When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@Baldimo,

Lack of evidence is evidence of something, isn't it? Or don't I get to use the same standard you are using?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Are we taking personal shots at each others spouses now?

Saying your wife had a secret meeting with the AG is a personal shot at your spouse? I wonder why you think that is an attack on your spouse?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

I just scan the obvious conservative posts. It dosent take long to determine its just the same old shyt.

I like thoughtful, educated conservative-leaning posters. I wish we had more of them.

0 Replies

@parados,

With people like you, it is always used as a personal shot.

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

With people like you, it is always used as a personal shot.

Good lord man, he was making a joke. No one knows anything about anyone's spouses. "Your (whatever) had a meeting so secret, you don't even know it happened!" Get it?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I was pointing out that lack of evidence is not evidence. It seems you can't see that but instead try to make this about a personal attack so you don't have to look at reality.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Why did you bring your spouse into this at all?

http://able2know.org/topic/275175-347#post-6215885

__

It's an odd enough discussion without that.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I was implying that not everyone gets the same chance to keep their spouse out of prison. If I was under investigation do you think the AG would be meeting with my spouse? Doesn't matter what about, do you think she would do it? Hence "My spouse can't get a secret meeting with the AG."

Bill on the other hand "Look at those grand babies, do you want to leave them without a grandma?"

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

I'm also glad to say that Trump isn't my boy...

www.garyjohnson2016.com

It is funny how every conservative claims they are not voting for or support Trump, yet, he won the republican primaries. Must of have been invisible "secret" imposters voting for Trump in the republican primaries.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You see, I live in CO. In CO the caucus's are closed to those not registered in that party. I'm a registered Libertarian so I don't get to vote in the caucus for the GO or the Dems. Plus the GOP in CO didn't hold a proper caucus due to games with the national and state GOP.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

I was implying that not everyone gets the same chance to keep their spouse out of prison. If I was under investigation do you think the AG would be meeting with my spouse? Doesn't matter what about, do you think she would do it? Hence "My spouse can't get a secret meeting with the AG."

Bill on the other hand "Look at those grand babies, do you want to leave them without a grandma?"

Probably not too surprising an ex-President and the spouse of a democrat presidential candidate runs in the same circles as the AG and they happen to run into each other. Granted, Bill Clinton shouldn't have followed her and made conversation with her, it looks bad. However, they also discussed golf, what do you make of that?

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

I suppose primaries in states can pretty much run things how they want to. Luckily it isn't that way in the general, is it?

0 Replies

@revelette2,

We only have their word on what they talked about. If they were having the meeting for the wrong reasons, would they tell us the truth? We don't know what they talked about because they took the meeting in private away from the camera's. It just doesn't look bad, it is bad. Optic's are everything with these people. Remember when Hillary said she only had 1 phone? She didn't confess to having a second phone until the photo's came out of her using the damn thing. No, I can't trust a damn thing these people say.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I was pointing out that lack of evidence is not evidence. It seems you can't see that but instead try to make this about a personal attack so you don't have to look at reality.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting that,, the fact that none of us knows for sure what was said in the 20-30 minute (variously reported) conversation between former President Clinton and the sitting Attorney General, inside her aircraft and protected from intrusion by FBI guards, is not at all significant in evaluating the incident? If so your logic may involve a different effect than you may intend.

It is evident that the many critics (all clearly members of the vast "movement right wing conspiracy" Blatham frets so much about) of the parties in this event appear to rest their case on the presumption that both parties in the conversation very likely knew full well about the perception of improprieties that would result, and would not likely risk such an outcome on a mere brief conversation about golf and the grandkids.

Is it really your intent to support that argument?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

So Lynch says that she will accept whatever recommendation the investigators come up with. I have feeling that's still not good enough for you guys though, huh?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Probably not too surprising an ex-President and the spouse of a democrat presidential candidate runs in the same circles as the AG and they happen to run into each other. Granted, Bill Clinton shouldn't have followed her and made conversation with her, it looks bad. However, they also discussed golf, what do you make of that?

How do you know what was discussed? Were you there? Both parties have ample and obvious reason for prudence in such matters, and both are lawyers (though Clinton was disbarred for lying under oath) who should know the risks of actions that have overturned legal cases and trial judgments in the past. More quite remarkable slavish credulity : indeed a near total lack of common sense scepticisn

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Good article on Bill Clinton's disbarment. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/national/01WIRE-CLIN.html

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I wasn't there but an FBI official was there and he has already said what they discussed if you had kept up, you would know.

Quote:

According to a law enforcement official familiar with the matter, the former president saw Lynch's plane on the tarmac and walked onto her aircraft. Lynch's FBI security detail did not stop Clinton and he proceeded to initiate an extended conversation that included discussion of grandchildren. Lynch was surprised to see Clinton walking onto her plane, the official said, and no Justice Department business was discussed.

source

3 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

So Lynch says that she will accept whatever recommendation the investigators come up with. I have feeling that's still not good enough for you guys though, huh?

I'm not aware that anyone here has commented on Lynch's statement. It appears you are making a prejudgment.

My understanding is that she said that she would accept the recommendation of the FBI and the carreer Attorneys, who work for her in the Justice Dept.

That's far short of recusing herself from the matter, which would be the usual action of a judge or government attorney in such circumstances. In short, it doesn't amount to much in these circumstances. Moreover she already very likely knows what are the positions (or tendencies at least) of those involved.

Is that good enough for you?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I wasn't there but an FBI official was there and he has already said what they discussed if you had kept up, you would know.

Please provide specifics and details.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know