New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

why would billy jeopardize hilarys almost assured victory with this activity that could be misconstrued as impropriety? i'm guessing he got wind of something the public or media doesn't know or he's really selfish and stupid but hey, he got to say hello and small talk. how about a 3rd possibility, he doesn't want her to win?

 

[Premium Post]
You have touched on the key here -- the Clinton Foundation investigation. It is obvious that donors to the Clinton Foundation were rewarded by Hillary Clinton. This is corruption of the highest order. Notice the exact comments from Ms Lynch -- referring to the email server issue only. No mention of the Clinton Foundation. They are attempting to misdirect attention from the fact that Bill Clinton is at the heart of the Clinton Foundation corruption issue. Sadly, that's how this Administration operates -- deception and misdirection.

Literally, a target (Bill is a target, as is Hillary) of an FBI investigation just had a private meeting, where phones and cameras were prohibited, on an airplane with the head of the department that oversees the FBI. Unreal. It's time to drain the slime swamp in Washington DC.


CORRUPTION

 

You're giving DD way too much credit. He doesn't care because he's an extremely shallow thinker

 

DEJA VU

You guys are falling all over yourselves...but Trump.

 

Well, well, is it no surprise that the conservashivs on this board are jumping up and down with glee over this. Rather than looking at it objectively, as in "he shouldn't have done that, but it's a rather minor issue," they are Timofey Mosgoving the situation due to their political bias.

By my count, Hillary Clinton has at least 4 areas of concern that she needs to answer for. Which would be concerning if she were running against someone like Romney or even McCain. However, when you're running against possibly the most unqualified and biggest buffoon to ever run for President in the entire history of the country, you have to at least equal his areas of concern, such as:

1. Complete and utter lack of understanding of foreign policy;
2. Alienation of huge segments of the American population;
3. Economic policies heavily criticized by experts in the field;
4. Scandals involving his business ventures (there is where he is = with Clinton)
5. Objective of abusing Presidential power (hilariously ironic how the right excoriates Emperor Obama while not saying one word about Donald's multiple statements about how he plans to abuse Presidential power)
6. Utter failure to understand how diplomacy works;
7. Corrupt business practices (again, the Right being up in arms about the Clinton Foundation but saying not a word about decisions made such as states dropping their lawsuits against Trump while subsequently receiving donations from him.
8. Insulting prisoners of war, the disabled, an entire religion, etc.

That's the tip of the iceberg, folks. You can say all you want about how bad Clinton is, but just remember this quote from Churchill:

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

(Maybe that's not saying much about Clinton, but it says all you need to know about Trump).

Plus, on this whole matter, it's like Donald Trump saying, "You know, NAFTA is one of the worst deals in the history of the country, and that was done under the Clinton Administration." Which would certainly be a worthy point to make... IF BILL CLINTON WAS THE ONE CURRENTLY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

 

You know you are not looking at things objectively whenever you have to use the "but the Crusades"-type reasoning.

 

These are the same people who all slobbered over each other about Romney being the next President. So sure he had it in the bag. Just remember that's who you're dealing with.

And that there is no activity, no incident at all in the next 4 to 8 years involving Hillary Clinton that they will look at unbiased. Not one, no matter what. So their opinions are 100% useless. They make zero difference. At all.

If you can look at the other candidate and mention the benefits that candidate can bring, that's the person you can have a discussion with.

So (gulp), here goes:

1. It's possible that Trump could be a good President.

2. He does have a great deal of knowledge regarding the economy, so I can see him contributing positively in that respect.

3. It might take some backtracking, but it's possible he could build positive relationships with the countries he's maligned to date.

4. Although he comes off as "Do it my way or else," because he's been both a Democrat and Republican, I could see him working with people across both sides of the aisle to get things done.

5. I think he would tone down the racist rhetoric once in office.

(ugh)

 

With all due respect, (and a nod towards your attempt at bi-partisanship)

What does all this have to do with the thread topic?

 

Will there actually be an indictment -- that is the question.

 

No, the Obama administration will block it or delay it until well after Hillary has won the presidency and then it would have to be an impeachment which there won't be votes for no matter how guilty she is. That's the plan anyway.

 

You know as well as I do that in threads like these, not every response fits the topic to a T - and in my defense, it's not like I came on and said, "You know, Sugar Pops is really an underrated cereal, isn't it?" If I had to make a connection, I would say that all this commentary about Clinton- well, most of it- has to do with where someone falls on the political spectrum. Conservatives feel that there is definite illegal activity, and liberals feel that Clinton did not do anything illegal or other than what other Secretaries of State did. Between the fact-based updates, there is inevitably commentary regarding Clinton as well as Trump.

That being said, believe me, I'd much rather not comment at all. That post above was extremely difficult to write- it'd be the equivalent of BigTexxx writing a post extolling the virtues of Obama.

 

Is it any surprise that the liberals are no where to be found in this thread after the Bill/Lynch meeting? They recognize this one stinks to high hell. Where is our expert SamFisher? Deckard the senile Clinton apologist? All we are left with is a bumbling dandorotik?

 

You can ignore my earlier post if you wish, but lots of liberals, in general, step up and insult liberal politicians when they **** up. I guess I'm in camp "liberal" by the standards of this Houston-based BBS, and I said this airport hookup was incredibly stupid and wrong on the part of both parties.

It's unbelievable to me, unless Bill is going senile and Lynch is secretly out to get HRC (and I now wonder about both a little bit), that they would do this, in the modern age, and not think it would become headline fodder. I assume powerful people have better ways to communicate if they felt they needed some sneaky meeting anyway. Let's just have a long sit down here in the airport! HRC must be ready to strangle Bill once again.

Cheers.

 

I will give you credit beebs. It's almost like your other liberal back slappin' buds are ok with anything the Clintons do "because Trump". At least you have exhibited some level of objectivity here.

 

I mean, is it really that surprising though? Corruption is almost synonymous with Clinton. They just can't help themselves.

That said, still better than Trump.

 

This is remarkably undisciplined and ham handed of Bill Clinton and Lorretta Lynch.

Bill is often a two edged sword when it comes to Hillary's campaign. He hurt her campaign on a few occasions in 2008 also.

 

I've been avoiding the political polemics because no one here is going to change any other poster's mind. However, I am curious B-Bob. Would you be in favor of disbarring Loretta Lynch for her indiscretion? This was a 30-minute conference, not a 30-second "hi...how are the grandkids" moment. Any third-rate attorney knows this kind of screw-up would likely result in removal from bench or bar.

 

Hi thumbs. Yeah, it's not my field of expertise (law), but it seems like a very serious error in judgment. Sounds from her story like Bill really forced the conversation on her but she should have told him to get lost right away.

What I don't understand, in my ignorance of the AG office, is this: I don't understand exactly how the AG office works with the FBI. So the FBI makes recommendation X about HRC. Does that automatically become the direct work of the AG herself? Seems like the office is pretty big and she could avoid the case. Some deputy could handle whatever recommendation the FBI makes, with the same full power of the AG office. (shrug).

I don't think she should be disbarred over this, since the HRC "case" isn't sitting on her desk at this point. The FBI hasn't recommended any action.

 

Having the AG meet with someone that is involved in an active FBI investigation that could very soon end up on her desk is HIGHLY inappropriate. Honestly she should be fired over the incident, but she won't be.