Hillary Clinton under investigation!

[GMDino]

Again.

Since 1992 how many investigations have resulted in any punishments for Mrs. Clinton?

Is this a "where there is smoke there MUST be a fire....somewhere" situation?  That there wouldn't be all these investigations if she was guilty of...something?

Or is it like an involuntary tic that people figure she MUST be guilty of something so we will keep investigating until we can catch her and convict her?

I read a lot about how she is a "criminal" who "should be in jail" but I can't find where she was convicted of a crime that would require such a sentence.

[McC]

Well, whichever it is, it can't be good for her campaign to keep hearing FBI right next to her name. Eventually, it has to take a toll.

I don't know if she is a criminal but I know she's a liar, or, at the very least, a back tracking, double talking mind changer who will deny she ever said things that she is on tape saying.

I say scratch them all and keep scratching until the facades fall away.

[GMDino]

(02-24-2016, 02:32 PM)McC Wrote: Well, whichever it is, it can't be good for her campaign to keep hearing FBI right next to her name.  Eventually, it has to take a toll.

I don't know if she is a criminal but I know she's a liar, or, at the very least, a back tracking, double talking mind changer who will deny she ever said things that she is on tape saying.

I say scratch them all and keep scratching until the facades fall away.

So a politician.  

And not that I like it...I just don't see anything different in her than any other slimy politician.  Yet people insist she is a criminal and should be in jail, or worse.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 02:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: So a politician.  

And not that I like it...I just don't see anything different in her than any other slimy politician.  Yet people insist she is a criminal and should be in jail, or worse.

Like I said, scratch them all.  They're all nasty underneath.

Now, aren't people in the justice system saying she belongs in jail?  That might be why the cries are so loud.  And in the nastiness of a campaign, if there's a chink in your opponent's armor or even a perceived chink, you ride that horse till it drops, right?  I doubt we've seen the worst of this talk.  That is still to come.

[BmorePat87]

under investigation for being a biiiiiiiittch.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 03:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: under investigation for being a biiiiiiiittch.

I believe the verdict is in on that.

[JustWinBaby]

There's a strong indication of a history of corruption, more so than other politicians. That she is not in jail is more likely attributable to covering their tracks well, along with people covering for them, and using their connections to evade justice.

Dino will sit here and lob all kinds of things about unethical, illegal and corrupt practices of corporations and CEOs that have never even been accused of wrongdoing....but Hillary is just being unfairly targeted and the proof is no one has ever gotten the goods on her.

[GMDino]

(02-24-2016, 03:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There's a strong indication of a history of corruption, more so than other politicians.  That she is not in jail is more likely attributable to covering their tracks well, along with people covering for them, and using their connections to evade justice.

Dino will sit here and lob all kinds of things about unethical, illegal and corrupt practices of corporations and CEOs that have never even been accused of wrongdoing*....but Hillary is just being unfairly targeted and the proof is no one has ever gotten the goods on her.

*Citation needed






I'm asking if it is unfair given that multiple times she has been investigated for...something....and nothing has been brought on her.  Can it be that EVERY TIME she has someone with enough power to cover for her?

Or are a lot of these simply politically motivated? And after almost a quarter century it is an attempt to prove the past investigations were not a waste of time?  Eventually....

[*michaelsean*]

(02-24-2016, 04:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: *Citation needed






I'm asking if it is unfair given that multiple times she has been investigated for...something....and nothing has been brought on her.  Can it be that EVERY TIME she has someone with enough power to cover for her?

Or are a lot of these simply politically motivated? And after almost a quarter century it is an attempt to prove the past investigations were not a waste of time?  Eventually....

 
Sandy Berger tried to smuggle things out of the archives in his socks and pants.  They told us, "That's just Sandy.  He's sloppy like that."  That they were even willing to say that shows how much protection they know they get. 

[JustWinBaby]

(02-24-2016, 04:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm asking if it is unfair given that multiple times she has been investigated for...something....and nothing has been brought on her.  Can it be that EVERY TIME she has someone with enough power to cover for her?

No it isn't, because the Clintons deal in the very gray areas, very carefully.  It's unethical and it's appalling.  When they slip up and go too far, they will deservedly go to jail.  They are the definition of political slime, and if they were Republicans they'd be reviled by the left even lower than W.

I don't know how old you are, but Clinton wasn't even considered that good of a POTUS when he left office, and his economy and subsequent bubble popping wasn't terribly different from 2008, just on a lesser scale. Clinton as a great POTUS creating this great economy is entirely liberal manufactured fiction.

[GMDino]

(02-24-2016, 04:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No it isn't, because the Clintons deal in the very gray areas, very carefully.  It's unethical and it's appalling.  When they slip up and go too far, they will deservedly go to jail.  They are the definition of political slime, and if they were Republicans they'd be reviled by the left even lower than W.

I don't know how old you are, but Clinton wasn't even considered that good of a POTUS when he left office, and his economy and subsequent bubble popping wasn't terribly different from 2008, just on a lesser scale.  Clinton as a great POTUS creating this great economy is entirely liberal manufactured fiction.

I'm old enough that I voted in the 1988 election. 

But I liked Bill Clinton as a "politician" the same as I liked Reagan.  They were good at the job enough to get things done.  Maybe that's as much the times and political climate as the people, I don't know.

Bill's big scandal was Monica.  And I suggested back then that he should have stepped down for the good of the country and his family.  That he didn't was a disappointment to me.  That the GOP continues to make a HUGE deal out of it all these years later is a bigger disappointment to me.

I'd say he was considered a good president.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 05:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm old enough that I voted in the 1988 election. 

But I liked Bill Clinton as a "politician" the same as I liked Reagan.  They were good at the job enough to get things done.  Maybe that's as much the times and political climate as the people, I don't know.

Bill's big scandal was Monica.  And I suggested back then that he should have stepped down for the good of the country and his family.  That he didn't was a disappointment to me.  That the GOP continues to make a HUGE deal out of it all these years later is a bigger disappointment to me.

I'd say he was considered a good president.

Two words--Fannie Mae.

[fredtoast]

(02-24-2016, 05:34 PM)McC Wrote: Two words--Fannie Mae.

More BS.

The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the Presidency for 8 straight years leading up to the economic collapse.  They are going to look pathetic trying to hang that on Hillary.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-24-2016, 09:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: More BS.

The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the Presidency for 8 straight years leading up to the economic collapse.  They are going to look pathetic trying to hang that on Hillary.

No they didn't.  And they can hang a lot of what allowed it to happen on her husband and Robert Rubin.

[fredtoast]

(02-24-2016, 10:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No they didn't.  And they can hang a lot of what allowed it to happen on her husband and Robert Rubin.

Yes, I am pretty sure they did.

In the 90's EVERYONE thought Fannie Mae was a good idea.  When Bush took office and the Republicans took control of congress they still agreed that promoting home ownership through programs like Fannie Mae was a good idea.  There may have been a few individuals ringing an alarm, but the main perty positions were in favor of Fannie Mae.

If the Republicans try to blame the economic collapse on something that was in place while they were in control for 8 years they are just making themselves look stupid.

And finally it is not correct to blame Fannie Mae when there were all sorts of other private lenders making risky unsecured loans.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 09:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: More BS.

The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the Presidency for 8 straight years leading up to the economic collapse.  They are going to look pathetic trying to hang that on Hillary.

No one said Hillary.  It was Bill.  Was he a good president was the question.  He had a very heavy hand in that movement, the one that says everyone is entitled to own a house whether they could afford it or not.

[GMDino]

(02-24-2016, 11:43 PM)McC Wrote: No one said Hillary.  It was Bill.  Was he a good president was the question.  He had a very heavy hand in that movement, the one that says everyone is entitled to own a house whether they could afford it or not.

And add in the greed from folks who knew they could make a lot of money off of bad loans....

[fredtoast]

(02-24-2016, 11:43 PM)McC Wrote:  He had a very heavy hand in that movement, the one that says everyone is entitled to own a house whether they could afford it or not.

So did everyone including Bush and the Republicans.

If they try to blame this on there Clinton's it will backfire on them.

[fredtoast]

(02-24-2016, 11:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: And add in the greed from folks who knew they could make a lot of money off of bad loans....

And the lack of regulation that allowed them to sell off the risk to investors all over the world.

[Vlad]

(02-24-2016, 10:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, I am pretty sure they did.

In the 90's EVERYONE thought Fannie Mae was a good idea.  When Bush took office and the Republicans took control of congress they still agreed that promoting home ownership through programs like Fannie Mae was a good idea.  There may have been a few individuals ringing an alarm, but the main perty positions were in favor of Fannie Mae.

If the Republicans try to blame the economic collapse on something that was in place while they were in control for 8 years they are just making themselves look stupid.

And finally it is not correct to blame Fannie Mae when there were all sorts of other private lenders making risky unsecured loans.

So now republicans care about poor people?

When liberal ideas crash an burn Republicans must of had something to do with it...riiight.

The insane idea that "everyone should be able to own a home" has no other but a liberal Democrat stamp on it.

Roots of that crisis went back to the Carter administration when left wing activists began accusing mortgage lenders of racism.
Hence, the community reinvestment act ...part of which would punish banks that failed to meet the credit needs of low income folks.
 
Enter that fat little scheming liberal piece of shit Barney Frank who had his fingerprints all over that mess repeatedly insisting that Fannie and Freddie were in good shape. When the Bush White House proposed tighter regulation warning of a systemic risk to our financial system, Frank accused the Bush administration of being more concerned with financial safety than poor people. Well of course what else, same old liberal crap...Republicans hate poor people.

Then when the bubble did burst Frank blamed it on the private sector for getting us into that mess. What gall.  Make no mistake, private lenders and Wall Street did have some things to answer for, but it was 'feelings before logic and common sense' democrats that derailed that train.