For Those Convinced Of Clinton’s Corruption

[GMDino]

Authors title...not mine.

Just had a wonderful conversation with an older lady who is friend with our family about why she "hates" Hillary Clinton.

Apparently she thought Clinton was too "power hungry" when she was first lady.  And after some discussion she said she like "strong women" who "can get things done". 

Just not Clinton because...reasons.

And NOT because she is a Democrat!  Oh no!  If she was suddenly a Republican she would hater her too! 

Now Trump?  Trump is a go-getter who can get things done!

He rips off people he had signed contracts with?  Not as bad as Clinton!
He treats everyone who disagrees with him with contempt and calls names like a 3rd grader? Not as bad as Clinton!

Clinton wanted power!

Trumps wants....uh.....

Anyway...at the same time this article popped up in my feed.

https://theboeskool.com/2016/07/06/for-those-convinced-of-clintons-corruption/

Quote:Think about this for a moment: Is there any result of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email misuse that wouldn’t have made you even more certain that she was completely corrupt? While she was secretary of state, she used a private email server. She has admitted over and over that this was a mistake. The FBI investigated her, and after their investigation, they concluded that although her private email server was “extremely reckless,” there was no indication whatsoever of any sort of criminal intent. So, if the FBI investigation would have come back and recommended an indictment, you all would have said, “See? I told you so!” But now, when the FBI investigation concludes that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” you are all still using this decision as proof of Hillary Clinton’s perceived corruption, and you’re still standing there, like, “See? I told you so!”
“Is there any answer I could give that would satisfy you?”

You see, this is what happens when you attack a person and accuse her being part of some corrupt cabal that is “above the law.” When you bring charges against her and they don’t stick, you can look at the cameras and say, “See?” It’s actually a brilliant attack… It’s kind of like accusing someone of being an alcoholic, and then when she tells you she’s not, you say, “See? There it is… Denial.” The same thing happened with the Benghazi investigations. After eight different Benghazi hearings (at a cost of millions of dollars) conclusively found that Secretary Clinton did nothing wrong, the damage is still done, because it reinforces the perceived narrative that Hillary Clinton is so corrupt that she is “above the law.” But maybe she is not above the law… Maybe she just didn’t do the things they are accusing her of doing.

And the hell of it is, this line of attacks is successful. So successful, in fact, that there are a lot of people who look at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, and actually don’t know who would be worse–Her, or the dumpster fire known as Donald Trump. Some are even considering her as the lesser of two evils. It has affected me as well. I get it. It works. I don’t really trust her either… And I’m not even sure why. Which of all the accusations against her have actually stuck? When you press people to name something, they can’t.
After some amorphous talk about emails, Benghazi, being “crooked,” enabling Bill’s infidelity, and maybe even tossing in some conspiracy theory email forward about a list of people close to the Clintons who died, usually people end up with a very unspecific, “I don’t know… I just don’t TRUST her.” And they’ll question her integrity. They’ll call her a liar… And then, it’s the same game: “She’s a liar! Want proof? ‘Hillary, are you a liar?’ [No.] <–SEE?!? There she goes again…” Even though the non-paritsan, Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site PolitiFact has shown Hillary’s statements to be the most consistently truthful of any of the candidates (51% true or mostly true… even more than the Bernie I love so much), while showing that only 9% of the things Donald Trump says are rated “true” or “mostly true.” That’sNINE percent… Then, when actual journalism doesn’t line up with your accepted narrative, what do you do? That’s right… You call the journalist liars as well. That, or you spend billions of dollars setting up an overtly biased “news” organization that damages the whole concept of news. COUGHFoxCOUGH…

For some reason, they don’t seem to focus near as much on the outfits the men wear…

And if you don’t think that part of this has to do with Hillary being a woman, you are fooling yourself. Even as a young man in college, I can remember having a deep sense of “Who does she think she is?” while Hillary Clinton tried to get her healthcare bill passed. It wasn’t an overt “She needs to know her place,” but it was something close.But if a man had the tenacity and adept political maneuvering that Hillary Clinton has displayed, those things would be viewed as assets. But with her, it just comes off as her being conniving. Or “bitchy.” But as Tina Fey and Amy Poehler said while Hillary was campaigning against Barack Obama, “***** is the new black.” Anyway, who were you expecting? If a woman was ever going to rise to being a stone’s throw from the most powerful position in a country that has been so very patriarchal for it’s entire history, did you think she was going to be a wilting violet? She has had to navigate a harsh political landscape for decades… Of course she’s a *****. Bitches get shit done. Again–I get it. It’s distasteful when people compromise their principles… But governing is about compromise. Compromise  is a necessity. When a nation is as divided as ours is, uncompromising principles is a recipe for getting nothing done. AND WE HAVE SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO GET DONE!

Seriously… Just who were you expecting?

Instead, we have found ourselves living in a situation where many are SO ENTRENCHED in the “She’s crooked” narrative, that news can come out showing that Hillary Clinton did NOT do anything illegal, and her enemies are still sharing the story as if it is some sort of proof of her corruption. It’s craziness. And this is not to say that Hillary Clinton is above criticism. She’s not. Not even close. There are plenty of things for which she is responsible that she needs to answer for. The crime bill she and her husband championed is responsible for our prison population more than tripling since Bill Clinton’s presidency. It has negatively and disproportionately affected minorities, and it has basically set up a new system of enslavement and disenfranchisement for people of color. This is well worth criticizing… The trouble is, most of the people rooting for Trump APPRECIATE a policy that results in more brown people in prison… So the GOP can’t focus on that.

Like a lot of you, I’m not super wild about it, but I guess “I’m With Her.”

But let’s just say–for the sake of argument–that all of her critics’ charges against her are true. Let’s say that she intended for those four people to die in the consulate attacks in Benghazi. Let’s say she fully intended to illegally and maliciously set up a less-than-secure email server for her job as Secretary of State. Lets say that she is guilty of everything from Whitewater to Benghazi and everything in-between…
Even if it were all true, she still managed to keep herself out of trouble while just about every republican in a position of power has tried to prove it. That would be AMAZING! How impressive… Listen–Donald Trump can’t even dodge the charges from one little fraudulent “University.” One of two things is true: Either Hillary Clinton’s enemies cannot get any of these charges to stick to her because she is too politically astute, or they’re not sticking because she actually didn’t do them. Either way, she is infinitely more qualified to lead our nation than the angry, racist, inept, misogynistic, unknowledgeable, unstable buffoon that is the alternative… A man so colossally unqualified, that if you said the words “angry, racist, inept, misogynistic, unknowledgeable, unstable buffoon” on a gameshow, people would be able to guess who you’re talking about. Think about that. Make the right choice, America.

[McC]

A liberal editorial. Must be gospel.

Let's say the email scandal shows no evidence of corruption. What it does show is utter incompetence in a ranking cabinet position. Might not proves she's a crook, does prove she's an idiot. If she couldn't do that job, why on earth would anybody in their right mind want to give her a promotion?

She has proven she is not capable of holding high public office. So far, at least, Trump has not proven this.

Also, are you on Clinton's campaign staff? You might as well be, with all your active campaigning for her. And it's indeed time well spent, considering the chance you have of changing anyone's mind.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2016, 12:54 PM)McC Wrote: A liberal editorial.  Must be gospel.

Let's say the email scandal shows no evidence of corruption.   What it does show is utter incompetence in a ranking cabinet position.  Might not proves she's a crook, does prove she's an idiot.  If she couldn't do that job, why on earth would anybody in their right mind want to give her a promotion?

She has proven she is not capable of holding high public office.  So far, at least, Trump has not proven this.

Also, are you on Clinton's campaign staff?  You might as well be, with all your active campaigning for her.  And it's indeed time well spent, considering the chance you have of changing anyone's mind.

I am actively campaigning against Trump.

If that means I have to defend Clinton I will do so.

Back to your first point:  You fit in to the article perfectly.  Even if she didn't do anything you can find a reason to not like her.

Trump has been shown not only to be incompetent but also to do things that are outright illegal just to make a buck.  Clearly he is a GREAT choice to run the country. 

[McC]

(07-24-2016, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I am actively campaigning against Trump.

If that means I have to defend Clinton I will do so.

Back to your first point:  You fit in to the article perfectly.  Even if she didn't do anything you can find a reason to not like her.

Trump has been shown not only to be incompetent but also to do things that are outright illegal just to make a buck.  Clearly he is a GREAT choice to run the country. 

No one has to search for a reason not to like her.  She is a walking reason.  She was incompetent, reckless, to quote the FBI, in one of the top jobs in the country.  How, in your singular focus, does that qualify her for the top job?  The proof is out there.  She cannot even be trusted with a security clearance. 

There's no point arguing with you, as utterly blind as you appear to be about this woman.

Will we be seeing slogans from you soon to go with the excessive threads or are you saving those for closer to the election? 

How about this one?  Vote for Hillary.  She's not criminal, only reckless.

I figure the worst he will do is nothing.  She might accidentally, "recklessly", give the country away to China, or send state secrets to Bubba on his phone.

[SunsetBengal]

https://maddmedic.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/know-this-guy/

Yes, no corruption on part of the Clintons. Give the article in above link a quick look..

[GMDino]

(07-24-2016, 01:18 PM)McC Wrote: No one has to search for a reason not to like her.  She is a walking reason.  She was incompetent, reckless, to quote the FBI, in one of the top jobs in the country.  How, in your singular focus, does that qualify her for the top job?  The proof is out there.  She cannot even be trusted with a security clearance. 

There's no point arguing with you, as utterly blind as you appear to be about this woman.

Will we be seeing slogans from you soon to go with the excessive threads or are you saving those for closer to the election? 

How about this one?  Vote for Hillary.  She's not criminal, only reckless.

I figure the worst he will do is nothing.  She might accidentally, "recklessly", give the country away to China, or send state secrets to Bubba on his phone.

Yes.  I say I will campaign against Trump and you respond with more stuff about Clinton.

Clearly it is I who has blinders on. 

[GMDino]

(07-24-2016, 03:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: https://maddmedic.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/know-this-guy/

Yes, no corruption on part of the Clintons.  Give the article in above link a quick look..

So their daughter is marrying the son of a corrupt businessman so Hilary Clinton is corrupt?



So corrupt that they...didn't pardon him?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-bill-hillary-chelsea-mezvinsky-pardon-218632

Quote:Encounters between potential in-laws can often be awkward, but this untold chapter in Clinton family history may take the cake.


President Bill Clinton once had the opportunity to save his daughter's future father-in-law from spending five years behind bars, according to never-before-revealed White House files. But the asked-for reprieve never came.


In the waning days of Clinton's presidency, federal prosecutors and the FBI were bearing down on former Rep. Ed Mezvinsky (D-Iowa), who had fallen for a series of Ponzi schemes and pulled in nearly $10 million money from other investors to cover his losses.


Mezvinsky would not be formally indicted until March of 2001, but records released last week by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock and obtained by POLITICO show Mezvinsky and his then-wife — ex-Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-Pa.) — pleaded with the former president for a presidential pardon to head off the looming federal case.


"I have real reason to believe that without a pardon, charges will be brought against me in the very near future, and that I will then be faced with a long and difficult process of defending myself, and ultimately the prospect of a long prison term," Mezvinsky wrote. "I am humbled and saddened at having sullied my reputation and that of my family, and having disappointed the many honorable and decent people who had confidence in me. I am prepared to try to make amends as best I can."


Margolies-Mezvinsky's missive to the president discusses her husband's history of service in politics and for the community, but is vague about the nature of his alleged wrongdoing.


"He is a man who in public service and his private life has worked tirelessly as an advocate for the poor, the underprivileged, and underserved. But he is also a man who now finds himself in a precarious position, where a federal investigation has already blemished a stellar career, a life of high-minded public service dedication to humanitarian causes. It is for this reason that I write personally to you to seek clemency for Ed,"Margolies-Mezvinsky wrote.


It is unclear whether Clinton ever saw the letters, which turned up in the files of the White House's counsel's office.


Asked about the letters, Margolies-Mezvinsky — now Chelsea Clinton's mother-in-law — said this week that she doesn't believe the Clinton White House ever acted on the request.


"No action was taken ... which is a matter of public record. To my knowledge, we never received any reply from the White House," the former congresswoman said in an email to POLITICO.


A spokesman for the former president did not reply to a query Tuesday about whether the pardon request ever reached him.

Oh and she didn't get married:

Quote:"in George Soros’ mansion"

...as your link says.

http://gulagbound.com/1746/chelsea-clinton-wedding-tents-go-up-at-astor-courts/

Quote:According to The Hudson Valley News, tents have gone up at Astor Courts in Rhinebeck, New York, the likely location of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding this weekend to financier Mark Mezvinsky of Goldman Sachs.   The newspaper has also filled in questions about where the Clintons will supposedly be staying.

Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be accommodated at Glenburn, the home built for John Jacob Astor IV, American millionaire  businessman who perished in the sinking of the Titanic.  The mansion is currently the Rhinebeck home of Eric and Andrea Colombel.  Andrea Colombel is the daughter of billionaire financier George Soros, a long-time Clinton supporter.

And even if every word were true (although getting married in the home of a billionaire supporter isn't out of the question) what does that have to do with anything?

Trump is just a shady business man he just doesn't "steal" money...he just won't pay what he owes.

[McC]

(07-24-2016, 03:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.  I say I will campaign against Trump and you respond with more stuff about Clinton.

Clearly it is I who has blinders on. 

Well, the thread--yours, btw, is about her. 

[GMDino]

(07-24-2016, 04:18 PM)McC Wrote: Well, the thread--yours, btw, is about her. 

It is.  Correct.

Oh, one more thing:  It's about folks who don't want to know anything other than she is a "crook", "bad", a "liar".  And even if they are wrong will just think she "got away with it".

It's about that too.

[McC]

(07-24-2016, 04:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: It is.  Correct.

Oh, one more thing:  It's about folks who don't want to know anything other than she is a "crook", "bad", a "liar".  And even if they are wrong will just think she "got away with it".

It's about that too.

When you start out with reckless applied to someone who wants the highest office in the land, whatever else she is kinda goes out the window. 

They're both objectionable.  Of the two, he is less of a danger.  He's a goofy clown,  She's a clever scheming clown.

And neither one will get much of anything done.  It will be politics as usual.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2016, 05:09 PM)McC Wrote: When you start out with reckless applied to someone who wants the highest office in the land, whatever else she is kinda goes out the window. 

They're both objectionable.  Of the two, he is less of a danger.  He's a goofy clown,  She's a clever scheming clown.

And neither one will get much of anything done.  It will be politics as usual.

So his ways of screwing people he has contracts with, ripping off people who are doing business with him, lying, denying he lied, and then lying again doesn't make him scheming?

Got it.

Her being accused of everything under the sun and not being convicted means she is worse.  

Got it.

[McC]

(07-24-2016, 05:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: So his ways of screwing people he has contracts with, ripping off people who are doing business with him, lying, denying he lied, and then lying again doesn't make him scheming?

Got it.

Her being accused of everything under the sun and not being convicted means she is worse.  

Got it.

His scheming is Wall Street scheming.  Hers is Washington scheming, although she has skated around the edges of lots of laws in the financial world too.

They're both awful.  I can admit how awful Trump is.  You can't do the same with Teflon Hill.

To me, it comes down to this--the Clinton Plan is an absolute fantasy, a recipe for disaster.  I pray she never gets the chance to try to use it.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2016, 06:02 PM)McC Wrote: His scheming is Wall Street scheming.  Hers is Washington scheming, although she has skated around the edges of lots of laws in the financial world too.

They're both awful.  I can admit how awful Trump is.  You can't do the same with Teflon Hill.

To me, it comes down to this--the Clinton Plan is an absolute fantasy, a recipe for disaster.  I pray she never gets the chance to try to use it.

I'll readily admit Clinton isn't the best choice for a President.  Still better than Trump.  Especially given all the awful things he has really done vs the awful things she has been accused of.  I had someone, today in 2016, bring up she had Vince Foster killed.  Seriously.

Oh, and what of Trump's plan?  Does he have one or is just not "absolute fantasy"?  I'd be thrilled to hear it.

[*bengalfan74*]

Ask the Clinton's if they ever heard of Jim and Susan McDougal ?

[6andcounting]

(07-24-2016, 06:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, and what of Trump's plan?

Step 1: Build wall
Step 2: Make it 10 feet higher
Step 3: MAGA

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:"You see, this is what happens when you attack a person and accuse her being part of some corrupt cabal that is “above the law.”

Like a vast right wing conspiracy?

[xxlt]

(07-24-2016, 12:54 PM)McC Wrote: A liberal editorial.  Must be gospel.

Let's say the email scandal shows no evidence of corruption.   What it does show is utter incompetence in a ranking cabinet position.  Might not proves she's a crook, does prove she's an idiot.  If she couldn't do that job, why on earth would anybody in their right mind want to give her a promotion?

She has proven she is not capable of holding high public office.  So far, at least, Trump has not proven this.

Also, are you on Clinton's campaign staff?  You might as well be, with all your active campaigning for her.  And it's indeed time well spent, considering the chance you have of changing anyone's mind.

Similar incompetence shown by Colin Powell, who used private email account while holding the same office as Clinton.

And, it seems it should be noted that nobody at FBI, CIA, CID, Homeland Security, State Department, White House, Office of General Counsel, or any other government agency or shadow agency was on record as telling Hillary before she chose to use the private server what she was doing was not allowed, or not recommended right? And after she set it up, did anyone from these agencies try to correct this utter incompetence? In hindsight, everyone thought it terrible, but nobody had the foresight to prevent or insight correct it? So why do all the fingers of blame point only at her?

Seems like a witch hunt. And we know how you spot a witch, right? First witches are female. Second, they have a lot of power. Third, they have been accused before. So, three strikes and Clinton's out: has a vagina (STRIKE ONE), wields a lot of power (STRIKE TWO), has been called a witch before (STRIKE THREE). And we know what witch hunts do, right? Play on the fear of a powerful vagina bearer, whip up hysteria using that fear and half truths, spend a lot of time and resources trying to do psychological and/or physical violence to powerful and/or outspoken women in as public and humiliating a way as possible. In a pinch if there isn't a powerful woman available then any woman who happens to be a little different or just at hand may be substituted. Cue Lee Greenwood, "And I'm Proud to be an a American..."

[xxlt]

(07-24-2016, 06:02 PM)McC Wrote: His scheming is Wall Street scheming.  Hers is Washington scheming, although she has skated around the edges of lots of laws in the financial world too.

They're both awful.  I can admit how awful Trump is.  You can't do the same with Teflon Hill.

To me, it comes down to this--the Clinton Plan is an absolute fantasy, a recipe for disaster.  I pray she never gets the chance to try to use it.

Could you specify what is fantasy about the Clinton Plan? Or if it is the whole plan, could you provide a few specifics showing why it is fantasy?

Also, I admit I haven't looked for Trump's plan, but does he have one? I mean, I know he is going to, "Make America great again," and that, "Only I [Donald Trump] alone can fix" what is wrong with America. But besides fixing everything by himself, until it is great again, and talking about how much "everyone" loves him while he does it, does he have a more specific plan?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2016, 10:58 AM)xxlt Wrote: Similar incompetence shown by Colin Powell, who used private email account while holding the same office as Clinton.

And, it seems it should be noted that nobody at FBI, CIA, CID, Homeland Security, State Department, White House, Office of General Counsel, or any other government agency or shadow agency was on record as telling Hillary before she chose to use the private server what she was doing was not allowed, or not recommended right? And after she set it up, did anyone from these agencies try to correct this utter incompetence? In hindsight, everyone thought it terrible, but nobody had the foresight to prevent or insight correct it? So why do all the fingers of blame point only at her?

Seems like a witch hunt. And we know how you spot a witch, right? First witches are female. Second, they have a lot of power. Third, they have been accused before. So, three strikes and Clinton's out: has a vagina (STRIKE ONE), wields a lot of power (STRIKE TWO), has been called a witch before (STRIKE THREE). And we know what witch hunts do, right? Play on the fear of a powerful vagina bearer, whip up hysteria using that fear and half truths, spend a lot of time and resources trying to do psychological and/or physical violence to powerful and/or outspoken women in as public and humiliating a way as possible. In a pinch if there isn't a powerful woman available then any woman who happens to be a little different or just at hand may be substituted. Cue Lee Greenwood, "And I'm Proud to be an a American..."

Anyone with a security clearance is told exactly what they may and may not do.

[Rotobeast]

(07-25-2016, 01:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Anyone with a security clearance is told exactly what they may and may not do.

Their spouses, fiance, ect... are notified as well.
If I remember correctly, I received notification yearly.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk