Hillary Clinton
PVW said:
It's hard to credit the idea that there's an email that will get Clinton indicted. Wikileaks (via Russian intelligence, as best we can tell) got DNC emails, and it looks like Russian intelligence has also hacked other Democratic party organizations (including the DCCC and the Clinton campaign), but while I'm sure there's plenty of potentially embarrassing material there, it's hard to imagine anything blatantly illegal. At a stretch, maybe questions around fundraising, but that's about all I can think of, and even then it seems unlikely any sort of smoking gun getting Clinton personally in trouble would be there.
As an aside, Russia isn't exactly putting themselves in the good graces of the most likely next US administration, are they? They're making a pretty big bet on Trump, which anyone in Atlantic City can tell you is probably not the smartest move.
ETA - per this NY mag article, it looks like there's even confusion as to whether wikileaks ever claimed to have an email that could get Clinton indicted.
During the convention Huffington Post's top national reporters, Sam Stein and Ryan Grim, asked Harry Reid "whether his party had a Plan B if something truly disqualifying emerged about Hillary Clinton in future email dumps." Reid's answer was "No."
Was this just a hypothetical question, or was there something behind it?
Probably the former, but I don't recall the question being asked before by any MSM journalists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-bernie-sanders-dnc_us_5799259fe4b02d5d5ed42db6
paulsurovell said:
During the convention Huffington Post's top national reporters, Sam Stein and Ryan Grim, asked Harry Reid "whether his party had a Plan B if something truly disqualifying emerged about Hillary Clinton in future email dumps." Reid's answer was "No."
Was this just a hypothetical question, or was there something behind it?
Probably the former, but I don't recall the question being asked before by any MSM journalists.
It was probably just a hypothetical question (i.e., not one with "something behind it") because the issue was raised by, among others, assorted Bernie Bros and Bitter-enders.
If no MSM reporter asked about it, then assorted Bernie Bros and Bitter-enders would be claiming bias and demanding to know why the issue wasn't covered.
Baseless innuendo or manufactured outrage - it could be played either way.
Never give up, do you Paul? The Huffington Post has been pro-Sanders, anti-Clinton - very much so.
cramer said:
Never give up, do you Paul? The Huffington Post has been pro-Sanders, anti-Clinton - very much so.
Are you saying that Sam Stein and Ryan Grim (authors of the piece in question) are pro-Sanders, anti-Hillary? If so, evidence please.
bcc, I read through you "argument" that Clinton was a big fat liar. You do not convince me that she was anything other than mistaken about pretty technical details. Your posts are meandering on the subject and rely on what other people have said. (Unlike you, I don't have Comey on a pedestal.)
Give me the QUOTE, with citation, of what you think is her most egregious lie about the emails. One thing, and we can focus on that.
here's more interesting reading on the Hillary/Yankees fan meme. It's about pundits Cokie Roberts and George Will going on about the Horrible lying Hillary Clinton - circa 1999. Of course, they were the liars, not Hillary.
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-we-got-here-pundits-fight-back.html
drummerboy said:
bcc, I read through you "argument" that Clinton was a big fat liar. You do not convince me that she was anything other than mistaken about pretty technical details. Your posts are meandering on the subject and rely on what other people have said. (Unlike you, I don't have Comey on a pedestal.)
Give me the QUOTE, with citation, of what you think is her most egregious lie about the emails. One thing, and we can focus on that.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/t-day-evergreen-7-wildest-lies-hillary-clinton/
the political insider?
I can't possible take you seriously anymore, because I get their daily emails.
I will say that the mere fact that you can cite them as an authority explains so much about why you think Hillary is a lying liar. Your mind is mush.
btw, the reason I asked bcc for one, specific example is because I am not going to play the game of "throw a bunch of sh** a the wall and see what sticks".
drummerboy said:
the political insider?
I can't possible take you seriously anymore, because I get their daily emails.
I will say that the mere fact that you can cite them as an authority explains so much about why you think Hillary is a lying liar. Your mind is mush.
You know in the many years that I have written for MOL I have often taken a position
contrary to the majority
And as much as I thought their arguments were non sense I was always polite in my replies
or rebuttals. I see you march to a different drummer
I really don't care what the source of facts are as long as they are accurate
When the same statements come across time after time whether it be from the New York Times
Christian Science Monitor or Fox News, I have to respect them
I will refrain from commenting about your mind, but you certainly missed the class in manners
drummerboy said:
bcc, I read through you "argument" that Clinton was a big fat liar. You do not convince me that she was anything other than mistaken about pretty technical details. Your posts are meandering on the subject and rely on what other people have said. (Unlike you, I don't have Comey on a pedestal.)
Give me the QUOTE, with citation, of what you think is her most egregious lie about the emails. One thing, and we can focus on that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/3-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-convenience-argument-on-her-email-controversy-probably-wont-work/
Not the most egregious but probably the first.
LOST said:
author said:
I sort of like my politicians to tell me the truth.
That puts you in a distinct minority. The most successful and popular Presidents in my lifetime were Reagan who had great difficulty separating fact from fiction and Bill Clinton who... well we all know.
Author - I respect your opposition to the PO, and admire you as a poster - but you come across as very naive at times.
Lost - other than things of a sexual nature or inhaling - what has Bill Clinton lied about?
Sweetsnuggles said:
LOST said:
author said:
I sort of like my politicians to tell me the truth.
That puts you in a distinct minority. The most successful and popular Presidents in my lifetime were Reagan who had great difficulty separating fact from fiction and Bill Clinton who... well we all know.
Author - I respect your opposition to the PO, and admire you as a poster - but you come across as very naive at times.
Lost - other than things of a sexual nature or inhaling - what has Bill Clinton lied about?
I had a Grandmother who although she was well educated in Athens Greece, contented herself
here with being a wife and mother of 5. Of course there was a language barrier but I think the never ending series of diapers and keeping the family together was pretty time consuming
For the life of me , I never remember a conversation with her in English but since she spoke with my
wife, who had only English I guess she could manipulate around the language
What does that have to do with anything? There are some people in life that present the very
light that tells you to stand up for what you think right, no matter what lumps you take.
They never care what people think about them................and they pass that along to those dearest
to them. Such was Helen Tsirikos She was a contender
Red_Barchetta said:
drummerboy said:
bcc, I read through you "argument" that Clinton was a big fat liar. You do not convince me that she was anything other than mistaken about pretty technical details. Your posts are meandering on the subject and rely on what other people have said. (Unlike you, I don't have Comey on a pedestal.)
Give me the QUOTE, with citation, of what you think is her most egregious lie about the emails. One thing, and we can focus on that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/3-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-convenience-argument-on-her-email-controversy-probably-wont-work/
Not the most egregious but probably the first.
pick ONE.
drummerboy said:
btw, the reason I asked bcc for one, specific example is because I am not going to play the game of "throw a bunch of sh** a the wall and see what sticks".
There is so much s**t to throw against the wall because she was FOS so often. Here is one.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437606/hillary-clintons-eight-email-lies-exposed-james-comey
Lie: She didn’t send or receive
any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” Clinton told
this to reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015. She repeated
it at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser July 25 and at a Democratic
debate February 4, 2016. Once the investigation into Clinton’s
e-mails began, the FBI began retroactively classifying some of the
work-related e-mails she had released. So Clinton probably opted to
dodge the issue by qualifying her statement, saying that no e-mails
she sent were classified “at the time.”
Truth: Comey said that the FBI
found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton
sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight
Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437606/hillary-clintons-eight-email-lies-exposed-james-comey
Not included, because it came from the IG, was her lie about 'everything I did was authorized'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0
Don't bother telling us she was ignorant of the regulations – they have an e-mail from her
chastising a subordinate at State for doing what she was doing.
db
There is a reason why most Americans think they are both liars, and untrustworthy - that's because they are.
I think the the reason that so many people are attacking Clinton relentlessly is that they cannot for their lives find even one positive reason to support Trump.
FilmCarp said:
I think the the reason that so many people are attacking Clinton relentlessly is that they cannot for their lives find even one positive reason to support Trump.
Faulty logic. True I cannot find any reason to nor do I want to support Trump but that does not lessen the fact that Hillary has been caught in so many lies. How often can you say, " I misspoke"?
BCC said:
db
There is a reason why most Americans think they are both liars, and untrustworthy - that's because they are.
Sad but true
author said:
FilmCarp said:
I think the the reason that so many people are attacking Clinton relentlessly is that they cannot for their lives find even one positive reason to support Trump.
Faulty logic. True I cannot find any reason to nor do I want to support Trump but that does not lessen the fact that Hillary has been caught in so many lies. How often can you say, " I misspoke"?
No one is perfect, but all of her public service has created opportunities for negative people to stir every little thing into something big. No mistake passes without someone trying to turn it into some hidden agenda or huge scheme. No scrape goes by without someone ripping off the scab. Always these attacks are designed to benefit their own agendas. It is so sad to me that intelligent people just can't stop themselves from trying to tear her down long enough to face reality. Reality is that for the next 100 days we need to look at the positive about her, and there is plenty of positive to look at. This is what separates her from Trump. After the election we need to maintain pressure from the left, but that will be far more influential from the inside than from the outside.
Hillary Clinton has a clear track record in many years of public service. She is a supporter of progressive policies. In terms of foreign policy, she has been hawkish in the past, but I imagine she has learned a lesson or two from the Arab Spring revolts.
At this point in the process, unless a person wants Donald Trump to win, I can't imagine any good reason to continue to attack Hillary Clinton.
tjohn said:
At this point in the process, unless a person wants Donald Trump to win, I can't imagine any good reason to continue to attack Hillary Clinton.
This constant sniping by some Sanders supporters reminds me of 17 - 18th century warfare.
Nations were created but loyalty was often not to the nation. It was to the noble or general who funded the troop. Battles were lost because some general or noble decided to sit out a war benefiting his nation because of feeling felt insulted or marginalized.
We have a war now. Trump vs Clinton and what they represent. Its a war because the stakes are so very high. The Republicans know that. That is why they are holding up Obama's supreme court nomination, waiting for Trump. Just as they have held up numerous federal appeal and district court nominations, waiting for Trump. And the environment (Paris accord), education, LGBT rights, women's reproductive rights, etc. Need I go on?
We have some of the Sanders troop thinking 17 - 18th century.
There are people who think they are both FOS and point out their failings.
Her failings include being hawkish about the Iraq war and learning nothing by then being hawkish about Libya. People died as a result and we ended with a foreign policy disaster.
You can also deny Comey and the IG didn't label her a liar about serious e-mail failures, but only died
in the wool Hillary supporters are buying that.
Even here we have people saying they will hold their nose and vote for her. In NJ I don't have to accept the lesser evil argument.
BCC said:
Even here we have people saying they will hold their nose and vote for her. In NJ I don't have to accept the lesser evil argument.
What if you lived in Florida?
BCC said:
Even here we have people saying they will hold their nose and vote for her. In NJ I don't have to accept the lesser evil argument.
Congratulations. You and I share that privilege of state of residence.
But, that privilege does not mean that one cannot have an opinion. So, given that one of two people will be elected President, do you have an opinion on who people in "swing states" should vote for, or are you agnostic on that as well?
LOST said:
BCC said:
Even here we have people saying they will hold their nose and vote for her. In NJ I don't have to accept the lesser evil argument.
What if you lived in Florida?
I cannot conceive of a situation where I would vote for Trump, but as I have also said, I have until I am standing in the booth to decide, and a lot can happen between now and then.
nohero said:
BCC said:
Even here we have people saying they will hold their nose and vote for her. In NJ I don't have to accept the lesser evil argument.
Congratulations. You and I share that privilege of state of residence.
But, that privilege does not mean that one cannot have an opinion. So, given that one of two people will be elected President, do you have an opinion on who people in "swing states" should vote for, or are you agnostic on that as well?
Yes, and I can afford to be - as I have pointed out a lot can happen in the next hundred days.
Assange is claiming more to come. He might come up with a bombshell, he might fizzle into obscurity. I can wait to see which it is.
BCC said:
Assange is claiming more to come. He might come up with a bombshell, he might fizzle into obscurity. I can wait to see which it is.
The problem with a late October surprise is validating it and refuting it in a timely manner before the election. For all we know, his bombshell could have been manufactured by his Russian friends.
btw - 18% of America now believes Clinton has ties to Lucifer. Another 21% are not sure.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_7302016.pdf
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Trump seemed to be alluding to Clinton's emails from her time at State. There's still no indication those were hacked.
These new hacking revelations are about various Democratic party systems, so not related at all to the State emails.
ETA - by "Clinton's system" above, I take BG9 to mean the hack of her campaign emails, which was among the Democratic party systems hacked.