Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 27 of 46
Quote:Oh, I can go much, much lower, You have no idea what I've thought of but never posted.
Q- What does GSTRING do for fun? A- He flosses his asshole with his GSTRING! - SIGNY
Wow - that's pretty low even for you. -GSTRING
Quote:UNLIKE YOU, when I make things up I SAY that it's made up. You, OTOH, just make shit up and then pretend you never did.
So rather than have an adult conversation and take responsibility for, or own the things you made up, you choose to insult, threaten, and then runaway?-GSTRING
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is more relevant.
Hillary, by Anonymous
12 minutes of Hillary's lies
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you suppose you might possibly stay on topic, and stop gossiping and whining?
Naw...
But hey, thanks for bumping the Anonymous video!
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Do you suppose you might possibly stay on topic, and stop gossiping and whining?
Naw...
But hey, thanks for bumping the Anonymous video!
Sure, on topic. I like how in the video Terry Gross tried to hold Hillary accountable for her misstatements (lies) just like I try to hold you accountable. I think once you accept that this is a problem you have and start embracing raw Truth - no matter where it leads you even if it is away from previously held beliefs - you will stop flailing about so much.
Bravo
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Show me the money ... or in this case, the facts (yanno, with attached evidence and links; rather than just claims, and assertions, and official pronouncements ...)
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/09/i_dont_even_think_j_edgar_hoover_ever_
did_this_doj_veterans_weigh_in_on_fbi_director_james_comeys_handling_of_clinton_email_probe/
“The job of the FBI is simply to investigate, find the facts, and then send them on to the prosecutors and DOJ,” Akerman said. “Usually when they send it on they recommend a prosecution or no prosecution. The prosecutor doesn’t have to abide by that recommendation. Many times I would prosecute when they recommended no prosecution or vice versa.”
“What was so unusual and what was beyond the pale here was that the director of the FBI got up and basically announced the decision, which is never done by the FBI,” Akerman said. “I don’t even think J. Edgar Hoover ever did this.”
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-11/strange-gaps-hillary-clintons
-email-traffic
The Strange Gaps In Hillary Clinton's Email Traffic
The past few weeks have brought a myriad of revelations about the private server Hillary Clinton used while she was secretary of state. First, there was the State Department inspector general’s devastating critique of the former secretary’s email practices. Then came sworn testimony of two key Clinton aides about how the server was set up and how the system worked (or didn’t). Just this weekend, Clinton met with the FBI to discuss her email arrangements. And on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would not recommend criminal charges over the handling of these emails, while at the same time offering a brutal assessment of how poorly Team Clinton handled classified information.
But, when it comes to Clinton’s correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton’s email history? Did she or her team delete emails that she should have made public?
The State Department has released what is said to represent all of the work-related, or “official,” emails Clinton sent during her tenure as secretary—a number totaling about 30,000. According to Clinton and her campaign, when they were choosing what correspondence to turn over to State for public release, they deleted 31,830 other emails deemed “personal and private.” But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails.
We already know that the trove of Clinton’s work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, “The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”
A brief, semi-technical explanation: as the head records on the hard drive, the track of the head 'wanders' a bit, causing leakage recording along either side. When you 'delete' a file, what the computer does is not 'erase' date - it simply tells the computer that certain areas on the hard drive are now available to be recorded over. With the proper software, you can easily read the ones and zeros on those sectors, and recover all the information, intact (unless it's already been over-written).
To actually erase data, you have to record over those sectors with random ones and zeros ...
not once - because you need to erase the 'leakage' information - but multiple times. Otherwise the data is still FORENSICALLY recoverable.
In other words - somebody didn't just 'delete' the files. They wrote over those sectors, and only those sectors, and re-wrote over them, and re-re-wrote - and so on - until no trace of the data remained.
That that data was well and truly erased indicates a CONCERTED and technical effort on Clinton's part to get rid of ... well ... we'll never know.
But it was roughly HALF of whatever was there. Yep. Apparently, HALF of her emails on her private server set up for work, were personal.
Why does this matter? Because Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails. We now know that is not true. But even more importantly, the absence of emails
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/the-clinton-contamina
tion.html?mabReward=A7&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0
The Clinton Contamination
WASHINGTON — IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted.
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. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion.
And that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics. Their vast carelessness drags down everyone around them, but they persevere, and even thrive.
In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.
It’s quaint, looking back at her appointment as secretary of state, how Obama tried to get Hillary without the shadiness. (Which is what we all want, of course.)
The president and his aides attempted to keep a rein on Clinton’s State Department — refusing to let her bring in her hit man, Sidney Blumenthal.
But in the end, Hillary’s goo got on Obama anyhow. On Tuesday, after Comey managed to make both Democrats and Republicans angry by indicting Clinton politically but not legally, Barry and Hillary flew to Charlotte, N.C., for their first joint campaign appearance.
Obama was left in the awkward position of vouching for Hillary’s “steady judgment” to run an angry, violent, jittery nation on the very day that his F.B.I. director lambasted her errant judgment on circumventing the State Department email system, making it clear that she had been lying to the American public for the last 16 months.
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.
Hillary had already compromised the president, who feels he needs her to cement his legacy. Obama angered F.B.I. agents when he was interviewed on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last fall and undermined the bureau’s investigation by exonerating Hillary before the F.B.I. was done with its work, saying pre-emptively, “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
Hillary willfully put herself above the rules — again — and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.
Obama aimed to have no shadows, but the Clintons operate in shadows.
After Bill Clinton crossed the tarmac in Phoenix to have a long chat with Lynch, the attorney general confessed that the ill-advised meeting had “cast a shadow” over her department’s investigation into his wife and that she would feel constrained to follow the recommendation of the F.B.I.
“I certainly wouldn’t do it again,” Lynch said, admitting it hit her “painfully” that she had made a mistake dancing with the Arkansas devil in the pale moonlight.
The meeting seemed even more suspect a week later, when The Times reported that Hillary might let Lynch stay on in a new Clinton administration.
The fallout from the email scandal has clouded the futures of longtime Hillary aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who were also deemed extremely careless by Comey for their handling of classified information. The Times reported that they could face tough questions as they seek security clearances for diplomatic or
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW second - I fully expect you to ignore all these facts. Because that's what you do.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hillary's worst attribute is that she's painfully corrupt and has backed every policy destructive to ordinary Americas, from being a proponent of the New Democratic pathway (as First Lady) to voting for the Iraq war (as a Senator) to inciting chaos in multiple nations (as Scy State).
But anyway... Hillary's worst attribute is she's a really bad politician.
Quote:She has no ethics beyond clawing her way towards more money. She is "for" Saudi Arabia, George Soros and his "globalist" goal, banks, the international elite and their law firms (see her list of donors), and dual-citizen Zionists who represent Israel better than they represent the USA (see her list of donors). Nowhere to be found is the American middle class, no matter what she yaks up about us. Whatever she does on our behalf will be forced out of her by circumstance, not from some wellspring of concern.
Listening to her speak and try and sound presidential is painful. I can't listen, it's too forced, too fake, and I think that also reveals itself in her actions and policies.
Quote:She is a neocon. Charm and charisma have nothing to with it, she and her advisors are full-on war hawks.
She is definitely not a sophisticated thinker and has very little charm or charisma, which could have serious consequences internationally. The world is full of immature male leaders and just plain shabby characters.
Quote:She was against gay marriage while it was politically acceptable, then for it when it was politically expedient. Her ethics are skin deep, if they go even that far.
I am almost equally worried about the people she has around her, advising her though. Her team's lack of will power to tell her "no!" when she made so many bad choices with email was baaaad. Her lack of respect for the medium is pervasive today (heh), and people who know that - as she should have had around her - understand that every day. They really let her down. Every president who wants to excel needs great people around them, and part of that is the need for them to be honest, sometimes brutally so. Hey! full circle!
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME