What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," - Donald Trump 2016

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” - Hillary Clinton 2008

I think both of these quotes are pretty awful but is there really any difference in the two?
Let's assume for a split second that we live in a reality where both of those quotes are equal.

Clinton immediately apologized for her quote. The press grumbled for a few days and everyone moved on, and Hillary's reputation was not permanently damaged.

So far, Trump is refusing to do the same.

So, if you want to argue that both quotes are equally awful, then you should acknowledge that Trump is wrong for refusing to apologize like Clinton did.

(Of course, now I expect the Trumpkins to come back with some obscure example of a time when Hillary refused to apologize for something, even though the scenario has nothing to do with the current scenario. "HILLARY DIDN'T APOLOGIZE EITHER!!")

 
Are there really people who don't understand the difference between what Clinton said in 2008 and what Trump said yesterday?

If you honestly don't see the difference, try this: imagine RFK had died in a car accident instead of at the hands of an assassin.  It would change absolutely nothing about Clinton's 2008 comment. Her point would be the same- #### happens, so I might as well keep campaigning to help my cause in case it happens again.

You can't remove the assassination element from Trump's comments.  Why?  Because he's not merely contemplating her death, as Clinton was doing with Obama with the RFK comment. He's contemplating her being killed by particular people, people that he is also inciting to oppose her in the very same quote.

These are two totally different things. Clinton's comment was terrible and she was rightly criticized for it and apologized for it.  Trump's comment was way, way, way worse.

 
E-Mails by Clinton Aides Show State-Foundation Links


Newly released e-mails from a top aide to Hillary Clinton show evidence of contacts between Clinton’s State Department and donors to her family foundation and political campaigns.

The e-mails released Tuesday by the conservative group Judicial Watch included a 2009 exchange in which Doug Band, a senior staff member at the Clinton Foundation, told a top Clinton aide at the State Department that it was “important to take care of” an individual, whose name was redacted.

Huma Abedin, the State Department aide, replied that “personnel has been sending him options.”

... In 2011, Band became co-founder of Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm with international clients. Abedin at times held overlapping jobs with the State Department, Teneo, and the Clinton Foundation, an arrangement that Judicial Watch has questioned through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

In another 2009 exchange released Tuesday, Band asked Abedin and Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury in touch with a State Department "substance person" on Lebanon. The Chagoury Group co-founder has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a list of donors posted online.

... A lawyer for Abedin declined to comment.

... Judicial Watch released 296 e-mails Tuesday, most sent to or from Abedin but not necessarily Clinton, whose use of a private e-mail system has caused an uproar. The cache did include 44 previously unreleased exchanges sent or received by Clinton. The newly released e-mails included a mix of State Department and personal e-mails.

Judicial Watch said it has now found 171 messages that weren’t included in the 30,000 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department. FBI Director James Comey has said that his agency found “several thousand” work-related e-mails that weren’t turned over by Clinton’s lawyers. Clinton has told the State Department she believes she submitted all work-related e-mails she had in her possession, the department’s Trudeau said in a statement.

...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-09/e-mails-by-clinton-aides-show-state-department-foundation-links

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aw....you're being modest squis...don't forget your meltdowns and mental gymnastics that added to the crazy :lol:   add a little Tim (well, a lot of Tim) and this thread's been pretty entertaining for sure.
Oh, that reminds me, I also should have mentioned you daily snark, smugness and condescension. Thanks! 

 
Are there really people who don't understand the difference between what Clinton said in 2008 and what Trump said yesterday?

If you honestly don't see the difference, try this: imagine RFK had died in a car accident instead of at the hands of an assassin.  It would change absolutely nothing about Clinton's 2008 comment. Her point would be the same- #### happens, so I might as well keep campaigning to help my cause in case it happens again.

You can't remove the assassination element from Trump's comments.  Why?  Because he's not merely contemplating her death, as Clinton was doing with Obama with the RFK comment. He's contemplating her being killed by particular people, people that he is also inciting to oppose her in the very same quote.

These are two totally different things. Clinton's comment was terrible and she was rightly criticized for it and apologized for it.  Trump's comment was way, way, way worse.
Excellent post!

 
Agree.  The two comments are not closely equitable.  
And adding to that:

Maggie Haberman@maggieNYT 3h3 hours ago

Can't follow the thruline of argument of Trump supporters pointing to Clinton's ill-advised RFK comment of June 2008.

Maggie Haberman@maggieNYT 3h3 hours ago


Clinton acknowledged saying it and apologized for it. Trump is claiming he didn't say what he said and blaming press.

 
Are there really people who don't understand the difference between what Clinton said in 2008 and what Trump said yesterday?

If you honestly don't see the difference, try this: imagine RFK had died in a car accident instead of at the hands of an assassin.  It would change absolutely nothing about Clinton's 2008 comment. Her point would be the same- #### happens, so I might as well keep campaigning to help my cause in case it happens again.

You can't remove the assassination element from Trump's comments.  Why?  Because he's not merely contemplating her death, as Clinton was doing with Obama with the RFK comment. He's contemplating her being killed by particular people, people that he is also inciting to oppose her in the very same quote.

These are two totally different things. Clinton's comment was terrible and she was rightly criticized for it and apologized for it.  Trump's comment was way, way, way worse.
If you want to play that game, change Trump saying the 2nd amendment to the 12th amendment.  It is silly, each said what each said.

I can't stand Trump and I'm open to believing what he said was worse than what Hillary said but on their face what each said sound more similar to me than different.

 
If you want to play that game, change Trump saying the 2nd amendment to the 12th amendment.  It is silly, each said what each said.

I can't stand Trump and I'm open to believing what he said was worse than what Hillary said but on their face what each said sound more similar to me than different.
Look at it this way: in the Clinton quote, the act of assassination was irrelevant and entirely incidental to the point (I will continue to campaign because #### can happen, for example RFK died after this point in the 1968 campaign).  In the other the act of assassination was the entire point (maybe someone who really cares about defending the second amendment could kill her after she's won the right to nominate judges since there's no other way to stop her from doing so if she wins). 

Even the Trump campaign is aware that what he said is far worse than Clinton's poor choice of examples ... which is why they're trying to make the illogical argument that he was actually talking about political mobilization rather than assassination. They're running from it because they know how bad it was. Clinton didn't need to run from it because it was merely a case of choosing a bad example to make a valid point.

 
I don't know why this is so hard - politics, I suppose.

What they each said was inappropriate - its not a ####-measuring contest.  You don't get to be less inappropriate here.  Its a binary measurement.

 
I don't know why this is so hard - politics, I suppose.

What they each said was inappropriate - its not a ####-measuring contest.  You don't get to be less inappropriate here.  Its a binary measurement.
Prefacing one of the worst, most illogical statements I've ever read around these parts with "I don't know why this is so hard" is a nice touch.

 
The General said:
In this thread we find the "many people" the orange guy is always talking about. Some serious tinhatters in here :lol:
I wouldn't be so quick to laugh at tin hatters anymore. They just were vindicated with the DNC email hack after all.

 
dutch said:
Simple. 

Clinton was inappropriate when she suggested she was staying in the race in case something crazy happened to Obama, like what happened to RFK.

Trump was inappropriate for suggesting 2nd Amendmenters can stop Clinton from making judicial appointments.

Neither person was referring to wanting someone else to kill their opponent, both were poorly thought out thoughts - not considering the implications.  Clinton knows/knew crazy stuff can happen.  Trump knows/knew the considerable political pressure that the NRA/Gun Lobby can bring to politics.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know,"  - Donald Trump 2016

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”  - Hillary Clinton 2008

I think both of these quotes are pretty awful but is there really any difference in the two?
Hillary apologized for that comment almost immediately.

As opposed to blaming the lying media and claiming she said something different that what was actually recorded.

eta - crap, Squis already posted a tweet saying the exact same thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Simple. 

Clinton was inappropriate when she suggested she was staying in the race in case something crazy happened to Obama, like what happened to RFK.

Trump was inappropriate for suggesting 2nd Amendmenters can stop Clinton from making judicial appointments.

Neither person was referring to wanting someone else to kill their opponent, both were poorly thought out thoughts - not considering the implications.  Clinton knows/knew crazy stuff can happen.  Trump knows/knew the considerable political pressure that the NRA/Gun Lobby can bring to politics.
Even if this were true (it's not, because you left out how 2nd Amendmenters could stop judicial appointments after Clinton wins the election, which is the whole freaking point), here you are arguing that they were equally inappropriate. That was not your original argument. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you said "You don't get to be less inappropriate here.  Its a binary measurement" you sure seemed to be arguing that there's no such thing as degrees of impropriety. If so, that's obviously wrong.

 
Hillary showed her colors as an opportunist.  Trump showed his colors as a reckless and dangerous maniac.  

 
Even if this were true (it's not, because you left out how 2nd Amendmenters could stop judicial appointments after Clinton wins the election, which is the whole freaking point), here you are arguing that they were equally inappropriate. That was not your original argument. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you said "You don't get to be less inappropriate here.  Its a binary measurement" you sure seemed to be arguing that there's no such thing as degrees of impropriety. If so, that's obviously wrong.
Maybe I was not clear - I think they were both inappropriate statements.  One side arguing with the other over which is more inappropriate is just folly.  Neither side has a high ground here.

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, and am not trying to take sides here - mostly because its silly.  

I will add this though - What do you think Trump had to gain, by insinuating that some gun nut should kill Clinton?  I ask, only because I do not think Trump mis-speaks.  He says a lot of crazy things - but I think he knows what he is saying, and has a purpose.  i.e. "We should ban Muslims" - crazy, unworkable, and not effective, but there is an audience for that who will become more emboldened Trump supporters just for Trump saying it.  So, I can see the purpose, yet still find the statement to be crazy.  With this latest comment - what is the upside for Trump?  It won't help him if someone actually kills Clinton, in fact, it would hurt, even more than the bad pub he is getting now.  So, I really don't think he made those comments suggesting, or hoping, that a gun nut would suddenly decide to kill Clinton.  Of course, that is the way it came across - and that makes it inappropriate.  I think Trump did not consider how it would come out.

Same thing with Clinton.  I bet we could go back to the threads in here from 2008 and find people talking about the risks that someone crazy would kill Obama if he got the nomination, just because he was black.  It was not a novel theory....  I don't think Clinton was suggesting, or hoping, that anyone assassinate Obama when she made her comments, but it was inappropriate. 

 
Maybe I was not clear - I think they were both inappropriate statements.  One side arguing with the other over which is more inappropriate is just folly.  Neither side has a high ground here.
Here is the flaw in your argument, or one of them at least.  It's not a "side" thing.  Anyone, regardless of their political leanings, can condemn Clinton's statement as inappropriate while also acknowledging the obvious fact that Trump's was significantly more inappropriate, for reasons that have been explained several times in this thread.

I will add this though - What do you think Trump had to gain, by insinuating that some gun nut should kill Clinton?
Probably nothing, although some might argue that he loves to grab the headlines and dominate news coverage because he thinks "there's no such thing as bad publicity." It speaks to his recklessness, not his intent to have her killed.  And his brand of recklessness combined with other aspects of his shtick (indulging conspiracy theories, fomenting anger towards government and politicians, scapegoating, glorifying violence as a means of resolving disputes, and so on) are incredibly dangerous.  None of those things were present when Clinton simply chose a terrible example to make her case eight years ago.

 
Does anyone really think he meant anything violent with the 2nd amendment comment other than they can help get defeat her by voting for him? That would make him as cold as, well, Hillary. Geez, this is definitely the silly season. 

 
Does anyone really think he meant anything violent with the 2nd amendment comment other than they can help get defeat her by voting for him? That would make him as cold as, well, Hillary. Geez, this is definitely the silly season. 


Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.
I'd love to hear you try to explain how "if she gets to pick" then "maybe there is [still something you can do]" is somehow a reference to defeating her by voting for him, which would mean she wouldn't get to "pick" in the first place, which contradicts the whole premise of the statement.

Please, educate us.

 
You guys are giving Trump WAAAAAAAAY too much credit IMO.  It's getting up there with the conspiracy theorists that thought GWB was behind 9/11 levels of credit.  Take a deep breath and think.

 
I'd love to hear you try to explain how "if she gets to pick" then "maybe there is [still something you can do]" is somehow a reference to defeating her by voting for him, which would mean she wouldn't get to "pick" in the first place, which contradicts the whole premise of the statement.

Please, educate us.
I took it as gun owners could use the threat of violence against government officials "coming for their guns" after the 2nd amendment was hypothetically abolished. 

 
I took it as gun owners could use the threat of violence against government officials "coming for their guns" after the 2nd amendment was hypothetically abolished. 
Not sure I follow how you could get that from what he said- he's clearly talking about there not being anything you can do about Clinton picking judges). But I don't think it matters. A presidential candidate saying people could/should rise up in armed revolt if you disagree with the actions of public officials operating within their legal authority because you've invented a fiction in which Constitutional amendments can be "abolished" isn't exactly responsible behavior either.

This has all been discussed ad nauseum in a variety of places.  It was very clear what he was implying.  Saying otherwise is either disingenuous or allowing yourself to be swayed by after-the-fact rationalizations by Trump PR people who can't even get their own story straight and have been contradicting each other.

 
Not sure I follow how you could get that from what he said- he's clearly talking about there not being anything you can do about Clinton picking judges). But I don't think it matters. A presidential candidate saying people could/should rise up in armed revolt if you disagree with the actions of public officials operating within their legal authority because you've invented a fiction in which Constitutional amendments can be "abolished" isn't exactly responsible behavior either.

This has all been discussed ad nauseum in a variety of places.  It was very clear what he was implying.  Saying otherwise is either disingenuous or allowing yourself to be swayed by after-the-fact rationalizations by Trump PR people who can't even get their own story straight and have been contradicting each other.
I was relaying my initial reaction.  I thought he was referring to abolishing the 2nd amendment, not the picking of a judge.  Still a horrible and stupid thing to say, of course.

 
Not sure I follow how you could get that from what he said- he's clearly talking about there not being anything you can do about Clinton picking judges). But I don't think it matters. A presidential candidate saying people could/should rise up in armed revolt if you disagree with the actions of public officials operating within their legal authority because you've invented a fiction in which Constitutional amendments can be "abolished" isn't exactly responsible behavior either.

This has all been discussed ad nauseum in a variety of places.  It was very clear what he was implying.  Saying otherwise is either disingenuous or allowing yourself to be swayed by after-the-fact rationalizations by Trump PR people who can't even get their own story straight and have been contradicting each other.
I think it's the most logical interpretation of what he said.  It's what I thought at the time.  And I don't see how I'm being swayed by Trump's rationalizations because Trump has never offered that explanation.  And sure, it's pretty much every bit as offensive, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to act as if the only possible interpretation was a call to assassinate Hillary or her judges.  Particularly because, as someone pointed out yesterday, that wouldn't actually work. 

 
I think it's the most logical interpretation of what he said.  It's what I thought at the time.  And I don't see how I'm being swayed by Trump's rationalizations because Trump has never offered that explanation.  And sure, it's pretty much every bit as offensive, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to act as if the only possible interpretation was a call to assassinate Hillary or her judges.  Particularly because, as someone pointed out yesterday, that wouldn't actually work. 
I still don't really see it, but like I said I also don't think it matters.  Contemplating armed revolt against the government officials who come for your guns after the 2nd Amendment is abolished (in some fantasy world where that's a thing) isn't really any better than contemplating armed revolt against the government officials who do the abolishing.

 
I'd love to hear you try to explain how "if she gets to pick" then "maybe there is [still something you can do]" is somehow a reference to defeating her by voting for him, which would mean she wouldn't get to "pick" in the first place, which contradicts the whole premise of the statement.

Please, educate us.
You want to apply logic to campaign speeches?  I don't perceive it to be an invitation to violence. 

 
I still don't really see it, but like I said I also don't think it matters.  Contemplating armed revolt against the government officials who come for your guns after the 2nd Amendment is abolished (in some fantasy world where that's a thing) isn't really any better than contemplating armed revolt against the government officials who do the abolishing.
I think discussing the underlying point of what Trump said - whether Hillary & the USSC can 'abolish' the 2A, whether people have a right to revolt - is futile and pointless. I see the argument for ambiguity but I don't agree with it. To me it's obvious what he was saying, but even if someone disagrees it is more of the same from Trump in that his inability to inarticulate things in a clear fashion is just another reason why he shouldn't be elected and why even his candidacy causes harm. Political violence is poison to a country. We have been so lucky to avoid it. But he and Stone seemed intent to bring it to the convention if they didn't get their way. Not only that if people want to argue ambiguity in his favor, it could also be argued against him that he actively is desiring a hit to make him president. There are enough fascistic, race war types out there supporting him to make this real.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does it surprise anyone (other than the usual suspects) that emails held back were strategically withheld because they reveal inappropriate relationships between private interests and State? 

Absurd the lengths the DOJ has gone through to cover this up and block investigation. This is the face of modern American political corruption.

Trump is an unfathomable choice, but half of me would like to see him win just to ensure a proper RICO investigation.

Otherwise, it'll all get buried -- though it is apparent there were real crimes.  

 
Last edited:
Does it surprise anyone (other than the usual suspects) that emails held back were strategically withheld because they reveal inappropriate relationships between private interests and State? 

Absurd the lengths the DOJ has gone through to cover this up and block investigation. This is the face of modern American political corruption.

Trump is an unfathomable choice, but half of me would like to see him win just to ensure a proper RICO investigation.

Otherwise, it'll all get buried -- though it is apparent there were real crimes.  
Actually I think if Hillary is elected there will be non-stop investigations, hearings, house select committees on emails, Benghazi again, etc. beginning day 1.

 
Email shows Mills was told of key Clinton FOIA request


A newly released email message shows that Hillary Clinton's State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills was alerted within days in December 2012 when a liberal watchdog group requested records describing all the email accounts used by Clinton.

Six months later, state sent a letter to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, saying that no records could be found. A State Department inspector general report issued in January described the episode as part of a pattern of "inaccurate and incomplete responses" to FOIA requests.

...The January State IG report found evidence that Mills was advised of the CREW FOIA request "and subsequently tasked staff to follow up." However, the newly disclosed emails — obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch through an FOIA lawsuit — show the details of what Mills was told and just who was supposed to be involved in following up on the request. The IG shared many of those details with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, but they were not contained in the report.

An email chain shows that the CREW inquiry landed on a regular list of "significant" FOIA requests received by the State Department. A State spokesman, Brock Johnson, clipped out the portion about the Dec. 6, 2012 CREW request on Clinton's email use and forwarded it to Mills.

"FYI on the attached FOIA request from: ....Anne Weismann of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington," Johnson wrote in a Dec. 11 message to Mills.

"Thanks," Mills wrote back about an hour-and-a-half later.

Another document released to Judicial Watch shows that about a month later, state officials organized a conference call to talk about CREW's request. Those to be included were two senior officials involved with State's FOIA operations, Sheryl Walter and Karen Finnegan, as well as a senior adviser and White House liaison for State, Heather Samuelson. It is unclear whether the call ever took place.

After leaving the State Department, Samuelson went on to screen the contents of the email messages Clinton kept on a private server during her tenure as secretary of state. Samuelson was tasked with separating personal messages from work-related ones and eventually testified before a closed-door session of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Asked about the CREW FOIA request during a deposition in May, Mills said she had no "specific recollection" of the issue before it came to the fore again in recent months.


... While the emails about the CREW request confirm Mills' awareness of the issue at the outset, the messages do not show that Mills was involved in issuing the "no-records" response State's IG found to be inaccurate. Mills left State shortly after Clinton stepped down on Feb. 1, 2013, three months before State wrote to CREW to say no records could be found.
The State IG report found that none of the officials Mills tasked with addressing the issue appeared to have reviewed the results of the search done in State’s files, and there was “no evidence” that those staffers who did the search and responded to CREW knew about Clinton’s private email setup.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/cheryl-mills-clinton-email-226864#ixzz4GxlOySiB

- This request and the "No records" response that came with it, along with Gawker release of the Blumenthal emails, is what triggered the discovery of Hillary's email system.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually I think if Hillary is elected there will be non-stop investigations, hearings, house select committees on emails, Benghazi again, etc. beginning day 1.
It will be no different than when Bill was President. And of course we will hear calls regularly for impeachment for every real and imagined transgression.

 
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/cheryl-mills-clinton-email-226864#ixzz4GxlOySiB

- This request and the "No records" response that came with it, along with Gawker release of the Blumenthal emails, is what triggered the discovery of Hillary's email system.
People are fatigued by this, but we've seen enough of what goes on in the opaque black box by now that it's insane you as Americans would willingly cede your government to these people who have ill intent and we know take efforts to cover up their shady dealings and lies.  

 
It will be no different than when Bill was President. And of course we will hear calls regularly for impeachment for every real and imagined transgression.
They'll be plenty busy with the real ones.  Seth Rich murder hearings will be interesting.

 
Actually I think if Hillary is elected there will be non-stop investigations, hearings, house select committees on emails, Benghazi again, etc. beginning day 1.
It will be no different than when Bill was President. And of course we will hear calls regularly for impeachment for every real and imagined transgression.


In fact, I think Ken Starr recently became available....
True.

- The Clintons will likely do something else dumb.

- Rabid attack dogs in Congress will do what they do. The GOP will probably get the Senate back in 2019.

- The Clintons will make deals to get them off their back, and they will triangulate with conservatives on policy.

- And as Ham points out Clinton fatigue has already set in - before the administration has even started.

And the Clintons will be inoculated from all this by supporters. It will be 4-8 years of dysfunctionalism all around, really. But we knew that before she even declared her candidacy when we already knew she would be running and this would be the result.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It will be no different than when Bill was President. And of course we will hear calls regularly for impeachment for every real and imagined transgression.
The big difference is that there will be an easy two word retort to every single complaint from the right/GOP about Clinton, followed by pointing and laughing.

 
The Clinton Foundation was not part of the recent investigation into her private server; it was separate. The FBI went to Justice Department earlier this year asking for it to open a case into the foundation, but the public integrity unit declined.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html?sr=twpol081016hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch0331PMVODtopPhoto&linkId=27519655

:diamond: So. The FBI asked the Justice Department to open a corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation :diamond:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So we have a new batch of emails, from Judicial Watch not the Russians, sorry Magaw.

They reveal that Hillary's aide (Huma) had access to her private server email account. The one with classified intel.

They also reveal apparent pay for play deals run through the Clinton Foundation.

It makes sense now why the media ran the ASSASSINATION fairy tale yesterday.

 
They reveal that Hillary's aide (Huma) had access to her private server email account. The one with classified intel.
Timing is funny. To me, this was previously known. I think another issue is that Hillary's server was likely a shared Teneo or Foundation server.

They also reveal apparent pay for play deals run through the Clinton Foundation.
But let's be real here, this is almost certainly over as a political matter and the DOJ will not be reopening investigation and the DOJ already turned down investigating the Foundation. That last bit should be a big deal but it's not as a practical matter, because....

Guess why not. Because Il Trumpo Orangino is running and saving her ### from the fire literally every chance it's needed and because his nomination has now raised the election to near existentially dangerous levels. So really congrats to anyone and everyone who has made this possible. Aside from that wait 'til January, but even then you're likely looking at a Dem Senate because the nominee's coattails are on fire.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It makes sense now why the media ran the ASSASSINATION fairy tale yesterday.
Who the :censored: made the comment - a light vague jocularity implying assassination - literally less than 24 hours after the press was running with the story about Mateen's father being in Hillary's backdrop?

Who?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top