One of the many scandals Clintons should be in Jail for

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

16 Oct 2016, 2:05 pm

Younger folks here don't have any memory of Hillary Clinton's long history. This somewhat famous essay by William Safire was published in the New York Times exactly 20 years ago, in 1996, and nothing has changed:

Blizzard of Lies

By William Safire

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady [Hillary Clinton] -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit....

Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.


http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opini ... .html?_r=0


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Oct 2016, 2:16 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Hillary Clinton has not committed any crimes.

What you are listing is bogus. Bill Clinton pardoned people in his final days in office, as is traditional for Presidents of the United States. Pardoning Marc Rich was sleazy and he should not have done it, as he has admitted, but it was not criminal.

If you want to believe that Hillary is personally responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq, this is a sign that you are not interested in facts. That there was in increase in child mortality as a result of the wars and sanctions in Iraq is not in dispute, but the magnitude of that consequence certainly is. But what's a few hundred thousand Iraqi children when the point is that Hillary was personally responsible for all of George W. Bush's foreign policy and the votes of all the Senators and Representatives who went along with the Bush administration's push to invade Iraq.

Her emails have already been investigated, Benghazi was investigated, there are no crimes connected with the Clinton Foundation.

It's all bogus. You can name a single criminal act by Hillary Clinton that isn't trumped up bulldung. Just because right wing nutters keep shouting this rubbish at each other on talk radio and the internet it doesn't magically become true. If there was a shred of truth to any of it, you can be sure she would already have been prosecuted.



Sheer tribalist denial. If these claims were aimed at Trump i'm sure you'd deny them too.

You're stance is that only Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Trotsky, Lenin, Blair, Netanyahu, Bush, Obama, Cameron, Churchill, Truman, Hussein, Suharto... etc were responsible for their state's crimes, no one else in their cabinet who voted for/supported their state's crimes. Though I'm sure Obama and Truman's crimes don't count as they are/were Democrats. I'm sure it is common for a crooked President to give pardons to criminals on their last day of office as it would be under the radar. The media hysteria would be focusing on them saying goodbye.

" But what's a few hundred thousand Iraqi children when the point is that Hillary was personally responsible for all of George W. Bush's foreign policy and the votes of all the Senators and Representatives who went along with the Bush administration's push to invade Iraq."

You seem to be confused. The sanctions were put on Iraq by Bill Clinton, cheered on by Hilary and voted for by Hilary.

How have they been investigated? They were deleted. Sure, she got away with Benghazi. She should be charged for her whole role in Libya's destruction.

No she wouldn't. Look at Obama selling and giving weapons to states that constantly violate human rights, that is a crime under US Law and International Law. Israel's actions in Gaza have been said to be possible "crimes against humanity" and the puppet Obama just came out each day in the summer of 2014 and spewed "Israel has the right to defend itself". Obama gave himself the right to kill anyone at anytime, anywhere. If they are considered to one day be possibly considering thinking about possibly doing something against America/Americans. No trials or questioning. Just use a drone to blow up the barbecue they're at.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Oct 2016, 2:17 pm

Darmok wrote:
Younger folks here don't have any memory of Hillary Clinton's long history. This somewhat famous essay by William Safire was published in the New York Times exactly 20 years ago, in 1996, and nothing has changed:

Blizzard of Lies

By William Safire

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady [Hillary Clinton] -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit....

Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.


http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opini ... .html?_r=0


Exactly, why stop when she keeps getting away with it? And tribalist voters will just defend her whatever the case.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

16 Oct 2016, 2:20 pm

This is all very laughable, just like the "jail Dick Cheney and Bush" screams from last decade. Read your constitution, elected officials have immunity, it would take a constitutional amendment to change it-- good luck on that.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

16 Oct 2016, 2:32 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
You seem to be confused. The sanctions were put on Iraq by Bill Clinton, cheered on by Hilary and voted for by Hilary.

The sanctions against Iraq were implemented in 1990-1991 by the UN Security Council during the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

These were subsequently eased by the UN - but not removed - through the Oil-For-Food programme in 1995, introduced by president Bill Clinton.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

16 Oct 2016, 2:40 pm

JohnPowell wrote:

Sheer tribalist denial. If these claims were aimed at Trump i'm sure you'd deny them too.

Yes, I am willing to state right now that I don't blame Donald Trump for the war in Iraq or for George H.W. Bush's sanctions against Saddam's government.

I'm also willing to forgive Donald Trump for his part in stopping Gaddaffi slaughtering Libyan protestors, for the Iraqi not properly securing their weapons, for Bill Clinton's pardons, for emails the FBI do not consider criminal, and for Benghazi.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

16 Oct 2016, 3:33 pm

Darmok wrote:
Younger folks here don't have any memory of Hillary Clinton's long history. This somewhat famous essay by William Safire was published in the New York Times exactly 20 years ago, in 1996, and nothing has changed:


That Hillary Clinton sometimes lies is not in doubt. She is a politician.

That does not in any way indicate that she has committed crimes.

I keep seeing non-criminal acts listed as evidence that she is a criminal. It seems to make sense to people on the right, but it really doesn't make sense.

I am also seeing made-up versions of thoroughly investigated events (the private email server, Benghazi, etc.) as supposed reasons that she is a criminal. Were that the case, the hyperpartisan investigators on the congressional teams in the multiple investigations of those events would have shown the supposedly criminal conduct in their findings--but it just did not happen.

Reality rather than partisanship is why people don't think she is a criminal.

The supposed evidence of her criminality only seems like evidence to her partisan detractors. They cannot produce evidence to support a real criminal charge against her, so they come up with rubbish like "she killed 500,000 Iraqi children" and "Benghazi!"


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

17 Oct 2016, 2:11 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
This is all very laughable, just like the "jail Dick Cheney and Bush" screams from last decade. Read your constitution, elected officials have immunity, it would take a constitutional amendment to change it-- good luck on that.


So they can murder anyone and get away with it?


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

17 Oct 2016, 2:17 pm

GGPViper wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
You seem to be confused. The sanctions were put on Iraq by Bill Clinton, cheered on by Hilary and voted for by Hilary.

The sanctions against Iraq were implemented in 1990-1991 by the UN Security Council during the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

These were subsequently eased by the UN - but not removed - through the Oil-For-Food programme in 1995, introduced by president Bill Clinton.


OK, Clinton just continued with them and was bombing Iraq too.

Just theft.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

17 Oct 2016, 2:22 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
This is all very laughable, just like the "jail Dick Cheney and Bush" screams from last decade. Read your constitution, elected officials have immunity, it would take a constitutional amendment to change it-- good luck on that.


So they can murder anyone and get away with it?


If they did it while in office, yes, normal court proceeding can't do jack. That's why there's the "impeachment" process-- it's a much harder/higher standard to prove than a normal court. And yes, it's in the Constitution. There is a reason for it though: in past civilizations one of the political tools used was to jail and/or execute your political opposition, giving immunity while holding office theoretically prevents this.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

17 Oct 2016, 2:22 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:

Sheer tribalist denial. If these claims were aimed at Trump i'm sure you'd deny them too.

Yes, I am willing to state right now that I don't blame Donald Trump for the war in Iraq or for George H.W. Bush's sanctions against Saddam's government.

I'm also willing to forgive Donald Trump for his part in stopping Gaddaffi slaughtering Libyan protestors, for the Iraqi not properly securing their weapons, for Bill Clinton's pardons, for emails the FBI do not consider criminal, and for Benghazi.


They weren't 'protesters', they are the same rent-a crowd types we've seen over the years. Libya has been decimated for the benefit of the US and Israel and it's given the rise to ISIS, where as they weren't there before. This has also meant thousands more refugees and people able to take advantage of getting through Libya without control. Perhaps we should have taken Gaddafi's offer to stop this.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

17 Oct 2016, 2:24 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Darmok wrote:
Younger folks here don't have any memory of Hillary Clinton's long history. This somewhat famous essay by William Safire was published in the New York Times exactly 20 years ago, in 1996, and nothing has changed:


That Hillary Clinton sometimes lies is not in doubt. She is a politician.

That does not in any way indicate that she has committed crimes.

I keep seeing non-criminal acts listed as evidence that she is a criminal. It seems to make sense to people on the right, but it really doesn't make sense.

I am also seeing made-up versions of thoroughly investigated events (the private email server, Benghazi, etc.) as supposed reasons that she is a criminal. Were that the case, the hyperpartisan investigators on the congressional teams in the multiple investigations of those events would have shown the supposedly criminal conduct in their findings--but it just did not happen.

Reality rather than partisanship is why people don't think she is a criminal.

The supposed evidence of her criminality only seems like evidence to her partisan detractors. They cannot produce evidence to support a real criminal charge against her, so they come up with rubbish like "she killed 500,000 Iraqi children" and "Benghazi!"


We know her and Obama supported ISIS through the Saudis. I guess that's not a crime either.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

18 Oct 2016, 1:15 am

JohnPowell wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
Darmok wrote:
Younger folks here don't have any memory of Hillary Clinton's long history. This somewhat famous essay by William Safire was published in the New York Times exactly 20 years ago, in 1996, and nothing has changed:


That Hillary Clinton sometimes lies is not in doubt. She is a politician.

That does not in any way indicate that she has committed crimes.

I keep seeing non-criminal acts listed as evidence that she is a criminal. It seems to make sense to people on the right, but it really doesn't make sense.

I am also seeing made-up versions of thoroughly investigated events (the private email server, Benghazi, etc.) as supposed reasons that she is a criminal. Were that the case, the hyperpartisan investigators on the congressional teams in the multiple investigations of those events would have shown the supposedly criminal conduct in their findings--but it just did not happen.

Reality rather than partisanship is why people don't think she is a criminal.

The supposed evidence of her criminality only seems like evidence to her partisan detractors. They cannot produce evidence to support a real criminal charge against her, so they come up with rubbish like "she killed 500,000 Iraqi children" and "Benghazi!"


We know her and Obama supported ISIS through the Saudis. I guess that's not a crime either.

We don't know any such thing. That is a lie spun by the professional trolls of the far right who have chosen to conflate any anti Assad position with support for Isis. It's a bs analysis.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

18 Oct 2016, 6:12 am

JohnPowell wrote:

They weren't 'protesters', they are the same rent-a crowd types we've seen over the years. Libya has been decimated for the benefit of the US and Israel and it's given the rise to ISIS, where as they weren't there before. This has also meant thousands more refugees and people able to take advantage of getting through Libya without control. Perhaps we should have taken Gaddafi's offer to stop this.

They were protesting. Anyone who protests is a protestor. QED.

How exactly do you think that stopping Gaddafi "benefited Israel"?

I have no sympathy for Gaddafi or anyone who sympathises with him. He was a very evil man who killed thousands. I don't like what's happened to Libya since his death but that doesn't mean I have to condone a tyrant. Standing by while he slaughtered his civilians would have been indefensible. The best case scenario would be another Syria.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

18 Oct 2016, 8:50 am

It is an undeniable fact that life for Libyans was better under benevolent dictatorship of Mumar Gaddafi than total anarchy as it is now, people don't hear about Libya as often as they do other places now but they are just as bad off. We gave ISIS a base in northern Africa on the Mediterranean and it has played a big role in this migrant crisis which will destroy the EU when it is all said and over with. Here's a question to ponder, if NATO never attacked Libya would the UK still in be in the EU? That domino started somewhere. Our current policy in Libya is indefensible, we're backing the Islamist government that currently occupies Tripoli against the UN recognized government in Tobruk with the Russian/Egyptian backed National Army, it's such a joke that we even dare to mention war crimes when when our guilt has destroyed many of countries. Gaddafi was not killing thousands of people, he had actually become a useful partner to the west and heavily invested in Africa(that's a no no of course) before we stabbed him the back even as he begged with the US for a peace deal. It was a 'no-fly-zone' but really was just a full scale air war personally directed at Gaddafi.

Intervening in Libya was one of the biggest foreign policy blunders ever, the ripple effects are still reverberating thru out the Middle East and North Africa. Remember that the Tuareg Rebellion/subsequent Ansar Dine takeover of northern Mali which required the French military to put troops on the ground was a direct result of the war we started in Libya, those weapons would trickle down to northern Nigeria as well to Boko Haram.

This 'at least we got rid of a dictator' defense does not work when you are responsible for 10x probably more deaths than the dictator ever was accused of. Saddam was a bad man no doubt about it but how many innocent Iraqis died because of American troops and sanctions? It kind of reminds me of that scene from the beginning of 'Team America: World Police" where they destroy Paris battling terrorists. I think it is in the millions, so do we really have any moral high ground? It's okay that we killed these people because we were killing them for a good cause, I'm sure that the Iraqis see it that way.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

18 Oct 2016, 11:07 am

Jacoby wrote:
it has played a big role in this migrant crisis which will destroy the EU

:lol:

Quote:
Here's a question to ponder, if NATO never attacked Libya would the UK still in be in the EU?

That doesn't require any pondering at all. NATO did defend Libya and the UK is still in the EU. There's no reason to think that not attacking would have caused a surge in anti-EU sentiment.

Quote:
Our current policy in Libya is indefensible, we're backing the Islamist government that currently occupies Tripoli against the UN recognized government in Tobruk with the Russian/Egyptian backed National Army,

At least we can agree on that.

Quote:
Gaddafi was not killing thousands of people,

Lies. Hundreds died in each of Misrata and Zawiya alone before NATO dropped a single bomb. Certainly his army had killed thousands by the end of the war.

He also had a long-standing persecution of reformists, black people, and politicians. It was a capital offence to raise money for a political party. He placed more restrictions on freedom of the press than any other leader in the region. He was an Islamist who implemented Sharia law. He made use of torture and carried out terrorist attacks in the West.

Standing by while he slaughtered his civilians is indefensible. We had the power to stop it, we stopped it, and that was good.

As in Iraq, we should then have done more to help stabilise the country. But it would have been a travesty if we'd allowed our past failings to paralyse us from action and allowed the war to continue. The death count would have been even higher. The same goes for Syria. Now Putin and Assad are slaughtering civilians with abandon, and hundreds of thousands have died.

There aren't easy solutions, but just allowing people like Gaddafi, Putin and Assad to slaughter civilians is morally indefensible, and outright defending them is evil. If we want peace, we have to stop these people from continuing the war.