Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by T.R, Apr 8, 2015.
The poor dear.
If it's a hunting accident, you can! The guy who was shot apologized to Cheney.
No, there wasn't, so they charged and convicted him of misleading investigators, which is something completely different than outing Valerie Plame. The investigator already knew that Libby had nothing to do with that.
Note that Hillary has been misleading investigators since about 1994. In her latest batch of lies, she's claimed:
She never sent or received classified information on her personal e-mail system. That was a lie to mislead investigators. Scooter Libby went to prison merely for not remembering correctly.
That she only used one device, her blackberry. That was a lie to mislead investigators.
That she'd turned over all her e-mails to the State Department. That was a lie to mislead investigators.
That she'd wiped her server. That was a lie to mislead investigators.
That she's doing everything she can to get those e-mails out there. That was a lie to mislead investigators.
The FBI finally had to show up with a warrant to seize the e-mail server she claimed she wanted them to have.
If she was anyone else, she'd already be in jail.
The only reason she's not in prison is that everyone is afraid of her. Note that the Republicans fielded over a dozen viable candidates, but Democrats only fielded one. Why didn't any of Obama's dozens of top officials run? Why didn't John Kerry run again? Why didn't Joe Biden run? Why didn't Jack Lew, Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, Eric Holder, Tom Vilsack, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, or Susan Rice run? Why didn't Mark Warner, Joe Manchin, Evan Baye, Jerry Brown, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Cuomo, Terry McCauliff, Bill Richardson, or Ben Nelson run? Why did only a couple laughable or obscure Democrats run?
It goes back to Hillary and those FBI files, and what happens to people that cross her. She is a corrupt cancer at the heart of the DNC.
There's a certain poetry to these posts being next to each other.
More stupid not stupider.
gturner is involved, so "stupidest".
I wish we could box up the gturner Hillary conspiracy posts.
Does the FBI investigate conspiracy theories now, because they sure are investigating Hillary.
Apparently, they investigate what they are required to investigate, even when they know nothing is likely to come of it.
Hilldog's rivals/enemies have been investigating her, and trying to make a charge stick to her since the 80s, and have consistently failed to prove her guilty of any wrong-doing. While you and your ilk (a/k/a morons) seem to believe that this proves her to be some sort of ultra-brilliant super-villian, akin to Blofeld and Lex Luthor rolled into one, the rest of us figure the reason these charges never stick, is that there is nothing to the charges to begin with.
Occam's Razor would seem to side with us.
Actually, the FBI told Obama that he should not take the possibility of prosecution lightly.
The chance that Hillary committed multiple felonies punishable by long stays in prison? 100.000 percent.
We already know she committed multiple felonies, just in what she's confessed to. One of her closest personal advisers wrote that he'd advised her to lawyer up with some of Washington's top Republican defense attorneys because it's very likely she will be charged. He says she refuses to take it seriously. Narcissists do that.
The only real question is whether Obama will allow her to be prosecuted for the multiple felonies, or whether a special prosecutor will be appointed.
I'm pretty sure I should rename this graphic "Response to gtard", as it goes with pretty much every post you make, save, ironically, the ones that are supposed to be funny:
Well, I hope you keep laughing through four years of having a Republican President, because the majority of Americans think Hillary is an untrustworthy liar, and it's pretty hard to win an election without a majority.
Because people are becoming and will become more and more divided.
My, you are suffering from delusions, aren't you?
Quinnipac Iowa Poll of likely Democrat caucus goers.
Is your view of Hillary favorable or unfavorable?
30% of male Democrats and 11% of female Democrats view her unfavorably.
68. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy or not?
38% of male Democrats and 24% of female Democrats said NO.
In contrast, all the other Democrats are in single digits on those questions, and Bernie Sanders is in the low single digits.
74. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?
26% of male Democrats and 11% of female Democrats said NO.
That's because she only cares about herself and her personal fortune and power.
So she's not going to pull in all the Democrats. What about general voters in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?
46. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy or not?
Yes: FL 34%, OH 32%, PA 34%
No: FL 64%, OH 60%, PA 63%
The odds of winning an election when 2/3rd of the electorate think you are an untrustworthy lying liar are slim to none.
Unless the opposition is bat-shit crazy, and has made taking away all of your support systems a part of their xenophobic-pro-war-anti-science-anti-education-anti-women-anti-religious-freedom-for-non-Christian platform, in which case, a not completely trustworthy but sane candidate like Hillary starts looking pretty damn good by comparison.
So basically, you'd have to be bat shit crazy to vote for Hillary.
Why would you think that Republicans were going to be voting for Hilldog?
They won't, and neither will a whole lot of Democrats. She'll basically get the mindless left and felons that are committed to electing one of their own.
Them, and everyone who doesn't want one of the bat-shit crazy xenophobic-pro-war-anti-science-anti-education-anti-women-anti-religious-freedom-for-non-Christian Republicans that are running. If the GOP could find one of their own, who was both popular, and sane, Hilldog might be in trouble. With any of the current passengers in the GOP clown car, she's practically assured of winning, and just about every poll done thus far supports that.
Uh no. October polling shows her losing to just about every Republican candidate, and the Republicans haven't even run an ad against her.
Media Matters watched this exchange and bragged about how Charlie Rose pushed back against Rubio's "false claim" that Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi.
A more accurate take is that Hillary is probably going to have Charlie Rose murdered in a back alley.
The clip cut off with Charlie Rose saying "That's a serious charge!" Rubio's response was "It's not a charge, it's the truth."
And it is. Hillary lied, and the more e-mails that get released the worse it looks.
The bit about Hilldog offing Charlie Rose
is Castle-level comedy gold.
Killing Charlie Rose might actually win my vote.
Have you heard all the shit the CIA agents in Benghazi said about being told not to speak to anyone about what happened? No information was supposed to get out.
And so? That's pretty much part of their job description.
No. Obviously Hillary thinks that telling government employees to lie to the government is in the job description, as her constant lies to the government illustrate, including her lies to Congress and her private e-mail setup whose sole purpose was to keep the government, including Obama, from finding out about her wheeling and dealing for personal billions.
And Ambassador Stevens sent over 600 requests for more security. Hillary ignored all of them, assuming a single one even reached her. You see, the ambassador didn't have her e-mail address, even though con men like Sidney Blumenthal did. Blumenthal was the one who found the Internet video the Administration chose to falsely blame, saving Pastor Jon in Colorado a bunch of jail time. Blumenthal had been earlier e-mailing her about making sure the US didn't put boots on the ground so his private security company could scoop up all the lucrative contracts to protect oil installations and whatnot. Hillary would have gotten a cut of that, which is why she was excitedly e-mailing him back and forth, and why she tampered with evidence (which is a felony) to delete the relevant paragraphs from the e-mails she turned over to the State Department. Thank goodness an Eastern European hacked Blumenthal's e-mails or we still wouldn't know about it.
Poll: 3-in-4 say Benghazi panel politically motivated
Turns out while America doesn't fully trust Hillary, they trust those investigating her even less.
Would you like links for all that?
Pompeo v Clinton: 600 request for more Benghazi security were ignored
Clinton or her staff edited e-mails before turning them over to State.
There is no way to put a good face on this one: Hillary Clinton lied about her emails. She had something to hide, and she hid it. She deliberately deceived Congress, which asked for her communications on Libya, and she spoke falsely to the public.
That's several felonies. One of the sections she deleted was Sidney Blumenthal talking about all the jockeying for oil contracts in the post-Qaddafi Libya. One of the reasons that's important is that Obama had no interest in intervening in Libya. But somehow Hillary dragged him into it, and her e-mails with Blumenthal show that she was going to step in and take full credit for the success until Obama gave a speech grabbing credit for himself. That confirms that the Libya intervention was her idea, or at least she's the one who pushed it through, no doubt selling the point that there would be no boots on the ground. The boots were going to be provided by Blumenthal's security company. But she and Blumenthal were also discussing all the oil contracts, and sure enough, major European oil companies with interests in Libya were major donors to the Clinton Foundation.
As has been often said, "follow the money."
It's amazing that you can spin so long, and as damn hard as you do, without puking all over yourself.
Separate names with a comma.