New Ethics Violations Alleged Against Hillary Clinton

[The Rabbi]

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.

He can't. The facts are there. BUt he will default to "if no indictments were issued/if no convictions were handed down then it didnt happen." Of course when it comes e.g. Christie a newspaper allegation is sufficient to convict.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Then why haven't the legal authorities charged her with that? Try again when they do.

 

[BluesLegend]

New Ethics Violations Alleged Against The hildabeast

Breaking: Clinton campaign disputes ethics charge, states if you have no ethics you cannot have ethics violations.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

He can't. The facts are there. BUt he will default to "if no indictments were issued/if no convictions were handed down then it didnt happen." Of course when it comes e.g. Christie a newspaper allegation is sufficient to convict.

What has Christi been convicted of?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

He can't. The facts are there. BUt he will default to "if no indictments were issued/if no convictions were handed down then it didnt happen." Of course when it comes e.g. Christie a newspaper allegation is sufficient to convict.

What has Christi been convicted of?

So you're supporting Christie for president?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

He can't. The facts are there. BUt he will default to "if no indictments were issued/if no convictions were handed down then it didnt happen." Of course when it comes e.g. Christie a newspaper allegation is sufficient to convict.

What has Christi been convicted of?

So you're supporting Christie for president?

Try to focus. You can stay connected to reality if you just try a little harder. You said Christi was convicted. I only asked what he was convicted of.

 

[Faun]

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

Oh, noooos.... Conservatives bitching & moaning about Hillary again.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

Well which is it? Was she trusted with classified information or not? Either way it proves she isn't a leader and can't be trusted.
Either she was considered to be incompetent to receive classified information.
Or she received classified information on an unsecured email account.
So bulldog which one is it? It's one or the other no spin can be added to it.
Anybody want to guess the name I will be called now?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

Well which is it? Was she trusted with classified information or not? Either way it proves she isn't a leader and can't be trusted.
Either she was considered to be incompetent to receive classified information.
Or she received classified information on an unsecured email account.
So bulldog which one is it? It's one or the other no spin can be added to it.
Anybody want to guess the name I will be called now?

No need to call you names. I'm sure your deficiencies have been noted plenty of times already. Of course she was trusted with classified information. Probably still is. She is not responsible for what might have been sent to her, especially if it wasn't marked classified when she received it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

Well which is it? Was she trusted with classified information or not? Either way it proves she isn't a leader and can't be trusted.
Either she was considered to be incompetent to receive classified information.
Or she received classified information on an unsecured email account.
So bulldog which one is it? It's one or the other no spin can be added to it.
Anybody want to guess the name I will be called now?

No need to call you names. I'm sure your deficiencies have been noted plenty of times already. Of course she was trusted with classified information. Probably still is. She is not responsible for what might have been sent to her, especially if it wasn't marked classified when she received it.

That is incorrect. She is responsible. That is the statute. The marking on the document is irrelevant. If its classified she violated the law.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

He can't. The facts are there. BUt he will default to "if no indictments were issued/if no convictions were handed down then it didnt happen." Of course when it comes e.g. Christie a newspaper allegation is sufficient to convict.

What has Christi been convicted of?

Christi can pound sand, his blatant undermining of the 2nd amendment disqualifies him to be president. He'd break his oath of office just taking it.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

Well which is it? Was she trusted with classified information or not? Either way it proves she isn't a leader and can't be trusted.
Either she was considered to be incompetent to receive classified information.
Or she received classified information on an unsecured email account.
So bulldog which one is it? It's one or the other no spin can be added to it.
Anybody want to guess the name I will be called now?

No need to call you names. I'm sure your deficiencies have been noted plenty of times already. Of course she was trusted with classified information. Probably still is. She is not responsible for what might have been sent to her, especially if it wasn't marked classified when she received it.

That is incorrect. She is responsible. That is the statute. The marking on the document is irrelevant. If its classified she violated the law.

Rabi you know as well as I do these elite politicians are immune from the law, a big fat nothing is going to happen no matter how many laws she broke. That's just how corrupt our government has become. Lower level politicians sure they will throw them in a cell but once you are powerful enough, or have enough dirt on the rest of these corrupt bastards you have immunity.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

Well which is it? Was she trusted with classified information or not? Either way it proves she isn't a leader and can't be trusted.
Either she was considered to be incompetent to receive classified information.
Or she received classified information on an unsecured email account.
So bulldog which one is it? It's one or the other no spin can be added to it.
Anybody want to guess the name I will be called now?

No need to call you names. I'm sure your deficiencies have been noted plenty of times already. Of course she was trusted with classified information. Probably still is. She is not responsible for what might have been sent to her, especially if it wasn't marked classified when she received it.

That is incorrect. She is responsible. That is the statute. The marking on the document is irrelevant. If its classified she violated the law.

Rabi you know as well as I do these elite politicians are immune from the law, a big fat nothing is going to happen no matter how many laws she broke. That's just how corrupt our government has become. Lower level politicians sure they will throw them in a cell but once you are powerful enough, or have enough dirt on the rest of these corrupt bastards you have immunity.

Sad but true.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

Well which is it? Was she trusted with classified information or not? Either way it proves she isn't a leader and can't be trusted.
Either she was considered to be incompetent to receive classified information.
Or she received classified information on an unsecured email account.
So bulldog which one is it? It's one or the other no spin can be added to it.
Anybody want to guess the name I will be called now?

No need to call you names. I'm sure your deficiencies have been noted plenty of times already. Of course she was trusted with classified information. Probably still is. She is not responsible for what might have been sent to her, especially if it wasn't marked classified when she received it.

That is incorrect. She is responsible. That is the statute. The marking on the document is irrelevant. If its classified she violated the law.

Then why hasn't she been charged?

 

[jknowgood]

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.

So you are admitting that even the Obama administration knew Hillary is a failure and wouldn't send her classified information? Now that's ironic.

You need to be really careful keeping what you hear from people and what the voices in your head tell you separate.

Well which is it? Was she trusted with classified information or not? Either way it proves she isn't a leader and can't be trusted.
Either she was considered to be incompetent to receive classified information.
Or she received classified information on an unsecured email account.
So bulldog which one is it? It's one or the other no spin can be added to it.
Anybody want to guess the name I will be called now?

No need to call you names. I'm sure your deficiencies have been noted plenty of times already. Of course she was trusted with classified information. Probably still is. She is not responsible for what might have been sent to her, especially if it wasn't marked classified when she received it.

Either she received classified information on an insecure server or she didn't because she couldn't be trusted. Which is it?

 

[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.

Actually all I need to know about the hildabeast to consider her disqualified for office is how she treated the military and secret service in the white house, along with her playing attack dog for lose willie against the women he abused. Everything else is just gravy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The butt hurt is a live with this op!!!

Go Hillary!!! She will win big time.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Then why haven't the legal authorities charged her with that? Try again when they do.

This will be the most heavily scrutinized investigation in FBI history, they will ensure there are no questions unanswered before they release any recommendations.