• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton is not a Criminal

CriticalThought said:
Well if you want to make a claim, then substantiate it. That is the purpose of this thread as was clearly stated in the OP.
You can contest what Politifact says if you want, but dismissing it outright without providing any evidence of disqualifying bias means little more than you are sharing an unsubstantiated opinion. Sorry, but this is not your typical, "this is what I believe" thread. If you can't back it up and I have a counter source that is generally bipartisan, then you will called out for making a factually false statement.

So I reiterate. Your claim is factually false.
Click to expand...

But ... did YOU contest what PolitiFact said? Or FactCheck? Should you have? Did you read it all? Should you have?
 
bubbabgone said:
You make a convincing argument.
Just kidding.
But congratulations for posting the 2nd of the 2 links that are always posted when trying to defend the Clinton Foundation.

I said ...

Did you read what FactCheck said? ...
Click to expand...

Exactly They are involved in direct services. As it stands your claim is factually false.
 
CriticalThought said:
This thread is to fact check the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has acted in clearly illicit ways and is a criminal. Let's start...

Fact-checking the Clinton Foundation controversy | PolitiFact

Pro-Trump super PAC ad misleads on Clintons' wealth, foundation cash link | PolitiFact

PolitiFact Sheet: Hillary Clinton?s email controversy | PolitiFact

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Politifact is a left wing organization that exists primarily to advance the propaganda put forth by democrats, especially after it's been challenged.

The notion that Obama and Clinton told the truth about Benghazi is laughable. I've previously posted the multitude of videos from multiple Obama admin officials going on national tv and claiming the Ben Ghazi attacks WERE NOT terrorist attacks at least a week AFTER the attacks! You can find them on YouTube easily. You don't need a left wing propaganda organization to tell you whether or not they lied, because your own eyes and ears tell you that they DID lie about it! Barack Obama DID NOT call the Benghazi attacks terrorism the next day either. He was doing a 9-11-01 memorial when he made a general comment about terrorism, and he did not specifically say that the Benghazi attacks were terror related! Besides, he sent out multiple admin officials AFTER that speech, and had them(including Hillary) tell the American people that it WASNT a terrorist attack!

My god, it blows my mind how hard many progressives will work to convince themselves that obvious corruption in the part of democrats isn't true. I could never spend that much time trying to deceive myself(and others).

Besides, if you wanna claim that Hillary has never done anything illegal, then why the heck do you have problems with comments that Trump made? They aren't "illegal" are they? No they arent! They are immoral, just like Hillary's lies, her clear lack of concern for personal accountability, her destruction of evidence, her mistreatment of people around her etc etc etc etc. She absolutely SHOULD have been charged for the server issues, because lower ranking people go to prison for less!

Try to be consistent. If you want to trash Trump for legally using tax dodges that wealthy dems and progressives use , and you want to trash him for making rude comments, then maybe you should remember that you are excusing dems and progressives like Hillary for doing the exact same types of things, but your excuse for them when they do It is, "well gee, it isn't illegal, so what's the problem"?
 
bubbabgone said:
But ... did YOU contest what PoliotiFact said? Or FactCheck? Should you have? Did you read it all? Should you have?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is why I started this thread. I am not going to accept things just because they are on a fact check site. You now have a chance to contest what they say and provide your own evidence that what they say is factually incorrect. You have convicted Hillary of being a criminal, so let us put your evidence to the test.
 
CriticalThought said:
Exactly They are involved in direct services. As it stands your claim is factually false.
Click to expand...

Their direct service is "talking" and arranging for FOBs to make money from catastrophes.
Haven't you been reading about any of this?
There was just a WIKILEAK about Haiti and it's been known for some time how the C.F. operates.
The WIKILEAK email was merely in their own words.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes. That is why I started this thread. I am not going to accept things just because they are on a fact check site. You now have a chance to contest what they say and provide your own evidence that what they say is factually incorrect. You have convicted Hillary of being a criminal, so let us put your evidence to the test.
Click to expand...

Okay ... how does Charity Watch perform their vetting?
 
ModerationNow! said:
Politifact is a left wing organization that exists primarily to advance the propaganda put forth by democrats, especially after it's been challenged.

The notion that Obama and Clinton told the truth about Benghazi is laughable. I've previously posted the multitude of videos from multiple Obama admin officials going on national tv and claiming the Ben Ghazi attacks WERE NOT terrorist attacks at least a week AFTER the attacks! You can find them on YouTube easily. You don't need a left wing propaganda organization to tell you whether or not they lied, because your own eyes and ears tell you that they DID lie about it! Barack Obama DID NOT call the Benghazi attacks terrorism the next day either. He was doing a 9-11-01 memorial when he made a general comment about terrorism, and he did not specifically say that the Benghazi attacks were terror related! Besides, he sent out multiple admin officials AFTER that speech, and had them(including Hillary) tell the American people that it WASNT a terrorist attack!

My god, it blows my mind how hard many progressives will work to convince themselves that obvious corruption in the part of democrats isn't true. I could never spend that much time trying to deceive myself(and others).

Besides, if you wanna claim that Hillary has never done anything illegal, then why the heck do you have problems with comments that Trump made? They aren't "illegal" are they? No they arent! They are immoral, just like Hillary's lies, her clear lack of concern for personal accountability, her destruction of evidence, her mistreatment of people around her etc etc etc etc. She absolutely SHOULD have been charged for the server issues, because lower ranking people go to prison for less!

Try to be consistent. If you want to trash Trump for legally using tax dodges that wealthy dems and progressives use , and you want to trash him for making rude comments, then maybe you should remember that you are excusing dems and progressives like Hillary for doing the exact same types of things, but your excuse for them when they do It is, "well gee, it isn't illegal, so what's the problem"?
Click to expand...

The scope of this thread does not include Obama or Trump. Please see the title and OP. Do you have any evidence to present to contest Politifact's claims?
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes. That is why I started this thread. I am not going to accept things just because they are on a fact check site. You now have a chance to contest what they say and provide your own evidence that what they say is factually incorrect. You have convicted Hillary of being a criminal, so let us put your evidence to the test.
Click to expand...

So when you read this in FactCheck ...
“I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities are truly charitable,” Vince Stehle, executive director of Media Impact Funders and a board member of the Center for Effective Philanthropy told us via email. “But I can say that it is not appropriate to simply calculate that based on what portion goes out in grants. Certainly all types of foundations are able to engage in direct charitable activities in any event. But as I understand it, the Clinton Foundation is a public charity, despite the name. Many charities call themselves foundations, which can be confusing, as they might seem like private foundations.
“The organization carries out programs,” Stehle said. “I am not intimately familiar with those programs, but assuming they are genuine, those would be considered charitable activities.”
Click to expand...

Granted, that was constructed as much as it could be so as to NOT create questions, but tell me, reading it again wasn't it something that made you go hmmmmm?
 
CriticalThought said:
Do you have anything to contribute to the thread or are you just looking for attention?
Click to expand...

What he said was much shorter and certainly less long-winded than 99.999% of my posts, but it certainly fits this discussion. Why? Because lower ranking govt employees are prosecuted for much less significant than what Hillary did. She should have been charged with, at least, obstruction of justice. There's a low ranking submariner who was given a year in prison for snapping a smartphone photo of his submarine, and He never even sent it to anyone! But Hillary intentionally puts American secrets in jeopardy and avoids oversight, then destroys evidence, and she becomes president! Does that really seem like a fair system to you? Before you answer that, pretend she has an R beside her name and think about how youd respond then!

REPEAT: Too big to jail = Law abiding(to her supporters).
 
bubbabgone said:
So when you read this in FactCheck ...


Granted, that was constructed as much as it could be so as to NOT create questions, but tell me, reading it again wasn't it something that made you go hmmmmm?
Click to expand...

Not really. What do yoy read as insidious in that particular statement? The actual audit of the Clinton Foundation is posted on Factcheck. Do you see anything odd?
 
CriticalThought said:
Well if you want to make a claim, then substantiate it. That is the purpose of this thread as was clearly stated in the OP.
You can contest what Politifact says if you want, but dismissing it outright without providing any evidence of disqualifying bias means little more than you are sharing an unsubstantiated opinion. Sorry, but this is not your typical, "this is what I believe" thread. If you can't back it up and I have a counter source that is generally bipartisan, then you will called out for making a factually false statement.

So I reiterate. Your claim is factually false.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh. It's a source war you're looking for. Okay. I'll get back to you. I don't have time for that right this second.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you had read the article then you would know they are not rating the Clinton Foundation.
Click to expand...

I think you're mixed up. Charity Watch rated the C.F.
Believe me, I've seen the Charity Watch review, the PolitiFact defense, and the FactCheck defense that included Charity Navigator a number of times.
 
ModerationNow! said:
What he said was much shorter and certainly less long-winded than 99.999% of my posts, but it certainly fits this discussion. Why? Because lower ranking govt employees are prosecuted for much less significant than what Hillary did. She should have been charged with, at least, obstruction of justice. There's a low ranking submariner who was given a year in prison for snapping a smartphone photo of his submarine, and He never even sent it to anyone! But Hillary intentionally puts American secrets in jeopardy and avoids oversight, then destroys evidence, and she becomes president! Does that really seem like a fair system to you? Before you answer that, pretend she has an R beside her name and think about how youd respond then!

REPEAT: Too big to jail = Law abiding(to her supporters).
Click to expand...

Really?

Feds torpedo Navy submariner's 'Clinton defense' - CNNPolitics.com

Why did the federal government reject the submariner's defense? How was it different?
 
humbolt said:
Ahhhh. It's a source war you're looking for. Okay. I'll get back to you. I don't have time for that right this second.
Click to expand...

They only have 3 sources so it's not so bad.
I don't think they ever expect anyone would ever actually read them since they don't either.
It's a lot like global warming links.
They get posted but those who post them can't explain them.
 
bubbabgone said:
They only have 3 sources so it's not so bad.
I don't think they ever expect anyone would ever actually read them since they don't either.
It's a lot like global warming links.
They get posted but those who post them can't explain them.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. It's a 3G-like offering.
 
CriticalThought said:
Not really. What do yoy read as insidious in that particular statement? The actual audit of the Clinton Foundation is posted on Factcheck. Do you see anything odd?
Click to expand...

That was Charity Navigator, not CharityWatch. But they both operate the same way. The way I explained much earlier.

As for what I quoted from FactCheck it should have been obvious that using squishy language like ...

“I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities are truly charitable,” ... Many charities call themselves foundations, which can be confusing, as they might seem like private foundations.
... “The organization carries out programs,” ... “I am not intimately familiar with those programs, but assuming they are genuine, those would be considered charitable activities.”
Click to expand...

should have been a clue.
 
calamity said:
Fact is the Deplorables have totally overplayed their hand. Three things come immediately to mind.

1. Benghazi, foundation and email wolf-cries numbed the public to all these accusations such that even if an actual Clinton wrongdoing now suddenly surfaces, most of us will ignore it.

2. Trump dominating the news cycles for 6 months, although at first helping his candidacy with limitless free advertising has now begun to take it's toll. He can't get off page 1.

3. All things Trump supersede anything Hillary does. So, she probably could eat a baby on live TV now, and all the media will focus on is Trump saying the baby was fat.
Click to expand...

Hmm.
WikiLeaks: Benghazi Committee Dems Coordinated With Top Clinton Lawyer

If this level of information was reported back to the Clinton campaign, I wonder just how much more was.


After all . . . .

Trey Gowdy Just Released Report PROVING Democrats’ Benghazi Coverup! BREAKING NEWS

So yet more collusion and corruption in the Clinton orbit. Well, can't say that it's surprising.

All this obstruction on Hillary's behalf might be related to why it took so long (well her stalling and stonewalling helped slow it down), and ended up with so little.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hmm.
WikiLeaks: Benghazi Committee Dems Coordinated With Top Clinton Lawyer

If this level of information was reported back to the Clinton campaign, I wonder just how much more was.


After all . . . .

Trey Gowdy Just Released Report PROVING Democrats’ Benghazi Coverup! BREAKING NEWS

So yet more collusion and corruption in the Clinton orbit. Well, can't say that it's surprising.

All this obstruction on Hillary's behalf might be related to why it took so long (well her stalling and stonewalling helped slow it down), and ended up with so little.
Click to expand...

Daily Caller? :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom