If Hillary is a crook, why...

[Dale Smith]

She purged her emails prior to an investigation, stalled investigators and lied. lied about turning over all her emails. Of course it matters to people. People have the right to demand honesty from our elected officials.

So did Colin and Condi and the RNC when they were actually DOING crimes lol. Pub dupes! And all for your infotainment channels lol...

Yes, so did they, your correct. Which is why Trump is the nominee... for better or worse. Hillary will continue to increase the burocracy and by pass the power of the Congress. were moving closer to a monarchy . Notice the trend? Bush - Bush - Clinton - Clinton for pres.

Actually, DEMS want to solve problems and NEED a congress that works to do it. The New BS GOP is just fine with this pander to the greedy rich idiot mess we've had since the 80's...

OMG....I bet you still believe in Santa Claus........

They've tried to raise taxes on the rich, get cheap loans and free comm. college, immigrant bill, good SS ID card to END IT, etc etc. Ya gd idiot. Read something. Wiki is fine. but history. Nite

Income taxes go to pay interest to the Federal Reserve foreign owned bankers that extend credit from nothing. Everything that leftards propose always goes back to borrowing from a foreign owned Federal Reserve bank that creates credit from nothing that charges compound interest...you simply don't "get it"...you belong to a cult of morons. Find me a leftard that will take down the Federal Reserve banking oligarchs and I will be behind them all the way....I shan't hold my breath.

 

[rdean]

November 8th the jury votes. The only jury that counts and right now 67% of the American voters say she is guilty.

Dumb ^^^

You see the American voting public as dumb? 67% think she is a liar and a cheat.

We call that 30 years of smears.

Trump has had 3,500 lawsuits. 169 (at least) Federal Lawsuits. He is being investigated for Bribery. Has a court date Nov 28th for Racketeering and Fraud.

But Hillary is the crooked one. Go figure.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

Very TRUE:

Hillary Clinton How Dare You:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.

Journalist Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s “dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William (I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996 article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a “congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This tragically illustrates how systemic sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in every fiber we wear.

In fact, most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here, and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really? The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who designed it?

Sadly, any time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say those within the dominant narrative and power structure.

While I have never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that this was a sexist statement.

What I find profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess you hater dupes are too stupid to realize that most of the emails the hildabitch generated were consider classified the instant she hit the send button.

So she should use motorcycle messengers?

No she should have used the encrypted secure email system she had total access to, but refused to use because she knew it would be archived and she wanted to hide many of things she did.

Like taking money from hostile nations, terrorist organizations, naked pictures of women?

Like selling influence and access.

That no one can point out, just accusations for the dupes...

Remind us, how much did it cost a person the spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom, the Clintons have been selling access for decades?

 

[OKTexas]

Really, evidently you don't believe the director of the FBI.

He just had to throw BS bones to his GOP. He should have stopped at not indictable and no criminal. The directors of the FBI have a long history of bs....

Sure he should, it would have made you denial of gross negligence and incompetence a bit more plausible. Still not true, just more plausible.

Carelessness, you mean. So her ex NSA experts screwed up. She was the (60+) Sec of State, not the computer guys. The whole thing is bs...

Oh bullshit, Comey said NO REASONABLE PERSON IN HER POSITION WOULD HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS SHE DID ON AN INSECURE SYSTEM, didn't have a fucking thing to do with the computer guy. Now you're moving from the absurd to just silliness.

Actually what he said was, "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

He only stated that there was evidence. He rendered no opinion. You did. You jumped to the conclusion that since he said there was evidence then she was guilty without even knowing what that evidence was. This is understandable because you believed Hillary was liar and crook without every seeing the evidence

He also did not say specify that there was evidence that Clinton should have known that an unclassified system was no place for the conversation. He said Clinton or the government employees with whom she was corresponding should have known... Whether Clinton should have known depends on the construction of the conversation and whether Clinton saw the classified document. If Clinton never saw the classified document, then it is the person that sent it to her who should have know... Again you jump to a conclusion because of what you believe about Clinton.

Pathetic attempt at the regressive semantics game, you're bullshit is more lame than the hildabitches. He drew a very strong conclusion saying "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser!

 

[OKTexas]

You're all conspiracy nutjobs, and so are about 60-70 per cent of the dupes- and now your candidate- or just a con man. Easy to believe too...all he had to do was repeat the bs and you fell for it...

His primary asset is he ain't the hildabitch.

 

[OKTexas]

All she needed was an internet provider and her login for the dot.gov website which would protect her e-mails and correspondence. I write emails from home using our corporate website because it is secured. I don't conduct business on behalf of the company I work for using any other e-mail addy. Hitlery didn't want the scrutiny or the record of her dealings that she did in private and "off the record". If you can't see that, you are incredibly stupid and naive.

Nobody cares about the e-mail BS. Not classified and not hacked, dupe. And HER policies would help the middle class and cost the rich. You are an idiot.

She purged her emails prior to an investigation, stalled investigators and lied. lied about turning over all her emails. Of course it matters to people. People have the right to demand honesty from our elected officials.

So did Colin and Condi and the RNC when they were actually DOING crimes lol. Pub dupes! And all for your infotainment channels lol...

Yes, so did they, your correct. Which is why Trump is the nominee... for better or worse. Hillary will continue to increase the burocracy and by pass the power of the Congress. were moving closer to a monarchy . Notice the trend? Bush - Bush - Clinton - Clinton for pres.

Actually, DEMS want to solve problems and NEED a congress that works to do it. The New BS GOP is just fine with this pander to the greedy rich idiot mess we've had since the 80's...

Right, draconian solutions to problems they created. Fuck a bunch of commiecrats.

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed....people are waking up to this "company store" plantation where the middle class is being squeezed. They are seeing the crimes of the elites being swept under the rug and they are tired of the "Rules for thee but not for me" attitude of the very ones that are suppose to be representing us. I was a HUGE backer of both Bush presidents and I am fucking EMBARRASSED to say that I was so blinded.

It's New BS GOP tax rates cut programs, and low pay that are killing the middle class, not non-existent Dem policies. Pub dupes.

Your beloved "gubermint" is a corporate entity....that is a fact.... and it has 185,000 subsidiaries and their tentacles stretch out even into the Fortune 500 corporations and their subsidiaries. They are the majority shareholders of every Fortune 500 corporation. Composite "gubermint" takes in more from their investments than the private GDP. Your beloved politicians on both sides are nothing but corporate officers that work on behalf of their corporate owners. The establishment politicians from both sides work together on committees that can overrule anything the House may vote for...like the audit of the Federal Reserve that was blocked by establishment demcrats on the banking committee which prevented an "up and down" vote. They are all crooks and they don't need one fucking dime from us but taxes are necessary because if people had more money, it would expose the fact that 97 percent of this alleged fiat currency is only numbers on a computer screen/ledger and it's going to collapse under it's own wake and the elites are fine with that because they own all the hard assets.....but keep waving that leftard rainbow colored flag......you can wave it when the dollar crashes in hopes of getting some FEMA truck to drop off some provisions...good luck with that.

Audit the FD? STUPID idea, already done, just a stupid New BS GOP propaganda idea, for total dupes only. Exactly like their "jobs bills"...idiocy.

No, there has never been a "top to bottom" audit of the Federal Reserve since it hijacked the monetary system in 1913. There has been one or two limited audits and massive fraud was found...money printed and given to their member banks in other countries that we are being told we are responsible for. I don't owe any interest to the Fed bankers for what USA.INC has borrowed because it is a corporate entity. I am not responsible for the debt of USA.INC and neither are you.

Nothing no one knows about, and BULLSHIT- talk about being spun out of your mind, dupe.

Do you have an english translator for that gibberish?

 

[dannyboys]

November 8th the jury votes. The only jury that counts and right now 67% of the American voters say she is guilty.

Dumb ^^^

You see the American voting public as dumb? 67% think she is a liar and a cheat.

We call that 30 years of smears.

Trump has had 3,500 lawsuits. 169 (at least) Federal Lawsuits. He is being investigated for Bribery. Has a court date Nov 28th for Racketeering and Fraud.

But Hillary is the crooked one. Go figure.

And YOU are the fucking lying asshole!
Trump has been "involved" in 3500 lawsuits. Let's break that down shall we?
In 1900 it was Trump doing the suing.
In 1300 he was being sued.
In 1280 of those lawsuits he was being sued by an unhappy casino patron.
You ought to learn how to behave yourself in a truthful way.
I bet that's not the first time someone has told you that asshole!

 

[BluesLegend]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

Al Capone was never charged with murder either, hence your post is FAIL.

 

[oreo]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

Very TRUE:

Hillary Clinton How Dare You:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.

Journalist Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s “dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William (I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996 article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a “congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This tragically illustrates how systemic sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in every fiber we wear.

In fact, most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here, and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really? The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who designed it?

Sadly, any time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say those within the dominant narrative and power structure.

While I have never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that this was a sexist statement.

What I find profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

After 500 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Clinton's you have come up with NOTHING. The 8th investigation of Benghazi--in comparison to Reagan where he lost 240 U.S. marines in Lebanon resulted in 1 investigation and it was over. Clearly it's been nothing more than a Reich wing dog and pony show for nothing more than political gain--and the 8th investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

It couldn't be better stated than this:

"Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever."
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Emails the same thing. You can look on this board right now, and you'll see more threads about email conspiracy's more Benghazi statements.

It's not about Hillary Clinton per se, it's much more about the 1st woman President of the United States that you can't stand the thought of.

 

[oreo]

November 8th the jury votes. The only jury that counts and right now 67% of the American voters say she is guilty.

Dumb ^^^

You see the American voting public as dumb? 67% think she is a liar and a cheat.

We call that 30 years of smears.

Trump has had 3,500 lawsuits. 169 (at least) Federal Lawsuits. He is being investigated for Bribery. Has a court date Nov 28th for Racketeering and Fraud.

But Hillary is the crooked one. Go figure.

And YOU are the fucking lying asshole!
Trump has been "involved" in 3500 lawsuits. Let's break that down shall we?
In 1900 it was Trump doing the suing.
In 1300 he was being sued.
In 1280 of those lawsuits he was being sued by an unhappy casino patron.
You ought to learn how to behave yourself in a truthful way.
I bet that's not the first time someone has told you that asshole!

Trump will be in court very quickly over Trump University--class action law suits everywhere.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam, by Ian Tuttle, National Review

 

[Wry Catcher]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

Al Capone was never charged with murder either, hence your post is FAIL.

Old Scareface was charged with tax evasion and sent to Alcatraz where he died of syplus.

HRC has been accused of murder (by right wing conspirators) but never charged, thus one must conclude your post is a failure.

 

[OKTexas]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

Bullshit, she knew what she was doing was wrong, personal convenience is not an excuse to ignore aids that were telling her to use her state.gov email. It was set up for her and never used. State also briefed her on their classification policies about emails generated at the State Dept., she ignored that also. Probably 60% of the email she generated was automatically classified by the State Dept. Any correspondence with a foreign official, classified, any correspondence containing personal identifying information, classified. So don't give me this shit, she didn't know, she just didn't care, she was a Clinton she wrote her own rules. BTW she also ignored the State Dept. policies to CC the State Dept archivist on every work related email sent outside the state.gov system, in order to comply with federal records keeping laws. If all these facts plus many more I could name didn't demonstrate intent, nothing is adequate to do so.

 

[BluesLegend]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

Al Capone was never charged with murder either, hence your post is FAIL.

Old Scareface was charged with tax evasion and sent to Alcatraz where he died of syplus.

HRC has been accused of murder (by right wing conspirators) but never charged, thus one must conclude your post is a failure.

By your logic George Bush is clean as a fresh winter snow, ditto Reagan. Oh I got you by the balls there.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

Very TRUE:

Hillary Clinton How Dare You:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.

Journalist Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s “dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William (I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996 article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a “congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This tragically illustrates how systemic sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in every fiber we wear.

In fact, most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here, and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really? The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who designed it?

Sadly, any time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say those within the dominant narrative and power structure.

While I have never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that this was a sexist statement.

What I find profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

After 500 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Clinton's you have come up with NOTHING. The 8th investigation of Benghazi--in comparison to Reagan where he lost 240 U.S. marines in Lebanon resulted in 1 investigation and it was over. Clearly it's been nothing more than a Reich wing dog and pony show for nothing more than political gain--and the 8th investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

It couldn't be better stated than this:

"Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever."
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Emails the same thing. You can look on this board right now, and you'll see more threads about email conspiracy's more Benghazi statements.

It's not about Hillary Clinton per se, it's much more about the 1st woman President of the United States that you can't stand the thought of.

You're a damn fool, did Reagan deny 600 requests for additional security in Lebanon?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

Bullshit, she knew what she was doing was wrong, personal convenience is not an excuse to ignore aids that were telling her to use her state.gov email. It was set up for her and never used. State also briefed her on their classification policies about emails generated at the State Dept., she ignored that also. Probably 60% of the email she generated was automatically classified by the State Dept. Any correspondence with a foreign official, classified, any correspondence containing personal identifying information, classified. So don't give me this shit, she didn't know, she just didn't care, she was a Clinton she wrote her own rules. BTW she also ignored the State Dept. policies to CC the State Dept archivist on every work related email sent outside the state.gov system, in order to comply with federal records keeping laws. If all these facts plus many more I could name didn't demonstrate intent, nothing is adequate to do so.

Please post the policies which she signed off on which you claim support your conclusion that she is guilty and must prove her innocence. Oh, and is that the principle for justice in Texas? Most (real) Americans believe in innocent until proven guilty.

BTW, you completely ignored the principle of Mens Rea, I guess Texas Law is pretty simple to administer.

 

[oreo]

Very TRUE:

Hillary Clinton How Dare You:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.

Journalist Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s “dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William (I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996 article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a “congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This tragically illustrates how systemic sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in every fiber we wear.

In fact, most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here, and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really? The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who designed it?

Sadly, any time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say those within the dominant narrative and power structure.

While I have never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that this was a sexist statement.

What I find profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

After 500 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Clinton's you have come up with NOTHING. The 8th investigation of Benghazi--in comparison to Reagan where he lost 240 U.S. marines in Lebanon resulted in 1 investigation and it was over. Clearly it's been nothing more than a Reich wing dog and pony show for nothing more than political gain--and the 8th investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

It couldn't be better stated than this:

"Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever."
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Emails the same thing. You can look on this board right now, and you'll see more threads about email conspiracy's more Benghazi statements.

It's not about Hillary Clinton per se, it's much more about the 1st woman President of the United States that you can't stand the thought of.

You're a damn fool, did Reagan deny 600 requests for additional security in Lebanon?

Ha.Ha. again that was explained in a rational manner during the 8th investigation--during the 11 hours of congressional testimony.

And this is verified by the CIA agents that were on the ground fighting this battle.

1. Chris Stevens showed up in Benghazi on the 10th of September and was killed the folllowing day the 11th of September. Hillary Clinton didn't even know he was there, he was supposed to be 400 miles away in a Secure embassy in Tripoli. Stevens took it upon himself, and against the advice of the CIA to rent an un secure villa.

2. The requests for more security in Libya was actually denied by House Republicans do to budget shortfalls and cuts. Republicans as the majority hold the purse strings.

3. During the same time period, 3 other U.S. Embassies were being raided over the VIDEO--so initially they believed Bengazi was over the same issue. That is also verified.

I know you know this crap--because every Reich winger would have stormed the movie theaters to see the movie (13 hours) which was written by those CIA agents that were fighting the battle in Benghazi. You're just blathering Mr. Talent on loan from Gawwwd-d and all the other Reich wing talk show hosts you listen to that frankly, have fed you a lot of bullshit.

 

[hadit]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

Good points. She is obviously clearly a smarter crook than Donald is a businessman. But then if she is THAT smart why is she still talking about those damned emails?

Because she's not guilty of anything but possible incompetence, dupe. Not hacked, none marked classified. You people are ridiculous and brainwashed...

Incompetent, what I've been saying from the beginning. There was no way she was ever going to be indicted. She's too powerful and knows where too many skeletons are buried. Extremely careless is enough for me to want her kept out of the White House.