Obama did not put Hillary in a corner, like that article said. Hillary COULD have been a stand up person and told the truth about everything, election or not. She is just another political hooker.
Why not?
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
Layout, I'm not absolving her. She did what was politically expedient for her and her boss after briefly contiplating resigning.The story kind of fits with the reason Susan Rice did the five Sunday talk shows instead of her. She wanted to limit her complicity of publicly stating a lie over and over again. She did however lie to one of the victim's parents and publicly mentioned the video I think one other time at least.
Again, she is responsible for her own part in lieing. She should have realized (and sized up her boss and his honesty)eventually she would be put in the situation to help cover a lie from him. She had plenty experience with her husband.
Again, she is responsible for her own part in lieing. She should have realized (and sized up her boss and his honesty)eventually she would be put in the situation to help cover a lie from him. She had plenty experience with her husband.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Is that against the law ?
Hopefully it is ... since you thus far haven't managed to cite an actual statute that she's violated that would justify you calling her a felon ...
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
It's hard to be sure but I think on balance he might have seen some room for improvement in the book. lol
I take it he didn't like the book. He didn't say it wasn't true. National Review as well. And Politico is not any great bastion of truth either.
The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, "Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word."[7]
The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, "Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word."[7]
Last edited:
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
No, he did say it was untrue. He accused the author of having such low scruples (pronounced making stuff up) that he needed a shower after reading just 30 pages. (although my personal favorite is the stakes in the eyes statement - just about impossible to top that one)
Did he say it was untrue? Is it in his full review? I don't see it in the quotes posted.No, he did say it was untrue. He accused the author of having such low scruples (pronounced making stuff up) that he needed a shower after reading just 30 pages. (although my personal favorite is the stakes in the eyes statement - just about impossible to top that one)
Klein:
Born in Yonkers, New York, Klein attended Colgate University, graduated from Columbia University School of General Studies, and received an MS degree from the Columbia University School of Journalism.[citation needed]
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
There isn't much left to cling to if you're a conservative, is there?
Well I'm not about to kick the stool out from under you or refuse to toss a life line.
So it didn't say what you thought it said. Not clinging to anything, but one shouldn't just dismiss the accuracy of something because they don't like the sordid details and want to take a shower .There isn't much left to cling to if you're a conservative, is there?
Well I'm not about to kick the stool out from under you or refuse to toss a life line.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
When someone critiques a book, they critique the book, not the subject matter.
If that is true then why is Podhoretz quotes even relevant if he didn't review the subject matter and it's accuracy? He doesn't like the book because he hates the writing style or the sordid details.
Last edited:
Barack and Michelle? Now she's being accused of breaking the law? I missed that - though not the ugly names people call her, [because they're ugly inside, themselves, I think].
Bottom line: we don't know it's illegal, since our self appointed expert on 'top secret stuff' won't reply to numerous direct requests for the specific law it is breaking. And even if it is technically illegal, you believe she should be convicted of a felony for it? Any idea of how many laws you've inadvertently broken, because you didn't know they existed?
I believe you're making a mountain out of a molehill, considering the many known violations of law [and morals and ethics] indulged in by every POTUS, because the bottom line is: they've all been human beings, flawed in their own ways.
I'd save the ammunition for something that really makes a difference, myself.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Funny how that works ain't it ?
Goes from full-on rant mode to ... conspicuously quiet/absent ... all in the mere blink of an eye ...
And I didn't even have to go all literal with a "Put up or ..."
Well, here's the big problem for "Thumper" ... and the choir that he's trying to preach to ... from 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information:
And from a little further on ...
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information | LII / Legal Information Institute
So it would appear that it was actually Willie's call ... and not 'shooter's ...
I'm sure Hil is greatly relieved ... lol ...
Last edited:
Considering that a Republican AG did not prosecute her or even investigate her when she made her statement nor did the Republicans in Congress launch a witch hunt, I mean hearings into it there couldn't have been anything to it. They would never pass up a chance to go after re-public-an enemy number one.
In your mind she's an "admitted felon". You have a right to your opinion but that doesn't make it true.
If you label your comment as "in my opinion" rather than stating it as a fact than you're not lying. Trying to pass your opinion off as fact in absence of all the facts and all the legal rulings related to this issue puts you on very questionable grounds.
In your mind she's an "admitted felon". You have a right to your opinion but that doesn't make it true.
If you label your comment as "in my opinion" rather than stating it as a fact than you're not lying. Trying to pass your opinion off as fact in absence of all the facts and all the legal rulings related to this issue puts you on very questionable grounds.
"In your mind she's an "admitted felon". You have a right to your opinion but that doesn't make it true."
She admitted to it, it is NOT my opinion. What she admitted to is a felony. Facts are facts. Just because it was not prosecuted does not change it. Just because people are willing to ignore criminal activity, does not make it right, or legal. NO one, not even Hillary, can LEGALLY read classified document that they are NOT cleared for. That too is a fact.
She admitted to it, it is NOT my opinion. What she admitted to is a felony. Facts are facts. Just because it was not prosecuted does not change it. Just because people are willing to ignore criminal activity, does not make it right, or legal. NO one, not even Hillary, can LEGALLY read classified document that they are NOT cleared for. That too is a fact.
That's exactly right.
Not that it matters to some, but the President and the Vice President do not have any official security clearance at all. Technically, the President's and Vice President's security clearance is "Need to Know" clearance, which is upon what all security clearances in the government are based. The "authorized holder" of classified information is the one who determines if someone else needs to know some specific information (in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function). The President and Vice President are "authorized holders" of all classified information in government. That means if the President or the Vice President determine they need to know something, they have access to it. As head of the Executive Branch and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, there is no information in government that could be denied to the President for security reasons if he determined he needed access to that information. Furthermore, the President and Vice President, as "authorized holders" of classified information, can make that information available to anyone they want, as long as the person receiving the information has a need to know it, as determined by the "authorized holder" of that information.
That doesn't mean the Preside or the Vice President actually knows and has read all of the classified information (that would be an impossible task, particularly since anything and everything gets classified these days), but they do have access to it if they want it.
So it was, quite literally, Bill's call to make. Especially, especially since he is the one who established the security clearance system in the first place by executive order.
Prior presidents were the de facto authorized holders of all classified information, and Bill's executive order merely enumerated the system for everyone else in government.
You can't decide guilty or innocent without all the facts. Was what she read declassified? Did she actually read anything that was classified? Does the President have authority too allow her to read classified documents? What have previous court rulings found? Why didn't the Republicans pile on when the had the chance? Do Republicans secretly Love her? Is it like the school boy pulling the pigtails of the girl that he secretly likes? Shirley they wouldn't give her a pass. And I won't call you Shirley again.
I'm sure you haven't spent hundreds of hours studying law. Nor do you have a degree in psychic investigation.
What you have is an opinion. And just like a a** h**** everyone has one.
No matter how worldly you are you don't have all the answers. You probably don't even know all the questions. Nobody does.
I'm sure you haven't spent hundreds of hours studying law. Nor do you have a degree in psychic investigation.
What you have is an opinion. And just like a a** h**** everyone has one.
No matter how worldly you are you don't have all the answers. You probably don't even know all the questions. Nobody does.