Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) 38 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: No, its not all a ginned up narrative. I am working on a long article about this. 8 Benghazi hearings don't constitute a ginned up narrative? That's like saying Leer Harvey acted alone. Ridiculous on the face of it. I suggest folks read this Mother Jones article for the skinny on the e-mails. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/here-are-fbis-files-hillary-clinton-email-investigation Quote Its not all smoke. Some of it is real. She really was not trustworthy and she never should have run after the Clinton Foundation got up and moving big time. Her lawyer Cheryl Mills advised her not to. All her e-mails have been reviewed, all of Podesta's e-mail released, all of Huma's e-mails, all the DNC e-mails, the Goldman Sachs speeches, and the FBI notes on their interview with her. Out of all of that we find the Clintons peddling access to Dow Chemical for huge money. But peddling access isn't the same as peddling influence. Where was there any quid pro quo? Name one thing Clinton did to "pay for play." If peddling access were a crime every politician in the country except Bernie would be in jail rubbing elbows with every mainstream journalist. Edited November 12, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said: Factually incorrect. Comey testified that Clinton did not lie to the FBI. I'm not talking about what she told the FBI. I'm talking about what she told Congress. During Comey's testimony, Gowdy went over with Comey what she told Congress, and Comey flatly contradicted what she said, lOW Comey indirectly said she was lying. The one lie I remember: Gowdy told Comey that she testified to Congress that she only used one device. Comey stated that she used several devices. She lied under oath to Congress. As to why Congress hasn't pursued perjury charges, a referral was required by the FBI to investigate the matter. Comey was told that such a referral would be forthcoming. I assume such a referral was sent to the FBI. You would have to ask Comey what happened to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: I'm not talking about what she told the FBI. I'm talking about what she told Congress. During Comey's testimony, Gowdy went over with Comey what she told Congress, and Comey flatly contradicted what she said, No, Comey contradicted the over-simplified question -- was classified information sent or received? She said no. Comey admitted that any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. It's called a "perjury trap". Quote lOW Comey indirectly said she was lying. Factually incorrect. He said there wasn't a case and it wasn't even close. Quote he one lie I remember: Gowdy told Comey that she testified to Congress that she only used one device. Comey stated that she used several devices. She lied under oath to Congress. As to why Congress hasn't pursued perjury charges, a referral was required by the FBI to investigate the matter. Comey was told that such a referral would be forthcoming. I assume such a referral was sent to the FBI. You would have to ask Comey what happened to it. She used 13 Blackberries one at a time. This is "gotcha" politics at its most disgusting! The House stopped talking about perjury charges after the FBI notes were released because Clinton didn't commit perjury. Edited November 12, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: She used 13 Blackberries one at a time. Oh, so you're saying that Congress asked her if she used more than one device at a time, and she truthfully said that she only used one at a time. Are you serious? If they asked her about how many devices she used, I'm sure it was in the context of how many devices she used in the course of her work, not how many she used at a time. But of course I could be wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) My article will have little to do with Benghazi. It will focus on the Clinton Foundation, and the email mess. And it really is a mess. And how they interlink. It will also focus on the fact that the DNC and her pals literally played the media and used illicit advantages to defeat Sanders. Edited November 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Ron Ecker said: Oh, so you're saying that Congress asked her if she used more than one device at a time, and she truthfully said that she only used one at a time. Are you serious? If they asked her about how many devices she used, I'm sure it was in the context of how many devices she used in the course of her work, not how many she used at a time. But of course I could be wrong! She kept breaking her Blackberries and every so often she'd have to get a new one. She's guilty of being an older person uncomfortable with new technology. Big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: My article will leave little to do with Benghazi. It will focus on the Clinton Foundation, and the email mess. And it really is a mess. And how they interlink. It will also focus on the fact that the DNC and her pals literally played the media and used illicit advantages to defeat Sanders. How can your article deal with the e-mail mess and not Benghazi? That's how the e-mails came to light! None of her e-mails were properly marked as "classified," so that dog don't hunt. You've got access peddling thru the Clinton Foundation -- but I defy you to name one instance of "pay for play" -- something more than "pay for sitting down to talk." Clinton got almost 4 million more votes than Bernie. You're claiming the DNC rigged those votes? Bottom line: in a two party system when all one party does is investigate the leaders of the opposition, that isn't democracy. It's fascism. Edited November 12, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said: She kept breaking her Blackberries and every so often she'd have to get a new one. She's guilty of being an older person uncomfortable with new technology. Big deal. Oh well, I can sympathize with the old lady in that regard. I wouldn't even know a Blackberry if I saw one. Let's put the devices aside, regardless of who is right.There were other lies according to the exchange during Comey's testimony. I said that's the one I remember. Personally I don't care if they try to get her on perjury or not. This country has finally flushed the Clintons out of its system. Let them go off and live happily ever after with their moola. After all, the poor things were dead broke when they left the White House. (She wasn't lying, was she?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Just now, Ron Ecker said: Oh well, I can sympathize with the old lady in that regard. I wouldn't even know a Blackberry if I saw one. Let's put the devices aside, regardless of who is right.There were other lies according to the exchange during Comey's testimony. I said that's the one I remember. Personally I don't care if they try to get her on perjury or not. This country has finally flushed the Clintons out of its system. Let them go off and live happily ever after with their moola. After all, the poor things were dead broke when they left the White House. (She wasn't lying, was she?) The Clintons were lawyered up from 1995 to 1999. How far does 400 grand a year go when you have to maintain a battery of lawyers to fight off the Republican Congress? You think those lawyers worked for free? Hey, I don't want to be in a position to defend Clinton -- I'm a Bernie man -- but what's right is right, and this whole Benghazi/e-mail thing stinks of a railroad job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Yeah, we heard that Hillary was a crook It's mind boggling, the number of otherwise intelligent people on our side of the aisle who bought the lie. Apparently ideology trumps objectivity. Edited November 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said: 12 hours ago, Pamela Brown said: IMO we had no good choice. Our choice was between a tyrant and a crook. One way or another we will be lucky if we do not end up in a civil war. I have never felt more strongly that our nation has come under judgment. This election is evidence of that... I'm sorry, I'm from Canada and I'm just not up on all of the details. When you call Hillary a "crook", does that mean there is a list of indictable offences against her? Or that she has been convicted of an indictable offence? It means that Republicans falsely painted Hillary as corrupt -- obviously for political gain -- and for some reason Pamela chooses to believe them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said: LOL, oh that is funny! (Poor Melania... I'm sure she's a very nice woman.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 20 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Hey, I don't want to be in a position to defend Clinton -- I'm a Bernie man -- but what's right is right, and this whole Benghazi/e-mail thing stinks of a railroad job. Bernie annoyed the hell out of me the way he kept pointing that finger during his speeches. But like Hillary he's history. I'm just glad that our long national nightmare (the 2016 presidential election campaign) is over. Of course there are plenty of folks who think that a new nightmare is just beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said: 1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said: [Hillary] lied under oath to Congress about her emails, according to the sworn testimony before Congress of FBI Director James Comey. Factually incorrect. Comey testified that Clinton did not lie to the FBI. He also testified that any reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that the material wasn't classified. This is pure "gotcha" witch hunt politics. You, sir, are factually correct. This bullxxxx has been going on since "Travelgate." And the really sad thing is that even people on the left are now buying it. But, as I said, ideology trumps objectivity. (The word "trump" now takes on more meaning.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: This bullxxxx has been going on since "Travelgate." To name just one scandal. I will never understand the love for and defense of the Clintons. But this kind of thing has happened before, in Argentina with Juan and Eva Peron. (Complete with sexual perversion. Juan had a 13-year-old mistress. When someone pointed out to him that she was 13, Juan said, "Yes, but I'm not superstitious.") I'm sure there will soon be an opera "Hillary," with the Hillary character singing, "Don't Cry for Me, America." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now