Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
It seems you have the wrong article because the one you linked says:



Huh, it was "marked" but "marked in error" and isn't "classified" but is specificically marked as "classified" and is redacted with an unclassify date of 4/7/2027.

Do you think that Kirby thought that people would be dumb enough to take his *********** word for it and not look at the actual document that shows what a liar he is?

Take your time.
Click to expand...
Er...

So when was it classified?

Oh look: Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016.

OOOps.

And seems you completely missed this ; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11375748&postcount=55

tl;dr?
 
Welcome to page 3. I don't computer over the weekend, so in lieu, also welcome to page 4, 5 and 6.

Please answer on each page my assumption that assume Hillary Clinton is still not done.

Thank you!
 
acbytesla said:
So, my guess the petition won't be granted. Judge roulette didn't work.

And yes, I had you confused with Slings and Arrows.
Click to expand...

So from Judge shopping to "roulette." Check

Judge Sullivan ordered depositions in JW's case. so everything wrong.

Rare Truth said:
Er...

So when was it classified?

Oh look: Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016.

OOOps.

And seems you completely missed this ; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11375748&postcount=55

tl;dr?
Click to expand...

Snerk! Say, it was marked classified when Hillary read it in 2012, it was redacted as classified in January (because Hillary's hid the email on her cowboy server, which is exactly what I have been saying for months) and is classified today, which is why your hero Kirby is a "liar."

I missed something? Was that when you moved to goalposts to something that had nothing to do with the email we were discussing????

eta: Yep! you totally changed the subject to some other email. Gee, how did I guess?
 
Last edited:
Referral for Clinton perjury probe could come next week

The House Oversight Committee is expected to send a formal request asking the FBI to open a criminal investigation into allegations that Hillary Clinton lied to Congress as soon as next week, a committee aide told The Hill.

FBI Director James Comey revealed on Thursday that Clinton did, in fact, exchange emails through her private server that included information marked classified, though he provided some cover for Clinton during his testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

“I think it’s possible — possible — that she didn’t understand what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that,” Comey said.

Read more:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...on-perjury-investigation-could-come-next-week (July 8, 2016)
Click to expand...


Is it really "possible" that Hillary, after 30 years of hands-on experience, still doesn't understand what classified means?

Maybe James Comey misspoke when he said that Hillary was "extremely careless". What he really meant to say was "extremely clueless."

"I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment," Comey told the House Oversight Committee.

Yeah, that's it. Hillary's just not "particularly sophisticated." Which is a polite way of saying she's basically flat-out stupid.

Reference:
FBI Director James Comey's Testimony on Clinton's E-Mails (July 7, 2016)
 
The Clinton Contamination

If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, “extremely careless” with top-secret information.

Comey, who was then yanked up to Capitol Hill for a hearing on Thursday, revealed that instead of no emails with classified information, as Hillary had insisted, there were 110, of those turned over to the State Department. Instead of Clinton’s assurances that the server in the basement in Chappaqua had never been breached, Comey said it was possible that hostile actors had hacked Clinton’s email account. Among the emails not given to State, he said at least three contained classified information, making it clear that she had been lying to the American public for the last 16 months.

“You’ve got a situation here where the woman who would be in charge of setting national security policy as president has been deemed by the F.B.I. unsuitable to safeguard and handle classified information,” Bill Savarino, a Washington lawyer specializing in security clearances, told the Times.

Read more:
New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/the-clinton-contamination.html?_r=0 (July 9, 2016)
Click to expand...


Prevaricator-in-chief Bill Clinton once called her "a world-class genius, the smartest woman in the world." But as Maureen Dowd points out in the article, our expectations for Hillary have become so low that she often receives accolades (primarily from her devout minions) for merely evading criminal indictment: "It’s part of a long pattern of ethical slipping and sliding, obsessive secrecy and paranoia, and collateral damage. We know who Hillary and Bill are now. We’ve been held hostage to their predilections and braided intrigues for a long time. We’re resigned to the Clintons focusing on their viability and disregarding the consequences of their heedless actions."
 
Last edited:
Well, now that the Benghazi witchhunt #9 failed to stop Clinton, and the email investigation failed to stop Clinton, and Sanders never came close to stopping Clinton, and Trump is way behind Clinton in the polls, can anyone tell me how Clinton is supposed to be done, yet?
 
Highlights from FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

Laying the groundwork for a possible perjury indictment, Rep. Trey Gowdy (who is an attorney and former prosecutor), asks Director James Comey 5 basic questions about Hillary's private email server.

Watch the 1 minute video:
"Hillary's 5 FBI lies exposed"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipGuHOhScqM (July 7, 2016)​


(Credits to Donald J. Trump for President for the video)
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
Highlights from FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

Laying the groundwork for a possible perjury indictment, Rep. Trey Gowdy (who is an attorney and former prosecutor), asks Director James Comey 5 basic questions about Hillary's private email server.

Watch the 1 minute video:
"Hillary's 5 FBI lies exposed"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipGuHOhScqM (July 7, 2016)​


(Credits to Donald J. Trump for President for the video)
Click to expand...

So your evidence is video made by the campaign for a pathological liar whose on trial for fraud?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Is it really "possible" that Hillary, after 30 years of hands-on experience, still doesn't understand what classified means?

Maybe James Comey misspoke when he said that Hillary was "extremely careless". What he really meant to say was "extremely clueless."

"I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment," Comey told the House Oversight Committee.

Yeah, that's it. Hillary's just not "particularly sophisticated." Which is a polite way of saying she's basically flat-out stupid.

Reference:
FBI Director James Comey's Testimony on Clinton's E-Mails (July 7, 2016)
Click to expand...

News flash: most elected and appointed officials are flat out stupid.
 
State Department reopens Clinton emails probe

The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton's private server to be "top secret." It was suspended in April so as not to interfere with the FBI's inquiry. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the probe is restarting after the Justice Department's announcement Wednesday that it won't bring any criminal charges.

Additionally Thursday, Republican lawmakers said they would now ask the FBI to investigate whether Clinton lied to the committee.

Read more:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8b12...state-department-reopens-clinton-emails-probe (July 7, 2016)
Click to expand...


"Hillary Clinton’s email scandal isn’t over yet. On Thursday, The State Department told The Associated Press they are reopening a probe into alleged mishandling of classified documents. Not only is the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate the subject of this investigation, but so are her top aides."

Reference:
State Dept. Reopens Its Own Investigation into Clinton’s Emails (July 8, 2016)
 
‘President’ Hillary Clinton: Definition of a Nightmare

The impending American elections are a portrait of insanity. When was the last time the nominated presidential candidate was the subject of a criminal investigation involving the FBI? How naked is the double standard when the Clintons get to skate from the most egregious of scandals for which the common man would be incarcerated for life?

Those who dismiss, ignore, or lie about Hillary’s crooked behavior and vicious nature betray themselves.

Hillary is a clever chameleon, but at the core she’s a vindictive, nasty, shrill, Jew-hating bigot, a peripatetic predator from Illinois, Arkansas, a carpetbagger Senator from NY, and Washington D.C. A racist liberal who exploits the easily exploited for political gain. A ruthless shark who will do anything to obtain power, flout the law with haughty disregard to retain it, and continue to wreak havoc on American society.

Hillary Clinton looms like a monsoon on the horizon. Corruption personified. A cruel person with the blood of so many on her negligent, incompetent hands.

Read more:
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/...clinton-definition-of-a-nightmare/2016/07/10/ (July 10, 2016)
Click to expand...


"The Jewish Press is an American weekly newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York and geared toward the modern Orthodox Jewish community. It describes itself as "America's Largest Independent Jewish Weekly."

"The Jewish Press was founded to fill the void of Jewish news media left by the declining newspapers in the late 1950s. The first issue was published on January 29, 1960."

-- Wikipedia: The Jewish Press
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"The Jewish Press is an American weekly newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York and geared toward the modern Orthodox Jewish community. It describes itself as "America's Largest Independent Jewish Weekly."

"The Jewish Press was founded to fill the void of Jewish news media left by the declining newspapers in the late 1950s. The first issue was published on January 29, 1960."

-- Wikipedia: The Jewish Press
Click to expand...
Amusing. Did you knkw that Hillary wins with that Demographic over Trump?
 
A Pew poll in 2013 found "70 percent of Jewish voters were Democrats," and the Jewish News Service found, "Surveys indicate that more than 90 percent of Jews who are registered to vote make it to the polls, compared to only 74 percent of all Americans."

From looking at Jewish-oriented media, the latest gaffe by Trump -- the ad showing Hillary with the five-pointed star -- is apparently considered offensive. That the image apparently originated on a white supremacist site, followed by the Trump campaign's blather about it being "a sheriff's badge," is considered evidence that Trump, if not necessarily anti-Semitic, is pretty clueless.

It's almost impossible to see how The Don can win in November without Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American Muslims, most college-educated men and women of all races and religions voting for him.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Oh, and funny the "vindictive, nasty, shrill, Jew-hating bigot" has a son in law of a certain persuasion.
Click to expand...


Weird isn't it? And Clinton's campaign HQ is in Brooklyn. So she must hate Jewish people.

All that is a diversion so people won't find out.
 
newyorkguy said:
A Pew poll in 2013 found "70 percent of Jewish voters were Democrats," and the Jewish News Service found, "Surveys indicate that more than 90 percent of Jews who are registered to vote make it to the polls, compared to only 74 percent of all Americans."

From looking at Jewish-oriented media, the latest gaffe by Trump -- the ad showing Hillary with the five-pointed star -- is apparently considered offensive. That the image apparently originated on a white supremacist site, followed by the Trump campaign's blather about it being "a sheriff's badge," is considered evidence that Trump, if not necessarily anti-Semitic, is pretty clueless.

It's almost impossible to see how The Don can win in November without Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American Muslims, most college-educated men and women of all races and religions voting for him.
Click to expand...

With every word out of his mouth he offends another demographic. It's his new innovative way of running a campaign. So innovative, it's never been tried before. Talk and act like a bigoted sexist fool and win the Presidency.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"The Jewish Press is an American weekly newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York and geared toward the modern Orthodox Jewish community. It describes itself as "America's Largest Independent Jewish Weekly."

"The Jewish Press was founded to fill the void of Jewish news media left by the declining newspapers in the late 1950s. The first issue was published on January 29, 1960."

-- Wikipedia: The Jewish Press
Click to expand...

Wait...You seriously think the Jewish community is going to vote Trump?

Oh, man. That's completely *********** hilarious. Insane, but hilarious.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"The Jewish Press is an American weekly newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York and geared toward the modern Orthodox Jewish community. It describes itself as "America's Largest Independent Jewish Weekly."

"The Jewish Press was founded to fill the void of Jewish news media left by the declining newspapers in the late 1950s. The first issue was published on January 29, 1960."

-- Wikipedia: The Jewish Press
Click to expand...

That citation makes about much sense as your Pravda citation.
 
I have to say, I'm very disappointed. We clearly aren't living up to our normal standards in this thread. I expected to come back, after a weekend of general debauchery and whatnot, to find at least three more pages had passed of nonsensical ramblings.

It appears that when that certain indictment turned out to be less-than-absolute, some folk just don't have the will to continue the fight. Shame really.
 
Sanders is expected to endorse her tomorrow:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-sanders-new-hampshire-endorsement/86936756/
More than a month after the end of the last round of state primaries, it appears the Democratic presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is officially set to conclude.
The Sanders campaign released a statement Monday morning confirming what had been widely expected for days: The Vermont senator will join Clinton at a rally in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday where he's expected to endorse her.

Maybe she'll be done then ? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
RobRoy said:
I have to say, I'm very disappointed. We clearly aren't living up to our normal standards in this thread. I expected to come back, after a weekend of general debauchery and whatnot, to find at least three more pages had passed of nonsensical ramblings.

It appears that when that certain indictment turned out to be less-than-absolute, some folk just don't have the will to continue the fight. Shame really.
Click to expand...

The people who were pushing indictment don't have much to talk about.

It was fun to argue the indictment was a real possibility that Hillary supporters had to plan for. Some people balked at even entertaining the notion, and my argument was always "You're not taking this seriously enough". And I admit to losing that argument. Kind of.

This turned out to be serious after all, though I was wrong about her chance of being indicted (which is obviously zero since it didn't happen). But I think it was close. There's not much space between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent". Let's not pretend the FBI gave her a glowing endorsement. Comey's remarks were brutal and would have finished off a candidate in a normal cycle.

I've always argued that Clinton is a terrible candidate, which she is, and despite the absolute trainwreck that is the Trump campaign, he is still within spitting distance (down by 4.5%, RCP average), and those polls were taken before Comey's press conference.

Usually being called "carelessly reckless" (or vice-versa, I forget which) by the director of the FBI in a formal setting would finish a candidate. How could you be more irresponisble (short of indictment) than to get publicly chided about how irresponsible you are by the FBI? And Clinton, terrible candidate that she is, found herself in just such a situation.

BUT! It's not enough to be good (or bad, in Clinton's case). You have to be lucky. No matter how good you are, certain things have to break your way. Clinton is a terrible candidate, but how lucky are we that they didn't pick Kasich, or Rubio, or Christey, or Bush? I thought Obama was the luckiest candidate in history, but Clinton's luck in having a Trump for an opponent? It's like drawing to a Royal Flush and getting it. The Fates just seem to want Hillary to get it.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
The people who were pushing indictment don't have much to talk about.

It was fun to argue the indictment was a real possibility that Hillary supporters had to plan for. Some people balked at even entertaining the notion, and my argument was always "You're not taking this seriously enough". And I admit to losing that argument. Kind of.

This turned out to be serious after all, though I was wrong about her chance of being indicted (which is obviously zero since it didn't happen). But I think it was close. There's not much space between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent". Let's not pretend the FBI gave her a glowing endorsement. Comey's remarks were brutal and would have finished off a candidate in a normal cycle.

I've always argued that Clinton is a terrible candidate, which she is, and despite the absolute trainwreck that is the Trump campaign, he is still within spitting distance (down by 4.5%, RCP average), and those polls were taken before Comey's press conference.

Usually being called "carelessly reckless" (or vice-versa, I forget which) by the director of the FBI in a formal setting would finish a candidate. How could you be more irresponisble (short of indictment) than to get publicly chided about how irresponsible you are by the FBI? And Clinton, terrible candidate that she is, found herself in just such a situation.

BUT! It's not enough to be good (or bad, in Clinton's case). You have to be lucky. No matter how good you are, certain things have to break your way. Clinton is a terrible candidate, but how lucky are we that they didn't pick Kasich, or Rubio, or Christey, or Bush? I thought Obama was the luckiest candidate in history, but Clinton's luck in having a Trump for an opponent? It's like drawing to a Royal Flush and getting it. The Fates just seem to want Hillary to get it.
Click to expand...
Huh, you keep insisting that Clinton is a terrible candidate, yet it seems no one can defeat her. Maybe terrible means something different on your planet?
 
wareyin said:
...Maybe terrible means something different on your planet?
Click to expand...

Fudbucker said:
...I thought Obama was the luckiest candidate in history...
Click to expand...


Maybe "luckiest" has a different meaning too. Barack Obama is only the second U.S. President since Dwight Eisenhower to win two elections both times with over 50% of the popular vote. (Ronald Reagan was the other.)
 
newyorkguy said:
Maybe "luckiest" has a different meaning too. Barack Obama is only the second U.S. President since Dwight Eisenhower to win two elections both times with over 50% of the popular vote. (Ronald Reagan was the other.)
Click to expand...

When I talk about Obama being lucky, I specifically have in mind Obama's Senate campaign (Alan Keyes), and McCain making two of the worst unforced errors in campaign history: picking Sarah Palin and suspending his campaign in Oct 2008.

Obama vs. Romney took some skill. Obama had to actually campaign to beat Romney AND Clinton in 2008.
 
Congressmen ask U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate Clinton for perjury

Two Republican congressmen on Monday formally requested that the U.S. Attorney for the District investigate whether Hillary Clinton committed perjury when she testified before a congressional committee about her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The letter from U.S. Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) asserts that evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation involving Clinton’s email practices “appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony” and asks federal authorities to “investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.” It is addressed to U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips and copied to FBI Director James B. Comey and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans — 56 percent — disapproved of the FBI director’s recommendation not to charge Clinton, and 57 percent said the issue made them at least somewhat worried about how she might handle her responsibilities as president.

Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6a230a-47af-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html (July 11, 2016)
Click to expand...


"The request for a new investigation is not a surprise. Last week when James Comey testified before a House panel some Republican lawmakers said that they would seek a Justice Department perjury investigation into Clinton's testimony. Last year, Clinton had testified before the House Benghazi Committee that there had been no emails marked classified on her server, but Comey testified that several had classification markings within the body of the email."

Reference:
Did Clinton lie to Congress about email? GOP seeks perjury probe (July 11, 2016)


"It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble."
-- Senator Howard Baker circa 1974
 
Good morning. I just watched an interview of Jeb Bush by Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC in which Jeb Bush says he can't vote for either Trump or Hillary. He said he would have voted for any other republican candidate, until asked about Ben Carson, and then he said he didn't know enough about him or something like that. The Interseting thing he did was pull a move out of the Intelligent Design teams playbook, where they use words in different than their expected context. He managed to make it sound as if the FBI did indite Hillary. Talking about why he can't back Hillary he said "this last two weeks with Hillary Clinton, where she was indicted...(pause) effectively, by the FBI director, and at the last, everything but the indictment took place and basically said she lied" Interesting way to create a sound byte for those who are not paying attention. So even though the FBI director said they would not indite her, Jeb plays word games to say that she was indicted by the FBI director. Not surprising. I wonder how many others will follow this tactic.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/jeb-bush-on-voting-in-2016-i-can-t-do-it-723183683554
 
Last edited:
I don't want to send this thread off on a tangent but in the 2008 election McCain's polling numbers actually went up following the selection of Sarah Palin. As we neared November the economy began going into a steep recession and public support for the war in Iraq, which was in its fifth year, was waning. The Bush Administration was increasingly unpopular. I think the American people were ready for a change. The turnout in 2008 was over 130 million, the highest turnout in history.

To bring this back on topic, the situation is considerably different in 2016. The economy is doing quite well and the Obama Administration has been able to keep us out of any new military adventures. I think the majority of Americans want to see this continue and consider Hillary Clinton the most likely choice to achieve that.
 
newyorkguy said:
I don't want to send this thread off on a tangent but in the 2008 election McCain's polling numbers actually went up following the selection of Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...
My recollection was that he had a bump immediately after announcing her, but as time went on people started realizing how crazy she was and it hurt him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom