Post: #451

Shrillery has another coughing fit today:





Did ABC cut the audio?

Remember she had a coughing fit at the Benghazi hearing:





This 68 year old sea hag isn't in the best health.

Post: #452

Can always tell when the Hag isn't going to answer a question.

She cackles.

Post: #453

There have been numerous reports on her poor health. All it takes is one coughing fit during a debate and Sanders takes it.

Post: #454

And they say Trump doesn't sound "presidential". What a joke.

Did anybody bother watching the 'townhall' with Shillary and Bernie tonight?

Apparently it was full of plants.

Post: #455

(01-26-2016 12:08 AM)iop890 Wrote:  And they say Trump doesn't sound "presidential". What a joke.

Did anybody bother watching the 'townhall' with Shillary and Bernie tonight?

Apparently it was full of plants.

She let out an audible sigh when called "dishonest," but then put her mask back on and gave a non-answer.

Post: #456

I was like a hot house Greenhouse full of fragrant orchids there were so many Hillary plants at the end - first kid did drop a hammer that had Hillary hand chopping the air while trying to contain her anger lecturing the lad - He was an admitted Sanders supporter and asked her why so many of his friends thought she was DISHONEST - Hammer Time!

But then there was and LGBTQ PLANT, at Muslim woman mother who happened to be a US Air Force Veteran - she got a threefer here Muslim, Veteran, Female Mother and she slammed Trump on Mexicans and Muslims... An older guy Chairman of the "Des Moines International Relations Committee" (HUH - guess they worry who they can sell corn, hogs and corn dogs to) handed her a soft vanilla ice cream cone question on her international relations resume PLANT, then a Latina student PLANT and then a School Teacher beta omega PLANT - Might as well been the Drake University Florists convention. Cuomo asked her about Benghazi and her Email server in a very softball way and she flustereded and rambled...

Bernie was most effective of the Trotsky trio and has a strong following among AARP members on Medicare for all and raising Social Security, among Uni Students on free state and community college, on single moms on minimum wage and equal pay. Cuomo asked him what a social democrat was and he had a direct answer - but I can see Hammer and Sickle signs over his head from the Jeb and Rubio and Cruz pacs - Trump will just call him out on how all of his programs require Trillions in new taxes which will hammer middle class and small businesses he claims he wants to help - he will raise taxes on Corporations, Billionaires and Wall Street driving a massive increase in Job Offshoring, Corporate Inversions and US Stock market mergers with EU and Asian Markets - set up a legal LLC or Trading Corp (IBC) overseas and no tax problems - easy to circumvent Bernies new taxes and the middle and working classes continue to get crushed.

Martin O'Malley was asked by Cuomo if he would not be a better Clinton cabinet member than President (ouch) and he started in with old Cliche worn out Democratic party pandering platitudes.

Take Away - Democrats will all raise your taxes massively and grow government massively and crush private sector employment and small businesses... Hillary is absolutely Obama Term III on steroids.

When the FBI investigations of Hillary's classified Emails and Conflict of Interest regarding massive Clinton Foundation donations in the multiple Millions and Billions all come to a head around the Democrat Convention it will be hard if not impossible for the Obamunists to sweep it under the rug and after Trump wins the GOP convention then the real gloves come off...

Post: #457

(01-26-2016 12:51 AM)Bacchus Wrote:  



She let out an audible sigh when called "dishonest," but then put her mask back on and gave a non-answer.

The top comments on that video are golden:

Quote:Put this lying cunt in jail.

Quote:she has been on the front line of every corrupt thing to happen in the government since watergate

Quote:Dishonest Half the things out of her mouth are a distortion of reality.

Post: #458

Funny and sad... I might not be a Hillary supporter, but this article makes me sick. A lawyers job is to defend their client, to the best of their ability. That's what the American justice system is. Trying to use that against her is disgusting.

link

Post: #459

Post: #460

(01-28-2016 06:26 AM)dads Wrote:  Funny and sad... I might not be a Hillary supporter, but this article makes me sick. A lawyers job is to defend their client, to the best of their ability. That's what the American justice system is. Trying to use that against her is disgusting.

link

Hold on a minute: there's a difference between representing the client to the best of your ability and misleading the court. And there are two parts to this: how she conducted the defence and the affidavit where the victim says Clinton lied.

I'm not sure what the standard is in the US, but in other Westminster systems, if you have a client who tells you they are guilty of the crime, you have three ethical courses:
(a) tell them you will accept an instruction to plead guilty;
(b) tell them to get another lawyer, since their admission to you is protected by lawyer/client privilege but leaves you in a conflict of interest; or
© represent them on a plea of not guilty but only test the strength of the evidence against them, not advance a positive defence.

An example of a positive defence is where you are told the client is guilty but then produce an alibi defence, i.e. a positive defence that they were not there at the time when you know otherwise. An example of testing the strength of the evidence against them is to cross-examine the witness for her recollection. Or argue the admissibility of a piece of forensic evidence, as Clinton seems to have done. Without more, it sounds as though Clinton did the latter - and therefore did nothing unethical, though it's still slimebaggery and criminal counsel with morals or sense would pass on such a case specifically because defending people who have admitted they're guilty to you is always, always fraught with ethical risk - if only for reasons like this. And while her laughing about it is also chilling, it's also consistent with the moral erosion that takes place when you represent scum like this for a while. In the Australian experience, try Andrew Fraser's book Court in the Act for his direct acknowledgment of this fact.

The affidavit, though.

When you look at the documents, the affidavit the victim is complaining about was sworn by Hitlery in support of an application to have the victim examined by a psychiatrist. It's unclear to me whether that motion was ever granted or whether it was just one of those bullshit tactics defence lawyers sometimes do to waste time.

But strictly speaking everything Hilary put forward in the affidavit is hearsay: she says she 'heard from' others that the victim was disturbed, made false complaints, etc, etc. No actual person is named in that document, which is a bit strange. Anyway, in normal court proceedings hearsay is not enough: the general rule is that you have to produce the person who actually made the statement, not give evidence of what you hear the person say. Instead, we have Hitlery making allegations at her own word, without a single person named, that she's conducted an investigation and various things have been said.

A person who thinks Hitlery has nothing to hide might well conclude she was fucking stupid but not criminal: she might well have actually had these things said to her (I would guess by her client) and swore this affidavit honestly. But as said, it's still fucking stupid: with nobody named and no source given for the allegations, it leaves open the inference that the allegations are made up from wholecloth or not investigated properly.

I'd say either way it reflects poorly on Hilary: as someone who had no problem sailing close to the wind even at the outset of her career, someone who takes foolish risks without thinking through the consequences. In other words: the Hilary Clinton we have seen as her husband's enforcer and as a Secretary of State who has no problem lying flat out to people. Either way not a person you want as President.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #461

It's shocking how she got the accused child rapist off on such flimsy evidence.

Post: #462

Unfortunately with child rape the evidence is generally pretty flimsy.

I also revise my estimation of Hilary Clinton: the word I was looking for was cavalier. She has a cavalier attitude to things under her control. From "What difference does it make?" to snarling at Secret Service agents, it's an attitude of arrogance to anything which is her responsibility. And these documents would suggest it's not an attitude she's ever grown out of; if anything it's apparent being in the White House and then Secretary of State have metastasised that cavalier attitude into a full-blown belief that she's 'born to rule'.

That's the sort of person the Democrats want to put in charge of the White House.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #463

(01-28-2016 10:18 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That's the sort of person the Democrats want to put in charge of the White House.

Both parties will put support whoever is the most likely to give them the Whitehouse for 4 years (assuming that he or she intends to maintain the status quo).

Post: #464

Surprised this isn't being discussed.

For the very first time yesterday, the State Department has confirmed that there were, in fact, confidential emails on Shillary's private account. To be specific, the department had to censor 22 of them from being released to the general public because they contained 'top-secret' information.

I cannot stress the significance of this story. Let me repeat that this is the first time the State Department and/or the Obama Administration has officially recognized that she had classified emails sent to her private server, e.g. that Hillary blatantly lied. All other stories before this were simple accusations from this person or that; this is the first time the government has recognized that yes, it did happen.

This is a huge blow to Clinton, just two days before caucuses begin. I ultimately think that because of this, Bernie will get the nomination.

No word yet on if or when she is going to court. Obviously she will have to at some point, but I would guess Hillary will somehow try to avoid it until after the caucuses and general election.

Post: #465

The email scandal is just too damaging. Even if she takes the nomination I'm not sure how she can overcome it against Trump. There are people in the FBI who are claiming to go rogue in the event that the DoJ refuses to prosecute.

Post: #466

At this point, I am thoroughly convinced that if Hillary gets the nomination, it would be much easier for Trump to win versus if Bernie gets it. Which seemed like a foolish thing to say months ago.

Post: #467

(01-30-2016 10:23 AM)Goldhawkstar Wrote:  Surprised this isn't being discussed.

For the very first time yesterday, the State Department has confirmed that there were, in fact, confidential emails on Shillary's private account. To be specific, the department had to censor 22 of them from being released to the general public because they contained 'top-secret' information.

I cannot stress the significance of this story. Let me repeat that this is the first time the State Department and/or the Obama Administration has officially recognized that she had classified emails sent to her private server, e.g. that Hillary blatantly lied. All other stories before this were simple accusations from this person or that; this is the first time the government has recognized that yes, it did happen.

This is a huge blow to Clinton, just two days before caucuses begin. I ultimately think that because of this, Bernie will get the nomination.

No word yet on if or when she is going to court. Obviously she will have to at some point, but I would guess Hillary will somehow try to avoid it until after the caucuses and general election.

from the same article

Quote:The FBI also is looking into Clinton's email setup, but has said nothing about the nature of its probe. Independent experts say it's unlikely Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on details that have surfaced so far and the lack of indications she intended to break laws.

total bullshit. So if I kill a family on their way home from evening mass while driving drunk all I have to say is "I didn't intend to" and the cops at the scene won't even charge me?

Fuck that. She should be charged, tried and convicted. The only place where intent matters is sentencing.

Post: #468

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-ameri...8547cd00cb

News Corp in Australia starting to burn Hilary. Can't tell whether this is a duplicate of a US article, but the commentary is bruising:

Quote:IT is the question every politician hates. A curly one that none of them want to answer. The T question. What about trust?

Hillary Clinton’s time came exactly a week out from the first votes being cast in the race to the White House. This young millennial voter from Iowa had a question for the frontrunner.

“It feels like there is a lot of young people like myself who are very passionate supporters of Bernie Sanders,” Taylor Gipple said, referencing Clinton’s key opponent for the Democratic nomination.

“And I just don’t see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you. In fact, I’ve heard from quite a few people my age that they think you’re dishonest,” he says.

At the mention of the word “dishonest”, Clinton tilts her head, concerned.
Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a ‘get out the caucus’ event at Berg Middle School in Iowa.

Gipple forges on: “But I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there.”

It was in that moment that a young voter cast a spotlight on one of the great questions of the 2016 race to the White House.

Where is the love for Hillary Clinton?

This was meant to be her election. It was hers to lose. And yet, just days away from the first primary votes being cast, she’s in a fight for her political life.

You can still hear the astonishment in the reporter's voice. This was meant to be an orderly Bush III vs. Empress Clinton beatdown. What the fuck happened?

Quote:Lack of momentum

It has been dubbed an “enthusiasm gap”, this problem that’s plaguing Hillary Clinton.

In short, Americans aren’t that excited by the former First Lady turned Secretary of State. Although she may still be ahead in national polls, there is a creeping malaise in Clinton’s presidency bid.

In politics, momentum is everything. Take one look at Clinton’s campaign and it clear that while she has many things on her side in this fight, momentum isn’t one of them.

Back in July, when Donald Trump first came on the scene, polling aggregators had Clinton well ahead, at 53 per cent to his 33.

Now, they put Trump in striking distance — at 41 per cent to Clinton’s 44.

The story with her main rival for the Democratic nomination is almost identical.

In July, polls put Clinton at 57 per cent to Bernie Sanders’s 17.

On January 15, that had recalibrated to Clinton at 48 per cent, Sanders at 39.

It’s the very pattern that Clinton’s 2008 demons are made of. It was this time exactly eight years ago that Barack Obama seemed to come from nowhere to beat Clinton in the Iowa primaries. It was then that he stole the march to victory, with Clinton simply unable to recapture momentum.

This gradual creep up of her key opponents comes despite Clinton’s experience meaning that she’s undeniably running a well-oiled campaign machine.

She’s got celebrity endorsements, ample funding, a tightly-run message ship and delivers confident performance after confident performance.

...Everything the US electorate has become numb to and wise to over the past 4-8 years. Celebrity endorsements in particular are getting to be a joke: these are the same clowns caught out nude and unattractive during the Fappening and who are currently screaming about Race Hate in their own Oscars.

And performances are all that Clinton can deliver. That's part of why the electorate despises her. Unlike Obama, she can't promise any change, and unlike Trump, she can't assert integrity behind her performances. Look at Trump and you get exactly the same guy he's been in every interview we've seen of him. Hilary, you get the Friendly Grandma Face, rather than the "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???" face, and rather than the "Fuck You Peons" face the Secret Service knows.

Quote:The New York Times this week described Clinton has having an “animatronic plasticity”,

Quote:which it said raised “questions of ambition versus authenticity”.

This idea of Clinton’s fundamental unrelateable-ness is partly the curse of political experience.

Americans have known Hillary Clinton for a long time. They first saw her on the regular back in 1992 as a young mum helping her husband campaign for the nation’s top job.

There's a fair crop of career politicians with similar or greater experience who somehow remain respected and/or trusted. Sanders observes suicidal principles, but he observes them nonetheless. You can trust Sanders to try and fuck your bank account the first moment he gets. Clinton fucks your bank account and then asks you what difference it makes six months later.

Quote:Clinton’s struggles can be broadly categorised in two ways.

Firstly, there are the scandals that trouble her campaign: the emails, Benghazi, her husband.

Dishonesty, in short.

Quote:Then, there is that non-tangible problem that’s harder to shake — this fundamental lack of enthusiasm in the electorate and the disdain for her ties to the past.

It's not non-tangible. They don't trust her because she's dishonest and because of her track record.

Quote:Clinton is the candidate with all the celebrity endorsements — people like Beyonce, Lena Dunham, Katy Perry, Magic Johnson and the Kardashian/West crew are all in her camp.

See above about celebrity endorsements. It's even more laughable when it's these celebrities who support her: a collection of the most detached, privileged, and fake people Hollywood has to offer. Dunham in particular is an odious endorsement but understandable: Dunham got what she got via nepotism, and Clinton believes she's owed the White House because of her name.

Quote:And yet, while hordes of Americans turn out in fever-pitch force at rallies for candidates like Trump and Sanders, Clinton doesn’t get the same reception.

It’s a malaise that can be partly racked up to an America firmly in the grips of an anti-establishment phase.

Ah, they finally figure it out!

Quote:To everyday Americans, Clinton is the old guard.

A year ago, the common wisdom was that the race for the White House would be a dynastic one between two old, wealthy American political families: Clinton v Bush.

The idea was all but repulsive to swathes of middle class American who were wiped out and are yet to recover from the horror of the Global Financial Crisis.

These Americans see the dynastic families as having success handed to them.

And so, in this way, candidates like Trump and Sanders represent the American dream — they’ve forged their own path and represent a fundamental hope.

Notice how they keep hooking Trump and Sanders together, even though Trump's built millions and Sanders never had a paying job until his forties? But apparently socialism is the "American dream".

It also looks to me like Obama already fucked Hilary and continues to be against her:

Quote:n 2014, Obama said in an interview with George Sephanopoulos that he believed American people wanted something fresh in the presidency.

“I think the American people, you know, they’re gonna want that new car smell,” he said.

“You know, their own — they wanna drive somethin’ off of the lot that doesn’t have as much mileage as me,” he said.

Obama was referring to the fact that after two terms as president, his time was done, paving the way for a new leader.

However, the remarks — months before Clinton even declared her intention to run — captured the very problem that would haunt her campaign.

Americans want something new, fresh, exciting. And that’s something Hillary Clinton just isn’t.

That's "you can't put lipstick on a pig" with about 8 years of political experience on top of it. Burn. And then we get more Trump quotes and the fact women don't trust her...

Quote:On the trail, Mr Clinton exalts his wife’s virtues, talking through her policy ideas, talking up her experiences and recounting memories of how they met and fell in love.

But every appearance he makes is seized on by Trump and others and portrayed as evidence of why Hillary is bad for women.

“She’s got one of the great women abusers of all time sitting in her house, waiting for her to come home for dinner,” Trump said.

And: “She wants to accuse me of things and the husband is one of the great abusers of the world,” Trump said. “Give me a break.”

And again: “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!”

Bill Clinton’s history is an albatross around his wife’s neck, which sees her opponents attempt to blunt any attack he is able to make on the campaign trail.

Worse for Clinton, this criticism is bound up with and plays into her very real statistical problem with women.

In theory, as a smart, successful and viable female candidate, she should have the support of the female liberal electorate.

But it just isn’t as clear cut as that, particularly with younger female voters.

A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll conducted this month has Sanders leading Clinton with young voters aged 18 to 34, with 46 per cent of the vote to her 35.

Narrow the poll to only women, and his lead was even more staggering — 50 per cent to Clinton’s 31.

For this reason, fellas, I'd be hoping for Clinton as the Dems' candidate. She is a dead woman walking.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #469

Post: #470

The White House Believes Hillary Clinton Won't Be Indicted Over Emails





It seems the Clintons are above the law.

Post: #471

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)Jvramerys Wrote:  The White House Believes Hillary Clinton Won't Be Indicted Over Emails





It seems the Clintons are above the law.

It is breathtaking how far our country has fallen from the Nixon years.

Post: #472

   

Post: #473

This kind of corruption, and not the emails, should be the focus:

Quote:During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term. There was also an additional $151 billion worth of armaments sold to sixteen nations that had donated funds to the Clinton Foundation; these were deals organized by the Pentagon but which could only be completed with Hillary Clinton’s authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bush’s second term.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/...-election/

Post: #474

(01-31-2016 01:32 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Photoshop isn't complete here. Need to add Carlos Danger's wife, Huma Abedin to it.

Post: #475

(02-03-2016 02:04 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 01:32 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Photoshop isn't complete here. Need to add Carlos Danger's wife, Huma Abedin to it.

That is Huma. Compare to the original: