peppermintpatty
Pearl Clutcher
Refupea #1345
Posts: 3,838
Jun 26, 2014 17:47:08 GMT
|
Post by peppermintpatty on Jul 6, 2016 18:34:37 GMT
|
|
java
Junior Member
Posts: 81
May 15, 2016 5:32:05 GMT
|
Post by java on Jul 6, 2016 18:35:01 GMT
Any thoughts on her son-in-law's hedge fund, the economy in Greece and her sharing of "protected State Department" information about Greek bonds?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 6, 2016 18:36:55 GMT
I brought that up a few pages back. But it's more fun for them to persist in the thought that the Obama/Clinton families are the only ones who are "corrupt" and "above the law."
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 6, 2016 18:48:09 GMT
I wish we had access to the old board - I remember getting PMs up the yin-yang about how I was an awful American who didn't deserve my citizenship when I was posting about the Bush/Rove scandal. I'd love to share those now, although I suspect there are some posters on here who are glad those are wiped away..... but I digress....
The quote from the above link has me almost laughing... actually, I am laughing at how stupid this whole thing is. How corrupt they all are and how nothing changes. Donald Trump is no Danerys.... he will not break the wheel. They are all the same.
but who cares, right?
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,156
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jul 6, 2016 18:57:04 GMT
Well as Hilary would say........"what difference at this point does it make".
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 6, 2016 19:05:51 GMT
Thank you. I am relieved to know you don't buy into that filthy nonsense. And for the record, I latched onto your post because it was the last one I saw on the topic. I was already fired up from carly 's post and the likes on it. Oh please, I highly doubt anyone believes this "filthy nonsense." Carly's post is a reaction to the travesty of justice. It seems that it's "not remotely funny" because it's anti-Hillary. If something similar but anti-Trump was shown on any late-night TV show, it would be considered hilarious. I said it was not remotely funny because accusing someone of murder, having body counts, etc is just not funny, baseless, and I would have said the same thing if it would have been Trump too. The level that those few go to smear, lie, hate on someone that they don't like is intensifying. NO ONE should be saying that HC (or anyone else for that matter) is a murderer/add to her body count trail--it's just shameful. As of late, the most horrid attacking of any of the candidates so far have been from just a few on this board and are all Republican's. Those who are doing just that have been so disrespectful to the others asking, seeking, wanting information or are tired of being called names--spitting out "liberal" or "democrat" as if those words meant the same as terminal illnesses, the plague or child rapist.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 6, 2016 19:05:59 GMT
Well as Hilary would say........"what difference at this point does it make". Judging by the responses on this thread, it matters a lot to some, at least when the last name is Clinton. Bush, not so much. Comey is going to appear before a House committee, tomorrow, I think, so you might get some answers then.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 6, 2016 19:07:25 GMT
When you have a crooked President, a crooked AG, an inept FBI director and a total sleeze who is the subject of this investigation, it's really not surprising that it came down the way it did. Disappointing, yes. Unjust, yes. But surprising? Not at all. Your opinion, just because they don't align with you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 12, 2024 23:15:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 19:31:01 GMT
LOL...I can't have an opinion on this? I said there have never before been any ugly political threads? I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.
Have fun in here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 12, 2024 23:15:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 19:39:46 GMT
Oh please, I highly doubt anyone believes this "filthy nonsense." Carly's post is a reaction to the travesty of justice. It seems that it's "not remotely funny" because it's anti-Hillary. If something similar but anti-Trump was shown on any late-night TV show, it would be considered hilarious. I said it was not remotely funny because accusing someone of murder, having body counts, etc is just not funny, baseless, and I would have said the same thing if it would have been Trump too. The level that those few go to smear, lie, hate on someone that they don't like is intensifying. NO ONE should be saying that HC (or anyone else for that matter) is a murderer/add to her body count trail--it's just shameful. As of late, the most horrid attacking of any of the candidates so far have been from just a few on this board and are all Republican's. Those who are doing just that have been so disrespectful to the others asking, seeking, wanting information or are tired of being called names--spitting out "liberal" or "democrat" as if those words meant the same as terminal illnesses, the plague or child rapist. I guess it depends on which side you relate more to. I have mostly lurked on the political threads and I notice liberals and democrats can do their fair share of being disrespectful, condescending and nasty as well. I truly wish it didn't have to be like this, it doesn't make sense to me how everyone can be so black and white, us vs. them. Can't it be "well, I think the Republican (or Democratic) point of view makes the most sense overall, but I agree with the Democrats (or Republicans) on X, Y, and Z issues." I know that is ridiculous and naive. You can tell I am not the most politically savvy person. It's hard even for those of us who have never paid much attention to it not to get riled up during this election.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 6, 2016 19:42:39 GMT
Thank you. I am relieved to know you don't buy into that filthy nonsense. And for the record, I latched onto your post because it was the last one I saw on the topic. I was already fired up from carly 's post and the likes on it. Oh please, I highly doubt anyone believes this "filthy nonsense." Carly's post is a reaction to the travesty of justice. It seems that it's "not remotely funny" because it's anti-Hillary. If something similar but anti-Trump was shown on any late-night TV show, it would be considered hilarious. Make all the excuses you like. It is filthy to make unfounded accusations of multiple murders against anyone because you don't like their politics. Claiming it's just a joke doesn't change that. I haven't seen anyone accuse Trump of murder, and I wouldn't find it funny if they did.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 12, 2024 23:15:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 19:48:39 GMT
Oh please, I highly doubt anyone believes this "filthy nonsense." Carly's post is a reaction to the travesty of justice. It seems that it's "not remotely funny" because it's anti-Hillary. If something similar but anti-Trump was shown on any late-night TV show, it would be considered hilarious. Make all the excuses you like. It is filthy to make unfounded accusations of multiple murders against anyone because you don't like their politics. Claiming it's just a joke doesn't change that. I haven't seen anyone accuse Trump of murder, and I wouldn't find it funny if they did. I guess we just have a different sense of humor, and I'm not asking for you to excuse me.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 20:05:30 GMT
What was missing was "intent". And the truth, that was also missing. There it is. Short and sweet.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 12, 2024 23:15:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 20:13:45 GMT
"Extreme carelessness" is a fair assessment of Hillary's use of her emails. But without "intent" you can't bring criminal charges against someone for "extreme carelessness" as much as one might want to. Even if I agreed with you on the legal technicalities, a bigger concern is the carelessness of someone with her level of security clearance. If we're just going to excuse away extreme carelessness when it comes to sensitive government materials, then why the hell are we bothering with security clearances at all? For anyone? Your lower level government employees would lose their jobs at worst, or their security clearance at best if they exhibited this kind of carelessness--with information FAR less sensitive than she was messing with. Hillary Clinton should lose her security clearance. She's not above the law, and it's a damned shame that the Democratic Party keeps twisting itself into knots to claim that she is. Even worse when they try to pretend like she did nothing wrong. Yes, I know that Bush and Rove did it, too. But if we're going to be outraged that they did it, then we'd damned well better be just as outraged when Clinton does it. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of hypocrites. Is it only certain people that shouldn't face consequences for extreme carelessness with highly sensitive information? Where are you going to draw that line? It sure seems to be a moving target based on what party you're supporting.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 20:35:01 GMT
I see the House is going to hold hearings about Hillary and her emails. Boy look how quickly the Republicans sprang into action. Actually, I think there are some very valid questions to be asked. When Director Comey said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, that was not within his scope to make such a statement. To the best of my knowledge, the FBI is supposed to gather the facts and present them. It is up to the AG to determine whether or not there is a case. It also looks to me like intent was baked in when she willfully disregarded the rules of the State Department, but I'm no attorney. I find his wording curious. Comey set up the foundation for a serious case to be brought against Clinton. That he recommended not prosecuting her - basically at this time - makes me wonder what he wasn't saying and why. Despite the confidence to the contrary, I don't think this is over and done by a long shot. Bill meets privately with Loretta Lynch and Hillary talks about keeping Lunch on as Attorney General just before Lynch says that she'll abide by whatever Comey recommends, and Comey recommends not prosecuting someone he lays out as guilty of criminal behavior. Slick Clintons yet again. I will never understand the appeal so many see in them. I see them as consistently putting themselves not just above the law, but above every other American as well.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 20:39:43 GMT
Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. I've heard of several cases where punishment was handed out since this story broke, and the one thing that has been mentioned is that in each case, they admitted to what they did wrong. Unlike Mrs. Clinton. ETA - Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance. This is where my concern is greatest right now. Whether she goes to jail or not, Hillary Clinton having a security clearance now is against everything I think is right.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 6, 2016 20:41:55 GMT
Actually, I think there are some very valid questions to be asked. When Director Comey said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, that was not within his scope to make such a statement. To the best of my knowledge, the FBI is supposed to gather the facts and present them. It is up to the AG to determine whether or not there is a case. It also looks to me like intent was baked in when she willfully disregarded the rules of the State Department, but I'm no attorney. I find his wording curious. Comey set up the foundation for a serious case to be brought against Clinton. That he recommended not prosecuting her - basically at this time - makes me wonder what he wasn't saying and why. Despite the confidence to the contrary, I don't think this is over and done by a long shot. Bill meets privately with Loretta Lynch and Hillary talks about keeping Lunch on as Attorney General just before Lynch says that she'll abide by whatever Comey recommends, and Comey recommends not prosecuting someone he lays out as guilty of criminal behavior. Slick Clintons yet again. I will never understand the appeal so many see in them. I see them as consistently putting themselves not just above the law, but above every other American as well. Seems to me the FBI is treating the email issue separately from the Foundation altogether. Notice how the Foundation isn't even alluded to in the statement about the FBI's findings on Clinton's emails.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 20:43:58 GMT
I find his wording curious. Comey set up the foundation for a serious case to be brought against Clinton. That he recommended not prosecuting her - basically at this time - makes me wonder what he wasn't saying and why. Despite the confidence to the contrary, I don't think this is over and done by a long shot. Bill meets privately with Loretta Lynch and Hillary talks about keeping Lunch on as Attorney General just before Lynch says that she'll abide by whatever Comey recommends, and Comey recommends not prosecuting someone he lays out as guilty of criminal behavior. Slick Clintons yet again. I will never understand the appeal so many see in them. I see them as consistently putting themselves not just above the law, but above every other American as well. Seems to me the FBI is treating the email issue separately from the Foundation altogether. Notice how the Foundation isn't even alluded to in the statement about the FBI's findings on Clinton's emails. Right? I added to that post while you were quoting it. My concern right now is about Clinton being granted a continuing security clearance that I believe she has lost any right to.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 20:51:38 GMT
There is a lot of ugly on this thread. But giving even the tiniest bit of credence to the filth that is "Clinton Body Count" is beneath every one of you. It's even lower than birtherism. I've read the whole thread and I feel the exact same way, Lucy. I think this may be the ugliest political thread I've ever read. Funny how different people have such different perceptions. This is far from the ugliest thread I've ever read. FWIW, I have refrained from commenting on those years primarily because it distracts from Hillary Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Leaving off everything that came before, this record is more than enough to prevent her from being a qualified candidate. I also won't be commenting on Rove and the Bush administration because that has nothing to do with Clinton's violations, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 6, 2016 20:53:53 GMT
I've read the whole thread and I feel the exact same way, Lucy. I think this may be the ugliest political thread I've ever read. Funny how different people have such different perceptions. This is far from the ugliest thread I've ever read. FWIW, I have refrained from commenting on those years primarily because it distracts from Hillary Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Leaving off everything that came before, this record is more than enough to prevent her from being a qualified candidate. I also won't be commenting on Rove and the Bush administration because that has nothing to do with Clinton's violations, IMO. No, but it has a lot to do with the claims that the slimy Clintons are the only ones who seem to be above the law.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 6, 2016 20:58:33 GMT
As of late, the most horrid attacking of any of the candidates so far have been from just a few on this board and are all Republican's. Those who are doing just that have been so disrespectful to the others asking, seeking, wanting information or are tired of being called names--spitting out "liberal" or "democrat" as if those words meant the same as terminal illnesses, the plague or child rapist. Ahh, welcome to the club. How many times have I read threads here, trashing Trump (mostly) or some other person, painting every Republican as racist, xenophobic, hateful, Nazi-like, and not worthy of breathing the same air as the poster. Of course every single last person who does not dismiss Trump out of hand must be a racist, xenophobic, hateful, awful animal (not even human), and unworthy of breathing the same air as the poster. It gets old, doesn't it? And if I was one who made you feel that way, my sincere apologies.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 20:58:49 GMT
As of late, the most horrid attacking of any of the candidates so far have been from just a few on this board and are all Republican's. Have I missed a sudden switch on the overwhelming consensus of Trump here? Cool.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 12, 2024 23:15:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 21:01:02 GMT
What was missing was "intent". "Extreme carelessness" is a fair assessment of Hillary's use of her emails. But without "intent" you can't bring criminal charges against someone for "extreme carelessness" as much as one might want to. I mean look at "responsible" gun owners who are extremely careless with their guns so much so it results in the death of innocent people. And inspite of their "extreme carelessness" there was no "intent" on their part so criminal charges are not brought against them. I see the House is going to hold hearings about Hillary and her emails. Boy look how quickly the Republicans sprang into action. Too bad they can't do the same when it comes to guns by expanding background checks or stopping individuals on the no fly list/terrorist list from buying guns. Something that might actually save American lives. But instead they want to waste even more tax payer money telling us something we already know. Hillary Clinton and her staff were "extremely careless" when it came to the emails and some of the information contained in said emails. But after listening to Trump give his latest speech I have no doubt the Republicans are holding the hearings on Hillary and her emails as a means to shift the public spotlight from Trump to Hillary. Only problem is Trump ain't going to like the spotlight being shifted away from him so he will even find more outrageous ideas to spew to bring that spotlight right back on him where he firmly believes it belongs. link
Edited to add "Republicans may be blowing it on Clinton's emails. They have only themselves to blame". By Greg Sargent. The reason I decided to add this article is because Sargent brings up what I think is a good point. Trump has already started and the House Hearings while attacking Hillary will also end up attacking the FBI for not doing their job. That the members of the committee can do a better job then the FBI. As pointed out in the article that might go over big with the base but not so much with general public. Attacking the FBI because they didn't provide the outcome wanted by Republican politicians. There is no intent necessary in the statute the way it was written. Gross negligence is sufficient. IMO, intent = treason. I won't go as far as the treason conclusion, but yes, according to the statute itself, intent was not necessary for indictment. If those that don't understand the distrust of Hillary, want to truly understand the distrust of Hillary... You'll have to put aside for a moment, that you disagree with their assessment of the facts and look at the facts with the idea that you're hearing what they're saying and not waiting to refute them. It might help if you imagine Trump in the scenario. Hillary was being investigated by the FBI for her email situation. Hillary lied every step of the way. She spoke to the American people and lied about her actions, her cooperation, including the point of the investigation itself, which was "corrected" by the FBI AND the White House. Yesterday Comey, almost point by point, pointed out and "corrected" every one of her lies over the email issue. The President, in the middle of the investigation, inappropriately commented on the investigation and suggested what side of the outcome he was on. (as he did in the middle of the IRS investigation) Days before the decision, by adjusting his schedule by half an hour, Hillary's husband "just happened to run into" the person investigating his wife so he could have a private chat about grandchildren. If it weren't for a reporter being tipped off, we never would have known about it. (just like without a blue dress, we would have had to take the "vast right wing conspiracy" as gospel) Loretta Lynch did not recuse herself. Days before the decision, Hillary said she "might" keep Loretta Lynch on as Attorney General. Despite the statute specifically not requiring intent to prosecute, James Comey claimed that it was lack of intent that led to his decision. Despite the fact that having custody of government information and obliterating it is a crime, and Comey stating that "this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences" he decided to do otherwise in HER case. This scenario is representative of all of the issues the Clintons have brought on themselves for the last 25-30 years.The distrust of the Clintons have nothing to do with hate, but rather 25-30 years of situations like the above that they create themselves and further drive home the distrust with their actions following the situation arising.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 6, 2016 21:01:20 GMT
I remember the Rove email scandal and discussing the ridiculousness at the time of the emails being "lost." I was deposed on an email I sent in 1998 that my company was required to retain. Email retention, document preservation and expectations about use of private communication has been around for a hell of a long time. The idea that OUR government officials aren't held accountable wasn't right then and isn't right now.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 21:11:27 GMT
Funny how different people have such different perceptions. This is far from the ugliest thread I've ever read. FWIW, I have refrained from commenting on those years primarily because it distracts from Hillary Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Leaving off everything that came before, this record is more than enough to prevent her from being a qualified candidate. I also won't be commenting on Rove and the Bush administration because that has nothing to do with Clinton's violations, IMO. No, but it has a lot to do with the claims that the slimy Clintons are the only ones who seem to be above the law. They aren't the only ones. They are above the law. I don't feel the need to get into other administrations since none of them are running (again) in this upcoming election. This is about Hillary .... Oh look, something shiny over there....... and her performance as Secretary of State.... BUSHBUSHBUSH..... and all of these other distractions.... ColinPowelll BUSHBUSHBUSH..... are just that. OH! SHINY! distractions. I know you *get* that, Merge. You probably hear similar a lot at home and understand what I mean. I don't hate Hillary. I hate the increased danger to the country that I perceive would accompany any possible presidency of hers.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 6, 2016 21:23:45 GMT
No, but it has a lot to do with the claims that the slimy Clintons are the only ones who seem to be above the law. They aren't the only ones. They are above the law. I don't feel the need to get into other administrations since none of them are running (again) in this upcoming election. This is about Hillary .... Oh look, something shiny over there....... and her performance as Secretary of State.... BUSHBUSHBUSH..... and all of these other distractions.... ColinPowelll BUSHBUSHBUSH..... are just that. OH! SHINY! distractions. I know you *get* that, Merge. You probably hear similar a lot at home and understand what I mean. I don't hate Hillary. I hate the increased danger to the country that I perceive would accompany any possible presidency of hers. I've convinced my husband to vote Libertarian with me. I don't vote for Hillary, he doesn't vote for Trump, a 20-year marriage is saved.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 6, 2016 21:25:41 GMT
So as far as I can tell, there is no requirement to any level of security clearance to run for or be President. So even if they took her clearance away (which how do you sanction someone who doesn't even work there anymore?), she technically doesn't need to have it to be able to run for office.
Am I wrong on this? I can't find any website that requires it. Even if it is taken away, if she is elected it would come back. I can see it hurting votes to prevent her from being elected, but it isn't a requirement to run.
If I am wrong, please let me know. Google isn't coming up with much this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 6, 2016 21:27:44 GMT
I don't vote for Hillary, he doesn't vote for Trump, a 20-year marriage is saved. That's hilarious! Love it!
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 6, 2016 21:29:17 GMT
I've convinced my husband to vote Libertarian with me. I don't vote for Hillary, he doesn't vote for Trump, a 20-year marriage is saved. I'm still working on mine. Don't want to throw 8 years down the drain!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 21:36:34 GMT
They aren't the only ones. They are above the law. I don't feel the need to get into other administrations since none of them are running (again) in this upcoming election. This is about Hillary .... Oh look, something shiny over there....... and her performance as Secretary of State.... BUSHBUSHBUSH..... and all of these other distractions.... ColinPowelll BUSHBUSHBUSH..... are just that. OH! SHINY! distractions. I know you *get* that, Merge. You probably hear similar a lot at home and understand what I mean. I don't hate Hillary. I hate the increased danger to the country that I perceive would accompany any possible presidency of hers. I've convinced my husband to vote Libertarian with me. I don't vote for Hillary, he doesn't vote for Trump, a 20-year marriage is saved.
|
|