Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Oct 2016, 11:44 am

Come on, now!

Just run the videos here in the background. If you still think Hillary is suited to be President, please explain why--and try to do it without using Trump's name.

The "circle of enrichment" is what corruption is all about. And, she was Secretary of State at the time.

If this isn't criminal, then the law is deficient.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 1:17 pm

Wow, MSNBC at that! If this were FOX, liberals would simply dismiss it but they can't ignore their own liberal source can they? Couple this with the FBI now reopening the email scandal case and evaluating whether charges should be brought against her and Hillary's "trustworthiness" and her being "presidential" come into SERIOUS question. So much so that the landslide Clinton win is no longer a guarantee, things WILL get close over the next what 11 days?

Let's follow this through.
If she gets charged before the next President takes office, no doubt Obama would pardon her. But I doubt actual charges could come before that time, he can't pardon her for something not yet charged? That means she could win the election and almost immediately later be brought up on chagres that could demand impeachment. The mind reels over the possibilities!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 2:13 pm

GMTom wrote:Wow, MSNBC at that! If this were FOX, liberals would simply dismiss it but they can't ignore their own liberal source can they? Couple this with the FBI now reopening the email scandal case and evaluating whether charges should be brought against her and Hillary's "trustworthiness" and her being "presidential" come into SERIOUS question. So much so that the landslide Clinton win is no longer a guarantee, things WILL get close over the next what 11 days?

Let's follow this through.
If she gets charged before the next President takes office, no doubt Obama would pardon her. But I doubt actual charges could come before that time, he can't pardon her for something not yet charged? That means she could win the election and almost immediately later be brought up on chagres that could demand impeachment. The mind reels over the possibilities!


Actually, I think he can pardon her.

Honestly, I think she should be impeached now. That is legal. The Republicans could do it. She is a crook. Everyone knows it.

Not one liberal here is defending her.

And, now the FBI is re-opening the email case. Uh-oh.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Oct 2016, 3:14 pm

How is Hillary Clinton tied in here? You have some aide locked in a dispute with Chelsea Clinton who is trying to demonstrate his worth by arguing how he lined up speaking engagements for Bill Clinton but it's not clear that Bill Clinton was aware that of the purported scheme to get corporations that contribute money to the Foundation to also pay Bill Clinton for speaking fees. Chelsea expressed concern that this aide might be doing it. It's a little odd for Chelsea to be looking into this matter if Bill Clinton knew that this was explicitly going on and approved of it. Whether he should have some sense of an over-lap going on is another matter. Hillary's knowledge is even more difficult to prove.

So I don't think this rises to impeachment. I think you need to show one of two things: (1) Hillary Clinyon changed policy based on contributions to either the Foundation or on paid speaking fees going to Bill, or (2) That companies were induced to contribute either to the Foundation or to Bill so as to gain access to the Secretary of State. I don't think the first kind has been shown. The problem with the second kind is that it pretty tough to show this. How would you go about proving it? You would need some kind of smoking gun emails saying this was going on. Even if contributors were making contributions because they thought they were in some sense making a connection to the Secretary of State, that subjective mindset does not mean anything unless there is some objective proof that they gained special access. In reality, the shakedown of clients to give both to the Foundation and Clinton--while shady if the Clintons knew and approved of it--does not prove that Hillary used her office to profit.

But even you cannot prove impropriety there is also the the ethical idea of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Having someone be Secretary of State while her family is getting donations to the CF (and speaking fees) from large corporations who might benefit from the decisions of the Secretary certainly does not good.

But I don't think that rises to the level of impeachment. It's just sleazy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 3:46 pm

freeman3 wrote:How is Hillary Clinton tied in here? You have some aide locked in a dispute with Chelsea Clinton who is trying to demonstrate his worth by arguing how he lined up speaking engagements for Bill Clinton but it's not clear that Bill Clinton was aware that of the purported scheme to get corporations that contribute money to the Foundation to also pay Bill Clinton for speaking fees. Chelsea expressed concern that this aide might be doing it. It's a little odd for Chelsea to be looking into this matter if Bill Clinton knew that this was explicitly going on and approved of it. Whether he should have some sense of an over-lap going on is another matter. Hillary's knowledge is even more difficult to prove.

So I don't think this rises to impeachment. I think you need to show one of two things: (1) Hillary Clinyon changed policy based on contributions to either the Foundation or on paid speaking fees going to Bill, or (2) That companies were induced to contribute either to the Foundation or to Bill so as to gain access to the Secretary of State. I don't think the first kind has been shown. The problem with the second kind is that it pretty tough to show this. How would you go about proving it? You would need some kind of smoking gun emails saying this was going on. Even if contributors were making contributions because they thought they were in some sense making a connection to the Secretary of State, that subjective mindset does not mean anything unless there is some objective proof that they gained special access. In reality, the shakedown of clients to give both to the Foundation and Clinton--while shady if the Clintons knew and approved of it--does not prove that Hillary used her office to profit.

But even you cannot prove impropriety there is also the the ethical idea of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Having someone be Secretary of State while her family is getting donations to the CF (and speaking fees) from large corporations who might benefit from the decisions of the Secretary certainly does not good.

But I don't think that rises to the level of impeachment. It's just sleazy.


Not one liberal here is defending her--still.

Oh, she's only sleazy. Oh, it's only her husband using her office to profit!

Come on! You're still holding out for a video of her saying, "Well, if you give Bill (x) millions, we might be willing to do (y)."

It's fascinating to watch liberals twist themselves into pretzels to avoid the 4-alarm fire going off in their consciences. You know she's a crook, but you really don't like Trump, so it's okay to ignore the "I know she's a crook" voice in your head?

I have more scruples than that.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Oct 2016, 4:33 pm

Dang, I wrote a long post but my I-phone died...anyway, suffice it to say that while I think the Clintons made an ethical error by not severing all ties to the CF while Hillary was S of State, I don't think her conduct therein rises to the level of impeachment and I want no part of any scruples that require me to contribute towards having our country suffer under a Trump presidency.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 4:50 pm

freeman3 wrote:Dang, I wrote a long post but my I-phone died...anyway, suffice it to say that while I think the Clintons made an ethical error by not severing all ties to the CF while Hillary was S of State, I don't think her conduct therein rises to the level of impeachment and I want no part of any scruples that require me to contribute towards having our country suffer under a Trump presidency.


On the latter, I'm far more concerned with having the most unethical President in history. Nevertheless, I'm not supporting or voting for Trump because I have standards.

She signed an agreement, as part of the conditions Obama demanded before making her Secretary of State, to keep sharp boundaries between the CF and State Department. She lied. Her oath means nothing.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 28 Oct 2016, 8:25 pm

I love that the criminal is furious and yelling and screaming that the FBI release what they have on her. Of course she is furious. If the information is revealed her team will have time to spin it. As of tonight they don't know what the FBI has but they know it's serious since Comey took the pains to announce he had new information.

She is angry because she can't control the messaging. For a very short window, neither her, her team or her expanded team of media outlets are able to spin this.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Oct 2016, 1:00 pm

freeman
How is Hillary Clinton tied in here?


Not.

Fate
You're still holding out for a video of her saying, "Well, if you give Bill (x) millions, we might be willing to do (y)."

Well a memo, a witness willing to make a statement, actual evidence of some kind.
Not just conspiracy nuts busily drawing lines on a chart that show 4 degrees of seprqation or more...And no actual quid quo pro.

Its funny that you think Hillary is so unethical.
Here's a discussion about who actually was the most unethical President.
Strong cases can be made for Nixon, Reagan, Andrew Jackson, Harding, and US Grant. And all of them can be proven with substantial evidence . Hillary? More innuendo.

https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-most- ... ted-States

dag
I love that the criminal is furious and yelling and screaming that the FBI release what they have on her.

Because she knows there is nothing, and the smear hurts her more than the truth. ? (Another reason that you may not have considered.)
This is all about Weiners' emails, and the fact they found some of Huma's emails on his computer. When it is finally revealed, it will destroy Comey who has acted against standard policy .
The election results won't be affected except in how big she wins.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 29 Oct 2016, 1:40 pm

RickyP writes....

Because she knows there is nothing, and the smear hurts her more than the truth. ? (Another reason that you may not have considered.)


I considered that. But that's not why. It's all about controlling that all important messaging. They are beside themselves and it is the ONLY reprise I have enjoyed so far during what has become a most embarrassing shite show.

This is all about Weiners' emails, and the fact they found some of Huma's emails on his computer. When it is finally revealed, it will destroy Comey who has acted against standard policy .
The election results won't be affected except in how big she wins.


If Comey made this decision, he did so because he is the man of integrity that all the Dems pointed to when they underscored his willingness to indict her the first time around. Now that the wind has changed direction, he is as suspect as he was under Republican scrutiny.

A science fiction writer couldn't have come up with the last couple of months. In fact, I feel guilty for not having paid an admission price for this caliber of entertainment.

The US Presidency has become a spectacle. I wonder if we can ever go back to what we had previously.....politicians who at least pretended to have a conscience and who lied to us with a bit more grace and polish.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Oct 2016, 3:04 pm

rickyp wrote:This is all about Weiners' emails, and the fact they found some of Huma's emails on his computer. When it is finally revealed, it will destroy Comey who has acted against standard policy.


This is the kind of hysteria that typically marks the comments of the pro-Trump crowd.

Inow, it's absolutely stupid. Comey is risking everything on a bluff?

Give me a break.

You have zero evidence. This is all supposition and BS.

The election results won't be affected except in how big she wins.


That part may be true. I've said for some time I don't think she can lose short of actually being arrested or indicted.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Oct 2016, 2:42 pm

fate
You have zero evidence. This is all supposition and BS.

How were these emails discovered?

The new emails were discovered through a separate criminal investigation of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Weiner allegedly sent illicit text messages to an underage girl. The FBI was examining devices that belonged to Weiner and there have been reports that the messages were found on a laptop, but that hasn't been confirmed.

NPR
We don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don't want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.
"
James Comey

NPR
A former senior official at the Department of Justice, who requested that he remain anonymous, told NPR that Comey has been mishandling the Clinton investigation since the July press conference when he announced the FBI's findings.

"You don't hold press conferences to announce that someone should not be charged with a crime and then proceed to dump all over that person and to publicly discuss the evidence against them," he told NPR. "You don't publicly announce that you're conducting a criminal investigation against someone. And you especially don't do it if that person is a candidate, 11 days before an election. That's true whether it's a presidential election or an election for dog catcher.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/30/499960392 ... gs-we-dont
Is Comey risking eveything?
He seems to like the limelight.....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Oct 2016, 5:29 pm

More supposition.

Comey told Congress he would reopen the investigation if new evidence emerged. He said that under oath.

You can claim whatever you like, but the evidence is not on your side.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 30 Oct 2016, 7:48 pm

With the email investigation, a non-political entity, greatly respected by the public (The FBI) is conducting an investigation. There is no evidence that this investigation has been interfered with by the AG or anyone else in public office. Until there is its all just innuendo and conspiracy theories.

Posted from RickyP in another forum.

If the FBI is so respected, why the difficulty with Comey's decision to re-open the investigation?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Oct 2016, 9:26 pm

bbauska wrote:With the email investigation, a non-political entity, greatly respected by the public (The FBI) is conducting an investigation. There is no evidence that this investigation has been interfered with by the AG or anyone else in public office. Until there is its all just innuendo and conspiracy theories.

Posted from RickyP in another forum.

If the FBI is so respected, why the difficulty with Comey's decision to re-open the investigation?


Easy answer. And, as rickyp's official spokesman, I feel qualified to speak on his behalf.

Innuendo and conspiracy theories were evil when I thought Comey was on our side. However, now he's not and all we've got are innuendo and conspiracy theories, so I'm rollin' with it.