Hillary Clinton

"

Manocean wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

ah so Hillary was real mean in a meeting, fucking murderer.

Well, Trump said mean things and now he is "the next totalitarian fascist hitler who will use nukes and kill puppies and must be stopped at all costs before WW3 breaks out and all minorities are lynched"

Evens out I guess :)

The difference is, for the one it's an allegation, and the other is on record.

"

Jojas wrote:

The difference is, for the one it's an allegation, and the other is on record.

Lying under oath is pretty bad too. Is that on the record or an allegation?

"

LostForm wrote:

fucking people trying to help young girls in Africa. who do they think they are!

That's why I left that part in. There does seem to be some good causes the foundation is working towards and although I've heard some criticism of their efficiency percentage wise, that has mainly been from partisan sources opposed to Hillary. That particular one looked odd mainly for agreeing to a 3yr support funding, but then not giving any money after they had their meeting/communication with H. Maybe they thought it was pay for play and H didn't give them what they wanted, so they bailed? (which would be an indication that H wasn't dishing out illicit favors for donations.

"Now think about this, whatever "H" Hillary was asking about, it was dangerous enough that she wouldn't even say what it was in her email. "wanted help w(ith) _ _ _ _ _ . . . . ."

"

LostForm wrote:

Honeywell is a defense contractor, and this email was apparently in the original batch released, those emails were scrubbed by a different organization for release due to FIA request. You don't properly support your argument that Hillary took this information out.

Is the _ _ _ the current way of presenting redacted/scrubbed information now?

I had only seen the blacked out or blank boxes type for anything recent, such as this:



It could be that was done by a screening agency for the FIA request - when I first read it, it just didn't look that way to me.



"the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. "

"

LostForm wrote:

just so you know:

About Us

The Office of Visa Services, in the Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of State provides various functions:.
We serve as liaisons with the Department of Homeland Security
We serve as liaisons between the Department of State and U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad on visa matters
We interpret visa laws and regulations, and act as a point of contact for the public.


The state department umbrella handles visa requests, and is a point of contact for visa requests. And people do in fact have to request visas, and generally a sponsor for that visa helps, and then do have the right to ask about visas. If you are implying that a status update due to an informal personal conversation is criminal, well I don't know what to tell you my friend, there are very few innocent people then, and that is the only action called for in the email, a status update.

Visas can be a pain to get everything lined up. While the state department does assist with such matters, the average joe isn't getting the secretary of state assisting on their problems.

"

LostForm wrote:

hrod17 sounds like a campaign thing, Hillary in 2017 type thing.

Ah, that makes sense - usually you see the 2008/12/16 logos for the campaign, but H is already thinking about the important part - the date she takes office. If she's thinking two terms, then maybe the "22" on her original account was for 2022 when she becomes a normal citizen after 2 terms in office?

"

LostForm wrote:

It boils down to people claiming that donors only donate to the clinton foundation in return for favors, but nobody can produce a tit for tat smoking gun, only more allegations. /quote]

While their action may be completely above board, the amount of obfuscation, delay and possible deletion, erasure of information and the percentage of those who had some business with the state dept and contributed to the foundation doesn't look good. If the Clintons were political neophytes with no prior experience of how to conduct themselves, this would hardly be an issue at all.

The fact that they are well versed in political etiquette means they know better than this, which raised the questions - Are they doing something they shouldn't be doing? And/or - Do they believe they can do whatever they want and worry how they are perceived?

"

LostForm wrote:

I don't think it needs to be mentioned, but I will anyways, but pointing blame at the Clintons as a cover for other shenanigans has become a global past time at this point. Bold lies have become the new truth, memes the new research material.

The Clintons have been a target for political sniping for a long time. What is being covered up (if anything) is difficult to tell, and the modern practice of only giving out information when legally forced to isn't helping trust in anyone.

"

Manocean wrote:

"

Jojas wrote:

The difference is, for the one it's an allegation, and the other is on record.

Lying under oath is pretty bad too. Is that on the record or an allegation?

Dunno. You're shifting the goalpost.

Good post as always dalai.

"Ah, that makes sense - usually you see the 2008/12/16 logos for the campaign, but H is already thinking about the important part - the date she takes office. If she's thinking two terms, then maybe the "22" on her original account was for 2022 when she becomes a normal citizen after 2 terms in office? "

she definitely is an optimist. As far as the 22, I enjoyed your theory xD , I have no clue, but it is hdr, Hillary diane rodham, so maybe it is just from her past en todo, unless that is the date she can finally divorce bill? I dunno.





I admittedly have very little information about how the emails were scrubbed, but given that it was information about a defense contractor, there are any number of concerned parties that may want to have omitted the minutia there.





You wont ever here me say that the hill is strictly between the lines type of person. She is a mover, she gets things done in an environment of stalemates and obstruction, and very powerful forces have been shirked, told to fuck off along the way, particularly involving health care in this country.

The corporate class here to me is the enemy of America, they have abused and profited from our system, exploited loopholes and then decided it was time to milk out all the money and burn it to the ground; all over the 30% of the profit they get from us being passed back to 'the people' in the form of taxes. some would speculate it is primarily racism driving this (I can source if need be). I will never ever ever vote for a 'businessman', a talent vulture, somebody that gets paid for knowing a whole lot about how money systems work and how it meshes well with exploitation in america.

Hillary is really really pushing my line in that regard, but she has more character than just her businessperson, more to her resume, she has more to her history. I think she genuinely does care for single mothers in America, and the impoverished, the uneducated, people in need, that she wants to raise all boats; while celebrating capitalism. But ya she has been working the system hard, how much is for pure personal gain, and how much was just alternative avenues to get positive things done that shirked some powerful people? I believe she is and always has been working in our interests, by and large.


corporate class: conglomerates that primarily trade in other peoples' ideas, blood, sweat, and tears

Hillary is doing a speech on the alt right today. Apparently she will be mentioning Pepe. My tendies are ready.

The Alt-Right is ready

The Youtube chat is hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHAlX9a_dfA

Ahaha she said Cruz missile. The memes are real.

20 minute speech, I am disappoint. Highlight of the speech was an anon in the crowd yelling "Pepe!".

What do you guys think of this opinion article?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/24/clinton-foundation-emails-donations-server-payforplay-trump-glenn-reynolds/89205512/

Other than being triggered by a typo, it seems like more fact than opinion, and I see nothing controversial within. That's why the SC case a few months ago with that disgraced Virginia politician was so shameful. The threshold for how blatant a quid pro quo has to be was elevated to insane levels via their judicial overreach.