• 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!

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal

SlevinKelevra said:
And your comment wasnt?
Click to expand...
No it wasn't.
I was surprised that someone thought it needed it own thread after it had already been posted hours earlier in an applicable and relevant thread.
Which is exactly what I stated.
If you think that is personal, that is on you.
 
Chainsaw said:
Bill Clinton (probably more to try to clear himself in the Orgy Island scandal) has come out with a statement that his contacts in the media are corroborating the fact that the Obama admin is feeding the press with as much negative media about the Clintons as they can. A narcissistic a$$ like Obama could never allow Bill/Clintons to remain as the face of the demo party, so they must be destroyed.

Watching this is going to be a BLAST!!!!!!
Click to expand...

A blast, but also very sad.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton




well, this is quite the unexpected turn in this story. still a bit upset about the 2008 primaries?
:lol:


also, how did nobody notice her email address when the whole benghazi "scandal" was going down?
Click to expand...

I believe I got some "LOL's" from the left when I said it was the democrats doing this to Hillary, not the republicans. Hmmm.
 
Excon said:
SlevinKelevra said:
And your comment wasnt?
Click to expand...
No it wasn't.
I was surprised that someone thought it needed it own thread after it had already been posted hours earlier in an applicable and relevant thread.
Which is exactly what I stated.
If you think that is personal, that is on you.
Click to expand...
Let me add something here that is missing.
Why didn't you just ask why I didn't think it needed it's own thread?
Had you, it likely would have been relieved you of any imaginary persecution.

The reason being is that one, it was based on an anonymous source, and two, it was from the NYPost.
IMO that combination is suspect enough not to give it it's own thread.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this was payback for the Hillary people starting the whole birther controversy.
 
matchlight said:
I'm pretty sure she would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be glad to retract it, but I'll let it stand for now.
Click to expand...

You got me to wondering.

Reagan, the oldest so far, was 69 years, 349 days old when he was inaugurated.

Hillary was born October 26, 1947.

Inauguration day would be January 20, 2017.

So, she would be nine months and five days shy of seventy.

Which, if my math is correct, would make her just slightly younger, but not by much.

Not that it matters. Hillary will be watching the inauguration on TV, just like the rest of us.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You got me to wondering.

Reagan, the oldest so far, was 69 years, 349 days old when he was inaugurated.

Hillary was born October 26, 1947.

Inauguration day would be January 20, 2017.

So, she would be nine months and five days shy of seventy.

Which, if my math is correct, would make her just slightly younger, but not by much.

Not that it matters. Hillary will be watching the inauguration on TV, just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. She'd be the second oldest, then. Reagan looked and acted hale and vigorous, and he had a good sense of humor--and that tended to make people forget he was as old as he was.

This woman, though, neither has a charming sense of humor nor seems all that vigorous. She has at least once fainted and suffered a concussion from falling, and then been hospitalized for treatment of a blood clot. The story is that she was dehydrated at the time because of a stomach virus, but I suspect quite a few people may not find that too convincing. I'm not a doctor, but I think what happened can also be the result of far more serious problems than being dehydrated. We've already had one president--Wilson--who was incapacitated by a stroke while in office.
 
matchlight said:
Thanks for the information. She'd be the second oldest, then. Reagan looked and acted hale and vigorous, and he had a good sense of humor--and that tended to make people forget he was as old as he was.

This woman, though, neither has a charming sense of humor nor seems all that vigorous. She has at least once fainted and suffered a concussion from falling, and then been hospitalized for treatment of a blood clot. The story is that she was dehydrated at the time because of a stomach virus, but I suspect quite a few people may not find that too convincing. I'm not a doctor, but I think what happened can also be the result of far more serious problems than being dehydrated. We've already had one president--Wilson--who was incapacitated by a stroke while in office.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is more to senior disability than simply age. Some seventy year olds are hale and hearty, while some sixty year olds are already quite elderly.

And I agree that Hillary doesn't appear to be very hale and hearty.

But, I don't think it matters. Subsequent events could prove me wrong, but I'm predicting that she will be an onlooker at the next inauguration anyway.
 
Chainsaw said:
Bill Clinton (probably more to try to clear himself in the Orgy Island scandal) has come out with a statement that his contacts in the media are corroborating the fact that the Obama admin is feeding the press with as much negative media about the Clintons as they can. A narcissistic a$$ like Obama could never allow Bill/Clintons to remain as the face of the demo party, so they must be destroyed.

Watching this is going to be a BLAST!!!!!!
Click to expand...

This is fantastic. It's like Christmas came early. Hillary has enough money locked up to make it into and through a lot of the primaries already, but, wow.


:popcorn:
 
cpwill said:
This is fantastic. It's like Christmas came early. Hillary has enough money locked up to make it into and through a lot of the primaries already, but, wow.


:popcorn:
Click to expand...
Don't be so sure.
Had this story broken during the campaign, assuming Hillary won the primary, the Democrats would have been stuck with trying to justify it somehow. As it is, they have plenty of time to pick someone else.

If, that is, they take advantage of the opportunity.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
smh, it's clear you'd rather spout talking points than address a rather obvious and simple question.
Click to expand...


A little lengthy but this is the timeline. I underlined some of the highlights to make things easier to track:

On Benghazi, a timeline of State Department obstruction | WashingtonExaminer.com

August 11, 2014 — The State Department sends its first group of documents to the new Benghazi committee, a partial response to a previous subpoena. The production contains a few — less than 10 — emails either to or from Clinton. Committee staffers notice immediately that the emails are from a previously unseen address, hdr22@clintonemail.com. Meanwhile, the committee presses State to meet its legal obligation to fully respond to the pair of subpoenas originally issued in August 2013.

October 2014 — At some point in this month, the State Department sends a request to all former secretaries of state, including Clinton, asking them to provide records from their time in office. Months later, State would admit that the request was the result of the Benghazi committee's push for information from Clinton.

November 18, 2014 — The Benghazi committee sends another request to the State Department asking for emails to and from Clinton relating to the Libya attack. This time, committee staffers include instructions specifically demanding emails that were sent or received on any @clintonemail.com account.

December 2, 2014 — After the request to the State Department, the Benghazi committee sends a second request, this one to Clinton's personal lawyer, David Kendall — the man who in the 1990s helped President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton fight through the various scandals of Bill Clinton's presidency. The request specifically asks for emails to or from the @clintonemail.com account that relate in any way to Libya.

December 29, 2014 — Kendall sends a non-response response to the Benghazi committee request. Kendall tells the committee he has "referred [the request] to the State Department, which will be responding to your request, as it is in a position to produce any responsive emails."

February 13, 2015 — The State Department sends the Benghazi committee 850 pages of Hillary Clinton emails, from two different @clintonemail.com accounts.

February 27, 2015 — During a staff meeting, the State Department shocks some on the Benghazi committee by admitting for the first time that the only Clinton emails the Department possesses are those provided by Hillary Clinton herself. Department officials also reveal that Clinton used her secret email system exclusively and did not use a government account. When the committee asks how many emails Clinton has given to State, officials decline to answer.

March 2, 2015 — The email story breaks in the New York Times. The paper reports Clinton provided 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department, which is news to the Benghazi committee.

March 3, 2015 — The Benghazi committee sends "preservation letters" to Clinton and to her email hosting company ordering them to protect, and not to destroy, any records.

March 4, 2015 — The Benghazi committee issues two subpoenas "for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation," according to a committee spokesman. One subpoena goes to Clinton, the other to the State Department.

March 10, 2015 — Clinton holds a brief news conference, during which she announces she had about 60,000 emails on her secret system. Of those, Clinton says she deemed about half, or 30,000 emails, to be private, and destroyed them. A frustrated chairman Gowdy responds that he sees "no choice but for Secretary Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral, detached third-party arbiter who can determine which documents should be public and which should remain private." In addition, Gowdy says he will call Clinton to appear before the committee "at least twice" — once to discuss the email system and a second time to discuss Benghazi itself.
 
1. I wouldn't put it past VG to do this. I also wouldn't put it past a GOP operative to do this and leak it that VG leaked it. I really don't care to argue either one of the possibilities since it really doesn't matter to me.

2. The Clinton campaign machine is huge. They have most of the large donors and money. Those donors aren't going to turn on Hillary for fear of backlash. The Democrats might be locked in. But in politics "never say never".

3. There are so many Clinton scandals going right now that it won't die down. It is like a gift that keeps on giving. This election might be for the Republicans to lose if they don't get their head's out of their collective sphincter.

4. Just because Bush did it doesn't mean it is right for Clinton to do it. Bush should have been nailed for it also. Two wrongs don't make a right. The problem with our political system is that we ignore the lies that come from our party of choice but not the party on the other side. Then we bitch that all politicians are liars. No wonder things are all hosed up.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton




well, this is quite the unexpected turn in this story. still a bit upset about the 2008 primaries?
:lol:


also, how did nobody notice her email address when the whole benghazi "scandal" was going down?
Click to expand...


Well... Now at least I understand why the NY Times not only published this story, but did so on page one. They were simply following orders.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Don't be so sure.
Had this story broken during the campaign, assuming Hillary won the primary, the Democrats would have been stuck with trying to justify it somehow. As it is, they have plenty of time to pick someone else.

If, that is, they take advantage of the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Who out there is A) a big enough name in Democrat politics and B) willing to have Clinton Inc. descend on them with 100% smashing fury?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Don't be so sure.
Had this story broken during the campaign, assuming Hillary won the primary, the Democrats would have been stuck with trying to justify it somehow. As it is, they have plenty of time to pick someone else.

If, that is, they take advantage of the opportunity.
Click to expand...

To the bolded. Indeed. Her numbers are lowest since she finished the 08 campaign. But, she's still floating at 53% A and 44% D
 
Dittohead not! said:
Don't be so sure.
Had this story broken during the campaign, assuming Hillary won the primary, the Democrats would have been stuck with trying to justify it somehow. As it is, they have plenty of time to pick someone else.

If, that is, they take advantage of the opportunity.
Click to expand...
So, who's on deck? Elizabeth (native American) Warren? Martin O'Malley? Bernie Sanders? Oh please....

The Clinton's have done more damage to the demo party than any family I can think of. And like battered wives they keep coming back for more.
 
cpwill said:
Who out there is A) a big enough name in Democrat politics and B) willing to have Clinton Inc. descend on them with 100% smashing fury?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but now they have several months to find someone.

Or not. The Democrats could prove just as inept at getting someone elected as the Republicans did last time around.
 
cpwill said:
They don't need to look. President Joe Biden is what The Country Needs. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:)

But the democrats are obsessed with identity politics. No male will be considered. At this point, i'd say Warren will be handed the nomination on a silver platter.
 
Hmmm, but interest appears to be growing in Martin O'Malley.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
:)

But the democrats are obsessed with identity politics. No male will be considered. At this point, i'd say Warren will be handed the nomination on a silver platter.
Click to expand...

Female and Native American. Check, and Check. :mrgreen:



Is there a Hispanic male available?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom