The biased Media vs Trump!

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

To be fair she certainly succeded where so many others had failed. Whatever he's paying/giving her isn't enough. The woman looked wrecked towards the end.

She's a star

https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/796757702995308548

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's the thing, you call people who have a different agenda suckers. When I tried to argue points with you pre election you called her President Clinton to diminish my points. It's quite petty imo.

Nobody knows if she'll be prosecuted or not. I believe she will be. If you don't believe that like I've always said it's fine, but to completely dismiss and turn to insults doesn't make your point anymore valid.

I call the people who bought into the entire 'lock her up' guff suckers alright. Make no apologies for it either. It's a crock, and people ought to know better.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

I call the people who bought into the entire 'lock her up' guff suckers alright. Make no apologies for it either. It's a crock, and people ought to know better.

Misuse of handling classifed material

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton Said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or recieved was that true.

Comey - That's not true.

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton said " I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material." What was true?

Comey - There was classified material emailed.

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?

Comey - She used multiple devices.

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. What was true?

Comey - No, we found work-related emails, thousands..

Gowdy - Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey - No

Meanwhile a navy guy who takes a few photos gets sent to Jail https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine

I could link another 50 pages of emails and Clinton foundation corruption.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Mistent of handling classifed material

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton Said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or recieved was that true.

Comey - That's not true.

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton said " I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material." What was true?

Comey - There was classified material emailed.

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?

Comey - She used multiple devices.

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. What was true?

Comey - No, we found work-related emails, thousands..

Gowdy - Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey - No

Meanwhile a navy guy who takes a few photos gets sent to Jail https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine

I could link another 50 pages of emails and Clinton foundation corruption.

Would they all be equally devoid of any actual evidence of corruption or criminality as the contents of this post?

You do get that the sailor was investigated, actual evidence of criminality was determined, he was tried and entered a guilty plea? Spot the difference?

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Would they all be equally devoid of any actual evidence of corruption or criminality as the contents of this post?

In a fair system without protection the outcome would have been different.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

In a fair system without protection the outcome would have been different.

The system that actually applies currently. Wishing and hoping don't really substitute for actual evidence, of which there has been none to date.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

The system that actually applies currently. Wishing and hoping don't really substitute for actual evidence, of which there has been none to date.

That's true, and subject to change.

In 6 months time if nothing happens I will gladly eat my words.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Mistent of handling classifed material

Gowdy - Secretary Clinton Said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or recieved was that true.

I really don't get what the big fuss is about. Pretty much every Sec of State did the same thing and even Colin Powell advised her on it.

I know this is going to sound bent, but Freedon of Information acts are the bane of civil servants the world over. Nobody can talk freely and if you send them an email, even about a private matter to a friend, it's subject to FoI.

You're not protected btw. If your email falls under a request, you can't stop it being released. All you're entitled to is the knowledge that it is being released under FoI.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I really don't get what the big fuss is about. Pretty much every Sec of State did the same thing and even Colin Powell advised her on it.

I know this is going to sound bent, but Freedon of Information acts are the bane of civil servants the world over. Nobody can talk freely and if you send them an email, even about a private matter to a friend, it's subject to FoI.

You're not protected btw. If your email falls under a request, you can't stop it being released. All you're entitled to is the knowledge that it is being released under FoI.

There would never have been such a fuss if the Clinton Foundation wasn't involved. She deleted 33,000 emails AFTER getting a subpoena from congress.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't think he's racist. I believe he views all form of people who are not contributing to society the same.

Can we go back to the Mexican's are rapists statement. Or you know the stopping of Muslims from entering the country statement. I am really not sure how to take these any other way. Or this http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/7/13202654/trump-central-park-five

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's true, and subject to change.

In 6 months time if nothing happens I will gladly eat my words.

Given the years of unsubstantiated accusations made against her, it's safe to say that the ratio of smoke to fire is unlikely to alter in that time. Nobody is going to prosecute her without something to actually prosecute, and that's been glaringly absent over all these years.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Can we go back to the Mexican's are rapists statement. Or you know the stopping of Muslims from entering the country statement. I am really not sure how to take these any other way. Or this http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/7/13202654/trump-central-park-five

Vox is as far left as it goes, If I started posting Breitbart or info war links I'd be called out for it.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There would never have been such a fuss if the Clinton Foundation wasn't involved. She deleted 33,000 emails AFTER getting a subpoena from congress.

Ah now, that's a bit pejorative. 'She' hardly deleted emails. I doubt she'd know one end of a server from the other.

It's not a task for the unskilled.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ah now, that's a bit pejorative. 'She' hardly deleted emails. I doubt she'd know one end of a server from the other.

It's not a task for the unskilled.

She had Justin Cooper set it up, in her own words, what difference does it make.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Vox is as far left as it goes, If I started posting Breitbart or info war links I'd be called out for it.

Which part of the story is false or is it leaving something out? Really, give your side of the central park 5 then.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Which part of the story is false or is it leaving something out? Really, give your side of the central park 5 then.

It's not saying it's false. If he did something bad, which I'm agreeing with you he did, I can just go and quote the story about Clinton laughing about the girl who was raped at 12 years old because the guy got off. We could go back and fourth all day. I never claimed Trump to be perfect, but I sure as hell wouldn't claim Clinton to be either.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There would never have been such a fuss if the Clinton Foundation wasn't involved. She deleted 33,000 emails AFTER getting a subpoena from congress.

The Clinton Foundation had nothing to do with the emails debacle. Any Foundation related emails would have been personal, and not subject to any subpoena. Hillary was entitled to delete any personal emails.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

The Clinton Foundation had nothing to do with the emails debacle. Any Foundation related emails would have been personal, and not subject to any subpoena. Hillary was entitled to delete any personal emails.

She claimed the emails were about her daughters wedding, and Yoga. All 33,000. Doesn't really add up.

On the point of the wedding it adds up now though, given it's been shown by wikileaks that the wedding was paid for by the Foundation, and that her daughter has been living a nice lifestyle from it.

"The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents..." Mr Band wrote.

"I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chelsea-clinton-emails-wedding-wikileaks-foundation-money-funds-a7402011.html

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

She had Justin Cooper set it up, in her own words, what difference does it make.

Quite a bit, if you're claiming a crime was committed. The wiping of the server instruction predates the subpoena, as we all know.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

She claimed the emails were about her daughters wedding, and Yoga. All 33,000. Doesn't really add up.

You don't really expect anyone to believe that this was intended to provide a comprehensive synopsis of the content of her personal email, do you? Because that would be a tad silly.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Quite a bit, if you're claiming a crime was committed. The wiping of the server instruction predates the subpoena, as we all know.

I'm saying she got away with it because of who she is, not because of what she did. It's been shown two DOJ officials colluding with the Clinton's during her email investigation.

In an email from Kadzik's personal account titled "Heads up," he wrote: “There is a [House Judiciary Committee] oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.”

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/wikileaks-clinton-justice-department-heads-up-investigation-230643

Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton for 45 minutes on the back of the Plane a day or two before the hearing, and I doubt they were talking about golf. That story only came out because a freelance reporter spotted it.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/01/politics/lynch-to-accept-guidance-from-fbi-on-clinton-email-probe/

Some people here believe she got off because she didn't do anything wrong. I believe she got off because the system is corrupt. Nothing it seems will change either viewpoint so I'm going to leave it there.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

She had Justin Cooper set it up, in her own words, what difference does it make.

It makes a difference because telling somebody to do something and what they actually do and when they do it is not the same as doing it yourself.

I'm not suggesting some sort of dodging of responsibility, just the choice of words you used.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It makes a difference because telling somebody to do something and what they actually do and when they do it is not the same as doing it yourself.

I'm not suggesting some sort of dodging of responsibility, just the choice of words you used.

I understand your pov.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents..." Mr Band wrote.

"I hope that you will speak to her and end this. Once we go down this road..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chelsea-clinton-emails-wedding-wikileaks-foundation-money-funds-a7402011.html

Except that this notion is at odds with some awkward facts. Chelsea Clinton is stinking rich, independently of anything to do with the Foundation. She's a multi millionare through her hedge fund work, her gig for McKinsey & Company, and her handy contract with NBC. The Foundation accounts show she wasn't paid for her work there, and she has alternate sources of income coming out the wazoo.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Except that this notion is at odds with some awkward facts. Chelsea Clinton is stinking rich, independently of anything to do with the Foundation. She's a multi millionare through her hedge fund work, her gig for McKinsey & Company, and her handy contract with NBC.The Foundation accounts show she wasn't paid for her work there, and she has alternate sources of income coming out the wazoo.

It's clear we won't agree on anything and see things differently so that's the end of it.

If in the early months of the new year nothing happens regarding Clinton herself or the foundation ( granted she isn't pardoned by Obama ) I will gladly hold my hands up.

Until then there's no point bickering back and fourth because nothing is going to change between now and Trump getting sworn in.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's clear we won't agree on anything and see things differently so that's the end of it.

If in the early months of the new year nothing happens regarding Clinton herself or the foundation ( granted she isn't pardoned by Obama ) I will gladly hold my hands up.

Until then there's no point bickering back and fourth because nothing is going to change between now and Trump getting sworn in.

There isn't anything to pardon. Expect the status quo to remain.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm saying she got away with it because of who she is, not because of what she did. It's been shown two DOJ officials colluding with the Clinton's during her email investigation.

In an email from Kadzik's personal account titled "Heads up," he wrote: “There is a [House Judiciary Committee] oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.”

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/wikileaks-clinton-justice-department-heads-up-investigation-230643

Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton for 45 minutes on the back of the Plane a day or two before the hearing, and I doubt they were talking about golf. That story only came out because a freelance reporter spotted it.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/01/politics/lynch-to-accept-guidance-from-fbi-on-clinton-email-probe/

Some people here believe she got off because she didn't do anything wrong. I believe she got off because the system is corrupt. Nothing it seems will change either viewpoint so I'm going to leave it there.

There's no 'collusion' in the Kadzik email. The Committee hearings were publicised ahead of time on their website - it would have been public knowledge who was giving testimony. The nature of the questions to be asked wasn't kniwn to Kadzik.

Likewise you've no idea what Lynch and Clinton were talking about on the plane. So why pretend it was 'collusion'?

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh please, stop being so condescending. The reaction from the losers of this election has been nothing sorted of pathetic. People are going full on meltdown on social media and elsewhere. They are so far removed from reality, which shows us exactly why Trump won. We have had people on Irish media cry, yes CRY live on air because Clinton lost. We have had them call all Trump supporters fools, idiots and stupid.

Have a listen to the Brenda Power interview on Newstalk. Her rant is epic, she even mocks their accents live on air. She equates that because she watched a reality TV show, she knows all about American culture, its people its needs and wants. All those dump stupid hicks don't know whats good for them. The usual far removed smugness displayed, which shows us exactly why Trump won. The liberal bigotry being displayed over the past few days is shocking. Would we be doing the same if they voted a certain way in Egypt, Russia, South Africa or elsewhere. Hell no!

If you want to blame someone or something, blame the DNC that forced Hillary onto the ticket and the entire political, media and financial establishment that backed her.

Taking aside from the fact that people like yourself have spent that last number of months calling Trump and his supporters all kind of various names. You freely jumped into the trenches, now you can't complain that there is dirt on your boots.

That's a fascinating little rant. I'm not sure why it quoted me, because there's nothing in there that could usefully be construed as relevant to the post of mine that it referenced.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

There's no 'collusion' in the Kadzik email. The Committee hearings were publicised ahead of time on their website - it would have been public knowledge who was giving testimony. The nature of the questions to be asked wasn't kniwn to Kadzik.

Likewise you've no idea what Lynch and Clinton were talking about on the plane. So why pretend it was 'collusion'?

Already said I'm done debating it cause it will just go back and fourth.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Brenda Power is no liberal. Quite the opposite.

Oh, I know that but her rant on newstalk was epic, epic in the way that it was pathetic and sad.

Have a listen, not sure if the link will work.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/High_Noon/Highlights_from_High_Noon/165662/Trumps_victory_is_naked_sexism__Brenda_Power#.WCa2L53fxE8.google_plusone_share