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

Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. (/Thread-Wikileaks-still-no-proof-of-corruption)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - fredtoast - 10-21-2016

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?

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - PhilHos - 10-21-2016

(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?

Yes, about 33,000 emails. ThumbsUp

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - fredtoast - 10-21-2016

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

I don't think you understand my question.

Who benefited from Hillary's action as a public official and what did she receive in return?

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Belsnickel - 10-21-2016

There is a lot of shady shit in the emails, no doubt about it. Whether any of it is actually illegal is not a certainty, but perception is a big thing. Those with an agenda against Hillary will jump on the "this is shady and COULD point to " those in support of Hillary will argue the point that there is no proof of illicit activities. Those that don't really like either one of them are just in the middle and not caring because we know she's shady as hell.

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - PhilHos - 10-21-2016

(10-21-2016, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think you understand my question.

Who benefited from Hillary's action as a public official and what did she receive in return?

So, you think rigging the primaries so that Sanders had no chance to get the nominee is not corrupt? You think colluding with the media to help Hillary get elected is not corrupt?

Speaking of collusion, do you not find it interesting that the emails seem to support the accusation of the Department of Justice colluding with Clinton while they were investigating her?

With that said, Belsnickel is basically right. I do think there's stuff in the emails, personally, but they certainly didn't have the effect that I'm sure Assange was hoping they would. And based on what side you fall on, depends on how much credence you'll give to the emails.

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - fredtoast - 10-21-2016

(10-21-2016, 12:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, you think rigging the primaries so that Sanders had no chance to get the nominee is not corrupt? You think colluding with the media to help Hillary get elected is not corrupt?

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.

(10-21-2016, 12:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Speaking of collusion, do you not find it interesting that the emails seem to support the accusation of the Department of Justice colluding with Clinton while they were investigating her?

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.

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Bengalzona - 10-21-2016

The proof is there, Fred. It has to be! You're just not looking hard enough and using enough creativity!!!

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Rotobeast - 10-23-2016

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".
Big Grin

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - xxlt - 10-23-2016

(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?

Well, she does have a vagina. And that means, hit it: "Lock her up! Lock her up!..."

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - xxlt - 10-23-2016

(10-21-2016, 12:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a lot of shady shit in the emails, no doubt about it. Whether any of it is actually illegal is not a certainty, but perception is a big thing. Those with an agenda against Hillary will jump on the "this is shady and COULD point to " those in support of Hillary will argue the point that there is no proof of illicit activities. Those that don't really like either one of them are just in the middle and not caring because we know she's shady as hell.

But literally ANYTHING in anyone's email COULD point to . So, those who use her email as a reason to hate her are imbeciles. And, the emails aren't the real reason for contempt. As Borat would say, with Obama it is the genuine chocolate face, with Mrs. C it is the vazseen.

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - xxlt - 10-23-2016

(10-21-2016, 12:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, you think rigging the primaries so that Sanders had no chance to get the nominee is not corrupt? You think colluding with the media to help Hillary get elected is not corrupt?

Speaking of collusion, do you not find it interesting that the emails seem to support the accusation of the Department of Justice colluding with Clinton while they were investigating her?

With that said, Belsnickel is basically right. I do think there's stuff in the emails, personally, but they certainly didn't have the effect that I'm sure Assange was hoping they would. And based on what side you fall on, depends on how much credence you'll give to the emails.

There is more evidence of Trump colluding for her to win than there is of the primary being rigged against Sanders or of the media colluding with H.

How do you Trump supporters feel about Donnie's collusion? When he walks down Fifth Avenue and shoots someone, and then turns to the cameras and says, "Everything I've done from the moment I got on that stupid ******' escalator up to and including shooting that innocent middle-aged white man was to help elect Hillary Clinton," are y'all still gonna vote for Trump?

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - xxlt - 10-23-2016

(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

Yeah, because who ever uses aliases in internet communications...

Wait, you mean your mother actually named you Rotobeast? That must be a terrible memory for the whole maternity crew at that hospital. Wink

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Rotobeast - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 09:48 AM)xxlt Wrote: Yeah, because who ever uses aliases in internet communications...

Wait, you mean your mother actually named you Rotobeast? That must be a terrible memory for the whole maternity crew at that hospital.

I use the nickname because YOU GUYS very well may not be on the "up & up".
(I wouldn't have it any other way though)

Side note: I've had my nickname since early 1985.
Rotoworld can kiss my butt !

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - xxlt - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 10:56 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I use the nickname because YOU GUYS every well may not be on the "up & up".
(I wouldn't have it any other way though)

Side note: I've had my nickname since early 1985.
Rotoworld can kiss my butt !

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Some may not be on the up & up
Some might even be on the down low
But that's what's nice about this MB
You won't get sent packin' based on who you blow

There's some weirdos here, from the left and the right
Some really sharp, some not all that bright
Some old dogs, and some young pups
Some just lurk, and never say what's up?

But we take all kinds here in Bengalland
Hell, we don't even care if you're a football fan
Or if you root for some non-striped team
You're welcome to join us, we're livin' the dream

So make up a name, choose an avatar
Or be yourself and post from a bar
It's the Bengals Board, don't you know
Just settle in and go with the flow

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Rotobeast - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 11:17 AM)xxlt Wrote: Some may not be on the up & up
Some might even be on the down low
But that's what's nice about this MB
You won't get sent packin' based on who you blow

There's some weirdos here, from the left and the right
Some really sharp, some not all that bright
Some old dogs, and some young pups
Some just lurk, and never say what's up?

But we take all kinds here in Bengalland
Hell, we don't even care if you're a football fan
Or if you root for some non-striped team
You're welcome to join us, we're livin' the dream

So make up a name, choose an avatar
Or be yourself and post from a bar
It's the Bengals Board, don't you know
Just settle in and go with the flow

Can I be your agent ?
Big Grin

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - xxlt - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 11:21 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Can I be your agent ?

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Philosophically, I've always felt an agency relationship existed between us.

Practically, absolutely: if you can get me writing gigs PM me. I love to write.

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - treee - 10-23-2016

Her and Trump are both real piles of turds.

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - xxlt - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 01:01 PM)treee Wrote: Her and Trump are both real piles of turds.

Trump is the best pile of turds. Hillary - barely a marble. I mean, not much more than a rabbit pellet. She's not Trumpworthy. You ask people who know piles of turds, they come up to Trump all the time, and they tell, they tell him, you're the best at being a pile of turds. Trust me.

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Rotobeast - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 11:25 AM)xxlt Wrote: Philosophically, I've always felt an agency relationship existed between us.

Practically, absolutely: if you can get me writing gigs PM me. I love to write.

I can only guarantee bathroom walls, right now.
Just give me a little time.
Wink

RE: Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption. - Dill - 10-23-2016

(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?

Why goodness yes, Fred. Read a little faster and you'll see what I mean.

"HillarykingofmorrocoClintonFoundation12millionHRCmustcome."

If you read too carefully you will find yourself wondering "Wait, did money change hands, anything actually happen?" Just go on to the next email, ready that one rapidly too, and soon you will marvel at how Hillary "gets away with it."