More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

[Ebsy]

Where in the article did it establish that Clinton had sold influence in the State Department?

I did actually and the editorial and the WaPo.
Your candidate is a train wreck and should she win, she will destroy the Dem party by 2018.

Also, stop concern trolling. The Democratic Party will be just fine.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

I think they hardly try to hide their intentions by now. The next step is sponsoring push polls that ask people if they know that Hillary's hobby is torturing kittens.

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

you know, maybe if the entire media is "conspiring" against you, it's not actually conspiring and you're just wrong.

Mmm hmm. Surely you realize the implications of this statement?

[IceSpear]

IceSpear must have really thought a lot about his Hillary support before devoting himself to her.

With Hillary, he can be on the winning team while at the same exhibiting a persecution complex because they don't accept the "inevitable". It really is cult-like, eh?

You must have thought a lot about this odd and incorrect attempt at psychoanalysis.

By the way, your theory kind of falls flat considering I supported her in 2007/2008 when it was about as "uncool" and "not trendy" as humanly possible, particularly on the internet.

[bobloblaw]

Where in the article did it establish that Clinton had sold influence in the State Department?

I did actually and the editorial and the WaPo.
Your candidate is a train wreck and should she win, she will destroy the Dem party by 2018.

Also, stop concern trolling. The Democratic Party will be just fine.

Im just pointing it out. Hillary is actually my 2nd or 3rd choice for President and well ahead of Bush, who is my last. I will look forward to election night 2018 when the GOP walks away with 35-40 governors, 70% of state legislatures and gerrymanders the 2020 census so the Dems are locked out of the House until 2032 at the earliest.

The interesting thing is the GOP recovered from its 2006 debacle but the Dems really never recovered from 1994.

[136or142]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

[Beet]

bobloblaw is a Hillary sympathizer who has her as her 2nd or 3rd choice and is just looking out for the good of the party, guys.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

None of it has been debunked, nice try though.

[Ebsy]

You may think we didn't notice, but we all realize you didn't respond to my question asking where in the article you supposedly read that it established Clinton had peddled influence for donations in her family's charity.

[136or142]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

None of it has been debunked, nice try though.

Actually it has been.

[bobloblaw]

You may think we didn't notice, but we all realize you didn't respond to my question asking where in the article you supposedly read that it established Clinton had peddled influence for donations in her family's charity.

Gee where is the evidence Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Irag.

The answer is that is where the investigative reporting will lead. The Clinton Foundation will be a huge albotross for Hillary.

[Ebsy]

You may think we didn't notice, but we all realize you didn't respond to my question asking where in the article you supposedly read that it established Clinton had peddled influence for donations in her family's charity.

Gee where is the evidence Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Irag.

The answer is that is where the investigative reporting will lead. The Clinton Foundation will be a huge albotross for Hillary.

Still deflecting.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

None of it has been debunked, nice try though.

Actually it has been.

No it hasnt. If so, the story would go away. This story wont be going away anytime soon.

[bobloblaw]

You may think we didn't notice, but we all realize you didn't respond to my question asking where in the article you supposedly read that it established Clinton had peddled influence for donations in her family's charity.

Gee where is the evidence Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Irag.

The answer is that is where the investigative reporting will lead. The Clinton Foundation will be a huge albotross for Hillary.

Still deflecting.

Deflecting?? That is what the Clinton's do.

[Ebsy]

You're really unbelievable.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The media never beats on a dead horse?  I see no evidence outside of the usual right wing hyper partisans on Breitabart and the Wall Street Journal  that anybody aside of the usual dimwitted Washington journalists give a rat's ass about this phony scandal.

Also, a prediction of what will happen in the future is not even evidence.

[bobloblaw]

You're really unbelievable.

The two of you represent the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that plagues liberalism. Things like integrity mean nothing to you. For you it is all about the short term win.

Liberals today are driven by hate. Hatred of conservatism. What conservatives stand for, liberals reflexively oppose. A great example is the Ex-Im bank. Something liberals opposed for 30 years until conservatives also started opposing Ex-Im. Then liberals decided Ex-Im was important for American jobs. Their real motivation was to oppose conservatives.

[Ebsy]

Actually, who was that luminary that said:

What the left doesnt get is that changing demographics dont change forever. The future cannot be predicted.

And yet here we have this upstart named bobloblaw, predicting that this story isn't going anywhere any time soon. bobloblaw ought to have a word with bobloblaw.

[Brewer]

You're really unbelievable.

The two of you represent the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that plagues liberalism. Things like integrity mean nothing to you. For you it is all about the short term win.

Liberals today are driven by hate. Hatred of conservatism. What conservatives stand for, liberals reflexively oppose. A great example is the Ex-Im bank. Something liberals opposed for 30 years until conservatives also started opposing Ex-Im. Then liberals decided Ex-Im was important for American jobs. Their real motivation was to oppose conservatives.

LOL

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.Anybody who still supports the Republican Party after the Bush/Cheney years and the war based on lies, the tax cuts for the 'haves and have mores', the global warming denialism,  the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the failure of SEC Chair Christopher Cox to stop the financial corruption that led to the great recession and on and on, is in NO position to lecture anybody about 'moral and intellectual bankruptcy.'

The only ones morally and intellectually bankrupt are the Bush/Cheney Administration and all of their enablers, such as yourself.

So, please do us all a favor and go crawl back under your rock.

2.The only thing I hate is willful stupidity.

[bobloblaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.Anybody who still supports the Republican Party after the Bush/Cheney years and the war based on lies, the tax cuts for the 'haves and have mores', the global warming denialism,  the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the failure of SEC Chair Christopher Cox to stop the financial corruption that led to the great recession and on and on, is in NO position to lecture anybody about 'moral and intellectual bankruptcy.'

The only ones morally and intellectually bankrupt are the Bush/Cheney Administration and all of their enablers, such as yourself.

So, please do us all a favor and go crawl back under your rock.

2.The only thing I hate is willful stupidity.

I look forward to you supporting Bush when the author of "Clinton Cash" goes after him.

I know youre a partisan hack when you bring up Katrina. What exactly did Bush do wrong in Katrina? When the people of LA had a chance to vote, they threw out the Gov and Mayor of NOLA. Tell me EXACTLY what Bush did wrong.

You should hate Obama, he signed 99.9% of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts into law. Why didnt the Dems raise taxes when they had a chance in 2009-10?

Hillary vote for the war, enough said.

The climate is changing and will always change. For some reason you think the climate should be static. What I deny is that passing legislation will some how stop the climate from changing. And that taxpayers and the USA in particular must be poorer to keep the climate exactly as is.


The stupidly is all spewing from you.

[136or142]

1.I look forward to you supporting Bush when the author of "Clinton Cash" goes after him.

I've shown on here and other boards that my primary concern is for the truth, the whole truth.. If Schweizer lies about Jeb Bush as he has lied about HRC, I will defend Jeb if others don't.

2.I know youre a partisan hack when you bring up Katrina. What exactly did Bush do wrong in Katrina? When the people of LA had a chance to vote, they threw out the Gov and Mayor of NOLA. Tell me EXACTLY what Bush did wrong.

The mayor of New Orleans was corrupt.  "Heck of a job Brownie" did nothing wrong?  While the state and city government were also incompetent, there is no question FEMA was incompetent and only a partisan hack such as yourself would attempt to deny that.

3.You should hate Obama, he signed 99.9% of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts into law. Why didnt the Dems raise taxes when they had a chance in 2009-10?

The Dems reversed the tax cuts for the 'haves and have mores.'  Whether they should have reversed all the tax cuts in a time of recession can be debated.

4.Hillary vote for the war, enough said.

She mistakenly believed that the President would not lie to her on matters such as this.  I don't fault her for that.  I do fault her for failing to read the intelligence reports, as Bob Graham who voted against the war did,  that would have shown to her that the Bush Administration was lying.

At least she admitted her vote was a mistake.

5.The climate is changing and will always change. For some reason you think the climate should be static. What I deny is that passing legislation will some how stop the climate from changing. And that taxpayers and the USA in particular must be poorer to keep the climate exactly as is.

The issue is what in calculus is called the 'rate of change.'   Obviously you, like Ted Cruz, no nothing about calculus.  Global warming is already costing the United States and the world far more than reducing CO2 emissions ever would.

6.The stupidly is all spewing from you.

I have to believe you intentionally screwed up your grammar about stupidity. If not, that's pretty stupid (and even pretty 'stupidly.')

[Sumner 1868]

1.I look forward to you supporting Bush when the author of "Clinton Cash" goes after him.

I've shown on here and other boards that my primary concern is for the truth, the whole truth.. If Schweizer lies about Jeb Bush as he has lied about HRC, I will defend Jeb if others don't.

2.I know youre a partisan hack when you bring up Katrina. What exactly did Bush do wrong in Katrina? When the people of LA had a chance to vote, they threw out the Gov and Mayor of NOLA. Tell me EXACTLY what Bush did wrong.

The mayor of New Orleans was corrupt.  "Heck of a job Brownie" did nothing wrong?  While the state and city government were also incompetent, there is no question FEMA was incompetent and only a partisan hack such as yourself would attempt to deny that.

3.You should hate Obama, he signed 99.9% of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts into law. Why didnt the Dems raise taxes when they had a chance in 2009-10?

The Dems reversed the tax cuts for the 'haves and have mores.'  Whether they should have reversed all the tax cuts in a time of recession can be debated.

4.Hillary vote for the war, enough said.

She mistakenly believed that the President would not lie to her on matters such as this.  I don't fault her for that.  I do fault her for failing to read the intelligence reports, as Bob Graham who voted against the war did,  that would have shown to her that the Bush Administration was lying.

At least she admitted her vote was a mistake.

5.The climate is changing and will always change. For some reason you think the climate should be static. What I deny is that passing legislation will some how stop the climate from changing. And that taxpayers and the USA in particular must be poorer to keep the climate exactly as is.

The issue is what in calculus is called the 'rate of change.'   Obviously you, like Ted Cruz, no nothing about calculus.  Global warming is already costing the United States and the world far more than reducing CO2 emissions ever would.

6.The stupidly is all spewing from you.

I have to believe you intentionally screwed up your grammar about stupidity. If not, that's pretty stupid (and even pretty 'stupidly.')

Better not question the saintly South Vietnamese dictatorship in front of him. Then'll he'll really explode.

[136or142]

"I look forward to you supporting Bush when the author of "Clinton Cash" goes after him."

From the George Noory Sucks board (George Noory is the sad host of Coast to Coast):

One poster wrote:
"jeb was elected governor of florida in 1998.  One of the first things he did was submit a bill to the legislature to change the cabinet from 7 elected officials to 4 elected officials.  The legislature passed his bill and the Florida cabinet was reduced to 4 elected officials. The agencies of the formerly elected positions were placed under the remaining cabinet officials.  One of the officials changed to an appointed position rather than an elected position was the Secretary of State. An important thing to know about this official and agency is that it oversees the elections in Florida. Also important is to note that this agency was placed under the governors office and this official, from that point onward, is appointed by the governor. 
 
So the governor of florida, starting in 1999, began appointing Florida's secretary of state. In 2000 we had the presidential election where florida was the deciding state.  Kathryn Harris, the appointed secretary of state and overseer of the election process in Florida, was beholden to the governor and did his bidding.  Of course the debachle worked in w's favor.   

Looking back, I think jeb was very calculating (if not corrupt) to submit a bill which takes the elections process in florida and places it directly under the purview of the governors office.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when I pondered over this series of events, it gave me pause..."

To which I replied:
"1.The decision to remove the Secretary of State as an elected position was due to a statewide referendum. The "Restructuring the State Cabinet" referendum passed 55.5%-44.5% in 1998. I don't know who was behind it, but it did pass by a popular vote.

2.Katherine Harris was the last elected Florida Secretary of State.  Her unpopularity even among some, I gather, ethical Republicans was evident by how poorly she did running in a heavily Republican district for Congress and winning by only 10% in 2002 and then her run for the U.S Senate in 2006 when, it what is normally a very close state in elections, she received only 39% of the vote.  To be sure, 2006 was a wave Democratic year, but 39% is just sad.

That said, her decision to  likely illegally purge thousands of mainly African Americans from the voter roles in the state certainly was corrupt and, if it emerges, that Jeb Bush knew anything about it, or played a role in it, it could destroy his candidacy."

I'm as partisan as anybody else here but I take my belief in being honest very seriously.

 

[King]

Hillary might have also had sex with dogs. Consider the following: Hillary clearly has a history of sexual exploits (see Chelsea Clinton) and the Clintons have owned several dogs. We don't know for sure (the secretive Clintons would surely never tell) but it does raise eyebrows.