Politics Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen

[Denny Crane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html

House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails

WASHINGTON — One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “never had a subpoena” for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her — namely, the subpoena they’d served Clinton earlier this year.

During an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Tuesday, Clinton said that other secretaries of state had done the same thing as her in the past. Keilar replied, “They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?”

“You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions,” Clinton responded. “I’ve never had a subpoena, there’s nothing — again, let’s take a deep breath here.”

Do you recognize obstruction of justice when it's so blatant?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

[barfo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html

House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails

WASHINGTON — One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “never had a subpoena” for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her — namely, the subpoena they’d served Clinton earlier this year.

During an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Tuesday, Clinton said that other secretaries of state had done the same thing as her in the past. Keilar replied, “They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?”

“You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions,” Clinton responded. “I’ve never had a subpoena, there’s nothing — again, let’s take a deep breath here.”

Do you recognize obstruction of justice when it's so blatant?

HEY COULD WE USE A BIGGER FONT PLEASE?
HOW DOES ANYTHING SAID TO CNN QUALIFY AS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Copy / paste the article title as is. Big font and all.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oddly, WaPost uses the word scant, which means "barely sufficient." Not "none" as the cultists want to believe. Not that it matters. The relevant laws she broke do not require intent.

 

[Denny Crane]

One more tidbit about Bill Clinton. The day he left office, he reached a plea arrangement with the special prosecutor, Robert Ray. In return for Ray not prosecuting for perjury and obstruction of justice, Clinton admitted his crime publicly, apologized for it, paid a $25,000 fine, and his law license in Arkansas revoked.

Ray's reasoning was that impeachment and the trial was punishment enough, but there had to be some substance to what Clinton agreed to for his part in the bargain.

I'm fine with the way it turned out. I wish that Clinton came out with the truth right away because denying Paula Jones her day in court, no matter what you think of her or the case, is abuse of power and office. It would have been less embarrassing for him, too.

But to claim he was innocent in it all is utter bullshit.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

It's like a choice between syphilis of the eye or cancer of the dick.

Syphilis of the eye without googling it.

 

[Denny Crane]

HOW DOES ANYTHING SAID TO CNN QUALIFY AS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
barfo

She destroyed the emails on her server, deleted them. That's known as spoliation of evidence. She claimed she never got a subpoena, though the committee threatened subpoena all along, she was being investigated all along (Benghazi hearings), etc.

And then she outright lies in that CNN interview about not having the subpoena. The republicans produced it, so they proved she's lying.

WASHINGTON — One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “never had a subpoena” for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her — namely, the subpoena they’d served Clinton earlier this year.

Get the woman under oath and you're certain to see perjury in action.

 

[barfo]

"Clinton’s statement seems like an obvious contradiction. However, as usual, it’s not so simple, for several reasons. Clinton and Keilar were talking over each other; Keilar made an incorrect assumption in her question; and Clinton and the Benghazi Committee Republicans had different time frames in mind."

"Watching the video, it’s clear Keilar asked Clinton if and why she decided to delete emails off her server while facing a subpoena. But from what we know, Clinton was not facing a subpoena when the emails were deleted; she was only subpoenaed months later by the House Republicans."

Link.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

"Clinton’s statement seems like an obvious contradiction. However, as usual, it’s not so simple, for several reasons. Clinton and Keilar were talking over each other; Keilar made an incorrect assumption in her question; and Clinton and the Benghazi Committee Republicans had different time frames in mind."

"Watching the video, it’s clear Keilar asked Clinton if and why she decided to delete emails off her server while facing a subpoena. But from what we know, Clinton was not facing a subpoena when the emails were deleted; she was only subpoenaed months later by the House Republicans."

Link.

barfo

And here's the money quote:

But Clinton’s choice of words is still somewhat misleading, especially to people who haven’t followed the controversy. "I’ve never had a subpoena" implies that up to the day of the interview, she has not received a subpoena related to her emails, which is incorrect.

Additionally, in the months when she was sifting through these emails, there was a pending formal request -- though not an official subpoena -- for the emails. So she knew at the time that the State Department and the Benghazi Committee wanted to look at them.

(the formal request was enough that she knew the emails she was deleting might be subpoenaed, and they were!).

Great find, barfo. It exactly fits the narrative I've repeated.

 

[barfo]

But Clinton’s choice of words is still somewhat misleading, especially to people who haven’t followed the controversy.

Well, if the bar is that one should never say anything that might be somewhat misleading to people who don't know what you are talking about, then that's a pretty high bar.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

"I’ve never had a subpoena" implies that up to the day of the interview, she has not received a subpoena related to her emails, which is incorrect.

(replace incorrect with a lie, deceit, or whatever suits you, because she outright bold face lied right there).

 

[Denny Crane]

BTW, in the case of spoliation, the court usually assumes the worst for the person who destroyed evidence. In other words, they assume the evidence was of guilt.

 

[barfo]

BTW, in the case of spoliation, the court usually assumes the worst for the person who destroyed evidence. In other words, they assume the evidence was of guilt.

And yet, no charges are likely to be filed, so all your legal theorizing must be wrong in some fundamental aspect.

Or maybe it's a vast left-wing conspiracy.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And yet, no charges are likely to be filed, so all your legal theorizing must be wrong in some fundamental aspect.

Or maybe it's a vast left-wing conspiracy.

barfo

Pure speculation.

 

[barfo]

Pure speculation.

Sure. Just like your repeated speculations on the topic. We'll see who turns out to be the better speculator. Whoever gets it right wins the Golden Speculum.

[I made that up, but of course it turns out via google that the Golden Speculum is an "actual" award.]

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure. Just like your repeated speculations on the topic. We'll see who turns out to be the better speculator. Whoever gets it right wins the Golden Speculum.

[I made that up, but of course it turns out via google that the Golden Speculum is an "actual" award.]

barfo

The facts aren't speculation. She deleted the emails. Equivalent to Nixon erasing all his tapes. Or even the one gap that was.

 

[MarAzul]

Syphilis of the eye without googling it.

umm, what if you need a wheelbarrow in front of you, holding the rigging just to walk?

 

[MarAzul]

Well, if the bar is that one should never say anything that might be somewhat misleading to people who don't know what you are talking about, then that's a pretty high bar.

barfo

Come on barfo! a bar in ditch as deep as her ass would be too high for this embarrassing person.

 

[MarAzul]

Has a Presidential candidate ever been indicted before? I don't think it is a matter of whether there is enough evidence or not about her crimes.
The question is, will those responsible for bringing the indictment have the nards to be the first to indict a Presidential candidate? Congress should have already done it, but they waffled, leaving the dirty work to those that don't have to face election. What a system! It needs fixing.

 

[barfo]

The facts aren't speculation. She deleted the emails. Equivalent to Nixon erasing all his tapes. Or even the one gap that was.

Her deleting emails when she did is about as illegal as you deleting your emails.

Not a crime, and just about as important, too.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Her deleting emails when she did is about as illegal as you deleting your emails.

Not a crime, and just about as important, too.

barfo

If I am not mistaken, it is illegal to delete anything to do with the nations business. Archive is the proper disposition.

 

[barfo]

Come on barfo! a bar in ditch as deep as her ass would be too high for this embarrassing person.

And yet you support a guy who does not tell the truth about much of anything. How do you reconcile that?

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Can anyone believe She never sent an email to anyone about Benghazi? The first ambassador killed in years and she never sent an email to anyone?

 

[barfo]

If I am not mistaken, it is illegal to delete anything to do with the nations business. Archive is the proper disposition.

It's not, actually, the government throws away, shreds, and deletes tons of stuff every day. Plus there is no evidence that she did that anyway (possibly because she destroyed the evidence?).

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

And yet you support a guy who does not tell the truth about much of anything. How do you reconcile that?

barfo

I know of no whoppers he has told me. You know shit like; "I it was that awful movie that caused it!"

 

[barfo]

I know of no whoppers he has told me. You know shit like; "I it was that awful movie that caused it!"

Here's a couple that I would say certainly qualify:

Claim: During Thursday evening’s Fox News Republican presidential debate, Trump said families of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had been living in the U.S. prior to that date. “The wife knew exactly what was happening. They left two days early … and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon."

Fact: No relatives of 9/11 hijackers had been living in the U.S. prior to the attacks.

Claim: In October, Trump claimed that on 9/11, “there were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down.”

Fact: Not only was it not "well-covered," as Trump claimed during an interview, but Trump's campaign has been unable to provide evidence that any groups of Muslims were celebrating the attacks in New Jersey.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Fact: No relatives of 9/11 hijackers had been living in the U.S. prior to the attacks.

I am not sure this is a fact. You can not be either. There were indeed many Saudis, that when home in a rush the days after that attack.
That has been reported long before Trump said it.

I remember seeing video of the Muslims dancing in the streets. But you know what? I can't find a one today. However, the fact that I can not find the videos, does not mean it never happened.

But, in any case, these are no where near the whoppers the Hillary has told. Hell, I remember watching her tell one of families that lost a member in Benghazi, about how they were going to get the guy that put that awful video on the internet. The caused the attack. You can't find that video now either. Doesn't mean it didn't happen and the family members remember. Now that sir is a whopper.

She just fucked up big time and lied about it, lied about how it happened and lied about, there was nothing she could do to help them. Bull shit! I know how and so do many many people. She and Obama just lacked the guts to do what they should. The lie is the easy way out for them.
Hard to believe a man smart enough to be able to type, that does see this truth.

 

[barfo]

I am not sure this is a fact. You can not be either. There were indeed many Saudis, that when home in a rush the days after that attack.
That has been reported long before Trump said it.

I remember seeing video of the Muslims dancing in the streets. But you know what? I can't find a one today. However, the fact that I can not find the videos, does not mean it never happened.

The fact that no one can find the videos does actually mean it never happened. Yet Trump claimed he watched it on TV. Maybe you think there is a giant conspiracy to erase every tape ever made of coverage that day? Wouldn't there then be gaps in the coverage that couldn't be explained?

As for the relatives, I believe that's been investigated pretty thoroughly. Maybe the government is lying to us about the relatives of the hijackers leaving the country, but please explain why they'd bother?

I only picked these two because they dealt with terrorism. There are lots of other lies Trump tells on a daily basis.

barfo

 

[tlongII]

The fact that no one can find the videos does actually mean it never happened. Yet Trump claimed he watched it on TV. Maybe you think there is a giant conspiracy to erase every tape ever made of coverage that day? Wouldn't there then be gaps in the coverage that couldn't be explained?

As for the relatives, I believe that's been investigated pretty thoroughly. Maybe the government is lying to us about the relatives of the hijackers leaving the country, but please explain why they'd bother?

I only picked these two because they dealt with terrorism. There are lots of other lies Trump tells on a daily basis.

barfo

Was it illegal for him to say that?

 

[barfo]

Was it illegal for him to say that?

No, it was not illegal for him to say that. MarAzul complained specifically about lies, not illegality, however, so I was addressing Trump's lies.

If you want to discuss Trump's illegal acts instead, I suppose I could bring up the Trump University fraud...

barfo