Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption.

[*bfine32*]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/take-the-money-and-other-highlights-from-the-podesta-email-leak-194356162.html

At least there was no corruption

[6andcounting]

If Trump got debate questions ahead of time, we'd all call him, his campaign and the media corrupt.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2016, 09:27 PM)6andcounting Wrote: If Trump got debate questions ahead of time, we'd all call him, his campaign and the media corrupt.

He might have....but he probably ignored it because he didn't need to rest prep before the debates.  

[*PhilHos*]

(10-21-2016, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all none of the primaries were "rigged".  

I agree that the DNC wanted Hillary to be elected, but that is on them, not Hillary. The DNC is a private organization and can do whatever they want. I disagree with some of the actions they took, but that is nothing like Hillary selling influence as an elected official.
 

What do you mean "seem" to support?


my point is that I hear so many people claiming that we can not elect Hillary because she will be corrupt and sell her influence in exchange for financial gain, yet despite the fact that Wikilinks has 33,000 emails they can't provide any proof that she ever did anything like this as either a senator or Sec of State.

I'll give you that the rigged primaries were the fault of the DNC, though to think Hillary had no clue what was going on is foolishness.

Secondly, "seem to support" I mean, "seems to support". It's basic English, fred.

Lastly, there is no direct evidence, no. BUT, there is the fact that people who were originally denied an audience with Her Majesty Hillary Clinton were soon given an audience AFTER they had made a sizeable donation. Now, does that mean corruption? Of course not, but it does seem to suggest there's something there. And since Hillary already has shown a penchant for destroying evidence, maybe she got lucky and was successful in destroying the most obvious and damning evidence. 

BTW, would you categorize the destruction of subpoenaed evidence AFTER being subpoenaed as an example of corruption?

[Griever]

(10-21-2016, 12:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, about 33,000 emails.

and the bush admin lost about 22 million emails...

[Vas Deferens]

(10-24-2016, 02:13 PM)Griever Wrote: and the bush admin lost about 22 million emails...

Dude.  We're getting the band back together!

[*PhilHos*]

(10-24-2016, 02:13 PM)Griever Wrote: and the bush admin lost about 22 million emails...

http://www.snopes.com/g-w-bush-lost-22-million-e-mails/


WHAT'S TRUE: Roughly 22 million White House e-mails exchanged via private servers during the G.W. Bush administration were deleted instead of being archived in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

WHAT'S FALSE: As opposed to being permanently "lost," an undetermined number of the e-mails were subsequently recovered (though they have not yet been released to the public).

However, i will say that if intentionally "lost", whomever was responsible (be it Bush or someone else) should be punished as should Hillary Clinton.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-23-2016, 08:22 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: All I know is that I smile, every time I hear about Obama using an alias to contact Hillary, on her server.
He TOTALLY did that because she's on the "up and up".


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

You mean the one he didn't know about?

[Rotobeast]

(10-25-2016, 05:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You mean the one he didn't know about?

Yup.

I just want to know what his alias was.
I'm going with someone's old one, Ron Mexico.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2016, 12:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  BUT, there is the fact that people who were originally denied an audience with Her Majesty Hillary Clinton were soon given an audience AFTER they had made a sizeable donation. Now, does that mean corruption? Of course not, but it does seem to suggest there's something there.

That is how every single politician works.  People give money to campaign funds in order to buy access.

You can't be so naive as to not know this Phil.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-25-2016, 08:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is how every single politician works.  People give money to campaign funds in order to buy access.

You can't be so naive as to not know this Phil.

Except they weren't campaign funds. They were donations to a "charitable organization".

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2016, 12:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Except they weren't campaign funds. They were donations to a "charitable organization".

Isn't that better than donating to a campaign? 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2016, 12:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Isn't that better than donating to a campaign? 

If it weren't Hillary's own organization, yes. Since it is, no.

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2016, 01:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If it weren't Hillary's own organization, yes. Since it is, no.

So it is worse to donate to a candidate's charity than their campaign?

Pay to play is a reality of politics and most of business, but do we not all agree that money is better spent on those in need than a campaign?

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 01:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So it is worse to donate to a candidate's charity than their campaign?

Pay to play is a reality of politics and most of business, but do we not all agree that money is better spent on those in need than a campaign?

Phil hates Hillary for trying to help poor people.

He prefers that all donated money go directly to campaign funds.

[THE Bigzoman]

(10-23-2016, 09:37 AM)xxlt Wrote: Well, she does have a vagina. And that means, hit it: "Lock her up! Lock her up!..."

Women serve shorter sentences for the same crime. The gender disparity in sentencing is wider than the racial one.

So this claim doesn't really match reality.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2016, 04:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Phil hates Hillary for trying to help poor people.

He prefers that all donated money go directly to campaign funds.

Or charities that use their funds to buy portraits of the person they are named after.

Even if he never gave to the charity.

[6andcounting]

(10-21-2016, 12:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A lot has been made of the damage Wikileaks is doing to Hillary, but I still not seen any proof of corruption. I define "corruption" as taking official action in return for personal gain. Hillary has served as a U.S. Senator and as Sec of State, but I have not seen any evidence that she gave any preferential treatment to any person or group in exchange for money.

Am I missing something?

Your definition of corruption is the actually the definition of "bribery". Bribery is a type of corruption. There is much more to corruption than just bribery.

[JustWinBaby]

Hillary is brilliant at untraceable kickbacks. Go ahead, disagree with me.

[fredtoast]

(10-29-2016, 01:56 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Your definition of corruption is the actually the definition of "bribery". Bribery is a type of corruption. There is much more to corruption than just bribery.

Corruption is being dishonest for personal gain.

So what has Hillary done that is corrupt.