Defending Hillary Clinton is getting harder

[MMC]

Of course they say "a lot". They might have to run against her/already are running agains her, and its their goal to destroy her campaign. They have to make as much noise as possible

.

That's neither here nor there. Both also stated that the book would surprise many and even those in the Democratic party. Which it certainly is doing that and has even been reported on how even The Most loyal die hard Clintonistas are worried.

And???

And, if you knew that you would have it up with that bit about the NY Times. Even though they aren't the only news source with access to the Schweitzer book.


And do you think anything will come of them? Do you think it can prove anything?

Yeah, a lot will come with it and including re-inforcing the fact that the Clintons are deceitful and cannot be trusted. Not to mention that Hillary is incompetent.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Real Clear politics is such an unbiased source.

Is that a bad thing?

Please, can you define exactly the terms of reference of that "poll"?

What was the question?'

When were these alleged "polls" taken?

All those questions are answered by clicking on the polls on the link.

Not exactly scientific by grade school standards and a really desperate faint hope bit of bull**** amid Hillary's on going troubles.

So are you accusing the polls of being biased now?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

That's neither here nor there.

I would say its both here and there. They have a direct interest in making as much noise... So of course they are going to do it..

Both also stated that the book would surprise many and even those in the Democratic party.

And see above.

Which it certainly is doing that and has even been reported on how even The Most loyal die hard Clintonistas are worried.

Meh, I would say they are more worried about poll numbers.

Yeah, a lot will come with it and including re-inforcing the fact that the Clintons are deceitful and cannot be trusted.

I think Americans would say that just about any politician..

Not to mention that Hillary is incompetent.

How would this show "incompetent" or is that just a recycled talking point from the "Benghazi scandal" (which I'm guessing we will be hearing about again once this book run its press run in a couple weeks)

 

[MMC]

You're beef is over a title?

No.....wasn't it you. My link clearly showed what ABC was saying.

Nor did I deny he never said that

.

Did anyone say you denied anything?


Conclusion? The guy literally said, " No, we don't have direct evidence.". Thats not a conclusion that is reporting what is said.

So again the books doesnt prove anything, just "raises questions"? And this is possibly going to derail her campaign?

Yeah he said that.....but he didn't look into any and all laws and if there was a breaking of those laws. Still he did raise several instances in which Clinton Foundations donors benefitted from State Dept actions while Hillary was At State. Moreover he has shown a pattern with his findings.

Now why would you just think one issue would derail Hillarys campaign. Are there other issues Hillary is having to deal with? Is she involved with other scandals? What part about that several issues could end up derailing her campaign confuses you?

 

[WCH]

Can anyone think of another candidate for the POTUS who has this many scandals in her closet?

 

[MMC]

I would say its both here and there. They have a direct interest in making as much noise... So of course they are going to do it..

Okay.....that's you.

And see above.


Whats there to see?

Meh, I would say they are more worried about poll numbers

.

They cited many reasons.....but I am sure that is also one of them.


I think Americans would say that just about any politician..

Yeah they would.....but then we were talkin about Hillary.


How would this show "incompetent" or is that just a recycled talking point from the "Benghazi scandal" (which I'm guessing we will be hearing about again once this book run its press run in a couple weeks)

Oh, you mean besides how she can't keep accurate records and showing how she manages running a government dept and was lacking in know how.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

No.....wasn't it you. My link clearly showed what ABC was saying.

No I had no problems with anything. Not the OP, or the OP's title. I simply made a claim and linked the claim to a source.

Did anyone say you denied anything?

Just a little confused of the point of stating the obvious...

Yeah he said that

.....but he didn't look into any and all laws and if there was a breaking of those laws.

He said it based around this question: "Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?". That question Stephanopulos is asking if Hillary intervened on the CFIUS to allow Uranium One sell its mines to Russia. He said he does not... Thats not about laws, its about procedure. If he doesnt have any evidence of Hillary giving favoritism, why include it?

Still he did raise several instances in which Clinton Foundations donors benefitted from State Dept actions while Hillary was At State. Moreover he has shown a pattern with his findings.

Pattern only gets you so far. If you cant prove anything, it does no good.

Now why would you just think one issue would derail Hillarys campaign.

I dont. Thats why I said it wouldnt, and voted no on the poll question which essentially asks that question if this is going to sink her campaign... But then again Rand Paul said it would derail her campaign.... So I guess he thinks it will.

Are there other issues Hillary is having to deal with?

Oh yea. Its campaigning season.

Is she involved with other scandals?

Yea. Eating at Chipotle was even considered a scandal..

What part about that several issues could end up derailing her campaign confuses you?

Rand Paul saying this book is going to derail her campaign..

Okay

.....that's you.

I know.

Whats there to see?

"Both also stated that the book would surprise many and even those in the Democratic party."
---Both refering to Rand and Rubio. Both have an interest in making as much noise. Them saying "Democratic Party members are worried".. Of course they would say that, because they both have an interest in making as much noise as possible.---

Yeah they would.....but then we were talkin about Hillary.

So it this "revelations" somehow surprising or going to lead to some enormous backlash?

Oh, you mean besides how she can't keep accurate records and showing how she manages running a government dept and was lacking in know how.

Could talk about that as well. But the fact remains she is still popular.

 

[MMC]

[/I][/COLOR][/I][/COLOR]He said it based around this question: "Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?". That question Stephanopulos is asking if Hillary intervened on the CFIUS to allow Uranium One sell its mines to Russia. He said he does not... Thats not about laws, its about procedure. If he doesnt have any evidence of Hillary giving favoritism, why include it?
Pattern only gets you so far. If you cant prove anything, it does no good.

So far the Pattern has shown donors of the Clinton Foundation benefitting from the State Dept while she was the Head of it. A pattern gives credibility to investigate.

He also said this as the reminder.

Schweizer said his role was merely to lay the groundwork for a broader probe by authorities.....snip~

I dont. Thats why I said it wouldnt, and voted no on the poll question which essentially asks that question if this is going to sink her campaign... But then again Rand Paul said it would derail her campaign.... So I guess he thinks it will.

Oh yea. Its campaigning season.

No more than likely, they seen of the Some News articles that the Demos were out and talking about being worried. It wasn't hard to miss them. No one denies they have interest to make noise about it. But they and or their aides would be aware of what the Democrats were out and talking about.

Yea. Eating at Chipotle was even considered a scandal..

Oh is it......its nothing like losing 6 Billion at State, or Email and Server Scandal, Her donor scandal and of course her Benghazi and Libya scandal.

Rand Paul saying this book is going to derail her campaign..

I know.
"Both also stated that the book would surprise many and even those in the Democratic party."
---Both refering to Rand and Rubio. Both have an interest in making as much noise. Them saying "Democratic Party members are worried".. Of course they would say that, because they both have an interest in making as much noise as possible.---
So it this "revelations" somehow surprising or going to lead to some enormous backlash? Could talk about that as well. But the fact remains she is still popular

Yet the fact remains, that the scandals could derail her campaign and no one was talking about if she was popular. Plus its like Fournier pointed out.


The Clinton team also points to errors made by news organizations investigating the email and foundation scandals, particularly the work around Schweizer's book. That is their right, but they're nibbling around the edges: The core ingredients of the Clintons' wrongdoing has not been misreported.....snip~

 

[LizardofOz]

Well this would be a big issue if the organization she headed, then profited when she came into office, and said organization benefited from a long drawn out war. No way they would elect such a person for one term let alone a second once they were in the thick of it! Except wait they did...so nevermind. I think she'll be fine.

 

[JANFU]

Well, yea. They are greedy politicians. And when you are greedy, and you are to get power you tend to get into shaky ethical waters.


On what exactly?

Appears donations were no filed with the IRS for a few years.
Try that on your taxes
Uranium one is another. A strategic interest to the US sold to Russia.

Youre not gonna find me be a Clinton fan. Never was never will be. But just fail to see this killing her campaign. Will it hurt it? Yea. But for how long and how bad? I dont think its gonna do much damage. Sounds like this is gonna be April and early May's "Clinton scandal", and then they will keep on trucking on. I mean a lot about them raising ungodly amounts of money, and their financial connections/influence has been report many of times before Hillary and Bill Clinton: Inside $1.4 Billion Political Fortune I just dont simply see this doing much damage.

Ethical lapses, seems to be a trait, a recurring trait.
Bill making what he does from speeches, really well paid by that Russian company 500 K, and Financial companies in the US.

 

[JANFU]

Exactly. He throws that up as if someone here is going to run to the defense of Jeb Bush...

I try not to be partisan, a crooked deal is a crooked deal.
It is amazing what Citizens in the US put up with. Can anyone answer why?
We have corruption here (Canada) as well, but the US it has run wild and rampant.

 

[mmi]

Appears donations were no filed with the IRS for a few years.

Where'd ya get that?

>>Uranium one is another.

Another what? Another element in the periodic table?

>>A strategic interest to the US sold to Russia.

Twenty percent of it. A deal approved by a committee of nine federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the NRC.

I'm not going to read this thread or vote in the poll. There's nothing for her to survive. The question is how much will the Republican candidate be damaged by this example of hysterical, right-wing nonsense?

 

[JANFU]

where'd ya get that?

>>uranium one is another.

Another what? Another element in the periodic table?

>>a strategic interest to the us sold to russia.

Twenty percent of it. A deal approved by a committee of nine federal agencies, including the defense department and the nrc.

I'm not going to read this thread or vote in the poll. There's nothing for her to survive. The question is how much will the republican candidate be damaged by this example of hysterical, right-wing nonsense?

cya..

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Appears donations were no filed with the IRS for a few years.

Yup. Foreign gov ones.

Try that on your taxes

No thank you.

Uranium one is another. A strategic interest to the US sold to Russia.

Are private organizations not allowed to sell assets now or something? Or whats your beef here?

Ethical lapses, seems to be a trait, a recurring trait.

Aspiring politician and unethical behavior go almost hand in hand.

Bill making what he does from speeches, really well paid by that Russian company 500 K, and Financial companies in the US.

Your against ex politicians getting rich off speeches?

 

[JANFU]

Yup. Foreign gov ones.


No thank you.


Are private organizations not allowed to sell assets now or something? Or whats your beef here?



Aspiring politician and unethical behavior go almost hand in hand.


Your against ex politicians getting rich off speeches?

Did you read any of thie link?
Did you not find it unusual the a Sec State had no input over a strategic asset. She was afterall at arms length from the foundation? or was she?
Did you learn that tax returns were not don.
Did you know that money from Canadian donors cannot be made public unless permission in writing has been received.
Donations from foreign countries?
Yeah - She be ethical- or what people in the US are accustomed to from their politicians.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I think this nails the coffin shut for Hillary. Only time will tell.
Defending Hillary Clinton is getting harder - The Washington Post

The fact that even left wing sources like the New York Times are calling her bluff supports that assessment. She is sounding stupid when she suggests that it's just more right wing conspiracy.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Nope. She is gonna survive, especially since Peter Schweizer stated there was no direct evidence of wrongdoing: Clinton author: No 'direct evidence' of wrongdoing - CNNPolitics.com

And from looking at polls its gonna be pretty hard to beat her: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Once again...it is incredibly silly to take polls at this point against hypothetical republican candidates seriously.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I can't answer the question... Common sense says that after the email scandal and this bombshell, she doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected... But on the other hand, I have lost all confidence in democratic voters in recent years, to put morality and right & wrong, ahead of their political agendas.

Unfortunately for democrats...the only thing that counts is: "Whatever it takes to win".

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So far the Pattern has shown donors of the Clinton Foundation benefitting from the State Dept while she was the Head of it. A pattern gives credibility to investigate.

And I am not disagreeing with that, but is this even a "pattern"? Does this pattern warrant a criminal investigation he seems to be calling for? I feel like thats the only way any campaign of her's would get derailed...

He also said this as the reminder.

Schweizer said his role was merely to lay the groundwork for a broader probe by authorities.....snip~

Government? Fellow journalists?

No more than likely, they seen of the Some News articles that the Demos were out and talking about being worried.

You really think she is worried? I mean, I can look at all the donors on the Clinton Foundations website... She has been involved in some sort of media frenzy "scandal" for about 3.5 years now.... Hell, one can argue she has been involved in some sort of scandal ever since Bill took the White House..

It wasn't hard to miss them.

Was it?

No one denies they have interest to make noise about it. But they and or their aides would be aware of what the Democrats were out and talking about.

Democratic pundits? Sure. Did they say they were "worried"? You really think Clinton is much worried about this? I bet she says very very little about this, and what she will say about it is what she has said already which is essentially "you dont have much". I am almost certain there will be no criminal investigation, and whats been said so far is just about it. New York Times and several other outlets have an advance copy of it, has anything criminal been exposed?

Oh is it......

No. Im being sarcastic.

its nothing like losing 6 Billion at State,

That was just her?

or Email and Server Scandal,

Yes.

Her donor scandal

Which I find incredibly hypocritical for many to be outraged about, and still dont think its gonna derail a thing.

and of course her Benghazi

:lamo"her Benghazi". But yes, the Benghazi, the mother of all scandals. The mother of all FAUX outrage.

and Libya scandal.

The US overthrowing and getting involved in other peoples civil wars is now a scandal? Isnt that we are all about?

Yet the fact remains, that the scandals could derail her campaign and no one was talking about if she was popular. Plus its like Fournier pointed out.

And Russia could nuke Japan tomorrow. And popular? Popular with who?

The Clinton team also points to errors made by news organizations investigating the email and foundation scandals, particularly the work around Schweizer's book. That is their right, but they're nibbling around the edges: The core ingredients of the Clintons' wrongdoing has not been misreported.....snip~

So this is main gut of this scandal? Yea, if this is it, its no way going to derail her campaign.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Once again...it is incredibly silly to take polls at this point against hypothetical republican candidates seriously.

Citing them makes people who are losing feel better.

The key to these is one factor....will the one questioned actually vote?

And, are they registered and is so, how?

Anything else is a name recognition poll and that';s why Hillary wins. The old dog has been in the hunt for over 25 years. Hell, anyone can become a household word in that time.

Key right now is the ****ty reception she's getting. If her team can't get a rent a crowd, they're in very deep ka ka.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Did you read any of thie link?

Yes. And I dont think this is gonna derail her campaign.

Did you not find it unusual the a Sec State had no input over a strategic asset.

The Uranium mine? Well she did have input..

She was afterall at arms length from the foundation? or was she?

I'm sure she was.

Did you learn that tax returns were not don.

Yea.

Did you know that money from Canadian donors cannot be made public unless permission in writing has been received.

So now you dont want them to be transparent?

Donations from foreign countries?

What about them?

Yeah - She be ethical- or what people in the US are accustomed to from their politicians.

No. I just dont think this is gonna derail a campaign...

 

[MMC]

And I am not disagreeing with that, but is this even a "pattern"? Does this pattern warrant a criminal investigation he seems to be calling for? I feel like thats the only way any campaign of her's would get derailed...


Government? Fellow journalists?


You really think she is worried? I mean, I can look at all the donors on the Clinton Foundations website... She has been involved in some sort of media frenzy "scandal" for about 3.5 years now.... Hell, one can argue she has been involved in some sort of scandal ever since Bill took the White House..


Was it?


Democratic pundits? Sure. Did they say they were "worried"? You really think Clinton is much worried about this? I bet she says very very little about this, and what she will say about it is what she has said already which is essentially "you dont have much". I am almost certain there will be no criminal investigation, and whats been said so far is just about it. New York Times and several other outlets have an advance copy of it, has anything criminal been exposed?



No. Im being sarcastic.


That was just her?


Yes.


Which I find incredibly hypocritical for many to be outraged about, and still dont think its gonna derail a thing.


:lamo"her Benghazi". But yes, the Benghazi, the mother of all scandals. The mother of all FAUX outrage.


The US overthrowing and getting involved in other peoples civil wars is now a scandal? Isnt that we are all about?


And Russia could nuke Japan tomorrow. And popular? Popular with who?


So this is main gut of this scandal? Yea, if this is it, its no way going to derail her campaign.

Now this is amusing.....you answer your own questions with your own post.

Oh and if you can't figure out what those in the press are saying.....then you might as well as give up trying to understand anything they discuss.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Citing them makes people who are losing feel better.

The key to these is one factor....will the one questioned actually vote?

And, are they registered and is so, how?

Anything else is a name recognition poll and that';s why Hillary wins. The old dog has been in the hunt for over 25 years. Hell, anyone can become a household word in that time.

Key right now is the ****ty reception she's getting. If her team can't get a rent a crowd, they're in very deep ka ka.

And I do not take election polls seriously until it gets to the point (weeks before an election) where the pollsters start thinking about credibility and start seeking "likely voters" in their polls rather then just registered voters.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Now this is amusing.....you answer your own questions with your own post.

I did?

Oh and if you can't figure out what those in the press are saying.....then you might as well as give up trying to understand anything they discuss.

:lamo C'mon man, thats the best you can respond with to this? :
"Democratic pundits? Sure. Did they say they were "worried"? You really think Clinton is much worried about this? I bet she says very very little about this, and what she will say about it is what she has said already which is essentially "you dont have much". I am almost certain there will be no criminal investigation, and whats been said so far is just about it. New York Times and several other outlets have an advance copy of it, has anything criminal been exposed?"

So you are not gonna answer?

 

[Fearandloathing]

And I do not take election polls seriously until it gets to the point (weeks before an election) where the pollsters start thinking about credibility and start seeking "likely voters" in their polls rather then just registered voters.

Indeed.

Polls at this point are political masturbation.