Jump to content

The Clinton Slush Fund


dirtyhairy
 Share

Recommended Posts

You still have not proven any of the claims.

Excellent point, the bathroom that her server was kept in was completely secure.

That does not mean she removed them.  Her having a private email server was legal. Patraeus's mistress was found with classified documents in her possession, but she was not charged with a crime like patraeus, because patraeus was the one that removed the documents. No one has proven that any of the classified emails were created by her and she has not control of who sends her what. The person sending the email to her is the one that has to mark it as classified. 

She kept the server after leaving. In fairness she did lie about this point, so maybe that was her version of securing it, denying its existence, but she did in fact keep the server and the emails contained within. I guess also to her credit she did try to destroy the emails to further secure them, doing so after the investigation began was totally a coincidence

How is that proof of intent? Instead of using a separate email service for private and a state.gov email, she used her personal email for both(which was legal at the time). so of course she would have the server after leaving. The point of me asking about proving intent is that the idea she wanted to use a private email server for ease of use is much easier and logical explanation over the idea that she set up this email server hoping that people would sent her classified information that shouldn't have been able to so she can keep it. 

 And proof she tried to destroy them? She gave every email other than private emails and even some emails the state department received were given back to her. Deleting != destroying. If she wanted to destroy it, then she would have wiped the drives and  physically destroyed them, but she gave the server and harddrives to the FBI. 

Your first "Gotcha" here is the most ridiculous. Your only defense of her is that she was a complete ******* idiot that did not know that classified information was in fact classified. While I won't argue that she is in fact the ******* idiot that you argue she is, it does not excuse what she has done. I know you'll likely answer this with another "Really? Paul Ryan?" but he sums up the ruse that she is trying to play nicely, complete with her trail of lies along the way.

The government classifies a lot of things, unless it is marked classified how is she suppose to know it is classified? 

Quote

(b)  If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.  This provision does not:

(1)  amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2)  create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

EO on classification from Obama in 2009. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Please read the 5 myths about classified information. 

Quote

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html?tid=a_inl

Quote

The head of the 9/11 Commission, Richard Ben-Veniste, told Congress in 2005 that "the failure to share information was the single most important reason why the United States government failed to detect and disrupt the 9/11 plot." He warned, "Information has to flow more freely. Much more information needs to be declassified. A great deal of information should never be classified at all."

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

The description of the emails as relatively innocuous came from officials, including a senior U.S. intelligence official, who believe Inspector General McCullough has been unfair to Clinton in his handling of the issue. They say McCullough and Congressional Republicans have elevated a mundane dispute about classification into a scandal.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

CZ6xFDMWcAAz0Wr.jpg

Our classification system is ****. That is the whole reason this thing is even a controversy. We over classify and it makes everything confusing for everyone involved. The SAP emails were about an NYTimes article on the drone strike program. This isn't even new information. Obama and other members of government have talked about the drone strike program. They have all technically leaked classified information according to the CIA. 

From reading your ongoing unconditional declarations of support for a thief, liar, and borderline traitor you should probably be reading more National Review, not huffing at it.

Clearly I cannot have a productive conversation on the matter with someone who acts like a child because someone questions their source. Lets be frank, you dislike HRC, so you believe all the ******** fed to you. I am sure you believe that she also has an alien baby. And considering that you think posting political cartoons is proof of anything means you are unwilling to have a real discussion on the matter.

And So I say

Good-Day-Sir-Willy-Wonka.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

More positive face time for clinton.  CaYCLHfUsAEnBxR.jpgI wonder if they will ask about the bimbo eruption team she ran. I wonder if her email server will be front and center. I wonder if the lying to the service members family's at Dover, will be mentioned. I wonder if Monica or Paula, or Kathleen Wiley, or Broderick will be mentioned with the war on women so important? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

But but but DH, she only took a lot of this money this go around because she wasn't sure she was going to run for POTUS. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now receiving speaking fees is a sign of corruption.  Should we pull out all the money that other presidential candidates present and past have received on the speaking circuit (the list includes Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and several others)? 

This is like when DH was up in arms over the "czars" appointed by Obama...until people pointed out all of the past presidents who did the same thing.  

In other words, it's people latching onto a common practice and pretending like it's unprecedented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, also regarding speakers' fees...check out the top 10 highest paid speakers in the world (article from 2012):

http://publicspeaking.co.ke/post/10-highest-paid-public-speakers-in-the-world

Donald Trump: $1 - 1.5 million per speech

Ronald Reagan: $1 million per speech

Rudy Guiana: $270,000 per speech

Sarah Palin: $100,000 and up

Bill Clinton and Al Gore are on there, too.  Clinton at 4th and Gore at 8th.  

But yeah, let's attack Hillary Clinton over her speaking fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Trout_Farm said:

Oh, also regarding speakers' fees...check out the top 10 highest paid speakers in the world (article from 2012):

http://publicspeaking.co.ke/post/10-highest-paid-public-speakers-in-the-world

Donald Trump: $1 - 1.5 million per speech

Ronald Reagan: $1 million per speech

Rudy Guiana: $270,000 per speech

Sarah Palin: $100,000 and up

Bill Clinton and Al Gore are on there, too.  Clinton at 4th and Gore at 8th.  

But yeah, let's attack Hillary Clinton over her speaking fees.

maybe it's the conflict of interest that has people questioning it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dago 3.0 said:

maybe it's the conflict of interest that has people questioning it

Fine to question it, but these other people have similar conflicts of interest with their speaking engagements.  Ben Carson actually got paid for a speaking engagement that occurred between two official campaign events.  In other words, he campaigned, then got paid $50-100k for a speech that same day, and then went after that to another campaign event.

And nobody complained about that on these boards, did they?  Only seems like people on the right get concerned about this when it's a Democrat who does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Trout_Farm said:

Fine to question it, but these other people have similar conflicts of interest with their speaking engagements.  Ben Carson actually got paid for a speaking engagement that occurred between two official campaign events.  In other words, he campaigned, then got paid $50-100k for a speech that same day, and then went after that to another campaign event.

And nobody complained about that on these boards, did they?  Only seems like people on the right get concerned about this when it's a Democrat who does it.

why is that a problem and how does it even compare to being funded by the people that goes against one of the core tenants of your campaign?

something on the same level would be a Republican speaking against abortion while taking money from The National Abortion Federation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

why is that a problem and how does it even compare to being funded by the people that goes against one of the core tenants of your campaign?

something on the same level would be a Republican speaking against abortion while taking money from The National Abortion Federation

Obama received millions from Wall Street and still signed Dodd Franks.  Also HRC wants to reign in wall street not dismantle it.  Here is a good article on the matter of why wall street loves her. 

Quote

According to a wide assortment of bankers and hedge-fund managers I spoke to for this article, Clinton’s rock-solid support on Wall Street is not anything that can be dislodged based on a few seemingly off-the-cuff comments in Boston calculated to protect her left flank. (For the record, she quickly walked them back, saying she had “short-handed” her comments about the failures of trickle-down economics by suggesting, absurdly, that corporations don’t create jobs.) “I think people are very excited about Hillary,” says one Wall Street investment professional with close ties to Washington. “Most people in New York on the finance side view her as being very pragmatic. I think they have confidence that she understands how things work and that she’s not a populist.”

The bottom line for Wall Street, says this executive—echoing many others—is that Clinton understands that America’s much-maligned financial industry wants to be part of the solution to the country’s problems. “Everybody who makes money feels a shared responsibility,” he continues. “Everybody sort of looks at her with a lot of optimism because they feel she doesn’t mind making hard decisions. She’ll do what she needs to do, but it’s not a ‘Let me blame you.’ It’s, ‘Hey, here’s what you’ve got to do.’ And I think that’s very different.” During a speech last December at the Conrad Hotel, in New York, her message could not have been more different from Obama’s hot, anti-Wall Street rhetoric: “We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782

That is just part of the first page. It is a pretty long article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Obama received millions from Wall Street and still signed Dodd Franks.  Also HRC wants to reign in wall street not dismantle it.  Here is a good article on the matter of why wall street loves her. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782

That is just part of the first page. It is a pretty long article. 

was he able to say that with a straight face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

was he able to say that with a straight face?

The article clearly states that multiple people shared the same sentiment. Why wouldn't some on wall street want to be part of the solution? Lets not go down the rabbit hole of guilty by association, because I remember a certain someone attack Obama for appointing a former Cable Lobbyist as head of the FCC and we know how that turned out. 

Also found one of the infamous GOLDMAN SACH SPEECHES.

 

How dare she try and speak on empowering women entrepreneurs. Bernie was right. PURE EVIL!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

The article clearly states that multiple people shared the same sentiment. Why wouldn't some on wall street want to be part of the solution? Lets not go down the rabbit hole of guilty by association, because I remember a certain someone attack Obama for appointing a former Cable Lobbyist as head of the FCC and we know how that turned out. 

Also found one of the infamous GOLDMAN SACH SPEECHES.

 

How dare she try and speak on empowering women entrepreneurs. Bernie was right. PURE EVIL!!! 

yes they want to be a part of the solution while they ride this house of cards we call the stock market while many economists are predicting another collapse. yeah they are doing so much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Trout_Farm said:

So now receiving speaking fees is a sign of corruption.  Should we pull out all the money that other presidential candidates present and past have received on the speaking circuit (the list includes Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and several others)? 

This is like when DH was up in arms over the "czars" appointed by Obama...until people pointed out all of the past presidents who did the same thing.  

In other words, it's people latching onto a common practice and pretending like it's unprecedented.

You will literally ignore reality until  it hits you on the head. This women had taken $100's of millions from big corporations, foreign governments even when sec of state. You would absolutely lose your mind if a similar comparison could ever have been made to a conservative. This women is the most corrupt liar our country has ever seen and you don't seem to care. 

Let this be a warning to all who can see beyond the tree's to the forest what kind of dementia and amnesia our country has entered into. By the way, I haven't talked about csars. Shall we broach that subject now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

You will literally ignore reality until  it hits you on the head. This women had taken $100's of millions from big corporations, foreign governments even when sec of state. You would absolutely lose your mind if a similar comparison could ever have been made to a conservative. This women is the most corrupt liar our country has ever seen and you don't seem to care. 

Let this be a warning to all who can see beyond the tree's to the forest what kind of dementia and amnesia our country has entered into. By the way, I haven't talked about csars. Shall we broach that subject now?

If her lips are moving, she's lying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

You will literally ignore reality until  it hits you on the head. This women had taken $100's of millions from big corporations, foreign governments even when sec of state. You would absolutely lose your mind if a similar comparison could ever have been made to a conservative. This women is the most corrupt liar our country has ever seen and you don't seem to care. 

Let this be a warning to all who can see beyond the tree's to the forest what kind of dementia and amnesia our country has entered into. By the way, I haven't talked about csars. Shall we broach that subject now?

Says the guy who spouted the "skewed polls" nonsense in 2012.  Trump gets $1.5 million per speaking engagement and Republicans have long taken these speaking engagements.  But I'll put my record on predicting reality against yours any day.  I'd offer another $100 bet, but you've proven that you'd just welch on it like you have other bets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 6, 2016 at 8:46 AM, dirtyhairy said:

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

I thought you didn't read CNN? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trout_Farm said:

Says the guy who spouted the "skewed polls" nonsense in 2012.  Trump gets $1.5 million per speaking engagement and Republicans have long taken these speaking engagements.  But I'll put my record on predicting reality against yours any day.  I'd offer another $100 bet, but you've proven that you'd just welch on it like you have other bets.

Just more see no evil hear no evil and BS personal attacks from Baghdad Bob. You should consider therapy dude. You live in a nightmare rerun of the Evil Dr. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

Just more see no evil hear no evil and BS personal attacks from Baghdad Bob. You should consider therapy dude. You live in a nightmare rerun of the Evil Dr. No.

I suppose the bolded part isn't a personal attack, is it?  Hypocrite.

And the things that I listed are facts.  You spouted the skewed polls nonsense in 2012.  You told everyone how Romney was going to crush Obama.  And instead of honoring the bet that you lost, you lied and came back here, thus welching on that bet.  

You've got a terrible track record when it comes to political reality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...