My Wife Plans to Resign from State Republican Central Committee

[CAA Flagship]

If you can't accept and admit that Hillary Clinton is in the upper echelon of corrupt politicians of all time, then you are the biggest idiot on this board. Actually, don't answer. You've already proven yourself as the biggest idiot here.

No, it means I am rational. I have historically opposed Hillary Clinton's policy positions. But it is true that the lunatic fringe right has been engaged in trying to demonize her for decades and that when you really look at what they have there's very little actual "there" there. Very little is actually substantiated. Like it's not substantiated that she attacked women accusing Bill of sexual misconduct. It's not substantiated that she lied about Benghazi. It's not substantiated that she lied about her e mails. It's not substantiated that there was any "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation.

Now, if it makes you feel better, it's pretty clear that it wasn't true when she said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Whoopdie doo. But most of the stuff people throw at her isn't substantiated.

And there is no "there" there with the Cattle futures thing. There's no evidence at all that she did anything wrong, corrupt, dishonest, or whatever.

You are sick and twisted. Either you are diseased or you have a disorder that nobody had the heart to tell you about. I will pray for your survival.

[Gil Dobie]

Now, if it makes you feel better, it's pretty clear that it wasn't true when she said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Whoopdie doo. But most of the stuff people throw at her isn't substantiated.

You are sick and twisted. Either you are diseased or you have a disorder that nobody had the heart to tell you about. I will pray for your survival.

Didn't Brian Williams lose his job over something similar, due to media pressure.

[Pwns]

Was Al Capone really such a bad guy? I mean, nothing was really proven except for all of that tax stuff, and heck, we all know a lot of us would get in trouble if we actually got audited! Just because someone has a constant trail of smoke behind them over many years doesn't mean there's any fire! I mean, it's not like white-collar law firm lawyers know how to get away with s*** or anything. Stop the witch hunt!

[GannonFan]

It's not substantiated that she lied about her e mails. It's not substantiated that there was any "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation.

Hey, I think we all realize you've turned into probably the biggest joke of a poster on this board and your bending over backward to tout your support of Hillary has pretty much lost you any sense of credibility you may have had before this, but those two things I left in the quote above have been substantiated and aren't even in doubt anymore. Heck, even ABCNews, hardly an anti-Clinton organization - heck, they're one of her biggest supporters - ran a whole expose about the pay to play benefits of companies trying to get there hands on the Haiti relief money from the earthquake a few years back. And the lies about the e-mails are numerous and don't even need any effort to find. You can choose to not care about the lies, that's everyone's choice, but lies they are nonetheless.

[93henfan]

Heck, that makes up for your Hamilton post.

[Ivytalk]

Heck, that makes up for your Hamilton post.

Dr. Heck and the Medicine Show.

[GannonFan]

Heck, that makes up for your Hamilton post.

Heck, don't be bad mouthing Hamilton. Haters gotta hate and all.

[JohnStOnge]

It's not substantiated that she lied about her e mails. It's not substantiated that there was any "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation.

Hey, I think we all realize you've turned into probably the biggest joke of a poster on this board and your bending over backward to tout your support of Hillary has pretty much lost you any sense of credibility you may have had before this, but those two things I left in the quote above have been substantiated and aren't even in doubt anymore. Heck, even ABCNews, hardly an anti-Clinton organization - heck, they're one of her biggest supporters - ran a whole expose about the pay to play benefits of companies trying to get there hands on the Haiti relief money from the earthquake a few years back. And the lies about the e-mails are numerous and don't even need any effort to find. You can choose to not care about the lies, that's everyone's choice, but lies they are nonetheless.

No, they have not, and your post illustrates the problem. You are absolutely convinced that those things have been substantiated and they haven't been.

In order to say that she lied about sending classified e mails, for instance, you have to be able to show that she knew some of the e mails she sent were classified. Can you do that?

"Inaccurate" is not the same as "lie." Yes, all lies are inaccurate statements. But not all inaccurate statements are lies.

I said the same thing when people were claiming George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The fact that he was wrong about that is no prima facie evidence that he lied.

[JohnStOnge]

On the pay for play thing involving Haiti. Politifact rates that claim as "False:"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-friend/

This has got to stop. Well, it won't. But it should. If you disagree with Clinton on issues, fine. I do most of the time too. But this stuff of continuously making unsubstantiated allegations about corruption SHOULD stop if you've got any integrity at all.

[JohnStOnge]

You know, I think I am part of "the right." But I am old. And I have noted that ever since Hillary Clinton emerged as a national figure there are elements of "the right" that have felt compelled to try to demonize her. All SORTS of things that have never been substantiated as instances in which she didn't do what "the right" accused her of. Cattle futures. Whitewater. Attacking sexual assault victims. Now it's lying about e mails and pay for play with the Clinton foundation.

Again: The ideas that she lied about sending/receiving classified e mails on her private server and that there was "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation are NOT substantiated. They just aren't.

To me, in the long run, this sort of thing just damages the credibility of "the right."

[BDKJMU]

If you can't accept and admit that Hillary Clinton is in the upper echelon of corrupt politicians of all time, then you are the biggest idiot on this board. Actually, don't answer. You've already proven yourself as the biggest idiot here.

No, it means I am rational. I have historically opposed Hillary Clinton's policy positions. But it is true that the lunatic fringe right has been engaged in trying to demonize her for decades and that when you really look at what they have there's very little actual "there" there. Very little is actually substantiated. Like it's not substantiated that she attacked women accusing Bill of sexual misconduct. It's not substantiated that she lied about Benghazi. It's not substantiated that she lied about her e mails. It's not substantiated that there was any "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation.

Now, if it makes you feel better, it's pretty clear that it wasn't true when she said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Whoopdie doo. But most of the stuff people throw at her isn't substantiated.

And there is no "there" there with the Cattle futures thing. There's no evidence at all that she did anything wrong, corrupt, dishonest, or whatever.

[Bisonoline]

You know, I think I am part of "the right." But I am old. And I have noted that ever since Hillary Clinton emerged as a national figure there are elements of "the right" that have felt compelled to try to demonize her. All SORTS of things that have never been substantiated as instances in which she didn't do what "the right" accused her of. Cattle futures. Whitewater. Attacking sexual assault victims. Now it's lying about e mails and pay for play with the Clinton foundation.

Again: The ideas that she lied about sending/receiving classified e mails on her private server and that there was "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation are NOT substantiated. They just aren't.

To me, in the long run, this sort of thing just damages the credibility of "the right."

REally??? Did you not listen to what the FBI report said? Or did you just listen and then hear what you wanted to?
Wow.

[Ivytalk]

You know, I think I am part of "the right." But I am old. And I have noted that ever since Hillary Clinton emerged as a national figure there are elements of "the right" that have felt compelled to try to demonize her. All SORTS of things that have never been substantiated as instances in which she didn't do what "the right" accused her of. Cattle futures. Whitewater. Attacking sexual assault victims. Now it's lying about e mails and pay for play with the Clinton foundation.

Again: The ideas that she lied about sending/receiving classified e mails on her private server and that there was "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation are NOT substantiated. They just aren't.

To me, in the long run, this sort of thing just damages the credibility of "the right."

Way to go, Jim Jones. You've polished off the last of the Kool-Aid.

[Baldy]

You know, I think I am part of "the right." But I am old. And I have noted that ever since Hillary Clinton emerged as a national figure there are elements of "the right" that have felt compelled to try to demonize her. All SORTS of things that have never been substantiated as instances in which she didn't do what "the right" accused her of. Cattle futures. Whitewater. Attacking sexual assault victims. Now it's lying about e mails and pay for play with the Clinton foundation.

Again: The ideas that she lied about sending/receiving classified e mails on her private server and that there was "pay for play" associated with the Clinton Foundation are NOT substantiated. They just aren't.

To me, in the long run, this sort of thing just damages the credibility of "the right."

You're old and obviously senile to boot.

I'll try to explain this one fact in a way that a senile dumb old man can understand. The Hildabeast said that the 30,000+ emails she deleted were personal...all about yoga and wedding plans. She LIED.

Even your (and Hillary's) biased friends at PolitiFact admit it...

Clinton had repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of the FBI investigation show that claim was incorrect.

Clinton skirted State Department rules about records management, security and transparency.

The State Department’s policy as of 2005 is that all day-to-day operations are to be conducted on the official State Department information channel, which Clinton never used. She was also obligated to discuss her setup with several internal offices and demonstrate that it was properly secure, yet she did not. Some of those officers told the State Department Inspector General that they never would have allowed the private email setup had she asked.

Clinton did not ensure that her work-related emails were preserved on the State Department system in real time, nor did she surrender them immediately when she left office.

Clinton says that at the time, she thought her setup was allowed. But it’s hard not to be skeptical of that narrative because she was involved in multiple memos urging employees to minimize personal email use. And Bureau of Diplomatic Security employees tried unsuccessfully to get Clinton to use a department-issued BlackBerry smartphone as soon as she took office.

Clinton’s email setup exposed her to hacking.

PolitiFact tried its best to explain away and whitewash this entire incident, but even they had to admit that The Hildabeast lied.

Most people rationalize their idiotic behavior to themselves in their head, but you're actually putting this shit out in the open for everyone to see.

[DSUrocks07]

"Plausible deniability"

JSO will by that excuse from anyone, hook, line, and sinker.

"Its okay because they didn't KNOW it was wrong to do so"

That's an excuse parents use for things their kids do when they're toddlers.

But everything about Trump is "100% his fault, his responsibility, his mess."

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.

[JohnStOnge]

REally??? Did you not listen to what the FBI report said? Or did you just listen and then hear what you wanted to?
Wow.

I did not read the official FBI report on the matter but I read the transcript of Comey's statement. I did not see anything to indicate that the FBI determined that Hillary knew she was sending classified e mails when she sent them. Also, I did not see anything to indicate that she knowingly sent anything marked classified.

If you saw something somewhere that I did not where the FBI said she knew she sent classified e mails go ahead and provide me with a quote and a link. That would change my opinion.

But if there isn't anything like that the FBI did not say anything to indicate that she lied. It did say that it found 110 e mails out of about 30,000 that were classified. He did say participants "know or should know. But he never, to my knowledge, said she knew. In order for her to have lied she would have to have KNOWN that was the case.

And, frankly, I find it completely plausible that someone could send 110 e mails out of 30,000 that were classified without realizing that those 110 were classified.

So anyway, go ahead and show me something on the FBI determining that she KNOWINGLY sent any classified e mails.

[JohnStOnge]

As a follow up to my previous post:

Here is a link to Comey's statement: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system

Here is one quote to note:

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,

And here is a quote pertaining to the determination pertaining to that:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information...

That is not a direct statement "She did not know the e mails were classified," but it IS a direct statement that they did not find clear evidence that she "...improperly stored or transmitted..." classified information on her personal system. And I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret that as saying they did not find clear evidence that she sent or received classified e mails on the personal system.

For sure I don't see anything in that statement saying it was determined that she knew she sent private e mails.

Again: This crap has got to stop. It's one thing to disagree with people on issues and there's plenty of basis for doing that with respect to Hillary Clinton. But I have never seen anything like the distortion and demonizing that's gone on with respect to her from the right over decades. Stretching the truth. Jumping to conclusions. Out and out lying. It's been effective, no doubt. But in the long run it doesn't make "the right" look good to act like this.

I would like for my "side"...and be assured that in the grand scheme of things I am on the "right" philosophically...to be intellectually honest. And it hasn't been when it comes to the effort to demonize Hillary Clinton.

[JohnStOnge]

Here we go again. Now it's the "right" saying there was "pay for play" involving Hillary agreeing at one point to do an appearance in Morocco for $12 million:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillar ... ccan-king/

But the agreement was made when Clinton was a private citizen. And she backed out before she started running for President. In fact that's what the e mail chain is really about. It's Clinton's staffer lamenting the way Clinton handled the back out.

There was no "pay for play." In the end there was no paying. And there was no playing. Clinton, who had made the agreement when she was a private citizen and made the decision to cancel before she began her Presidential campaign. This one falls into the "out and out lie" category. Calling that "pay for play" IS a lie because everybody knows the story. The information is there. It's even in that article I linked that starts out calling it pay for play. So everybody knows it wasn't play for play yet the "right" is still saying that it is. And it's another example of the "right" being intellectually dishonest in its effort to demonize Clinton.

[Gil Dobie]

As a follow up to my previous post:

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,

And here is a quote pertaining to the determination pertaining to that:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information...

I didn't intend to speed when I got a speeding ticket 20 years ago, but still had to pay the fine. Hillary broke the law and didn't have to pay for it.

[kalm]

Here we go again. Now it's the "right" saying there was "pay for play" involving Hillary agreeing at one point to do an appearance in Morocco for $12 million:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillar ... ccan-king/

But the agreement was made when Clinton was a private citizen. And she backed out before she started running for President. In fact that's what the e mail chain is really about. It's Clinton's staffer lamenting the way Clinton handled the back out.

There was no "pay for play." In the end there was no paying. And there was no playing. Clinton, who had made the agreement when she was a private citizen and made the decision to cancel before she began her Presidential campaign. This one falls into the "out and out lie" category. Calling that "pay for play" IS a lie because everybody knows the story. The information is there. It's even in that article I linked that starts out calling it pay for play. So everybody knows it wasn't play for play yet the "right" is still saying that it is. And it's another example of the "right" being intellectually dishonest in its effort to demonize Clinton.

Sure. And there's no quid pro quo in lobbying either....

[CID1990]

As a follow up to my previous post:

Here is a link to Comey's statement: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system

Here is one quote to note:

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,

And here is a quote pertaining to the determination pertaining to that:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information...

That is not a direct statement "She did not know the e mails were classified," but it IS a direct statement that they did not find clear evidence that she "...improperly stored or transmitted..." classified information on her personal system. And I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret that as saying they did not find clear evidence that she sent or received classified e mails on the personal system.

For sure I don't see anything in that statement saying it was determined that she knew she sent private e mails.

Again: This crap has got to stop. It's one thing to disagree with people on issues and there's plenty of basis for doing that with respect to Hillary Clinton. But I have never seen anything like the distortion and demonizing that's gone on with respect to her from the right over decades. Stretching the truth. Jumping to conclusions. Out and out lying. It's been effective, no doubt. But in the long run it doesn't make "the right" look good to act like this.

I would like for my "side"...and be assured that in the grand scheme of things I am on the "right" philosophically...to be intellectually honest. And it hasn't been when it comes to the effort to demonize Hillary Clinton.

Anyone who believes she did not know exactly what she was doing, that she did not know that classified info was being exposed by her actions, and that she was not placing her own aversion to legal oversight above national security is being willfully ignorant. YOU are being willfully ignorant.

I know this because based on your history on this forum I know you are a smart guy so that kills the possibility that you really believe what you are saying.

Yes, Trump is a goon. And yes, it is entirely possible that given a binary choice, Clinton would actually be at least a more stable executive. But we dont need to obfuscate and spin that somehow Clinton's transgression were not serious and not intentional. They were. And her own emails and email of her circle show that very clearly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

It's not substantiated that she lied about Benghazi.

Within 24 hours after the attack, on 9/12 there are telephone telephone transcripts of Clinton informing the Egyptian Prime Minister that the Benghazi attacks “had nothing to do with the film".

Email on the day after the attack, Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister that "we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

Also e-mailed Chelsea blaming it on Al Qadea.

Yet subsequent to that Clinton was lying to the American people and directly to the families of the deceased, going with the fairy tail store about a Youtube video. Course these e-mails & phone transcripts weren't made public until late last year.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/h ... s-al-qaeda
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... documents/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... eople.html

Anyone with half a brain could see she lied about the Benghazi terrorist attacks. It was done for political reasons- the Obama admin had been pedaling the narrative for several months that Al Qaeda was defeated and on the run. To then have to turn around and acknowledge a pre planned, weel coordinated Al Qaeda attack 8 weeks before the election would have been very politically damaging, so they tried to pin the blame on the Youtube video..

Hillary has been lying her whole life, and mostly gotten away with it.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/t-da ... y-clinton/

[93henfan]

I don't like how your quoting made it look like I said some stupid shit that JSO said.

It's almost like Hillary has hacked your post.

[BDKJMU]

I don't like how your quoting made it look like I said some stupid **** that JSO said.

It's almost like Hillary has hacked your post.

I was trying to quote only part of JSO's post (because they're are so f'ing long) that had quoted your post, and somehow I f'ed up the quotes making it look like you said the stupid shit JSO did. My bad. Fixed it.

[DSUrocks07]

Here we go again. Now it's the "right" saying there was "pay for play" involving Hillary agreeing at one point to do an appearance in Morocco for $12 million:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillar ... ccan-king/

But the agreement was made when Clinton was a private citizen. And she backed out before she started running for President. In fact that's what the e mail chain is really about. It's Clinton's staffer lamenting the way Clinton handled the back out.

There was no "pay for play." In the end there was no paying. And there was no playing. Clinton, who had made the agreement when she was a private citizen and made the decision to cancel before she began her Presidential campaign. This one falls into the "out and out lie" category. Calling that "pay for play" IS a lie because everybody knows the story. The information is there. It's even in that article I linked that starts out calling it pay for play. So everybody knows it wasn't play for play yet the "right" is still saying that it is. And it's another example of the "right" being intellectually dishonest in its effort to demonize Clinton.

Haha, "private citizen"? You mean like Trump has been for the last 30 years? something Clinton wasn't?

But you want to call out Trump for things he's done as a private citizen. Comical.

JSO whenever he hears the word "Trump":


#triggered

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.