PDA

View Full Version : Looks like Hillary got some 'splaining to do



coelacanth2
09-01-2015, 05:15 PM
According to the latest email releases she forwarded classified - at - birth documents directly to Sid Blumenthal (who was working for the Clinton Foundation, not the U.S. Gov't. and who was expressly forbidden from a federal position, and did not have a security clearance) over her illegal and unsecure server ( which also shared IP addresses and physical location with the Clinton Foundation server). General Petreaus was nailed for less - his paramour had a security clearance at least. I have two relatives and a couple of friends who are around that kind and level of business - they have stated that if they were to pull a fraction of the shenanigans that she's done, they'd be in jail while they found out how long they'd be in jail.

My question is when does Obama chuck her and Bill and their minions under the bus and do they have enough dirt on him to drag him under with them.

Chip-skiff
09-01-2015, 07:02 PM
Did she lie to Congress to start a war?

Did she burn through trillions while her pals (and her vice-president) stole billions?

Did she let her corrupt buddies gouge and cheat and crash the economy?

This is basically a bunch of chickensh*t quibbles. But I guess it's all you've got.

Chip-skiff
09-01-2015, 07:10 PM
Donnie— Who is we?

And while you're at it, define "is."

coelacanth2
09-01-2015, 09:11 PM
Nice try at deflection. She needs to beheld accountable, esp. if she thinks she's good enough for the big job.

Obama supposedly doesn't care for Bill'n'Hill much. Bills intervention probably saved his most recent campaign. I wonder if gratitude will win out over resentment.

P.S. Wasn't defining "is" a thing when Billy was getting impeached?

coelacanth2
09-01-2015, 09:15 PM
Oh BTW, the answer to your questions is mostly yes. Libya dontcha know. No Veep ( Biden's too dum to profit from something like that although his heart's in the right place) but longtime ClintonMinion Blumenthal was sniffing out some profit for the "charitable foundation" whilst Libya was falling apart

bobbys
09-01-2015, 09:40 PM
Chippie...we don't compare her to other corrupt politicians. She did what she did on her own, with no help from past pols other than Bubba.
.

Do liberals even realize how pathetic their party must be to say ,well she is better then Bush..

They cannot come up with any positives but settle for being better then a past person ..

One would have to ponder what they think in their private life.

My mate is OK cause my mate is better then a bad one.

My car is a lemon but it's better then other lemons..

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-01-2015, 09:48 PM
Clinton was suprisingly presient. She knew the Repubs would try to supoena her into oblivian. Now it's up to the DoJ to say if any laws were broken. They are certainly aware they can destroy Sec. Clinton's candidacy and allow someone like Donald Trump to be president.

Phillip Allen
09-01-2015, 09:49 PM
time for more intense damage control :)

RonW
09-02-2015, 08:44 AM
Not a very popular subject among our friends from the left, thus the silence. This is where the rule of ignoring it and it will go away..

Maybe she will eventually be held accountable, but let's remember she is also the wife of a x-president, which creates a real problem, as to mean there are those that are afraid to prosecute previous administrations as, what goes around may come around. Which scares a lot of current politicians.

But let's not forget as a young lawyer hillary was on the prosecute nixon team, but was dismissed due to her unethical behavior.

And the real problem is our government has become more and more secretive since the 1950's and those engaged in this activity has become more and more bold as to what they can get away with, till we are now at this point, which is out of hand and corruption has creeped into the system.

Glen Longino
09-02-2015, 08:48 AM
Not a very popular subject among our friends from the left, thus the silence. This is where the rule of ignoring it and it will go away..

Maybe she will eventually be held accountable, but let's remember she is also the wife of a x-president, which creates a real problem, as to mean there are those that are afraid to prosecute previous administrations as, what goes around may come around. Which scares a lot of current politicians.

But let's not forget as a young lawyer hillary was on the prosecute nixon team, but was dismissed due to her unethical behavior.

And the real problem is our government has become more and more secretive since the 1950's and those engaged in this activity has become more and more bold as to what they can get away with, till we are now at this point, which is out of hand and corruption has creeped into the system.

Gibberish Interspersed With Gobbledygook!

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 08:49 AM
Not really, I think most here realize there are problems and several libs have posted threads about it which other libs have responded to. That doesn't sound like there's silence on the left at all. Now your threads are worth avoiding because they are entirely BS and people don't respond on them for that reason. That makes perfect sense!

Paul Pless
09-02-2015, 08:52 AM
Not a very popular subject among our friends from the left, thus the silence. not true, there's any number of us on the left who have castigated hillary for this but of arrogance and stupidity

RonW
09-02-2015, 08:56 AM
not true, there's any number of us on the left who have castigated hillary for this but of arrogance and stupidity

So she was condemned for arrogance and stupidity, but not held accountable for the action itself..which could and should lead to criminal prosecution the same as with general patraeus who got off lightly for his very negligent actions.

Phillip Allen
09-02-2015, 08:58 AM
So she was condemned for arrogance and stupidity, but not held accountable for the action itself..which could and should lead to criminal prosecution the same as with general patraeus who got off lightly for his very negligent actions.

like I said the other day, the left would excuse her even if she was caught stabbing babies with a pitchfork... there is no act which would not be excusable from our hypocritical left

they have no shame

Glen Longino
09-02-2015, 09:03 AM
So she was condemned for arrogance and stupidity, but not held accountable for the action itself..which could and should lead to criminal prosecution the same as with general patraeus who got off lightly for his very negligent actions.

Sorry pal, but you don't get to decide who is guilty and who is innocent and what their punishment should be if any.
You only get to express your rabid hatred of the US Government in general and Mrs. Clinton in particular. Blather on!

Paul Pless
09-02-2015, 09:04 AM
So she was condemned for arrogance and stupidity, but not held accountable for the action itself..which could and should lead to criminal prosecution the same as with general patraeus who got off lightly for his very negligent actions.

Sure, when she is found guilty of something, I'll disparage her for that too. I have no individual power to hold her accountable nor anyone else for that matter. I'm not one to take the law into mine own hands.

Oh look, there's Phillip with his normal dose of hipocritocal partisan drivel - talking out the one side of his mouth condemning partisanship as if he is so.ehow above it, yet out the other side he spews it. . .

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 09:04 AM
Sorry pal, but you don't get to decide who is guilty and who is innocent and what their punishment should be if any.
You only get to express your rabid hatred of the US Government in general and Mrs. Clinton in particular. Blather on!Glen, please don't encourage him!

RonW
09-02-2015, 09:08 AM
Sorry pal, but you don't get to decide who is guilty and who is innocent and what their punishment should be if any.
You only get to express your rabid hatred of the US Government in general and Mrs. Clinton in particular. Blather on!

I hope I haven't disappointed you in my gallant efforts, but I will try harder..

Glen Longino
09-02-2015, 09:26 AM
I hope I haven't disappointed you in my gallant efforts, but I will try harder..

Your efforts are most UNGALLANT!

Phillip Allen
09-02-2015, 09:29 AM
attacking to cover your own insufficiency? :)

ccmanuals
09-02-2015, 09:33 AM
So to recap, here is what we know.

- She didn't break any laws.
- She used a personal email account (which lots of other past politicians have done)
- She didn't receive any email that was marked classified.

I'm still trying to figure out what this so called scandal is. Maybe I should read more Breitbart. :)

I know, BENGHAZI !!

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 09:34 AM
attacking to cover your own insufficiency? :)Everything posted you think is automatically an attack, you appear to be just paranoid.

CWSmith
09-02-2015, 09:40 AM
If the current trajectory continues and new problems arise from her personal email server (which seems all but unavoidable), I think her candidacy is toast.

RonW
09-02-2015, 09:42 AM
So to recap, here is what we know .

--She is a democrat.
--Her husband was president and she was the 1st.lady.
--She is the best the dems can put forth for a presidential run.
--She was asleep (or drunk) and didn't answer the phone at 3:00 am when Benghazi called. So it is not her fault.
--She is the only chance the dems have to remain in power and keep a clown form the right from becoming president.


I'm still trying to figure out if this scandal will blow her out of the water and this is the beginning of further decline of the dem party as was the results of the 2010 and 2014 elections.

Will we ever have another dem president ?

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 09:53 AM
So to recap, here is what we know .

--She is a democrat.
--Her husband was president and she was the 1st.lady.
--She is the best the dems can put forth for a presidential run.
--She was asleep (or drunk) and didn't answer the phone at 3:00 am when Benghazi called. So it is not her fault.
--She is the only chance the dems have to remain in power and keep a clown form the right from becoming president.


I'm still trying to figure out if this scandal will blow her out of the water and this is the beginning of further decline of the dem party as was the results of the 2010 and 2014 elections.

Will we ever have another dem president ?2017!

Glen Longino
09-02-2015, 09:53 AM
"..here is what we know"...4

Nope, that's what YOU THINK you know!

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 09:55 AM
About RonWLocation:S. OhioInterests:Exposing the progressive agenda and Oligarchy and Plutocrats.Occupation:Freedom fighter

Norman Bernstein
09-02-2015, 10:27 AM
We all need a good laugh, every day:


While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office....

Shades of 'Minority Report'... she's obviously criminally liable for not being clairvoyant enough to know that the emails would LATER become classified!

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 10:29 AM
Of course she is, the repubnuts say she is!:)

John Smith
09-02-2015, 10:33 AM
Nice try at deflection. She needs to beheld accountable, esp. if she thinks she's good enough for the big job.

Obama supposedly doesn't care for Bill'n'Hill much. Bills intervention probably saved his most recent campaign. I wonder if gratitude will win out over resentment.

P.S. Wasn't defining "is" a thing when Billy was getting impeached?

Yes, it was, but in the context of the question he was asked, "is" did need to be defined. That was a very complex situation. If Paula Jones' attorneys were working solely for her interests, they would have simply asked Bill if had received oral sex from Lewinsky. It would have been simple and straight forward.

Instead, they gave the judge, and the judge accepted, a definition of 'sexual relations' that DID NOT INCLUDE RECEIVING ORAL SEX. Then they asked him if had had sexual relations with Monica. Under that definition, he had not had sexual relations.

The entire thing was carefully designed to do a lot more than represent Jones.

John Smith
09-02-2015, 10:34 AM
.

Do liberals even realize how pathetic their party must be to say ,well she is better then Bush..

They cannot come up with any positives but settle for being better then a past person ..

One would have to ponder what they think in their private life.

My mate is OK cause my mate is better then a bad one.

My car is a lemon but it's better then other lemons..

Rubio said she's the best qualified. I think we should remember that.

John Smith
09-02-2015, 10:38 AM
Seems to me that what Hillary is guilty of is following what was standard operating procedure. Those who think she ought not have done this are free to investigate her. If they fail to investigate others who did the same thing, they are hypocrites. This investigation, if it's not just a political witch hunt, should include all those public officials who used private servers.

Jim Mahan
09-02-2015, 10:47 AM
She has done a thing that other Sec of States have done without castigation, and which isn't and wasn't illegal, at all. But because she has been a party to emails—the only thing of which she is guilty—there must be some guilty lie about Benghazi or something about which the cons can be furiously and simultaneously wrong. Again. Expensively.

There is no there there. There never was, not for Benghazi nor for any of the other stuff the cons have beat to death as 'baggage.' The only actual baggage that Hillary Clinton has in that regard is that she has allowed the cons to speak as if they had a clue, actually being honest, and more than fair about it, too. She has even been gracious, in that regard.

RonW
09-02-2015, 11:37 AM
We all need a good laugh, every day:
Shades of 'Minority Report'... she's obviously criminally liable for not being clairvoyant enough to know that the emails would LATER become classified!

They didn't know she had a private email account. They classified the e-mails as classified once they saw them....oh and the number is over 150.and still counting..


HILLARY’S EMAIL CRASHED: AGENCY DIDN’T KNOW THE ACCOUNT WAS HERS! ..

--Hillary Clinton’s secret email network crashed in 2010, and the email help-desk at the State Department dismissed the problem as unimportant because they didn’t know that she used a private email address to run the nation’s foreign policy.

Clinton’s private email went down in February 2010, causing confusion for her and her top aide Huma Abedin, according to a new set of highly-redacted Clinton emails released by the State Department Monday night.

Clinton received a routine message from a State Department computer staffer who clearly didn’t know that HDR22@clintonemail.com was the Secretary’s email address The message had told Clinton that some of the HDR22 messages were being flagged with “fatal errors.”

Clinton forwarded the message to Abedin, asking what was going on.

“Ur email must be back up!!,” Abedin said excitedly. “What happened is judith sent you an email. It bounced back. She called the email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no idea it was YOU, just some random address so they emailed. Sorry about that. But regardless, means ur email must be back! R u getting other messages?”

“I’ve gotten some messages from yesterday – how about you?” Clinton replied.

“Nothing,” replied Abedin on her State Department account.

In another email from that same month, Clinton made sure to differentiate between Abedin’s State Department email account and her clintonemail.com account when figuring out how to reply to different people.

“[Please] give her Huma’s State email” Clinton told aide Cheryl Mills, referring to a staffer for British official Catherine Ashton.

The new emails show Clinton and her advisers cleverly manipulating transparency guidelines.

“Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret,” Clinton told a staffer in February 2010, referring to a Tony Blair statement about an initiative to establish a two-state solution with regard to Israel and Palestine. An exchange between Clinton and Blair’s wife Cherie regarding a potential conversation with the Qatari royal family was marked “Confidential.”


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/01/hillarys-email-crashed-agency-didnt-know-the-account-was-hers/

And for more info.......see this informative link.............

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?190864-The-Official-unofficial-Hillary-Clinton-Thread/page6

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 11:39 AM
WHOOPIE! BRAINFART, RonW's most trusted news source following FOX!

RonW
09-02-2015, 12:08 PM
http://imgick.pennlive.com/home/penn-media/width620/img/opinion/photo/hillary-chickens-cartoonjpg-3dc6eac681f20997.jpg


http://www.dotpenn.com/images/stories/articles/2008-5/chicken_rancher1.jpg

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 12:12 PM
Thanks for posting your "selfie" RonW.

RonW
09-02-2015, 04:49 PM
CLINTON EMAILS EXPOSED CLASSIFIED SATELLITE INTEL ON NORTH KOREAN NUKES..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/clinton-emails-exposed-classified-satellite-intel-on-north-korean-nukes/

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 05:33 PM
It's just amazing that Brainfart can still exist but, I realize it's able to find another sucker every second, who gobbles it up.

ccmanuals
09-02-2015, 06:24 PM
CLINTON EMAILS EXPOSED CLASSIFIED SATELLITE INTEL ON NORTH KOREAN NUKES..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/clinton-emails-exposed-classified-satellite-intel-on-north-korean-nukes/

If that's true then they need to identify who sent the email.

As the receiver Hillary is not responsible for what someone sends her. But, you knew that right?

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 06:25 PM
If that's true then they need to identify who sent the email.

As the receiver Hillary is not responsible for what someone sends her. But, you knew that right?Doubt it!

RonW
09-02-2015, 06:30 PM
If that's true then they need to identify who sent the email.

As the receiver Hillary is not responsible for what someone sends her. But, you knew that right?

It says-- e-mails exposed.......It doesn't say anything about sent or received........But you knew that right..

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-02-2015, 06:55 PM
We all need a good laugh, every day:



Shades of 'Minority Report'... she's obviously criminally liable for not being clairvoyant enough to know that the emails would LATER become classified!


What's scary here is the revival of the witch hunt. The Clintons have long been targets of all kinds of republican driven investigations that haven't resulted in any criminal charges whatsoever. The real purpose is to heighten the innuendo around a certain time period. It's getting old. If someone has done something criminal, then charge them, and they are innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise, shut the hell up, you mouthy right wing girlie waah waah loser pussy children.

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 07:04 PM
Maybe if, as the did in the 1600's, they throw Hillary into the pond. If she's a witch, she drowns and if she doesn't she's still a witch.:)

Phillip Allen
09-02-2015, 08:32 PM
What's scary here is the revival of the witch hunt. The Clintons have long been targets of all kinds of republican driven investigations that haven't resulted in any criminal charges whatsoever. The real purpose is to heighten the innuendo around a certain time period. It's getting old. If someone has done something criminal, then charge them, and they are innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise, shut the hell up, you mouthy right wing girlie waah waah loser pussy children.

whatsoever? really?
Capone never got any criminal charges either...until tax evasion and I seem to recall that hilly has had some very close calls in that arena herself

S.V. Airlie
09-02-2015, 08:36 PM
whatsoever? really?
Capone never got any criminal charges either...until tax evasion and I seem to recall that hilly has had some very close calls in that arena herself He ended up in jail didn't he? Was released because of a terminal case of syphilis didn't he? Maybe you should research some points before you splatter them on the forum.

Phillip Allen
09-02-2015, 08:45 PM
He ended up in jail didn't he? Was released because of a terminal case of syphilis didn't he? Maybe you should research some points before you splatter them on the forum.

you really don't read what's being said, do you... you read only what it suits you to see

ccmanuals
09-02-2015, 08:49 PM
It says-- e-mails exposed.......It doesn't say anything about sent or received........But you knew that right..

sounds like you didn't bother to even read the article you posted


As the Washington Times reported (while our mighty Mainstream Media was busy tittering over what Sid Blumenthal said about Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)35%
), this is one of those emails that caught the inspector general’s eye, was stripped of its classification markings manually by someone at the State Department, and somehow flew across the “air gap” that’s supposed to make it impossible to compromise classified material by emailing it directly to an unsecured system like Clinton’s.

The individual who carried it across the “air gap” knew it was classified with 100 percent certainty, and willfully removed the designations and codes marking it as such. That individual is a criminal under federal law, and should do hard time when his or her identity is discovered by the FBI.

Nicholas Scheuer
09-03-2015, 07:01 AM
ONE of the CLASSIFIED emails is discussed in this morning's Rockford Register Star. It concerns 9 boxcar containers of GEFILTE FISH (Asian Carp) caught in the Illinois River and processed in an Illinois GEFILTE FISH FACTORY (the OBLY such factory in the USA) which were being stopped from delivery to Israel in time for some Jewish Feast Day by a complication with import/export law. Hillary was just trying to help Senator Durbin and Rep Manzulo (both of Illinois) bring the problem to a satisfactory resolution so the Gefilte Fish could be eaten.

(Donn? Am I spelling Gefilte Fish correctly? I don't have time to go check my newspaper, this story is WAY too important. RonW is probably working himself up to a caniption fit over this email about Gelilte Fish)

Anyway, who the hel- classified this story about FISH as TOP SECRET anyway?

Rum_Pirate
09-03-2015, 08:02 AM
I see that one of the staffers has decided to take the '5th' and not testify.

I wonder why - since according to the Democrat supporters - nothing wrong, no wrong doing, no crime etc?

If that were the case (nothing wrong, no wrong doing, no crime etc) why not testify, clear up everything and end it all? :rolleyes:

BTW I agree it is 'Constitutional right' but in this context something smells.

Tom@NC
09-03-2015, 08:10 AM
If you turned 600,000 pounds of Gelfilte fish into fertilizer (NPR Radio 09?02/2015) there is most likely going to be a smell. Almost inescapable in fact.

Tom

Norman Bernstein
09-03-2015, 08:11 AM
I see that one of the staffers has decided to take the '5th' and not testify.

I wonder why - since according to the Democrat supporters - nothing wrong, no wrong doing, no crime etc?

The purpose of the fifth amendment was to guarantee the right against self incrimination....

....but it's pretty clear that most people think that a 5th amendment plea is virtually a confession of criminality.

When it comes to congressional staffers, it's a bit different than ordinary criminal situations: we're talking politics here, where an aggressive and out of control congressional committee can positively RUIN people's lives by intimidation and smears. If you don't believe me, read a little history, especially about the people whose lives, and livelihoods, were destroyed by Joseph McCarthy, in the 1950's.... that alcoholic SOB should have spent the rest of his life in prison... perhaps it's poetic justice that he drank himself to death.

If I were a congressional staffer in this situation, I'd plead the 5th, as well.... because a congressional, political witch hunt has NOTHING to do with justice.

And finally, you might consider that YOU are presuming guilt on the guy, simply because he's taking the 5th....

RonW
09-03-2015, 08:45 AM
Pleading the 5th is a constitutional right, and the most useful tool of the mob bosses who always plead the 5th to try to avoid prosecution, unless of course they make a deal.

I don't blame them, if I was guilty I would plead the 5th too, that way you don't have to answer any questions.

Lois Lerner was smart when she pleaded the 5th after all the corruption she was involved in. But that one ain't over with yet..

And neither is hillary's problems........go congressman trey........

S.V. Airlie
09-03-2015, 08:47 AM
The purpose of the fifth amendment was to guarantee the right against self incrimination. Why don't you read the fifth again and interpret it correctly for once! Perhaps the mob takes advantage of it but, the fifth applies, for a plethora of reasons, to different issues. Like the media not wanting to give up it's sources.

Rum_Pirate
09-03-2015, 02:18 PM
The purpose of the fifth amendment was to guarantee the right against self incrimination. Why don't you read the fifth again and interpret it correctly for once! Perhaps the mob takes advantage of it but, the fifth applies, for a plethora of reasons, to different issues. Like the media not wanting to give up it's sources.


Acknowledged: to guarantee the right against self incrimination.

So how would he incriminate himself if he testified, after all he is innocent :confused: to what Mrs Clinton did, right? He is not being charged, is he?

Unless . . . perhaps . . . he was party to criminal activity regarding the emails and/or wants to protect Mrs Clinton (that would not be supporting justice). :rolleyes:

S.V. Airlie
09-03-2015, 02:30 PM
The common thought, Ron believes it, if you plead the fifth you are automatically guilty regardless. Rum. The techie who built HC's server pleaded the fifth. Apparently he's innocent of wrong doing but congress, especially the reps will see a burning light bulb and say, he's pleading the fifth, therefore he's guilty. See! News writers who are asked to give up their sources plead the fifth too. To me, that suggests they are guilty of hiding their sources which is not a crime. However, they have been thrown in jail for contempt.

Norman Bernstein
09-03-2015, 02:37 PM
So how would he incriminate himself if he testified, after all he is innocent...

It isn't a matter of incriminating oneself. A congressional committee is not a court of law... but it DOES have the power of subpoena, and can issue contempt citations.

Try reading up on the McCarthy witch-hunts of the 50's, to see EXACTLY how congress can completely screw totally innocent people, and ruin their lives. I person would be crazy NOT to plead the fifth before congress, if they perceive that the congressional committee is embarking on a political vendetta against someone.

The life stories of some of the people caught up in the McCarthy hearings are truly tragic.

S.V. Airlie
09-03-2015, 02:41 PM
It isn't a matter of incriminating oneself. A congressional committee is not a court of law... but it DOES have the power of subpoena, and can issue contempt citations.

Try reading up on the McCarthy witch-hunts of the 50's, to see EXACTLY how congress can completely screw totally innocent people, and ruin their lives. I person would be crazy NOT to plead the fifth before congress, if they perceive that the congressional committee is embarking on a political vendetta against someone.

The life stories of some of the people caught up in the McCarthy hearings are truly tragic.That's a perfect example!

RonW
09-03-2015, 05:05 PM
It isn't a matter of incriminating oneself. A congressional committee is not a court of law... but it DOES have the power of subpoena, and can issue contempt citations.

Try reading up on the McCarthy witch-hunts of the 50's, to see EXACTLY how congress can completely screw totally innocent people, and ruin their lives. I person would be crazy NOT to plead the fifth before congress, if they perceive that the congressional committee is embarking on a political vendetta against someone.

The life stories of some of the people caught up in the McCarthy hearings are truly tragic.

Hey rummy, while norm got you reading up on this dirty mccarthy character during the 50's, do read about how the rage of hollywood liberal acters was throwing commie parties and signing people up into the communist party.

At a time when we was only 10 years over ww11 and in a cold war with communistic russia .

S.V. Airlie
09-03-2015, 05:09 PM
At a time when we was only 10 years over ww11 and in a cold war with communistic russia .

That makes as much sense as 99.8% of your usual posts. RonW. I need one of your decoder rings or have you already lent them out to your friends, all three of them.

John Smith
09-03-2015, 05:11 PM
Nice try at deflection. She needs to beheld accountable, esp. if she thinks she's good enough for the big job.

Obama supposedly doesn't care for Bill'n'Hill much. Bills intervention probably saved his most recent campaign. I wonder if gratitude will win out over resentment.

P.S. Wasn't defining "is" a thing when Billy was getting impeached?

Why does she need to be held accountable? No one else is.

John Smith
09-03-2015, 05:13 PM
like I said the other day, the left would excuse her even if she was caught stabbing babies with a pitchfork... there is no act which would not be excusable from our hypocritical left

they have no shame

What, exactly, has she actually been caught doing. She's been cleared on Whitewater and Benghazi and everything in between. The point, IMO, is the right will investigate her out of habit.

John Smith
09-03-2015, 05:16 PM
We all need a good laugh, every day:



Shades of 'Minority Report'... she's obviously criminally liable for not being clairvoyant enough to know that the emails would LATER become classified!

She will be cleared here, as she's been cleared in the past, but that's not the point. Just investigating endlessly creates and maintains a cloud over her.

S.V. Airlie
09-03-2015, 05:27 PM
What, exactly, has she actually been caught doing. She's been cleared on Whitewater and Benghazi and everything in between. The point, IMO, is the right will investigate her out of habit.
NOT JUST ONCE! The reps aren't getting the decision THEY WANT! nothing else

I see hundreds, thousands of e-mails from/to HC and I've seen just a handful with potential problems and even they are "iffy" at best. BUT, The REPS will keep hammering away!

oznabrag
09-04-2015, 12:21 PM
Not a very popular subject among our friends from the left, thus the silence. This is where the rule of ignoring it and it will go away..

Maybe she will eventually be held accountable, but let's remember she is also the wife of a x-president, which creates a real problem, as to mean there are those that are afraid to prosecute previous administrations as, what goes around may come around. Which scares a lot of current politicians.

But let's not forget as a young lawyer hillary was on the prosecute nixon team, but was dismissed due to her unethical behavior.

And the real problem is our government has become more and more secretive since the 1950's and those engaged in this activity has become more and more bold as to what they can get away with, till we are now at this point, which is out of hand and corruption has creeped into the system.

You asserted this untruth recently, and had it debunked post haste. Yet, you continue to assert that it happened.

Hmmmm...

RonW
09-04-2015, 12:36 PM
You asserted this untruth recently, and had it debunked post haste. Yet, you continue to assert that it happened.

Hmmmm...

nope, she was fired for unethical behavior............


http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 02:06 PM
nope, she was fired for unethical behavior............


http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htmAs usual, you don't have the facts! Not surprised! Read this and weep. Summary drew the conclusions, what does it say Clive, I mean RonnieW. Can't tell onew idiotic "Freedom Fighter from another!

The viral email is mainly derived from a column published on March 31, 2008, by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, according to fact-finder TruthOrFiction.com. North Star was a newspaper syndicate that provided services until early 2012.
Calabrese’s information came from Democrat Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”
On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said, “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.”
Specifically, Zeifman contends that Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to bolster the chances of Sen. Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president.
Zeifman said that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “… her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”
Zeifman charges that Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, a violation of House rules.
Hillary Rodham’s conduct, according to Zeifman, also was the result of not wanting Nixon to face an impeachment trial because Democrats worried that Nixon might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy.
Zeifman — ironically, a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton — said Democrats feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand. Hunt, Zeifman said, might report on his knowledge of nefarious activities in the Kennedy administration “including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.”
Zeifman also asserts that Rodham joined Burke Marshall, Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair and Rodham’s former law professor; special counsel John Doar; and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum in trying to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.
In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents.
After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.
According to the Calabrese column as reported by TruthOrFiction.com, Zeifman said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association.
So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.
In addition, neither www.TruthOrFiction.com (http://www.truthorfiction.com/) nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations.

oznabrag
09-04-2015, 02:22 PM
As usual, you don't have the facts! Not surprised! Read this and weep. Summary drew the conclusions, what does it say Clive, I mean RonnieW. Can't tell onew idiotic "Freedom Fighter from another!
...

Sigh... (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp)


Is this true or false?image: http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gif

http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gifFALSE image: http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif
http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif
Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2014]




In a column circulating on the internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s.

This is false. Hillary was not fired.
They also noted that the Washington Post's reviewer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm) found (as we did) much of Zeifman's book to be mere repetition of speculation with little or no evidence to substantiate it:
[The book] will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

The lack of evidence makes his theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source — his diary — contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.

Last updated: 12 April 2015
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp#LOkjzjEgZ3Qchbd3.99

RonW
09-04-2015, 02:34 PM
Sigh --------


--PROOF SNOPES.COM IS FAKE & CAN NOT BE USED FOR THE TRUTH.

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.
Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above; are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website 'Snopes' about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when 'Snopes' was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.
But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.
What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.
Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.


https://www.facebook.com/notes/billy-martin/proof-snopescom-is-fake-can-not-be-used-for-the-truth/573901245964384

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 02:41 PM
Yup, it must have been "trending" on facebook Ronnie. Facebook is the equiv. of an old biddy sewing circle who want to sit there and just gossip, talk about Caitlin and why aren't the tomato plants producing any tomatoes this year. It is a better news source than Brainfart though! You've come up a centimeter (wearing high heels I suspect) in the world! Congrats!

Norman Bernstein
09-04-2015, 02:52 PM
So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Excellent advice... we can always turn to Breitbart, WND, Newsmax, and similar sites as objective and nonpartisan purveyors of truth:dY>

John of Phoenix
09-04-2015, 03:21 PM
Can anyone remember the last time Mr. Constitution was right about something? Any thing?

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 03:41 PM
Nope!:)
Will we hear something right from him tomorrow? Nope!
Next month? Nope!:)lmaoAlmost true, RonW is always right on his interpretation/version of the Constitution.:)

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 06:11 PM
nope, she was fired for unethical behavior............


http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htmSo, how is your nonexistent boat doing?

John Smith
09-04-2015, 06:42 PM
I wonder if RonW will be happy or disappointed if 6 months from now Hillary is cleared in regards to the emails.

I wonder if she had used a government server if he'd be accusing her of thinking she's better than Powell et al who used private servers.

This is getting a lot of coverage; the news is keeping it in the news. The hope on the right seems to be we'll find she broke a law or disclosed some great secret.

Personally, I don't see how anyone okay with Libby not doing any jail time would care about this.

Time will tell.

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 06:55 PM
RonW IS a "FREEDOM FIGHTER" Like C. BUNDY! He'd bew unhappy with anything done politically and will bitch regardless!

RonW
09-04-2015, 07:12 PM
John Smith wants to know --
I wonder if RonW will be happy or disappointed if 6 months from now Hillary is cleared in regards to the emails.

I would be very, very disappointed, in fact to the point of being sad. But washington is the seat of corruption and the clintons are a big part of it, so I suspect they will call in favors or pay their way out.


I wonder if she had used a government server if he'd be accusing her of thinking she's better than Powell et al who used private servers.

If Hillary had ran the state department competently, we would not be having this conversation. Yep it is all on hillary.


This is getting a lot of coverage; the news is keeping it in the news. The hope on the right seems to be we'll find she broke a law or disclosed some great secret.

Yep too much coverage, shall we not forget and remember the corruption behind the clinton foundation, and we should never ever forget Benghazi.


Personally, I don't see how anyone okay with Libby not doing any jail time would care about this.

Libby, Libby, Libby who, do you have a story of ancient history you want to tell us.....go ahead, it might make a great distraction for a very brief moment.

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 07:16 PM
you really don't read what's being said, do you... you read only what it suits you to seeI don't know but, I've just checked out the comic books you're reading and every YOUTUBE you are posting.

ccmanuals
09-04-2015, 07:20 PM
I can't for the life of me understand why you guys even bother engaging in a pointless discussion with people who completely deny facts. Would you argue with the flat earth society or ignore them?

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 07:23 PM
you really don't read what's being said, do you... you read only what it suits you to seeSo, you use a member of the mob as an example, I read a bit about him. You say he didn't go to jail, sorry, he did. And I listed the reasons why he was released. Secondly, do you know why he was jailed? Didn't think so, it's not in your current comic books you're reading nor YOUTUBE!,

RonW
09-06-2015, 07:51 PM
Bernie Sanders is now 9 points ahead of hillary in New Hampshire..........don't she look just so presidential ?




http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/czszTo8d0nuiI.otT_N31w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9Mzc3O2lsPXBsYW 5lO3B4b2ZmPTUwO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTY3MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-09-06T215708Z_1236103900_GF10000195955_RTRMADP_3_USA-ELECTION-CLINTON.JPG

ccmanuals
09-06-2015, 08:44 PM
Looks shouldn't mean anything. But acting presidential is a different matter and she is has that down.

S.V. Airlie
09-07-2015, 08:40 AM
Photo shopped as usual RonW. I realize that you don't think so but, most people when they show a "bad" picture of a candidate know it's photo shopped. To you IT'S real!