Experts: Hillary Broke The Law

[RjThoughts]

No, reality is reality.

Perception is how an individual sees reality, which isn't always in line with how things actually are. Any number of preconceived biases can alter one's perception.

Most of the GOP apologizers here have their "Obama's a Muslim, Hillary's a Cunt" glasses on. That's their perception.

 

[RjThoughts]

My IQ is really 130+. Most people will probably laugh but the lowest I have scored was 132. I have to work hard to keep people from knowing that. Smart people are not in very much demand anywhere. It is much better to have a double digit IQ.

Having a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart: It means you're intelligent. Most of the high IQs I work with haven't the smarts of a redneck sitting on the front porch couch!

 

[possum123]

Most of the GOP apologizers here have their "Obama's a Muslim, Hillary's a Cunt" glasses on. That's their perception.

Mind if I ask your opinion of republicans? I don't believe in political parties. I never can tell a republican from a democrat. Other people don't seem to have that problem but that might be because they are one or the other.

 

[RjThoughts]

Mind if I ask your opinion of republicans? I don't believe in political parties. I never can tell a republican from a democrat. Other people don't seem to have that problem but that might be because they are one or the other.

From experience: Republicans are not into the "Common Man," rather will bend over backwards for the upper 1%. Their "religious attitudes" are facades, just trying to garner votes. They say they love the military, but love to FUCK them once they return: Forever cutting benefits for them!

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yep, he's harmed the country with your help. The economy is not good, our foreign policy is in a shambles, the administration itself is embroiled in one scandal after another. The border isn't being defended, the laws aren't being enforced. Our friends and allies no longer respect us and our enemies don't fear us.

The only things missing here from Vette's daily diaperload of scripted fears are: locusts swarming fields, frogs falling from the sky, water turning into blood, crops blighting, barren livestock, tidal waves destroying coastal towns, lunar and solar eclipses, blah blah blah...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAF6cu8UkAAl0y3.jpg

From the Washington Post, Vette's trusty go-to source of non-liberal unbiased information and fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

 

[possum123]

Having a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart: It means you're intelligent. Most of the high IQs I work with haven't the smarts of a redneck sitting on the front porch couch!

How do you tell the difference?

 

[possum123]

From experience: Republicans are not into the "Common Man," rather will bend over backwards for the upper 1%. Their "religious attitudes" are facades, just trying to garner votes. They say they love the military, but love to FUCK them once they return: Forever cutting benefits for them!

From what I have seen neither the republicans or democrats are for the common man. I am looking in from the outside as I don't belong to either party and can not see any difference in them.

In reality both parties bend over backwards for the upper 1%. That is the people who put them in office.

Neither party loves the military. Both parties get rich from the military. Neither party gives a damn about the people who make up the military.

I can see and do understand when a person belongs to either party they think the worst about the other party. That is the reason they joined the other party. For those who do not belong to either party there isn't a bit of difference in republicans and democrats.

 

[possum123]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAF6cu8UkAAl0y3.jpg

From the Washington Post, Vette's trusty go-to source of non-liberal unbiased information and fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

But if I remember right you didn't see anything wrong with Hillary doing the same thing.

 

[DustOnDaBotl]

From what I have seen neither the republicans or democrats are for the common man. I am looking in from the outside as I don't belong to either party and can not see any difference in them.

In reality both parties bend over backwards for the upper 1%. That is the people who put them in office.

Neither party loves the military. Both parties get rich from the military. Neither party gives a damn about the people who make up the military.

I can see and do understand when a person belongs to either party they think the worst about the other party. That is the reason they joined the other party. For those who do not belong to either party there isn't a bit of difference in republicans and democrats.

If Webster's was to ever update its definitions, politician would be synonymous with criminal, corruption, 1% alignment and dishonesty.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

But if I remember right you didn't see anything wrong with Hillary doing the same thing.

A came before B, though.

If Jeb did nothing wrong, then neither did Hilly.

I never saw the problem from the get-go. Squawkers gonna squawk.

 

[possum123]

If Webster's was to ever update its definitions, politician would be synonymous with criminal, corruption, 1% alignment and dishonesty.

I agree with that 100%.. I just can't understand how a person who belongs to one political party can see how crooked a politician of the other party is when they do some thing they think is wrong then turn right around and defend a politician of their party when he does the exact same damn thing.
I can't see how they justify it.

 

[possum123]

A came before B, though.

If Jeb did nothing wrong, then neither did Hilly.

I never saw the problem from the get-go. Squawkers gonna squawk.

It sounds like to me there isn't any difference in the two.

 

[PoppingTom]

From what I have seen neither the republicans or democrats are for the common man. I am looking in from the outside as I don't belong to either party and can not see any difference in them.

In reality both parties bend over backwards for the upper 1%. That is the people who put them in office.

Neither party loves the military. Both parties get rich from the military. Neither party gives a damn about the people who make up the military.

I can see and do understand when a person belongs to either party they think the worst about the other party. That is the reason they joined the other party. For those who do not belong to either party there isn't a bit of difference in republicans and democrats.

Yeah, that's the funny thing: for a German, it matters more who wins your elections than for an American like you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

He doesn't fall under the same rules as Hillary or federal officers, as the article says, none of it was sensitive or classified. Big yawn. This is probably the first time I've defended Jeb Bush.

But he's gunning for Prezzydunt like Hillary.

And if he gets on the ticket, you'll be defending him as per the orders from your masters holding your leash.

Same shit, different day.

 

[Que]

But he's gunning for Prezzydunt like Hillary.

And if he gets on the ticket, you'll be defending him as per the orders from your masters holding your leash.

Same shit, different day.

The question is not what Jeb or Hillary MIGHT do to violate the Federal Records Act when and if either (God help us in either case) becomes president, the question is when has Hillary every complied with a subpoena or safeguarded Federal Records that she thought portrayed her in a bad light?

No one is alleging the Jeb had some parallel system to avoid discovery and FOIA requests.

 

[Busybody]

No one is alleging the Jeb had some parallel system to avoid discovery and FOIA requests.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

As I predicted in the beginning, this Hillary email scandal was an inside job:

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal
By Edward KleinMarch 14, 2015 | 9:33pm


It’s the vast left-wing conspiracy.

President Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.

But she did so through people outside the *administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.

In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

The rest here:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-adviser-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail-scandal/

The NYPost has never printed unsupported conjecture, certainly not from reliable old Edward Klein (who has been exposed as a self-promoting smear peddler after having his work repeatedly debunked). Ok, they really have, repeatedly in fact.

Some of his Best of:
Klein Concocted Bogus Claim That Bill Clinton Sexually Assaulted Hillary Clinton
Klein Made Repeated Sexist Health-Based Attacks On Hillary Clinton
Klein Has History Of Publishing Demostrably False Allegations
Even Conservatives Question Klein's Credibility (Even FauxNews But not Vetteman)
last but certainly not least....
Even Rush Limbaugh Has Dismissed Klein's Unsourced Quotes

 

[RjThoughts]

The NYPost has never printed unsupported conjecture, certainly not from reliable old Edward Klein (who has been exposed as a self-promoting smear peddler after having his work repeatedly debunked).

A Ruppert Murdoch paper "breaks" the news. Rigght

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

A Ruppert Murdoch paper "breaks" the news. Rigght

VetteBigot is so desperate he'll believe absolutely anyone. At first I figured this was another Daily Mail offering. Although Edward Klein in the NY Post is no less credible.

 

[RjThoughts]

VetteBigot is so desperate he'll believe absolutely anyone. At first I figured this was another Daily Mail offering. Although Edward Klein in the NY Post is no less credible.

In 1981, my high school journalism teacher told us to question the veracity of the (com)Post. They were akin to the National Enquirer, as was the Daily News(?). Nothing's changed much since then.

 

[unregistered]