The Commish
Footballguy
So this is where we pretend we were talking about the Jones case and not the Monica case? Ok....that was a civil case. Describing the ruling there as "convicted of perjury" is disingenuous at best.
Actually Clinton's testimony was in the Jones case about his relationship with Monica.So this is where we pretend we were talking about the Jones case and not the Monica case? Ok....that was a civil case. Describing the ruling there as "convicted of perjury" is disingenuous at best.
No one makes you click the thread. Just sayingI have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!
Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work
Or maybe Hillary should just sit this one out.I have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!
Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work
Fair enough. Probably good advice for me too.Or maybe Hillary should just sit this one out.
We shoot the GOP messenger all the time because it's inappropriate to come from those people. I see no reason that this shouldn't happen to the Dem side either. Sorry that bothers youI have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!
Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work
you keep diggingActually Clinton's testimony was in the Jones case about his relationship with Monica.
The judge found him guilty of contempt for "giving false testimony"- which is considered perjury in any court proceeding, even a civil case.
Giving false testimony before a court is not perjury? To my understanding it is in every court in every jurisdiction in this country. But if you say it isn't perjury, I am not going to continue to argue with you over this especially with your condescending attitude.you keep digging
He was acquitted. Let me guess...you reported him.Giving false testimony before a court is not perjury? To my understanding it is in every court in every jurisdiction in this country. But if you say it isn't perjury, I am not going to continue to argue with you over this especially with your condescending attitude.
Have a good day sir.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/04/hillary-clinton-cybersecurity-conference/Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton withdrew from the cybersecurity conference where she was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, citing an “unforeseen circumstance,” according to an email from the FireEye Cyber Defense Summit.
Clinton — who infamously transmitted classified information over a homemade server once housed in her bathroom — was the centerpiece of the October 9-10 summit in Washington, where Clinton was to have “engage[d] in a Q&A discussion with FireEye CEO, Kevin Mandia on the geopolitical landscape and its implications for global cyber security today.”
The FireEye “Cyber Defense Summit brings together many of the world’s leading security experts, frontline heroes, government leaders, and executives from various industries to address the challenges of today’s threat landscape,” its website says.
An email from FireEye sent Tuesday said “Due to an unforeseen circumstance, Secretary Clinton will no longer be able to participate in this year’s conference. Additional speakers will be announced as confirmed. We look forward to hosting attendees in October with a comprehensive program at our 10th annual event.”
FireEye did not immediately respond to a request for more information from the Daily Caller News Foundation, nor did Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill.
The email was published by Nate Cain, an IT professional and federalwhistleblower. A source close to FireEye confirmed that “something is up” with the Clinton speech, and there is no mention of the keynote on the conference’s website.
Clinton ran an insecure homemade server that she used for official business while secretary of State. A congressman said the Intelligence Community Inspector General found that the server was hacked by China.
As investigators began scrutinizing the server, some of its contents were deleted. When a reporter asked if she wiped the server, she responded, “What, like with a cloth or something? I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
Serious question toby, where do we draw the line on what is ok to discuss?I have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!
Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work
God I hope so, that would be amazingWhat did I miss? Did she announce something?
Seems odd. But I’m not an expert at the Twitters, so there’s probably some context I’m missing.odd, wasn't it?
It was a response to a tweet "This is all going to get so much worse" talking about the Epstein case.Seems odd. But I’m not an expert at the Twitters, so there’s probably some context I’m missing.
I'd extend that to all politicians reallyAwesome how the POTUS and republican members of congreff are social media trolls. THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE!!!
Seems many in congress on both sides are turning into Twitter trolls, getting very tired of it.Awesome how the POTUS and republican members of congreff are social media trolls. THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE!!!
I don't know if this clears anything up, but Evergreen is/was her Secret Service code nameSeems odd. But I’m not an expert at the Twitters, so there’s probably some context I’m missing.
right, i caught that part. just wasn't sure if it was an inside joke to the guy he was replying too, some non-sequitur, or an insinuation that HRC was somehow tied to Epstein in all of this.I don't know if this clears anything up, but Evergreen is/was her Secret Service code name
Sorry, didn't see it was in the comments til just now. Jake probably enjoys being cryptic.right, i caught that part. just wasn't sure if it was an inside joke to the guy he was replying too, some non-sequitur, or an insinuation that HRC was somehow tied to Epstein in all of this.
I assumed he was referring to the rally chants.It was a response to a tweet "This is all going to get so much worse" talking about the Epstein case.
I'd extend that to all politicians really
Refuting a false claim, defending yourself against an unjust attack or calling out the POTUS's lies isn't trolling.Seems many in congress on both sides are turning into Twitter trolls, getting very tired of it.
There is certainly a lot of that, there's also a lot of people - politicians and otherwise - who are making a living or building a campaign trying to contradict literally everything he says.Refuting a false claim, defending yourself against an unjust attack or calling out the POTUS's lies isn't trolling.
She’s warming up in the bullpen, been saying it for months.She’s coming and it’s gonna be glorious
Not a snowball's chance in hell she will run.She’s warming up in the bullpen, been saying it for months.
I don’t bet Democrats, sort of a bad deal here last time.squistion said:Not a snowball's chance in hell she will run.
You keep saying it, how about a side bet for some easy money for you?
She looks like the 72 year old woman she is, that's all.Hill isn't looking so good these days.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7399633/Hillary-Clinton-enjoys-stroll-friend-Hamptons.html#newcomment
seriously what a weird thing to post....she's 72She looks like the 72 year old woman she is, that's all.
Yes, that is what I said. OP said she is not looking good, she is 72 and looks 72. What is weird?seriously what a weird thing to post....she's 72
But can you imagine if she was dealing with the presidency?She looks like the 72 year old woman she is, that's all.
If she kept Trump's schedule she'd be just fine. Dude watches TV all morning, tweets a bit on the can. Then golfs on his 4 day weekend. Gives a pep rally speech every month or so to feed his tiny little heart.Smack Tripper said:But can you imagine if she was dealing with the presidency?
I don't know whether its the speed but he's remarkably vital for all his obvious health question marks or red flags. She looks like homer trying to get disabilityIf she kept Trump's schedule she'd be just fine. Dude watches TV all morning, tweets a bit on the can. Then golfs on his 4 day weekend. Gives a pep rally speech every month or so to feed his tiny little heart.
He does seem to feed on attention and is impervious to the pressure and stress normal humans would feel lying for days on end in public eye. He seriously spends more time on his makeup than a Kadashian though and doesn't really do anything most days so he is able to just put on his hair hat and get freshly painted every morning.I don't know whether its the speed but he's remarkably vital for all his obvious health question marks or red flags. She looks like homer trying to get disability
Good lord NOOOOOOOOO!!https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1181645880983732224
She's been dropping lots of hints lately, I hope she does... it would be fantastic for Sanders
She does him a favor just by tweeting this.https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1181645880983732224
She's been dropping lots of hints lately, I hope she does... it would be fantastic for Sanders
This would be exactly the scenario where I'd vote third party againI'll be the contrarian here...I would not rule this out categorically.
I think she would have a better chance than some of the current candidates for a variety of reasons - most of which relate to comparing her to Trump.
I was anti-Hillary in 2016, I would at least be neutral if she ran in 2020. I think many people who were against Clinton, would now see her in a different light after 3+ years of Trump. And "emails" seems so 2016 right now, that I don't think it matters.
Yep, and serves as a perfect example of why she shouldn't run again. The game has passed her by and she's tone deaf.She does him a favor just by tweeting this.