MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 28, 2016 17:12:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 28, 2016 17:21:16 GMT
Judicial Watch was formed during the Clinton Administration to destroy Bill Clinton.. and now they are after Hilary.
I wouldn't believe anything they "report"
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 28, 2016 17:31:24 GMT
Judicial Watch was formed during the Clinton Administration to destroy Bill Clinton.. and now they are after Hilary. I wouldn't believe anything they "report" From Wiki: Judicial Watch is not just a Clinton-bashing machine. They were created at a time when government transparency hit a serious low and yes, that happened to be during the Clinton administration. They do not hold simply to investigating JUST Democrats or the Clintons though. They exist to promote "transparency, honesty, accountability, and integrity in government, politics, and the law." I'm sorry if you don't like what they are reporting, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate or valid.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 28, 2016 17:38:54 GMT
Judicial Watch was formed during the Clinton Administration to destroy Bill Clinton.. and now they are after Hilary. I wouldn't believe anything they "report" From Wiki: Judicial Watch is not just a Clinton-bashing machine. They were created at a time when government transparency hit a serious low and yes, that happened to be during the Clinton administration. They do not hold simply to investigating JUST Democrats or the Clintons though. They exist to promote "transparency, honesty, accountability, and integrity in government, politics, and the law." I'm sorry if you don't like what they are reporting, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate or valid. I don't consider Wikipedia a credible new source either.
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Apr 28, 2016 17:38:57 GMT
I'm neither liberal not conservative. And I'm highly dubious of the publications from either end if these spectrums. The conspiracy theories are endless and almost always without any merit.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 28, 2016 18:46:49 GMT
I'm sorry if you don't like what they are reporting, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate or valid. ktdoesntscrap:
That is absolutely true. Judicial Watch is dealing with facts, not opinions. Judicial Watch doesn't file frivolous papers just for their amusement. They are dealing with high level government officials and attorneys. I don't take them lightly. And yes, they did go after several cases under the Bush administration.
Sometimes when I am doing research to back up an opinion or argument, it has come to my attention that my previously held belief may not be so because the facts don't support it. Just because it comes from a source I don't like doesn't mean it isn't true. Are you so closed-minded you are unwilling to accept facts?
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 28, 2016 20:56:22 GMT
I'm sorry if you don't like what they are reporting, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate or valid. ktdoesntscrap :
That is absolutely true. Judicial Watch is dealing with facts, not opinions. Judicial Watch doesn't file frivolous papers just for their amusement. They are dealing with high level government officials and attorneys. I don't take them lightly. And yes, they did go after several cases under the Bush administration.
Sometimes when I am doing research to back up an opinion or argument, it has come to my attention that my previously held belief may not be so because the facts don't support it. Just because it comes from a source I don't like doesn't mean it isn't true. Are you so closed-minded you are unwilling to accept facts?
I'm questioning the validity of the source..... I only get my facts from reputable news sources... I do not consider this to be one. Your opinion does not make it so.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 28, 2016 21:07:30 GMT
Thank you so much Miz Independent for posting this today. I have to confess that after Bernie's loss on Tuesday of 4 of the 5 states primaries I was feeling quite low. But then I remembered that Hillary was still being investigated for those emails. My hope now is that something will come to light, that she will be indicted and pulled from the race. I'm not sure what will happen at that point, I guess Bernie would become the candidate.
The more I read and hear about her every day the more I realize I cannot vote for her. If she does win the Democrat ticket I will vote for Jill Stein who is running on the Independent Green Party. Her ideas align very closely to Bernie's.
Debbie in MD.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Apr 28, 2016 21:15:30 GMT
I am reminded of the Whitewater mess involving the Clintons. Many in Ark. politics railed against the deal and insisted it was a crooked deal. Many hearings were held and no charges, when Bill was governor.
Then, Bill became president and the same people had hearings and more hearings and no charges.
FF to the 2000 years---Bengazi hearings forever, by R party and whoever else would hold a hearing. Nada to show for it. Now we are on the email situation.......It turns out that others prior to her had the same situation and yet there is a big cry and conspiracy theories abounds.
Either the Clintons are the most clever couple on the planet OR there is no fire under all the smoke....only the fire of Clinton hate.
Get back when some charges are filed.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 28, 2016 21:16:58 GMT
Thank you so much Miz Independent for posting this today. I have to confess that after Bernie's loss on Tuesday of 4 of the 5 states primaries I was feeling quite low. But then I remembered that Hillary was still being investigated for those emails. My hope now is that something will come to light, that she will be indicted and pulled from the race. I'm not sure what will happen at that point, I guess Bernie would become the candidate. The more I read and hear about her every day the more I realize I cannot vote for her. If she does win the Democrat ticket I will vote for Jill Stein who is running on the Independent Green Party. Her ideas align very closely to Bernie's. Debbie in MD. Chin up Debbie!! He may not with the nomination BUT! The movement he has/is creating is changing politics! This is a net positive! Jane Sanders has pointed out the 4 of the 5 contests on Tuesday were closed primaries, which Bernie historically does badly in...however, the majority (and I mean the majority) of the contests remaining are open primaries...so, we'll see how he does in May. He's committed to going through the entire process until every last vote is counted. Whatever the outcome, his impact on modern politics cannot be ignored or laughed off. I'm inordinately positive about all this today because...I JUST CAME FROM SEEING BERNIE!!!
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Apr 28, 2016 21:42:06 GMT
Thank you so much Miz Independent for posting this today. I have to confess that after Bernie's loss on Tuesday of 4 of the 5 states primaries I was feeling quite low. But then I remembered that Hillary was still being investigated for those emails. My hope now is that something will come to light, that she will be indicted and pulled from the race. I'm not sure what will happen at that point, I guess Bernie would become the candidate. The more I read and hear about her every day the more I realize I cannot vote for her. If she does win the Democrat ticket I will vote for Jill Stein who is running on the Independent Green Party. Her ideas align very closely to Bernie's. Debbie in MD. Chin up Debbie!! He may not with the nomination BUT! The movement he has/is creating is changing politics! This is a net positive! Jane Sanders has pointed out the 4 of the 5 contests on Tuesday were closed primaries, which Bernie historically does badly in...however, the majority (and I mean the majority) of the contests remaining are open primaries...so, we'll see how he does in May. He's committed to going through the entire process until every last vote is counted. Whatever the outcome, his impact on modern politics cannot be ignored or laughed off. I'm inordinately positive about all this today because...I JUST CAME FROM SEEING BERNIE!!! I'm neither a Hillary hater nor a true Bernie supporter but I really do hope that this does help change the current two party system. I call myself an Independent because I'm not registered with either party because I vote for the people that I most align with on whatever the topic is. It has been a bummer to watch the closed primaries just because it feels like it works towards keeping it a two party democracy and doesn't help open it up.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 28, 2016 22:05:37 GMT
Thank you so much Miz Independent for posting this today. I have to confess that after Bernie's loss on Tuesday of 4 of the 5 states primaries I was feeling quite low. But then I remembered that Hillary was still being investigated for those emails. My hope now is that something will come to light, that she will be indicted and pulled from the race. I'm not sure what will happen at that point, I guess Bernie would become the candidate. The more I read and hear about her every day the more I realize I cannot vote for her. If she does win the Democrat ticket I will vote for Jill Stein who is running on the Independent Green Party. Her ideas align very closely to Bernie's. Debbie in MD. Chin up Debbie!! He may not with the nomination BUT! The movement he has/is creating is changing politics! This is a net positive! Jane Sanders has pointed out the 4 of the 5 contests on Tuesday were closed primaries, which Bernie historically does badly in...however, the majority (and I mean the majority) of the contests remaining are open primaries...so, we'll see how he does in May. He's committed to going through the entire process until every last vote is counted. Whatever the outcome, his impact on modern politics cannot be ignored or laughed off. I'm inordinately positive about all this today because...I JUST CAME FROM SEEING BERNIE!!! How exciting! I'm not giving up and I've read that neither has Bernie. I'm still rooting for him and who knows? He may still pull this off and win. Never say never is my motto. Thanks for the encouragement and I'm so happy you got to see him in person. Debbie in MD.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:22:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 22:24:29 GMT
First I read some of the links and they were hard to read so I went to their website. Read some of the attachments and there is not much there. At least not what JW would have you believe. While I was at the site I decided to read "About Judicial Watch". In the first sentence they describe themselves as a "conservative non partisan" blah blah. When I read "conservative non partisan" the first term that popped into my head was "contradiction in terms". So I looked it up. Contradiction in terms is a statement that seems to contradict itself, with one part of it denying another. There is no such thing as a non partisan conservative anymore then there such a thing as a non partisan liberal. You can be one or the other but you are most definitely not both. Poked around some more on the site and under donations found this. Hillary Clinton is not above the law. But Hillary has a demonstrated record of showing comtempt for the rule of law. * She refused to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State. Me- I often wonder about statements like this. How do "they" know she isn't telling the truth? Were "they" there? Or is a simple matter of her not saying what " they" want to here?* She violated the law and avoided accountability by using a secret email account as Secretary of State. Me- It's kind of hard to have a "secret account" to avoid "accountability" when all emails were coming from and going to others. Which means there are at least 2 copies of all her emails "out there". Of course I guess she could have sent "top secret classified" emails back and forth to herself.
* She abused her public office to funnel money to personal accounts - much of which is now sloshing around her vanity charity that could be renamed the Clinton Corruption Foundation. Me - Did anyone tell Charity Watch this?
Sorry BeckyTech comments like this are not the type of comments that come from an organization that is dealing with facts. They are coming from an organization that is nothing but a right wing hit squad.
And when I read "My hope now is that something will come to light, that she will be indicted and pulled from the race" I can't help thinking what happened to "innocent until proven guilty". I thought that applied to everyone but, based on this one sentence, it's clear that is indeed not the case. Maybe that is why she does so well with African Americans because this is something they have in common.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 28, 2016 22:37:05 GMT
ktdoesntscrap :
That is absolutely true. Judicial Watch is dealing with facts, not opinions. Judicial Watch doesn't file frivolous papers just for their amusement. They are dealing with high level government officials and attorneys. I don't take them lightly. And yes, they did go after several cases under the Bush administration.
Sometimes when I am doing research to back up an opinion or argument, it has come to my attention that my previously held belief may not be so because the facts don't support it. Just because it comes from a source I don't like doesn't mean it isn't true. Are you so closed-minded you are unwilling to accept facts?
I'm questioning the validity of the source..... I only get my facts from reputable news sources... I do not consider this to be one. Your opinion does not make it so. They have copies of all the original legal documents on their site for anyone to see and read. That is not opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 28, 2016 22:53:13 GMT
I'm questioning the validity of the source..... I only get my facts from reputable news sources... I do not consider this to be one. Your opinion does not make it so. They have copies of all the original legal documents on their site for anyone to see and read. That is not opinion. I think krazyscrapper just laid it all out for you. They are biased by their own admission. Or are you just so closed-minded you believe anything you read on the internet?
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 28, 2016 23:04:47 GMT
* She refused to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State. Me- I often wonder about statements like this. How do "they" know she isn't telling the truth? Were "they" there? Or is a simple matter of her not saying what " they" want to here?--- HER OWN WORDS is how "they" know. Her private e-mail has revealed that she sent an e-mail to her daughter that evening saying how upset she was that the ambassador was killed by terrorists. "They" know because they read her own words. All the "fog of war" excuses are nothing but BS, she said what it was that first night and then again the next morning.
But on Thursday we learned that, at 11:12 p.m., Clinton emailed her daughter, Chelsea: "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group." No hateful video, no protest. On Sept. 12 Clinton revealed more. According to State Department notes, she told Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest. ... Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with Al Qaeda."* She violated the law and avoided accountability by using a secret email account as Secretary of State. Me- It's kind of hard to have a "secret account" to avoid "accountability" when all emails were coming from and going to others. Which means there are at least 2 copies of all her emails "out there". Of course I guess she could have sent "top secret classified" emails back and forth to herself. She set up a private e-mail server in her own home. What do you call that? Following the rules set by the State Department which I understand specifically prohibits that?* She abused her public office to funnel money to personal accounts - much of which is now sloshing around her vanity charity that could be renamed the Clinton Corruption Foundation. Me - Did anyone tell Charity Watch this? I don't know about the Clinton Foundation and at this time have no opinion of it. But organizations other than Judicial Watch seem to think it is worthy of interest: "The Clintons’ fundraising operation — $3 billion amassed by one couple, working in tandem for more than four decades — has no equal."
Sorry BeckyTech comments like this are not the type of comments that come from an organization that is dealing with facts. They are coming from an organization that is nothing but a right wing hit squad.
I was focusing on their articles which describe documents and their contents - facts. Again, they have the documents on their site for all to read.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 28, 2016 23:19:26 GMT
Oh for crying out loud. Your boy lost. Give it up.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 28, 2016 23:23:41 GMT
Oh for crying out loud. Your boy lost. Give it up. Probably. However, it's not over until it's over, and Sanders has vowed to continue to the end. The current pledged delegate count indicates that Bernie needs 65% of remaining delegates to win. Nearly half of the remaining delegates are in California. Past results from states near California suggest that Bernie will get more than 65% of pledged delegates in California. Therefore, Bernie stands a very decent chance of winning. So I won't give up. Colorado: Bernie won 62% of delegates Nevada: Bernie won 54% of delegates Washington: Bernie won 73% of delegates Idaho Caucus: Bernie won 78% of delegates Alaska: Bernie won 81% of delegates Hawaii: Bernie won 68% of delegates Arizona: Bernie won 41% of delegates Median: Bernie won 68% of delegates"If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote" -- Barack Obama
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 28, 2016 23:33:31 GMT
Oh for crying out loud. Your boy lost. Give it up. Probably. However, it's not over until it's over, and Sanders has vowed to continue to the end. The current pledged delegate count indicates that Bernie needs 65% of remaining delegates to win. Nearly half of the remaining delegates are in California. Past results from states near California suggest that Bernie will get more than 65% of pledged delegates in California. Therefore, Bernie stands a very decent chance of winning. So I won't give up. Colorado: Bernie won 62% of delegates Nevada: Bernie won 54% of delegates Washington: Bernie won 73% of delegates Idaho Caucus: Bernie won 78% of delegates Alaska: Bernie won 81% of delegates Hawaii: Bernie won 68% of delegates Arizona: Bernie won 41% of delegates Median: Bernie won 68% of delegates"If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote" -- Barack Obama Probably being the key word.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 28, 2016 23:34:51 GMT
Probably. However, it's not over until it's over, and Sanders has vowed to continue to the end. The current pledged delegate count indicates that Bernie needs 65% of remaining delegates to win. Nearly half of the remaining delegates are in California. Past results from states near California suggest that Bernie will get more than 65% of pledged delegates in California. Therefore, Bernie stands a very decent chance of winning. So I won't give up. Colorado: Bernie won 62% of delegates Nevada: Bernie won 54% of delegates Washington: Bernie won 73% of delegates Idaho Caucus: Bernie won 78% of delegates Alaska: Bernie won 81% of delegates Hawaii: Bernie won 68% of delegates Arizona: Bernie won 41% of delegates Median: Bernie won 68% of delegates"If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote" -- Barack Obama Probably being the key word. You're not a very happy person, are you.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 28, 2016 23:39:31 GMT
Probably being the key word. You're not a very happy person, are you. Oh,I'm very happy. Just not a Bernie fan girl. I'm happy that she has so many more votes than he has.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 28, 2016 23:45:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 28, 2016 23:48:21 GMT
Oh for crying out loud. Your boy lost. Give it up. Probably. However, it's not over until it's over, and Sanders has vowed to continue to the end. The current pledged delegate count indicates that Bernie needs 65% of remaining delegates to win. Nearly half of the remaining delegates are in California. Past results from states near California suggest that Bernie will get more than 65% of pledged delegates in California. Therefore, Bernie stands a very decent chance of winning. So I won't give up. Colorado: Bernie won 62% of delegates Nevada: Bernie won 54% of delegates Washington: Bernie won 73% of delegates Idaho Caucus: Bernie won 78% of delegates Alaska: Bernie won 81% of delegates Hawaii: Bernie won 68% of delegates Arizona: Bernie won 41% of delegates Median: Bernie won 68% of delegates"If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote" -- Barack Obama That sounds very encouraging Miz Independent and certainly looks as though there is still a very good chance that Bernie Sanders may still win. So no thank you very much, he has not lost yet and we will not give up. Thanks again Miz Independent for stating the facts and once again encouraging me. I did a stupid thing and read the news. I should know by now not to believe the media. Debbie in MD.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 28, 2016 23:49:27 GMT
Now, there's an example of an unhappy poster.. I don't blame you. I would be unhappy if Bernie were winning.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:22:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 23:56:00 GMT
I am reminded of the Whitewater mess involving the Clintons. Many in Ark. politics railed against the deal and insisted it was a crooked deal. Many hearings were held and no charges, when Bill was governor. Then, Bill became president and the same people had hearings and more hearings and no charges. FF to the 2000 years---Bengazi hearings forever, by R party and whoever else would hold a hearing. Nada to show for it.Because of the hearings we found out she illegally deleted emails. Because of the email investigation, we found out about her email set up, her private server and the fact that she instructed her aids, who were having trouble sending classified info on a secure server, to remove the classification headings and send the classified info unsecured. Pretty bad thing for someone to do and shows she doesn't really give a shit about national security. Not a good quality for a Presidential candidate and anything but "nada to show for it". That's the spin she put on it, but looking at the facts shows that it isn't quite true. The only predecessors that were in place during the time of electronic communications were, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright. Albright didn't use email while in office, Rice very rarely used email, and Powell did, but NEVER HAD A PRIVATE SERVER. Big difference between having a private email address and having a private server. Another question of security breach that is aimed at NATIONAL SECURITY, which she has clearly shown she has no regard for. Again, not a god quality for someone asking to be President. Hardly clever. More like a sideways, sneaky, conniving couple who parse their words and dance around the truth. But that may or may not depend on what the definition of "is" is. Funny how there's so many things that they do so backwards, sideways and differently, than standard procedure for the rest of the world, that makes it so agencies can't easily evaluate the way they do things with standard measures the rest of the world uses. And for all the cries of "vast right wing conspiracies", you'd think the Clintons were the only Democrats on the planet, because if it were true that it's just the Right and their agenda, you'd think the Right would be "going after" the rest of the Democrats in this manner. That must be it, it couldn't possibly be that there IS a "there" there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:22:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 23:59:33 GMT
Bernie's message has certainly changed and I, as a Hillary supporter have no problem and even support his current message of going all the way to the convention with the intent of him and his delegates pushing for changes in the platform, BUT it will have to be with compromise with the HRC delegates at the convention and not with the petulant attitudes that I have seen from some of his supporters/delegates. I'm willing to listen, but not if your going to tell me that I'm not a true progressive because I support HRC.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:22:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 0:10:56 GMT
They have copies of all the original legal documents on their site for anyone to see and read. That is not opinion. I think krazyscrapper just laid it all out for you. They are biased by their own admission. Or are you just so closed-minded you believe anything you read on the internet?I'm sorry no, the facts don't stop being the facts because someone doesn't like who said the facts. It doesn't work that way.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:22:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 1:28:18 GMT
Now we are on the email situation.......It turns out that others prior to her had the same situation It truly surprises me that even a Clinton supporter (not necessarily you, but in general) would continue to say this. Either you truly do not comprehend the difference between a private email and a private email server, or you do, and simply assume that by you downplaying it, saying everyone else did it makes HRC less guilty?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:22:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 2:08:52 GMT
I think krazyscrapper just laid it all out for you. They are biased by their own admission. Or are you just so closed-minded you believe anything you read on the internet?I'm sorry no, the facts don't stop being the facts because someone doesn't like who said the facts. It doesn't work that way. Ah but that's the problem. No actual facts, but a lot of innuendos, spreading of misinformation, and veiled suggestions. All you have to do is read the JW article above to see perfect examples of innuendos and veiled suggestions. Amazing how an organization like JW can take a straight forward situation and very subtly suggest it's not as presented but in a way they want one to see which is their version. And if people chose to believe stuff like that then it's their choice.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 4:22:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 3:01:52 GMT
* She refused to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State. --- HER OWN WORDS is how "they" know. Her private e-mail has revealed that she sent an e-mail to her daughter that evening saying how upset she was that the ambassador was killed by terrorists. "They" know because they read her own words. All the "fog of war" excuses are nothing but BS, she said what it was that first night and then again the next morning. I'm curious. Have you ever been in combat or have your building attacked by an angry group of individuals with weapons? Where you at Benghazi? So how do you know what it was like the night of the attacks? What I read, yes here it comes, in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi was there was a lot of confusion and lack of solid intelligence that came out of the region during, right after and several days after the attack. I mean it's not like Libya is our BFF. I even read in the report the CIA got some of their intelligence from reading a Libyan newspaper after the attack for heaven sakes.But on Thursday we learned that, at 11:12 p.m., Clinton emailed her daughter, Chelsea: "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group." No hateful video, no protest. On Sept. 12 Clinton revealed more. According to State Department notes, she told Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest. ... Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with Al Qaeda."Two points. 1. So what if she said "Al-Qaeda like group"? It is logical to assume, at first glance, that when a bunch of guys, with weapons, attack your mission in that part of the country it's not a group of pissed off "friends". Nor do I understand the big deal about how quickly it was or was not labeled a terrorist attack and when is an "act of terror" not a "terrorist attack"? 2. The attack has now been determined to be an attack of opportunity and was not a planned attacked. This has been determined by the CIA and their reasoning that it was an attack of opportunity was based on the lack of weapons used by the attackers. My point being that because of where this happened intelligence and facts were slow in making their way to this country. That even with the CIA having a compound not too far from the Benghazi mission. Also in this "instant Information Age" the American People just assume that all information is "just right there" even in hostile places like Benghazi. And if in the rush to satisfy the "instant information demanding American people" information is released that needs to be corrected at a later date then there it's a BIG conspiracy! * She violated the law and avoided accountability by using a secret email account as Secretary of State. She set up a private e-mail server in her own home. What do you call that? Following the rules set by the State Department which I understand specifically prohibits that? There is no question she used her personal server/email. But it was far from "secret". The State Department knew what she was doing. So how is that "secret"?
She abused her public office to funnel money to personal accounts - much of which is now sloshing around her vanity charity that could be renamed the Clinton Corruption Foundation. Me - Did anyone tell Charity Watch this? I don't know about the Clinton Foundation and at this time have no opinion of it. But organizations other than Judicial Watch seem to think it is worthy of interest: "The Clintons’ fundraising operation — $3 billion amassed by one couple, working in tandem for more than four decades — has no equal." Good since 88% of that is used charitable endeavors. That figure is from Charity Watch which gave the Foundation an "A" rating.
Sorry BeckyTech comments like this are not the type of comments that come from an organization that is dealing with facts. They are coming from an organization that is nothing but a right wing hit squad.
I was focusing on their articles which describe documents and their contents - facts. Again, they have the documents on their site for all to read. You need to look at the big picture and JW's motive or end result.
|
|