New Ethics Violations Alleged Against Hillary Clinton

[NYcarbineer]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

gee, a conservative 'watchdog' group has found something to bitch about.

surely by now you realize it's more about the accusation than the merits of the charge

Actually it's about evidence found in her emails, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

You keep whining about evidence, but after all the separate investigations, there has been no evidence of wrong doing found. Why is that?

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

It was funny on the news this morning to hear Trump trash Trey Gowdy's Benghazi witch hunt as a miserable failure.

 

[OKTexas]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

Actually your problem is you don't know the difference between criminality and ethics. An act may not rise to the level of criminality but that doesn't make it ethical.

True,but the accusations are always of supposedly criminal actions. Only after those claims are proven false do you try to save face by claiming some moral deficit. It's morally wrong to make so many false accusations.

Were they really false, or maybe just exaggerated a bit? One person can't put themselves in a position to get that many allegations and nothing be there. Of course we are still waiting to see what the FBI has to say about the contents of her server.

 

[Meathead]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

gee, a conservative 'watchdog' group has found something to bitch about.

surely by now you realize it's more about the accusation than the merits of the charge

Actually it's about evidence found in her emails, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

You keep whining about evidence, but after all the separate investigations, there has been no evidence of wrong doing found. Why is that?

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

It was funny on the news this morning to hear Trump trash Trey Gowdy's Benghazi witch hunt as a miserable failure.

Trump is obviously wrong. Gowdy's commission exposed Hillary's private server and compromise of secret documents. Best thing is it ain't over yet.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

Actually it's about evidence found in her emails, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

You keep whining about evidence, but after all the separate investigations, there has been no evidence of wrong doing found. Why is that?

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

 

[The Rabbi]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

You keep whining about evidence, but after all the separate investigations, there has been no evidence of wrong doing found. Why is that?

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

The Clinton strategy is to rack up so many violations each one seems relatively minor.

 

[rightwinger]

How is someone who hasn't held office since 2012 the worst ethics violator of 2015?

Seems like a fix doesn't it?

 

[The Rabbi]

How is someone who hasn't held office since 2012 the worst ethics violator of 2015?

Seems like a fix doesn't it?

We're finding out about all of it now. ANd much much more to come.

 

[rightwinger]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

You keep whining about evidence, but after all the separate investigations, there has been no evidence of wrong doing found. Why is that?

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

Petraus gave classified information away

 

[The Rabbi]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

Petraus gave classified information away

So did Hillary. Her lawyer and others had access to her server, which had classified info on it.
next.

 

[rdean]

Watchdog group says the hildabeast is the worst ethics violator of 2015.

A conservative watchdog group is calling for a new federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's actions during her time as secretary of state.

This time, the Democratic presidential front-runner is accused of giving special government access to an investor in a deep-sea mining company due to his ties to Clinton's son-in-law, hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky.

The group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on Monday, alleging that Clinton "gave a private company special access to the State Department based upon the company's relationships with Secretary Clinton's family members and donors to the Clinton Foundation."

The complaint, first obtained by TIME, comes two weeks after one of Clinton's court-ordered email releases showed that she asked a senior State Department official to follow up on a special request from Mezvinsky, the husband of her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

Read more at: Hillary Clinton Faces Call for New Ethics Investigation After Son-in-Law Asked for a Business Favor

Also see:
6 in 10 American Voters Do Not Trust Hillary Clinton
Plurality would be ‘embarrassed’ if she won 2016 election

6 in 10 American Voters Do Not Trust Hillary Clinton

It's OK, because everyone not Republican doesn't trust the GOP. In fact, they are angry at what GOP policies have done TO the country.

 

[The Rabbi]

Watchdog group says the hildabeast is the worst ethics violator of 2015.

A conservative watchdog group is calling for a new federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's actions during her time as secretary of state.

This time, the Democratic presidential front-runner is accused of giving special government access to an investor in a deep-sea mining company due to his ties to Clinton's son-in-law, hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky.

The group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on Monday, alleging that Clinton "gave a private company special access to the State Department based upon the company's relationships with Secretary Clinton's family members and donors to the Clinton Foundation."

The complaint, first obtained by TIME, comes two weeks after one of Clinton's court-ordered email releases showed that she asked a senior State Department official to follow up on a special request from Mezvinsky, the husband of her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

Read more at: Hillary Clinton Faces Call for New Ethics Investigation After Son-in-Law Asked for a Business Favor

Also see:
6 in 10 American Voters Do Not Trust Hillary Clinton
Plurality would be ‘embarrassed’ if she won 2016 election

6 in 10 American Voters Do Not Trust Hillary Clinton

It's OK, because everyone not Republican doesn't trust the GOP. In fact, they are angry at what GOP policies have done TO the country.

Democrats have run this country for the last 8 years at least. So that isnt washing.

 

[BULLDOG]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.
Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

Actually your problem is you don't know the difference between criminality and ethics. An act may not rise to the level of criminality but that doesn't make it ethical.

True,but the accusations are always of supposedly criminal actions. Only after those claims are proven false do you try to save face by claiming some moral deficit. It's morally wrong to make so many false accusations.

Were they really false, or maybe just exaggerated a bit? One person can't put themselves in a position to get that many allegations and nothing be there. Of course we are still waiting to see what the FBI has to say about the contents of her server.

Yes they were really false. After almost three decades of investigations, are you trying to claim the fault was just a little exaggeration? NO. It's a concerted effort to throw any silly accusation they can think of and hope at least one of them can come up lucky. You are hoping the FBI investigation will finally be the one that pays off, but with your history of lies, I wouldn't count on it. She didn't put herself into any position. The right is attacking, and doing a poor job of it. Fortunately, for you, lots of brain dead right wingers don't need facts to make up their minds. Unfounded accusations are enough for you.

 

[BULLDOG]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

You keep whining about evidence, but after all the separate investigations, there has been no evidence of wrong doing found. Why is that?

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

I won't bother to explain AGAIN how any classified information was classified that way After she received it. Facts don't seem to matter to you.

 

[Meathead]

How is someone who hasn't held office since 2012 the worst ethics violator of 2015?

Seems like a fix doesn't it?

After all, only office holders can be sleazy, right? Sorry, Hillary permeates sleaze whatever she does.

 

[The Rabbi]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.

I'm sorry you can't recognize her work product as evidence, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course with the the dear leader, the media and regressives like you providing her cover, she thinks she's invincible, don't bet on it.

Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

I won't bother to explain AGAIN how any classified information was classified that way After she received it. Facts don't seem to matter to you.

And I wont explain to you that it doesnt matter. It makes no difference if its marked classified or it becomes classified later. IF she has classified material on her server she is in violation of the law.

 

[BULLDOG]

The right is becoming more and more like an ex-mother-in-law. More dumb ass unfounded accusations every day.
Obviously, the republican led investigations didn't recognize her work product as evidence of wrong doing. Is Trey Goudy in the bag for Hillary too?

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

I won't bother to explain AGAIN how any classified information was classified that way After she received it. Facts don't seem to matter to you.

And I wont explain to you that it doesnt matter. It makes no difference if its marked classified or it becomes classified later. IF she has classified material on her server she is in violation of the law.

If that's all you have, I guess you have to go with it. You have failed to make anything stick for so long. Don't you think it's time to throw in the towel?

 

[OKTexas]

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

Actually your problem is you don't know the difference between criminality and ethics. An act may not rise to the level of criminality but that doesn't make it ethical.

True,but the accusations are always of supposedly criminal actions. Only after those claims are proven false do you try to save face by claiming some moral deficit. It's morally wrong to make so many false accusations.

Were they really false, or maybe just exaggerated a bit? One person can't put themselves in a position to get that many allegations and nothing be there. Of course we are still waiting to see what the FBI has to say about the contents of her server.

Yes they were really false. After almost three decades of investigations, are you trying to claim the fault was just a little exaggeration? NO. It's a concerted effort to throw any silly accusation they can think of and hope at least one of them can come up lucky. You are hoping the FBI investigation will finally be the one that pays off, but with your history of lies, I wouldn't count on it. She didn't put herself into any position. The right is attacking, and doing a poor job of it. Fortunately, for you, lots of brain dead right wingers don't need facts to make up their minds. Unfounded accusations are enough for you.

So you're saying she didn't have a private server?
The server didn't contain classified and other sensitive information?
She didn't destroy government property when she attempted to wipe the hard drives?
She didn't lie to congress when she said she only used one device?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[BULLDOG]

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

Actually your problem is you don't know the difference between criminality and ethics. An act may not rise to the level of criminality but that doesn't make it ethical.

True,but the accusations are always of supposedly criminal actions. Only after those claims are proven false do you try to save face by claiming some moral deficit. It's morally wrong to make so many false accusations.

Were they really false, or maybe just exaggerated a bit? One person can't put themselves in a position to get that many allegations and nothing be there. Of course we are still waiting to see what the FBI has to say about the contents of her server.

Yes they were really false. After almost three decades of investigations, are you trying to claim the fault was just a little exaggeration? NO. It's a concerted effort to throw any silly accusation they can think of and hope at least one of them can come up lucky. You are hoping the FBI investigation will finally be the one that pays off, but with your history of lies, I wouldn't count on it. She didn't put herself into any position. The right is attacking, and doing a poor job of it. Fortunately, for you, lots of brain dead right wingers don't need facts to make up their minds. Unfounded accusations are enough for you.

So you're saying she didn't have a private server?
The server didn't contain classified and other sensitive information?
She didn't destroy government property when she attempted to wipe the hard drives?
She didn't lie to congress when she said she only used one device?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying you haven't and can't prove any wrong doing by Hillary. Come back if and when you can.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually your problem is you don't know the difference between criminality and ethics. An act may not rise to the level of criminality but that doesn't make it ethical.

True,but the accusations are always of supposedly criminal actions. Only after those claims are proven false do you try to save face by claiming some moral deficit. It's morally wrong to make so many false accusations.

Were they really false, or maybe just exaggerated a bit? One person can't put themselves in a position to get that many allegations and nothing be there. Of course we are still waiting to see what the FBI has to say about the contents of her server.

Yes they were really false. After almost three decades of investigations, are you trying to claim the fault was just a little exaggeration? NO. It's a concerted effort to throw any silly accusation they can think of and hope at least one of them can come up lucky. You are hoping the FBI investigation will finally be the one that pays off, but with your history of lies, I wouldn't count on it. She didn't put herself into any position. The right is attacking, and doing a poor job of it. Fortunately, for you, lots of brain dead right wingers don't need facts to make up their minds. Unfounded accusations are enough for you.

So you're saying she didn't have a private server?
The server didn't contain classified and other sensitive information?
She didn't destroy government property when she attempted to wipe the hard drives?
She didn't lie to congress when she said she only used one device?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying you haven't and can't prove any wrong doing by Hillary. Come back if and when you can.

Her just having that kind of information on a private unsecured server is a violation of law, you refuse to admit it.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's the problem with you regressives, you think because she is of the hook for one deed it exonerates her for all, it doesn't work that way. That's the great thing about the hildabeast, she's the gift that keeps on giving. We'll soon discover if she's actually as far above the law as she thinks she is.

You could be right if she was off the hook for only one accusation, or only a dozen, or only a hundred. The right has been throwing literally thousands of accusations at her for almost three decades, and not one has stuck except in the minds of the accusers and their crazy followers. There is a pattern of false accusations being proven to be false. Read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf"

So Hillary did not have classified information on her e-mail servers?

General Petraus was convicted of a felony for far less serious crimes.

I won't bother to explain AGAIN how any classified information was classified that way After she received it. Facts don't seem to matter to you.

And I wont explain to you that it doesnt matter. It makes no difference if its marked classified or it becomes classified later. IF she has classified material on her server she is in violation of the law.

If that's all you have, I guess you have to go with it. You have failed to make anything stick for so long. Don't you think it's time to throw in the towel?

Yes denial. Go with that.