The Hillary Clinton thread

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:47 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?

Like Reagan wanting to use Born in the USA for his campaign, without actually listening to or understanding the lyrics.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:54 pm

And what is with Bud Light using a piano version of "Sweet Child o' Mine" as the background for their cheesy best man speech commercial?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:42 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Until I see Rush's name in there, I think you're missing the point.
I'm totally missing your point. Could you spell it out for me?

None of those people have the ear of the American people. How do you get millions of Americans to agree to free money for everyone when a single Sunday night radio broadcast by a random pot stirrer looking for ratings (I just picked Limbaugh because he was easy) would bring the entire thing to rubble before it even got started?

More important even than how you are going to sell it to the American people, who are you going to get to do the selling?

This is not the heyday of America's "it's a good idea because logical reasons" for doing something.

You have a terri-bad low life who's main campaign promise was building an improbable, obscenely expensive, utterly ineffective giant wall to solve a problem that doesn't exist (certainly not in the framing used to justify it). And now he's the president.

Your facts and cites have failed to convince me that they will convince the rips of America.

First, I'd want to know how this basic income for all screws over brown people. That's just to start.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:47 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?

Wranglers the jeans, or Wranglers the jeeps? Because if we're talking pants, then it could be both at the same time.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:00 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
More important even than how you are going to sell it to the American people, who are you going to get to do the selling?

"We want to give you $15,000 with no strings attached" has a certain panache. Well, except with people who don't need $15,000.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:03 pm

Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
More important even than how you are going to sell it to the American people, who are you going to get to do the selling?

"We want to give you $15,000 with no strings attached" has a certain panache. Well, except with people who don't need $15,000.

If I can call something "socialism" and kill it when it's most certainly not socialism, what do you think the likelihood of killing something that is actually socialism (yes, I'm usually the popular and not precise definition) might be?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:22 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?
Wranglers the jeans, or Wranglers the jeeps? Because if we're talking pants, then it could be both at the same time.

Jeans

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:34 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?
Wranglers the jeans, or Wranglers the jeeps? Because if we're talking pants, then it could be both at the same time.
Jeans

That there's some good irony.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:34 pm

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:17 pm

Rip and Hillary

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu May 17, 2018 6:28 pm

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu May 17, 2018 6:56 pm

Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up!

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:02 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:17 pm Rip and Hillary

LOL!!! Hey, I can't blame him - I really dug the hair bands in the '92 election...

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu May 17, 2018 7:08 pm

Witch Hunt! Witch Hunt! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 pm

geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 7:08 pm Witch Hunt! Witch Hunt! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!

I know it's probably ridiculous, because Rip haunts ridiculous unserious websites, but I just want it known that if the Clinton's are corrupt I have no issues having an investigation that proves that.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu May 17, 2018 8:16 pm

gbasden wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 pm
geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 7:08 pm Witch Hunt! Witch Hunt! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!
I know it's probably ridiculous, because Rip haunts ridiculous unserious websites, but I just want it known that if the Clinton's are corrupt I have no issues having an investigation that proves that.

After all the previous Clinton investigations that turned up nothing, I'm sure that one more try will provide the big breakthrough. Or will at least provide a modest distraction from what's going in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Fri May 18, 2018 3:14 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:16 pm
gbasden wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 pm
geezer wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 7:08 pm Witch Hunt! Witch Hunt! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!
I know it's probably ridiculous, because Rip haunts ridiculous unserious websites, but I just want it known that if the Clinton's are corrupt I have no issues having an investigation that proves that.
After all the previous Clinton investigations that turned up nothing, I'm sure that one more try will provide the big breakthrough. Or will at least provide a modest distraction from what's going in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Oh, there's nothing to find with emails and BENGHAZI!!!!! But given the shenanigans that have gone on with the Clinton Global Fund it's entirely possible there is corruption there that should be exposed. I couldn't care less if someone is left or right, we should expose and shame them publically.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri May 18, 2018 4:04 am

The IG investigation isn't so much about the Clinton e-mail scandal itself but the investigation of it.

I would think the people being accused of crimes here are Obama's minions more than Clinton's.

Still have the IG investigation on the FISA warrant on Page to look forward to as well.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri May 18, 2018 8:19 am

Rip wrote:Still have the IG investigation on the FISA warrant on Page to look forward to as well.

AKA the coverup.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Fri May 18, 2018 9:48 am

Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 4:04 am The IG investigation isn't so much about the Clinton e-mail scandal itself but the investigation of it.

I would think the people being accused of crimes here are Obama's minions more than Clinton's.

Still have the IG investigation on the FISA warrant on Page to look forward to as well.

Wait. What about LOCK HER UP?

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Fri May 18, 2018 10:46 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 9:48 am
Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 4:04 am The IG investigation isn't so much about the Clinton e-mail scandal itself but the investigation of it.

I would think the people being accused of crimes here are Obama's minions more than Clinton's.

Still have the IG investigation on the FISA warrant on Page to look forward to as well.
Wait. What about LOCK HER UP?

If it's shown the investigation was "flawed", then they can re-investigate with a "fair" investigation and lock her up. Logic.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri May 18, 2018 11:18 am

I, for one, can't wait for the Clinton lawyers discovery and depositions on all of the congressional witch hunts.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri May 18, 2018 12:26 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 11:18 am I, for one, can't wait for the Clinton lawyers discovery and depositions on all of the congressional witch hunts.

Yea, I don't think Clinton lawyers will have much say in action taken against Obama bureaucrats. In fact I would think not many will be prosecuted, just fired like good ol McCabe.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri May 18, 2018 4:27 pm

Re: Clinton

We don't care. We didn't want her either. You can have her.

Now, on to the matter of criminals who are actually still in a position of power...

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sun May 20, 2018 7:10 pm

I'm absolutely fine with allowing a free investigation and prosecution of the Clintons. Of course, we will have to do the same with the Trump cadre.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:13 pm

In one exchange in February 2016, the FBI agent, identified only as “Agent 1,” talked to another FBI employee about interviewing Hillary Clinton’s personal IT staffer. The FBI employee asked how the interview went.

Agent 1 replied: “Awesome. Lied his ass off.”

He continued: “Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at [Clinton’s residence], to looked in when it was being constructed, to remove the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,”

Lying to investigators is a federal crime, one that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is being charged with, as well as former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. However, the FBI employee joked it “would be funny” if the guy was charged.

The FBI employee replied: “would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal.”

Agent 1 responded that even though he lied, “aint noone gonna do s–t.”

He wrote: “I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax — aint noone gonna do s–t”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... s-ass-off/

I can only assume lying to the FBI is no big deal.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:17 pm

Just spit-balling here... seems like we are talking some IT guy squirming in an interview, vs. conspiracy with Russia during a Presidential campaign?

Is that right?

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:44 am

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:13 pm

I can only assume lying to the FBI is no big deal.

Again, if he lied and did something wrong, prosecute him. I'm all for it. You seriously seem to think this is all tribal. If Obama had made sweetheart deals with a hostile foreign power to enrich himself and his daughter, I'd call for his impeachment. If Obama had shit on our allies and cozied up with dictators, I'd denounce him too. If Obama couldn't speak without 10 blatant lies spilling out I'd call him on it. You just don't get that some of these things are so beyond the pale that it just doesn't matter who it is - any decent person should see it's wrong.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:10 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:44 am Again, if he lied and did something wrong, prosecute him. I'm all for it.

I'm not sure why that's hard for people to accept.... "on both sides"

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:22 am

That's what I was trying to explain to a Trump supporter I know. I'm not critical of Trump because he's a Republican. I'm critical of Trump because he's a horrible human being who is a pathological liar, and his policies are hurting the country.

He could not wrap his head around it. To those guys, it's Dem vs Rep, black and white, and there's no other way of thought.

It's frightening, because now there's no filter. As long as you have an (R) by your name, you're the guy. Doesn't matter if you're a pedophile, a racist, a homophobe, whatever. The (R) is all that matters.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:01 am

Drumpf isn't a republican or a democrat.

Also, who is this Hillary person I've been hearing so much about lately?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:09 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:44 am
Rip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:13 pm

I can only assume lying to the FBI is no big deal.

Again, if he lied and did something wrong, prosecute him. I'm all for it. You seriously seem to think this is all tribal. If Obama had made sweetheart deals with a hostile foreign power to enrich himself and his daughter, I'd call for his impeachment. If Obama had shit on our allies and cozied up with dictators, I'd denounce him too. If Obama couldn't speak without 10 blatant lies spilling out I'd call him on it. You just don't get that some of these things are so beyond the pale that it just doesn't matter who it is - any decent person should see it's wrong.

Sweetheart deals? Are you talking about China? The China we just slapped a shitload of tariffs on. You guys need to pick a direction on China. You complain when he does things they like, you complain when he does things they don't.....

I'm all for prosecuting the lying IT guy but as the FBI agent noted and was well aware they nor the justice department wasn't about to indict anyone and make the incoming president..HRC look bad. Hell when they needed to they would just give them immunity before even talking to them to make sure.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:05 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:22 am That's what I was trying to explain to a Trump supporter I know. I'm not critical of Trump because he's a Republican. I'm critical of Trump because he's a horrible human being who is a pathological liar, and his policies are hurting the country.

He could not wrap his head around it. To those guys, it's Dem vs Rep, black and white, and there's no other way of thought.

It's frightening, because now there's no filter. As long as you have an (R) by your name, you're the guy. Doesn't matter if you're a pedophile, a racist, a homophobe, whatever. The (R) is all that matters.

I'd have to go dig up the research, but as I recall that tribalism is actually part of the inherent conservative outlook and is reflected in measurable biological/physical brain structure.

Basically It's akin to asking someone to trust you when you tell them they're not really hungry. Which makes the whole thing sort of depressing. It reflects in positive ways too - loyalty, for example, but it make compromise very hard.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:15 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:09 am
Sweetheart deals? Are you talking about China? The China we just slapped a shitload of tariffs on. You guys need to pick a direction on China. You complain when he does things they like, you complain when he does things they don't.....

I'm all for prosecuting the lying IT guy but as the FBI agent noted and was well aware they nor the justice department wasn't about to indict anyone and make the incoming president..HRC look bad. Hell when they needed to they would just give them immunity before even talking to them to make sure.

Please don't be willfully obtuse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/busi ... marks.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/worl ... nesia.html

There's the grift that enriches Trump, then there's the red meat for the base.

Also, I believe Republicans control all three branches of government? HRC isn't in the White House. Go indict him if you have evidence.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:44 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:15 pm
Rip wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:09 am
Sweetheart deals? Are you talking about China? The China we just slapped a shitload of tariffs on. You guys need to pick a direction on China. You complain when he does things they like, you complain when he does things they don't.....

I'm all for prosecuting the lying IT guy but as the FBI agent noted and was well aware they nor the justice department wasn't about to indict anyone and make the incoming president..HRC look bad. Hell when they needed to they would just give them immunity before even talking to them to make sure.
Please don't be willfully obtuse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/busi ... marks.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/worl ... nesia.html

There's the grift that enriches Trump, then there's the red meat for the base.

Also, I believe Republicans control all three branches of government? HRC isn't in the White House. Go indict him if you have evidence.

You mean the ZTE deal that is on the verge of falling apart? Such a weak dictator.

You really think the DOJ/FBI that is still foot dragging and going crazy with the redaction pen? They aren't about to admit they screwed the pooch if they can avoid it. The bureaucracy within isn't likely to admit their mistakes do easily.

He includes some seemingly outrageous examples found among text messages written by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his reported then-lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page. One of them reads, "Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA," where "Stu for this FISA" was redacted in a version turned over to Congress.

Other redactions included: "Went well, best we could have expected. Other than L.C.'s quote, 'the White house is running this'” (the initials “L.C.” had been redacted); and "Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT" ("BO" had been redacted).

An additional redaction included this entire section: "Clinton, Mills, and Abedin all said they felt the server was permitted and did not receive information that it was not. To the extent there was objection down the line in IRM, we did not pursue that as State OIG did, because it was not a key question behind our investigation. There are going to be many avenues we might have pursued if we had unlimited time and resources, but this is one of those categories of wouldn't have changed our fundamental understanding of the gravamen of the case."

According to Johnson, “None of the above redactions are clearly justified” under criteria outlined in Justice Department communications. “The FBI and the Justice Department have not explained the basis for redactions to these text messages, or any other document produced to date.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/392 ... gressional

They are too busy covering their asses to worry about indicting anyone involved.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:20 am

Lost in the nonsense about classified information and should she be locked up or given a medal, is that she did intentionally violate the requirements to keep the emails for the public record. I am pretty certain this is an administrative violation as opposed to a criminal one, which is probably why the Republicans ignored it, but I still think it shows Hillary Clinton's priorities in regards to her own importance.

Had she been running against anyone except Donald Trump, her choice to ignore the right of the public to have access to that information should have disqualified her. Or, at a minimum, been an important factor in the voters decision.

However, she was running against Donald Trump and the whole thing should have been tossed out the window in order to keep Trump from becoming president. Or, I suppose, the Democrats could have chosen a less controversial candidate.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:28 am

I consider private emails to avoid FOIA requests a major problem.

Just like Powell before her and the entire WH admin now.

So what? What now?

Everyone seems to be guilty of it. How do you stop it? I'm all for stopping it not on partisan grounds but on open government grounds.

I never lost sight of it but even if I tried the GOP call of "but her emails" wouldn't let me.

So now that I agree with you fitzy, now what?

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:04 pm

*snip*

Never mind. I give. You win.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:13 pm

Thanks.

Winning is all I ever wanted.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:34 pm

Fitzy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:20 am Lost in the nonsense about classified information and should she be locked up or given a medal, is that she did intentionally violate the requirements to keep the emails for the public record. I am pretty certain this is an administrative violation as opposed to a criminal one, which is probably why the Republicans ignored it, but I still think it shows Hillary Clinton's priorities in regards to her own importance.

Had she been running against anyone except Donald Trump, her choice to ignore the right of the public to have access to that information should have disqualified her. Or, at a minimum, been an important factor in the voters decision.

However, she was running against Donald Trump and the whole thing should have been tossed out the window in order to keep Trump from becoming president. Or, I suppose, the Democrats could have chosen a less controversial candidate.

I agree. Her baggage should have disqualified her from running, even though at least she is very competant. I still really, really wish Biden had run.