Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Hillary Clinton - take 4


Recommended Posts

The difference is that lying under oath is a crime. It's called perjury and you can do hard time for it.

 

Maybe that's why they should've bothered.

 

Even her assistants pled the 5th to avoid perjury charges.

 

But Comey's agents were under strict advisement to make sure they handled things so that there would be no indictment. That advice came from Obama himself.

 

And you know this how?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perjury is a serious crime.

 

I'm  not following your point here.   Yes, perjury (lying under oath),  is a serious crime but lying to specific legal authorities, even when NOT under oath is ALSO a serious crime.  Again,  ask Martha Stewart.    Her crime was NOT lying under oath but lying to investigators.

 

Related to HRC:   looks like she lied to investigators,  so the Fed should have nailed her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm  not following your point here.   Yes, perjury (lying under oath),  is a serious crime but lying to specific legal authorities, even when NOT under oath is ALSO a serious crime.  Again,  ask Martha Steward.    Her crime was NOT lying under oath but lying to investigators.

 

Related to HRC:   looks like she lied to investigators,  so the Fed should have nailed her.

 

Sorry to correct you, James, but you did it twice. It's Martha Stewart, with a "t."  Not Steward.  Misspelling twice is a serious crime, even when not under oath! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to correct you, James, but you did it twice. It's Martha Stewart, with a "t."  Not Steward.  Misspelling twice is a serious crime, even when not under oath!

 

Thanks for the update.   This is a bad habit I have.    Just ask Jimmy Stewart!    :wacko:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obstructing justice and lying to investigators is also a crime and one doesn't have to be under oath.   Just ask Martha Steward.

 

While I'm not a lawyer I believe lying to the FBI,  even when NOT under oath,  is a crime.

When there are transcripts and recordings it makes so much easier to indict and prosecute. Why wasn't Comey there? He took every step he could to make it easy for her.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to correct you, James, but you did it twice. It's Martha Stewart, with a "t."  Not Steward.  Misspelling twice is a serious crime, even when not under oath! 

 

I was tempted to point this out, but I didnt want to get all SprocketMan about it like some people (not you).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm  not following your point here.   Yes, perjury (lying under oath),  is a serious crime but lying to specific legal authorities, even when NOT under oath is ALSO a serious crime.  Again,  ask Martha Stewart.    Her crime was NOT lying under oath but lying to investigators.

 

Her crime was insider trading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Her crime was insider trading.

 

Nope.   It was the cover up by Martha.   If she had admitted to inside trading when first asked she would have been fined and that is it.   The more serious charges she was sentenced for related to her lying to investigators  to cover up her inside trading.      

 

This is similar to the HRC case because the FBI believed she didn't commit a crime by placing security sensitive e-mails on her private server,   but to me it looks like she did lie to investigators by initially stating to the them she didn't put any security sensitive e-mails on her private server.   So there is still something the Feds should nail her on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.   It was the cover up by Martha.   If she had admitted to inside trading when first asked she would have been fined and that is it.   The more serious charges she was sentenced for related to her lying to investigators cover up her inside trading.      

 

Okay. I knew she was charged with insider trading, but if they used something else to bring her down I'll take you word. Too lazy to look into Martha's particulars.

 

Goes to show you - never lie in a way that can be proven. Always remember to either plead the 5th or to answer "not that I recall" or a version thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perjury is the offense of willfully providing false information.  The person must know the information is false and then willfully provide it.  There is no evidence that Clinton knew the information she provided was false.  

Considering the badgering she received during her inquisitions, amazing that she could remember anything correctly.

I believe Dir. Comey even stated that there are actually very few perjury cases and far fewer convictions anyway.

Her staff took the fifth to avoid possible prosecution for a crime other than perjury or their fear they may have committed a crime.  

Would the 8 inquisitions have let Clinton plead the 5th?  I doubt it.  They would have offered her immunity and forced her to testify.  If there was anything to which to testify.

As was evidenced by the questions the Republicans and especially Chavetz asked, they have no concept of how the state dept. works, shares information or classifies/sanitizes information.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Faced with having to look up dozens, if not hundreds, of articles from almost 3 decades of Clinton evil, you can imagine my relief at having found this recap put out 4 days ago by the famed hacker group, Anonymous.

 

If this is not enough of an answer for you, do your own research.

 

What a ridiculous montage! The music! Dick Morris! Makes me love Hillary even more. (Btw, my doctor told me a few years ago that he was forced to switch to automated records because Obama has a friend in the industry.) And so it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, dark, for the video. I think you or Mr6666 may have linked it in the past.

 

There's a lot of shady financial shenanigans, but there's also a lot of "assumed", "purported", "likely", "accused", and other vague language that assigns guilt when none was proven. Rumor and innuendo are the tools of Rush and his ilk. There are also instances of the narration using different language than what is in print on the screen that carries a different implication and/or tone, skewing the message.

 

And I had to groan at the condemnation of her for not voting to make English the official language of the US. Did Trump help fund this video? One problem with Anonymous is that they are anonymous, so you don't know what agenda is driving them from moment to moment.

 

The bit where the narrator uses a shrill, cartoonish angry-woman voice when she quotes Hillary about Banghazi is also something straight out of right-wing radio. The use of her "what difference does it make" quote from the Benghazi hearings is either ignorantly or intentionally used out of context in an attempt, much like Fox News, to twist the meaning of what she was saying. It wasn't "what difference does it make" that these men had died, it was "what difference does it make" what they believed was the motivation for the attack in the beginning, either a coordinated terror attack or a spontaneous reaction to that stupid YouTube video.

 

It also uses a lot of editorial language and bias, making for very shoddy journalism, with no sources for their allegations, either. And when Dick Morris shows up...yeesh.

 

The old Arkansas guy was a hoot, with the scary music playing as he talked about how terrified he is of her...lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, dark, for the video. I think you or Mr6666 may have linked it in the past.

 

There's a lot of shady financial shenanigans, but there's also a lot of "assumed", "purported", "likely", "accused", and other vague language that assigns guilt when none was proven.

 

Have you ever tried to prove something against a President who has that much power - the power to make evidence unavailable? And is a known and unrepentant liar?

 

Anyway, nothing in that video is made up. It's all taken from actual reports, transcripts and history books. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

 

But there's no making it so that these things didn't happen. Only the explanations for them differ. Clintonites do lots of denying, truth-seekers use logic and common sense to inform themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever tried to prove something against a President who has that much power - the power to make evidence unavailable? And is a known and unrepentant liar?

 

No doubt it's been tried at least 43 times (44, if you count Grover Cleveland twice). I'm not being cynical -- just following the old saying of one of my philosophy profs:  

 

"Does this paper rip because it's defective or because it's paper?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obstructing justice and lying to investigators is also a crime and one doesn't have to be under oath.   Just ask Martha Stewart.

 

While I'm not a lawyer I believe lying to the FBI,  even when NOT under oath,  is a crime.

..not if you have your fingers crossed behind your back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, dark, for the video. I think you or Mr6666 may have linked it in the past.

 

There's a lot of shady financial shenanigans, but there's also a lot of "assumed", "purported", "likely", "accused", and other vague language that assigns guilt when none was proven. Rumor and innuendo are the tools of Rush and his ilk. There are also instances of the narration using different language than what is in print on the screen that carries a different implication and/or tone, skewing the message.

 

And I had to groan at the condemnation of her for not voting to make English the official language of the US. Did Trump help fund this video? One problem with Anonymous is that they are anonymous, so you don't know what agenda is driving them from moment to moment.

 

The bit where the narrator uses a shrill, cartoonish angry-woman voice when she quotes Hillary about Banghazi is also something straight out of right-wing radio. The use of her "what difference does it make" quote from the Benghazi hearings is either ignorantly or intentionally used out of context in an attempt, much like Fox News, to twist the meaning of what she was saying. It wasn't "what difference does it make" that these men had died, it was "what difference does it make" what they believed was the motivation for the attack in the beginning, either a coordinated terror attack or a spontaneous reaction to that stupid YouTube video.

 

It also uses a lot of editorial language and bias, making for very shoddy journalism, with no sources for their allegations, either. And when Dick Morris shows up...yeesh.

 

The old Arkansas guy was a hoot, with the scary music playing as he talked about how terrified he is of her...lol.

 

I couldn't get through the whole thing. The tone was off putting. Attempts to persuade fail because of the treatment. If you already hate Hillary this will seem good to you with the illusion that viewers will be won over. But if you're the least bit objective about Hillary you will feel manipulated by this video. So transparent in intent. The makers of stuff like this fear pillorying Hillary with the pretense of objectivity because it may leave wiggle room for doubt, but that nevertheless would be better than this "protest too much" fiasco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever tried to prove something against a President who has that much power - the power to make evidence unavailable? And is a known and unrepentant liar?

 

Anyway, nothing in that video is made up. It's all taken from actual reports, transcripts and history books. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

 

But there's no making it so that these things didn't happen. Only the explanations for them differ. Clintonites do lots of denying, truth-seekers use logic and common sense to inform themselves.

 

I may be a lot of things, but a Clintonite ain't one. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best, Hillary as a politician garners about a 4 in my book. But Trump gets a 2, (and that's only because he hasn't actually done any real damage yet).

 

I would have preferred Bernie. Although I think he would have been ineffectual, his message is in the right direction, and I think he's a true believer, despite some vocal arguments to the contrary. I sincerely hope that Bernie does more work at the grass roots level to foster new, more politically attractive candidates to carry on his message, to vote for down the line, because the pickings have been slim for quite a while now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be a lot of things, but a Clintonite ain't one. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best, Hillary as a politician garners about a 4 in my book. But Trump gets a 2, (and that's only because he hasn't actually done any real damage yet).

 

I would have preferred Bernie. Although I think he would have been ineffectual, his message is in the right direction, and I think he's a true believer, despite some vocal arguments to the contrary. I sincerely hope that Bernie does more work at the grass roots level to foster new, more politically attractive candidates to carry on his message, to vote for down the line, because the pickings have been slim for quite a while now.

 

And what kind of effect will Hillary have?

 

What has she ever done that's good? That made anything better for regular everyday people?

 

If Bernie doesn't run - and you don't want to write him in like many of his supporters are gonna do - vote Jill Stein.

 

If Trump wins, he wins. It'll be a show for the next 4 ridiculous years watching him flounder around getting  nothing accomplished. Even the military will probably disobey Trump if he tries anything nuts.

 

But the revolution towards Democratic Socialism will continue - and move even faster - under Trump. Under Hillary - well, I don't think the country can take that much more insidiousness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what kind of effect will Hillary have?

 

What has she ever done that's good? That made anything better for regular everyday people?

 

Despite how it turned out, she did attempt healthcare reform, and a move toward single-payer, which is a good thing, imo.

 

She won't seek to repeal abortion laws, or marriage equality. She will appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, unlike Trump. She won't instigate a trade war which would most likely plunge us into another recession, or worse. She won't waste time or money on a giant border wall.

 

That'll have to do, for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what kind of effect will Hillary have?

 

What has she ever done that's good? That made anything better for regular everyday people?

 

There's something about your hatred for Hillary that reminds me of the film Gilda.  The "I hate you so much I can't stand it..." routine. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/

 

gilda-1946-04-g.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something about your hatred for Hillary that reminds me of the film Gilda.  The "I hate you so much I can't stand it..." routine. 

 

I don't hate her. I just want her to go home and stay there.

 

America will be much better off without her in public life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be a lot of things, but a Clintonite ain't one. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best, Hillary as a politician garners about a 4 in my book. But Trump gets a 2, (and that's only because he hasn't actually done any real damage yet).

 

I would have preferred Bernie. Although I think he would have been ineffectual, his message is in the right direction, and I think he's a true believer, despite some vocal arguments to the contrary. I sincerely hope that Bernie does more work at the grass roots level to foster new, more politically attractive candidates to carry on his message, to vote for down the line, because the pickings have been slim for quite a while now.

 

The pickings are nearly always slim. I'm sure we all aware by now that when it finally narrows to the top two, we don't have a choice as to which angel is the best. Any reasonable person already knows that she didn't get where she is by being a virtuous human being. All this hate says more about the hater than the hated. Let's continue kicking the dead horse, shall we? A lot of good that's going to do. I'm a minimalist about all this. Hillary, no matter how much people hate her, is still a safer choice than the unknown Donny. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...