Toggle sidebar

2016 Election - Clinton: The Hillary Clinton Thread

Bazza said:
More PR damage - even if no legal action ever takes place.

There are so many voters who already don't trust her....the hits just keep on coming!

:biggrin2:
Click to expand...

Yep. It's something new every day and amazingly it doesn't get covered in the mainstream.
 
This Hillary ad is going around twitter this morning not because of what it says but because of the guy in it...

CjYldOpUkAISx4R.jpg


You can have this same guy advertise for you if you buy the stock photo.

CjYldPzVAAA4pH0.jpg


One company with their ad mentioning syphilis did.

CjY6A3PVAAQg9I3.jpg:large
 
What idiot thought that would be a good idea? Even if this guy was for real, would that make sense? If you gave me that caption and told me to hire a model, I'd come up with some tough looking macho dude. Not some Village People reject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ht-lying-year-email-scandal-article-1.2651043

Seven months ago I made a mistake. I took Hillary Clinton at her word concerning the never-ending scandal surrounding her email accounts. When she and Bernie debated all the way back in October, and Bernie famously said to her, "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails," that was the nail in the coffin for me on the issue.

Since then, I haven't mentioned her email issues on social media or in a single column. She said everything was on the up and up. I believed her.

She lied.
Click to expand...
 
I've wondered from the start if the Emails she released match up with sent/received emails actually in the State Department system.

None of this is even remotely surprising.

She has demonstrated repeatedly that she has her own set of rules. She has demonstrated a willingness to completely misrepresent practically any situation. She appears to feel completely justified in doing so by the end result she is trying to attain.

The same could probably be said for Trump.

I hate voting against someone more than for someone as much as anyone. For me that ratio is the worst ever. I fully do not look forward to a Trump presidency. However, if I am going to participate in the process, I have no problem participating in such a way that gives the best chance to keep her out.

Sanders would be a dilemma for me. His political belief system is fully against what I believe is best for this country, but I don't believe he is anywhere near as void of character as either Clinton or Trump.
 
It was opined months ago that these things would be leaked by the Obama administration in order to damage the Hillary campaign. I don't know if its true, neither do I care. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we're rid of the both of them, the better it will be for the whole country.
 
Megan McArdle has a piece out about Hillary's email woes. She definitely calls a spade a spade in this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...nigans-sure-don-t-look-like-an-honest-mistake

It [the recent OIG report] lays to rest the longtime Clinton defense that this use of a private server was somehow normal and allowed by government rules: It was not normal, and was not allowed by the government rules in place at the time “The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”

It also shreds the defense that “Well, Colin Powell did it too” into very fine dust, and then neatly disposes of the dust.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good read on the character of Hillary:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/hillarys-long-record-of-lying-to-keep-the-public-in-the-dark/

The last time she lived in the White House, Hillary Clinton was in charge of a health care task force that met in secret under a veil of lies. That episode highlighted the haughtiness, deceit and disdain for transparency that continue to cause trouble for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as illustrated by the recent inspector general’s report on her email practices as secretary of state.

When President Bill Clinton picked his wife to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993, critics sued the first lady, arguing that her participation made the task force subject to the public-meeting and open-record requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The administration successfully argued that Mrs. Clinton, who was not a government employee, nevertheless should be counted as one in this context, making the transparency requirements inapplicable.

There remained the issue of the working groups advising the task force, which supposedly consisted entirely of government employees. That turned out to be a lie.

In 1997 — three years after the Clinton health care plan was defeated, in no small part because of the perception that it had been written behind closed doors without public input and debate — US District Judge Royce Lamberth rebuked the administration for its “outrageous” and “reprehensible” deception concerning participants in the working groups, many of whom were private parties with a stake in the outcome.

“The executive branch of the Government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court,’’ he wrote. “It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of Government.”

Two decades later, Clinton’s old habits of entitlement and obfuscation are coming to the fore again. “Voters just don’t trust her,” the New York Times notes, citing a recent survey in which 64 percent of respondents said Clinton is not “honest and trustworthy.” Her response to the email controversy shows why.

When Clinton was appointed secretary of state, the report from the State Department’s inspector general says, departmental policy clearly stated that officials should avoid using private email services for work.
Although Clinton has repeatedly claimed this arrangement was “allowed by the State Department,” the inspector general’s report says she never sought approval and would not have received it if she had. Yet even after the report came out, Clinton told ABC News her use of a personal email account “was allowed.”

The report says Clinton also broke the rules by failing to surrender her official correspondence prior to leaving the State Department. She didn’t do so until nearly two years later, and even then many messages were missing, including everything from her first few months as secretary of state.
Clinton also is less than forthcoming in discussing her motivation for using private email. She says it was a matter of convenience. Yet in 2010, when an aide urged her to use the State Department system instead, she replied that “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Around the same time, the report says, two employees of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management broached the subject, and their boss “instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”

One can only imagine the choice words Mrs. Clinton has for the Freedom of Information Act.
 
I will confess (despite my own anti-Trump sentiments) that one of the most hilarious things to watch is a Hillary supporter calling Trump a liar and saying they cannot vote for Trump.......because he lies. (Yes, both of them lie almost pathologically, but only one is supposedly 'qualified' to be President.....by virtue of being married to one).
 
ValuJet said:
Good read on the character of Hillary:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/hillarys-long-record-of-lying-to-keep-the-public-in-the-dark/

The last time she lived in the White House, Hillary Clinton was in charge of a health care task force that met in secret under a veil of lies. That episode highlighted the haughtiness, deceit and disdain for transparency that continue to cause trouble for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as illustrated by the recent inspector general’s report on her email practices as secretary of state.

When President Bill Clinton picked his wife to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993, critics sued the first lady, arguing that her participation made the task force subject to the public-meeting and open-record requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The administration successfully argued that Mrs. Clinton, who was not a government employee, nevertheless should be counted as one in this context, making the transparency requirements inapplicable.

There remained the issue of the working groups advising the task force, which supposedly consisted entirely of government employees. That turned out to be a lie.

In 1997 — three years after the Clinton health care plan was defeated, in no small part because of the perception that it had been written behind closed doors without public input and debate — US District Judge Royce Lamberth rebuked the administration for its “outrageous” and “reprehensible” deception concerning participants in the working groups, many of whom were private parties with a stake in the outcome.

“The executive branch of the Government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court,’’ he wrote. “It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of Government.”

Two decades later, Clinton’s old habits of entitlement and obfuscation are coming to the fore again. “Voters just don’t trust her,” the New York Times notes, citing a recent survey in which 64 percent of respondents said Clinton is not “honest and trustworthy.” Her response to the email controversy shows why.

When Clinton was appointed secretary of state, the report from the State Department’s inspector general says, departmental policy clearly stated that officials should avoid using private email services for work.
Although Clinton has repeatedly claimed this arrangement was “allowed by the State Department,” the inspector general’s report says she never sought approval and would not have received it if she had. Yet even after the report came out, Clinton told ABC News her use of a personal email account “was allowed.”

The report says Clinton also broke the rules by failing to surrender her official correspondence prior to leaving the State Department. She didn’t do so until nearly two years later, and even then many messages were missing, including everything from her first few months as secretary of state.
Clinton also is less than forthcoming in discussing her motivation for using private email. She says it was a matter of convenience. Yet in 2010, when an aide urged her to use the State Department system instead, she replied that “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Around the same time, the report says, two employees of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management broached the subject, and their boss “instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”

One can only imagine the choice words Mrs. Clinton has for the Freedom of Information Act.
Click to expand...

anyone who thinks that Clinton had a private email system for any reason other than to try to hide from FOIA is delusional
 
Jon said:
anyone who thinks that Clinton had a private email system for any reason other than to try to hide from FOIA is delusional
Click to expand...

I always assumed she maintained a private server to hide the fact she was shaking down other nations and U.S. corporations for fat donations to the Clinton Family Foundation. And maybe she was engaging in this sort of high level racketeering, but it appears the FBI has bigger fish to fry regarding how often she was hacked and to what level it provided information resulting in events like Benghazi.

Sad and pathetic that this is how our government is operating. And the accountability is all political.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back