Hillary Clinton

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Clocker

...

Anyone know if "willful misjudgment" is a federal crime?

I think SRU keeps pushing for it. Isn't that about as close to a real application of that expression? A steward that deliberately DQs the wrong horse to cash a ticket?

[ArlJim78]

Her campaign is a rolling implosion. Trump may have check-mated her already by proposing to debate Bernie in CA after she broke her promise to do so. If a Trump/Bernie high profile mega debate takes place with HRC on the sidelines looking cowardly and inconsequential, on top her criminal wrong-doings I think it deals a mortal blow to her chances.

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Trump may have check-mated her already by proposing to debate Bernie in CA

Trump just reneged on that proposal; I can hear HRC's annoying laugh from here.
The Donald had her on the ropes with this proposal, and let her slide. Point to Hillary, but it's a long match.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

it deals a mortal blow to her chances.

I don't think death could deal a mortal blow to her lust for power. The Dems have perfected the art of dead people voting. I'm sure Hillary could figure out a way for dead people to be elected.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Trump just reneged on that proposal; I can hear HRC's annoying laugh from here.
The Donald had her on the ropes with this proposal, and let her slide. Point to Hillary, but it's a long match.

do you have a link for that? I highly doubt that its true.
Trump would have no reason not to do it.

If anyone renegs it will be Bernie. He's going come under extraordinary pressure not to do it.

update:
apparently he did back out. He's made all the right moves so far but I question that one.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politi...ers/index.html

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

do you have a link for that? I highly doubt that its true.
Trump would have no reason not to do it.

If anyone renegs it will be Bernie. He's going come under extraordinary pressure not to do it.

I keep hearing different stories on it. It's on then it's off then it's on again.

Here is an ABC story from a few hours ago that says it is still in the discussion stage.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=39427011

[Ocala Mike]

"Fair and balanced" just reported it; you must keep in mind that everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is just a "suggestion," right?

[ArlJim78]

Maybe it would have been a strategic mistake to debate Bernie.
No real upside and it lets Clinton off the hook.
I just wanted to see Hillary marginalized, but maybe this wasn't the best way to achieve that.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Meaningless.
First, it is within the margin of error.
Second, Trump got a boost because he is now the presumptive nominee on the Republican side. Hillary will get the same boost when she clinches the Democratic nomination. (Probably June 7)
Third, in case you missed it in eighth grade civics class, we don't elect presidents on the basis of a national popular vote. We have an electoral college based on the voting in each individual state. Head to head in those states in which polling has taken place, Clinton leads Trump by 4-1.

I'll just say this, and I'll keep your other idiot remarks alone. Just remember, I only offered a link, It was not the reason for any of my opinions. Come election day Trump will kick Hillary's fat, corrupt and tired arse from here to eternity.

As a reminder, I was basically one of the first ones on here --if not only one-- to identify the Trump phenomenon in July/August of last year. Long before the polls and primaries. No big deal, just the reality. And I have always said that I want the loathsome and criminal Hillary Clinton to be the Democrat nominee. I said from day one that Hillary was the easiest candidate for the GOP to beat. And she is. It is the likes of you, and other misguided political 'experts', that keep saying Trump can't win, yada yada yada. Some racists on here say it is because there arn't enough white men voting. Some Democrat dweebs say we need a woman president. Yada yada yada. Some are just plain out of touch. All are clueless for the most part.

Back to your insult: not only have I never missed an eighth grade civics class, I even taught one for two years and also taught a political science class or two on an higher level as an adjunct. This was after I graduated eighth grade, of course, but not that long after.

It's no big deal mostpost, I assure you. No anger on my part despite you continuing to insult the posters on here on their intelligence, or lack thereof, yet it's regularly been proven that you have been totally, consistently and constantly outmanned and outsmarted on a myriad of issues.

Why do you that that is so? Inquiring minds want to know.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You mean the same offense that Colin Powell, several other Secretaries of State and numerous other State Department officials committed? The truth is Clinton transmitted no material that was classified at the time she sent it. The truth is State Department servers are hacked all the time.

While it was State Department policy to save all emails, it was not mandated until HR 1233 signed into law by President Obama on Nov 14, 2014. That was almost two years after Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State.

So I guess from your comments above you are saying that the loathsome and despicable Hillary! Clinton did not commit a criminal act pertaining to her private server, her private email account, etc., etc., when she was Secretary of State??

Then why are there 150 FBI agents investigating this matter?

As a reminder, the FBI only investigates people who have committed a Federal crime.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Maybe it would have been a strategic mistake to debate Bernie.
No real upside and it lets Clinton off the hook.
I just wanted to see Hillary marginalized, but maybe this wasn't the best way to achieve that.

Rush made a good point today.
Not that m any people have actually listened to Crazy Bernie - the DNC purposely kept a their debates in time slot that would keep most people from watching. They wanted a quiet coronation of the WW of the W.

Putting the mind-numbing Bernie of a national stage would expose the real DNC agenda, which they try very hard to disguise. The thought being that many otherwise sane people would be turned off by this dingbat and get behind Trump as the outsider they could trust.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Clocker

I don't think death could deal a mortal blow to her lust for power. The Dems have perfected the art of dead people voting. I'm sure Hillary could figure out a way for dead people to be elected.

Hillary is still alive??????

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by reckless

As a reminder, the FBI only investigates people who have committed a Federal crime.

It is a federal crime to have classified material at an unauthorized location. Hillary did that. There is no evidence, or even an accusation, that Colin Powell or others did that.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by bks

This is not the main reason, Mike. The main reason HRC doesn't want her personal emails exposed is that they will show that she laundered money through her foundation as a means of giving access to decision makers inside govt to big companies and foreign countries. She was basically running a multi multi million dollar influence peddling business out of the State Dept and using her State Dept personnel to do double duty.

One doesn't have to rely on bullshit right wing sources for the proof of this. The evidence is pretty strong in articles like this one from Mother Jones, for instance:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-arms-deals

She is the head of a crime family. She won't be knocked off easily. Sanders understands that he absolutely must stay viable to have any leverage with the superdelegates and electorate before the convention. She's unbelievably weak as a candidate, hated by many on the left, dripping with scandal and contemptuous of anyone who dares point out how big a ****ing crook she is.

The world being what it is, she's a 1-2 shot to be your next president.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That means, just because one thing follows another, does not mean it is caused by the first thing.

The first question we have to ask is if this is the first time these countries have gotten arm aid from the US. The answer is clearly no. Saudi Arabia has been getting aid from the United States for years, from both Republican and Democratic administrations. Currently the US is finalizing a $60 B aid package. In the summer of 2008 President Bush was touting a $20 B aid package with Saudi Arabia.

You notice that nobody is saying Clinton is being paid off directly. It's always about contributions to the Clinton Foundation. 90% of donations to the Clinton Foundation are used for the work of the foundation. There are a lot of innuendos that the Clintons are skimming millions-hundreds of millions off the top. There has been absolutely no proof of this.

Another foolish idea you have is that Hillary Clinton alone decides where these arms are going. I'm sure the Defense Department has something to say about it, as does the Intelligence community. Even as Secretary of State. I'm sure Clinton could not approve the aid in the face of opposition from experts on the area. Then there is that Obama fellow who has something to say about all this.

Simply put, a lot of people have to approve these kinds of things.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Tom

Rush made a good point today.

There is an historic first.