I have a bad feeling about 11/8

User Forum Topic
Submitted by ltsddd on October 28, 2016 - 6:02pm

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 28, 2016 - 6:24pm.

ltsdd wrote:
Folks, remember, no one thought chump would make it this far.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ai-sy...

Um, ltsdd, the "chump" is actually HRC .... NOT Trump.

https://www.chumplady.com/

Yes, I think Trump will win ... but I felt he would win even before the FBI decided to reopen the investigation on HRC's e-mails. For a whole variety of reasons that a lot of people don't understand .... but namely that he's willing to fight the good fight. There are very few people out there who are willing to do this .... especially using their own money .... very, very few ... to none. Trump is one in several million.

And this is coming from a former (very effective) Dem activist/operative, lol .....

Submitted by ucodegen on October 28, 2016 - 6:38pm.

I find the polls a bit questionable. I get really doubtful when the percentages change significantly day to day or week to week. It is almost like the poll 'results' are being used to drive the actual results through implied 'group think' - when thinking, deciding like the larger group is safer or perceived as being more 'right'.

As for whether Trump will win.. don't know. If Russia is involved with the leaks of Clinton's Emails etc, they may then try to cause conflict within the United States by having Clinton win (by tampering) while also revealing facts that could result in her impeachment (the electronic voting machines are proven to be insecure, and California is only allotting enough paper ballots for 10% of the vote, if more than 10% go paper - they get a provisional ballot.). - in which case, if true, would really be an indictment against the press themselves because the whole purpose of the first amendment is to inform the public - not to try to lead them about by the nose. They should have been digging into some of Clinton's issues instead of trying to dredge every last bit of crap from Trump's background. It would have given the DNC impetus to look elsewhere and get a better candidate, forcing the GOP to do likewise - and Trump would not have appeared and we might all have been better off.

PS: As I have mentioned before, I have done Defense contracting work, and according to the documents I had to sign when getting a clearance AND when being 'read into' a program - Hillary definitely and knowingly violated the law when it comes to the handling of classified info. Part of the paperwork you sign includes documents on labeling of, and handling of classified info. The statute also states that negligence or not knowing is not an excuse. You also sign that you know how to and will responsibly handle the classified data under threat of prosecution (statutes that they are trying to throw against Snowden)

This is one weird election. I propose another scenario: Hillary wins, gets outed via Wikileaks, impeached, the VP then becomes pres...

Submitted by SK in CV on October 28, 2016 - 7:50pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
ltsdd wrote:
Folks, remember, no one thought chump would make it this far.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ai-sy...

Um, ltsdd, the "chump" is actually HRC .... NOT Trump.

https://www.chumplady.com/

Yes, I think Trump will win ... but I felt he would win even before the FBI decided to reopen the investigation on HRC's e-mails. For a whole variety of reasons that a lot of people don't understand .... but namely that he's willing to fight the good fight. There are very few people out there who are willing to do this .... especially using their own money .... very, very few ... to none. Trump is one in several million.

And this is coming from a former (very effective) Dem activist/operative, lol .....

The FBI did not decide to reopen any investigation. And the statement by Comey today does not refer to any emails sent by or received by Secretary Clinton, and cannot implicate her in any wrong doing.

The polls show Trump losing. Badly. Fortunately, what you feel has no effect on the outcome of the election. How people vote does. And this moment, polling shows that sufficient numbers will be voting for Clinton to elect her by at least the margin that Obama won with 4 years ago.

Submitted by harvey on October 28, 2016 - 8:20pm.

ucodegen wrote:
I find the polls a bit questionable. I get really doubtful when the percentages change significantly day to day or week to week. It is almost like the poll 'results' are being used to drive the actual results through implied 'group think' - when thinking, deciding like the larger group is safer or perceived as being more 'right'.

Quote:
[...] because the whole purpose of the first amendment is to inform the public - not to try to lead them about by the nose. They should have been digging into some of Clinton's issues instead of trying to dredge every last bit of crap from Trump's background.

You and I must not live in the same country.

The purpose of the first amendmendment is to protect everyone's inalienable right to say whatever the fuck they want to say.

If you don't like what "they" - the press - does, then start your own media enterprise. The first amendment lets you do that, same as anyone else.

You can even protect yourself from all those sinister influences while you are broadcasting, like the guy in the picture.

Submitted by no_such_reality on October 28, 2016 - 8:26pm.

I must be jaded. Unless the thing on the Weiner phone is a video chat between Huma and a naked Clinton in bed with a dead pre-teen boy while wearing a strap on weiner screaming "I don't give a f--- if it's classified, just email it"

The majority just doesn't really gives a rat's *ss.

Even if that is what they find, many people will find a way to rationalize it.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 28, 2016 - 8:56pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Yes, I think Trump will win ...

Do you want him to win or you have some rational basis for your prediction?

If Trump loses, will you conduct an autopsy on your own thinking? I know that I would if Hillary loses.

Back in 2012, I wasn't as confident Obama would win. Since then, I talk to more people and try to get a better sense of mood of the country. I think I have pretty good intuition.

My Spanish is not that good, but I listen to Latino tv news just to get a feel. Latinos are pretty energized this year after both Bush Obama failed at immigration reform.

Anyway, let's discuss this again after nov 8

Submitted by ucodegen on October 28, 2016 - 10:07pm.

harvey wrote:

You and I must not live in the same country.

The purpose of the first amendmendment is to protect everyone's inalienable right to say whatever the fuck they want to say.

If you don't like what "they" - the press - does, then start your own media enterprise. The first amendment lets you do that, same as anyone else.

The problem comes down to campaign finance laws, and why the laws exist. The supreme court has also stated that there is a layer of responsibility to the exercise of the first amendment. You can't yell fire (without there being a fire) in a crowded room, so it is not exactly being able to say w-e-t-f you want to. You are trying to do the equivalent of equating a person yelling through a very loud PA system to being of the same loudness of a person talking. Not Quite.

An individual has much smaller resources than does a large well backed organization. The problem becomes one of trying to upset the one person one vote through mis-information.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 28, 2016 - 10:46pm.

ucodegen wrote:

An individual has much smaller resources than does a large well backed organization. The problem becomes one of trying to upset the one person one vote through mis-information.

You mean misinformation like covering Benghazi as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering the Clinton foundation as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering Clinton's email server as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering the rape of a 13 year old girl by a presidential candidate as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering bribes paid by the Trump foundation as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like covering this election as if it's close? Yeah, the press has failed quite a bit this election cycle. The first amendment allows all that. In fact, guarantees the right to do all that. But despite all that rigging against her, Hillary Clinton is still going to be the next president. That's how bad her opponent is.

Submitted by ltsddd on October 28, 2016 - 11:56pm.

Hillary's supporters may get complacent, believing that she'll win in a landslide, and don't get out and vote. chump might be able to sneak in by a razor-thin margin. Again, I never would have thought he would be the GOP nomination.

Submitted by Hobie on October 29, 2016 - 5:29am.

I have a dim view of polls. Polling is a business and elections are their peak period of making money.

They play along with the daily media circus and tickle their clients with all of this current 'data'.

Sure, some may have a bit more cred that others, but I think pollsters are playing each side against the other and making bank.

Ever see the actual poll data set? Who, where, how many, demos, and on and on. So easy to publish blanket statements of Hil +1 or Tru -2. Keeps feeding the beast.

Surprised press, bloggers, or even Piggs haven't noted the lack of supporting data when reading these polls.

Submitted by harvey on October 29, 2016 - 6:48am.

no_such_reality wrote:
I must be jaded. Unless the thing on the Weiner phone is a video chat between Huma and a naked Clinton in bed with a dead pre-teen boy while wearing a strap on weiner screaming "I don't give a f--- if it's classified, just email it"

All we know about the "new" findings is that they found emails on someone's personal computer. It would take a lot to prove that anything in them, no matter how damning, was actually handled by Clinton herself. There's no chance any of this will be settled conclusively in the next two weeks.

Comey is being really irresponsible with this announcement. All it can do is fuel speculation and in no way gives voters any actionable information. He's throwing a wrench into one of most important government processes over a minor CYA for himself.

Quote:
Even if that is what they find, many people will find a way to rationalize it.

Not much of a leap needed for that rationalization: She's would still be less dangerous as president than Trump.

Submitted by no_such_reality on October 29, 2016 - 7:27am.

Can you imagine the shit storm if Comey didn't CYA and then Congress or the Media learned there was Clinton emails on the Weiner computer?

If it's just unclassified missives between Huda and Clinton, that's nobody's business. If a single one of them is Classified, that's the whole point. Clinton's handling of classified info was so lax that it ended up on a computer Anthony Weiner used for sexting with a minor.

Do I think that means we should elect Trump, no.

I'll gladly take four more years of Elon Musk's ilk bilking the system than subjecting ourselves to egocentric trepidation of the balding Oompa.

Sadly the 66% that like neither can't seem to look for any less unlikable out of fear that the more unlikable one will win.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 29, 2016 - 9:39am.

no_such_reality wrote:
Can you imagine the shit storm if Comey didn't CYA and then Congress or the Media learned there was Clinton emails on the Weiner computer?

If it's just unclassified missives between Huda and Clinton, that's nobody's business. If a single one of them is Classified, that's the whole point. Clinton's handling of classified info was so lax that it ended up on a computer Anthony Weiner used for sexting with a minor.

Do I think that means we should elect Trump, no.

I'll gladly take four more years of Elon Musk's ilk bilking the system than subjecting ourselves to egocentric trepidation of the balding Oompa.

Sadly the 66% that like neither can't seem to look for any less unlikable out of fear that the more unlikable one will win.

FBI sources have already acknowledged that none of the emails in question were sent by Clinton. In which case, practically speaking, there can't really be a finding that Clinton mishandled classified information. Nor could it possibly have anything to do with the investigation into the use of her private server.

This was a purely political move on Comey's part to issue the statement, even if it wasn't partisan. There is no possible non-political purpose in issuing the statement. None. (Trying to appear non-political IS a political move.)

Submitted by ltsddd on October 29, 2016 - 9:47am.

bearishgurl wrote:
ltsdd wrote:
Folks, remember, no one thought chump would make it this far.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ai-sy...

Um, ltsdd, the "chump" is actually HRC .... NOT Trump.

https://www.chumplady.com/

Yes, I think Trump will win ... but I felt he would win even before the FBI decided to reopen the investigation on HRC's e-mails. For a whole variety of reasons that a lot of people don't understand .... but namely that he's willing to fight the good fight. There are very few people out there who are willing to do this .... especially using their own money .... very, very few ... to none. Trump is one in several million.

And this is coming from a former (very effective) Dem activist/operative, lol .....

BG,
Why do you think donald chump would be good for the U.S.?

Submitted by harvey on October 29, 2016 - 10:08am.

I already said: They found a bunch of stuff on a private computer. Tracing anything on anybody's laptop back to deliberate, criminal action by Clinton would be nearly impossible. Maybe Huda had something she wasn't supposed to have (Comey hasn't even said that much) but the notion that it came from Clinton is purely speculation. Comey just handed one side a license to run with that speculation. And of course they are.

Quote:
Can you imagine the shit storm if Comey didn't CYA and then Congress or the Media learned there was Clinton emails on the Weiner computer?

Comey's job not to avoid media "shit storms."

The FBI should investigate anybody and everybody they believe is involved in criminal activity. And they should STFU about what they are doing until they have something actionable. At this point in this shit storm - yes it's already a shit storm - there should be no "news" coming from Comey and the Justice Department without anything less than an indictment. And they don't have that because there is insufficient evidence of a crime.

All Comey has said is that "we haven't found anything at all except another possible place to look." Of course the Trump partisans will interpret that as a smoking gun. But it won't affect the outcome on Nov 8.

PS: Elon Musk, WTF?

Submitted by Hobie on October 29, 2016 - 11:11am.

Me thinks Huma's computer and accounts would have all of the emails addressed to Hillery. Why, as Chief of Staff she would triage all of the incoming emails first. Can Huma claim the 5th too?

Submitted by outtamojo on October 29, 2016 - 11:52am.

ucodegen wrote:
...

This is one weird election. I propose another scenario: Hillary wins, gets outed via Wikileaks, impeached, the VP then becomes pres...

This scenario is still much more palatable to me than Trump outright winning. Winding down it would take news that Hillary was the secret head of a local KKK chapter for me not to vote for her.

Submitted by njtosd on October 29, 2016 - 1:50pm.

harvey wrote:
Of course the Trump partisans will interpret that as a smoking gun. But it won't affect the outcome on Nov 8.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Logically, you may be right. Comey's caught between an AG who has had allegations of bias and future allegations of a cover up.

Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. None of these things are qualities of great leaders. Before anyone else says it - the very SAME THING can be said for Trump. He's hideous - no doubt. This new stuff just brings her collective baggage closer to his.

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 29, 2016 - 2:44pm.

njtosd wrote:
. . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .
That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can't for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ....

I note Huma isn't traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a "come to Jes*s convo" with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt "trapped" into staying with "Mr. Danger" fully 5 years and 2 months past his "sell-by date" and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid "sexual phone forays."

HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, "Mr. Danger" was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family's computers and cell phones. Still .... she kept Huma on and didn't bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her "right-hand woman's" (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC's e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America's secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 29, 2016 - 2:44pm.

njtosd wrote:
harvey wrote:
Of course the Trump partisans will interpret that as a smoking gun. But it won't affect the outcome on Nov 8.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Logically, you may be right. Comey's caught between an AG who has had allegations of bias and future allegations of a cover up.

Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. None of these things are qualities of great leaders. Before anyone else says it - the very SAME THING can be said for Trump. He's hideous - no doubt. This new stuff just brings her collective baggage closer to his.

What exactly do you think is the crime that's been committed? Or even the "poor judgement "?

Submitted by SK in CV on October 29, 2016 - 2:48pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
njtosd wrote:
. . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .
That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can't for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ....

I note Huma isn't traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a "come to Jes*s convo" with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt "trapped" into staying with "Mr. Danger" fully 5 years and 2 months past his "sell-by date" and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid "sexual phone forays."

HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, "Mr. Danger" was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family's computers and cell phones. Still .... she kept Huma on and didn't bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her "right-hand woman's" (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC's e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America's secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.

Wow. Make shit up much out of nothing? The obvious hate of successful people aside, you have zero evidence of any of the allegations you've made here.

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 29, 2016 - 3:05pm.

SK, you must know that the FBI would not have stated that they were "reopening" (I know you don't like to call it that but it fits) HRC's investigation into her e-mail server unless they found some damning evidence on Huma's laptop or phone. Like it or not, HRC, Huma (and as byproducts) Anthony and Bill are all interconnected. Two of them have been very close for ~20 years and the 4 of them were like One Big Happy Family. Bill actually married Huma and Anthony in 2010.

When one routinely rolls in the mud with their friends and "partners," they will eventually get someone else's dirt all over themselves. That's how it works.

Submitted by njtosd on October 29, 2016 - 3:29pm.

SK in CV wrote:
njtosd wrote:
harvey wrote:
Of course the Trump partisans will interpret that as a smoking gun. But it won't affect the outcome on Nov 8.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Logically, you may be right. Comey's caught between an AG who has had allegations of bias and future allegations of a cover up.

Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. None of these things are qualities of great leaders. Before anyone else says it - the very SAME THING can be said for Trump. He's hideous - no doubt. This new stuff just brings her collective baggage closer to his.

What exactly do you think is the crime that's been committed? Or even the "poor judgement "?

I said potential crime - sexting with a 15 year old and sending lewd images is a problem, which is the reason Weiner's being investigated. Poor judgement - hmm. Let's say this - I hope my daughters never even date people like Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner.

Submitted by njtosd on October 29, 2016 - 3:32pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
njtosd wrote:
. . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .
That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can't for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ....

I note Huma isn't traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a "come to Jes*s convo" with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt "trapped" into staying with "Mr. Danger" fully 5 years and 2 months past his "sell-by date" and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid "sexual phone forays."

HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, "Mr. Danger" was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family's computers and cell phones. Still .... she kept Huma on and didn't bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her "right-hand woman's" (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC's e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America's secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.

Once again, BG, you have misquoted me by adding emphasis where there was none. It really riles me - I have explained on a couple of occasions now in painfully clear terms that I resent your misrepresentations. So have other people. Stop it.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 29, 2016 - 3:48pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
SK, you must know that the FBI would not have stated that they were "reopening" (I know you don't like to call it that but it fits) HRC's investigation into her e-mail server unless they found some damning evidence on Huma's laptop or phone. Like it or not, HRC, Huma (and as byproducts) Anthony and Bill are all interconnected. Two of them have been very close for ~20 years and the 4 of them were like One Big Happy Family. Bill actually married Huma and Anthony in 2010.

When one routinely rolls in the mud with their friends and "partners," they will eventually get someone else's dirt all over themselves. That's how it works.

The FBI didn't say they were "reopening", so no, it doesn't fit. The FBI doesn't close cases. They also said they don't know what is in the emails. So if they don't know, you can't possibly even guess that they're damning. More likely, it's not the specific content of the emails, in fact, the FBI has acknowledged that all the emails they're currently referring to (which may be as few as 3) could be emails they've already examined.

Weiner is a loser. Bill Clinton is one of the best past presidents the country has ever had. There is no evidence that Huma is anything but an outstanding employee and person. Secretary Clinton's accomplishments speak for themselves. The dozens of scandals she's been accused of are nothing more than empty accusations. So, I have no idea what "mud" you're referring to. Based on your history here, best guess is you're just making more shit up, so as to not look foolish again. Doesn't really work very well.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 29, 2016 - 3:53pm.

njtosd wrote:

I said potential crime - sexting with a 15 year old and sending lewd images is a problem, which is the reason Weiner's being investigated. Poor judgement - hmm. Let's say this - I hope my daughters never even date people like Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner.

So you're saying that Secretary Clinton is "potentially" guilty of something because of something that Weiner did? She is guilty of poor judgment because someone who is married to her employee did something despicable? Really? Am I guilty of bad judgement because one of my high school buddies, and groomsman at my wedding, was later convicted of a crime and did time in a federal prison? Is my wife, who I married more than 30 year later, also guilty of bad judgement?

Submitted by mixxalot on October 29, 2016 - 5:33pm.

Hillary will steal the election and win even though Trump will win the popular vote. The global elites want their puppet to win.

Submitted by harvey on October 29, 2016 - 6:02pm.

If I've learned anything from these 2016 election discussions, it's that some of Piggs are harboring some serious bitterness over their own past or present marriages.

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 29, 2016 - 8:31pm.

njtosd wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
njtosd wrote:
. . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .
That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can't for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ....

I note Huma isn't traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a "come to Jes*s convo" with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt "trapped" into staying with "Mr. Danger" fully 5 years and 2 months past his "sell-by date" and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid "sexual phone forays."

HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, "Mr. Danger" was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family's computers and cell phones. Still .... she kept Huma on and didn't bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her "right-hand woman's" (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC's e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America's secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.

Once again, BG, you have misquoted me by adding emphasis where there was none. It really riles me - I have explained on a couple of occasions now in painfully clear terms that I resent your misrepresentations. So have other people. Stop it.

nj, you're certainly free to tell the Piggs what you meant by this phrase you posted:

njtosd wrote:
...Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. ...

Instead of berating me for giving MY opinion, why don't you give yours? What exactly did to mean by the [bolded] phrase?

Submitted by SK in CV on October 29, 2016 - 8:55pm.

mixxalot wrote:
Hillary will steal the election and win even though Trump will win the popular vote. The global elites want their puppet to win.

Good one.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.