evidence of anything. All it does is invite conjecture. Look at it like a doctor. The first priority as a doctor is to "do no harm".If you're not sure, you do nothing.
Click to expand...

He released the info that emails had been found that were, however tangentially, related to the cowboy server case.

If there are fresh emails from Hillary or from her server on a non-government computer, how does it look for him if he keeps that a secret from the people investigating Hillary?

My logic is based on the belief that this information was going to get out before the election, one way or another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom