4merper4mer Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 My lady friend who is a die hard Hillary supporter donated $25 to her campaign for a Hillary scrunchie. She's been talking about ordering one for months. It finally arrived today and they sent her a hat. Requested a scrunchie, got a hat. The receipt even says scrunchie. This is the type of attention to detail that Hillary will bring to the job for the next four years. Can't wait. Tell her to be careful. The last person who complained about getting a hat when they wanted a scrunchie was Gadaffi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 As was reported earlier, Team Hillary has indicated they might not commit to more debates unless the Bernie Sanders campaign changes its “tone.” Dana Perino put it this way: Dana Perino ✔ @DanaPerino How democratic! https://twitter.com/thehill/status/714533283120414722 … 3:28 PM - 28 Mar 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 As was reported earlier, Team Hillary has indicated they might not commit to more debates unless the Bernie Sanders campaign changes its “tone.” Dana Perino put it this way: Wow, Hillary already gearing up the sexism campaign? For someone who has all the Superdelegates in her pocket, she should sounds desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 My lady friend who is a die hard Hillary supporter donated $25 to her campaign for a Hillary scrunchie. She's been talking about ordering one for months. It finally arrived today and they sent her a hat. Requested a scrunchie, got a hat. The receipt even says scrunchie. This is the type of attention to detail that Hillary will bring to the job for the next four years. Can't wait. That's probably where the person in charge of the Russian "reset button" was reassigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Has she been arrested yet?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Has she been arrested yet?? Hillary, Huma or Cheryl Mills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Has she been arrested yet?? FOURNIER: 'HIGHER BAR' TO CHARGE... During a panel discussion Monday morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe about a pair of new reports in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post concerning the ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton private e-mail server, National Journal political reporter Ron Fournier argued that there should be a higher bar to bring charges against Hillary Clinton because she is running for president. Wait, what? FBI TO QUESTION HILLARY... 147 FBI Agents Involved in HillaryClinton Email Investigation: bit.ly/1qczJ32........................I guess she is a 'job creator' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 LOL! Uh, no. There should be a lower bar to force her out as a candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) Hillary, Huma or Cheryl Mills? I have been waiting for Hillary to throw Huma under the bus. We might be getting close to that moment. Don't stand too close to the bus Huma. Edited March 29, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 What star struck losers are going to pay that? I would be very interested to know. I wouldn't pay $353 to dine with an actor and politician let alone $353k. Nice use of proceeds too...funding a sh#tload of misleading attack ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 I have been waiting for Hillary to throw Huma under the bus. We might be getting close to that moment. Don't stand too close to the bus Huma. Huma is Hillary's Valerie Jarrett. She isn't going anywhere without Huma being a finger snap away. Women who approve of their always-cheating husbands need someone to bond with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Huma is Hillary's Valerie Jarrett. She isn't going anywhere without Huma being a finger snap away. Women who approve of their always-cheating husbands need someone to bond with. Maybe. But if push comes to shove in the eMail thing, Hillary will shove the nearest person under the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Huffington Post: "It's time for Hillary to concede the Democratic nomination to Sanders." With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future. A Los Angeles Timesarticle titled Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom highlights why Clinton’s campaign is stuck in political quicksand: Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear. Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates. At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 It's a vast right wing conspiracy Deranged. Everbody knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Huffington Post: "It's time for Hillary to concede the Democratic nomination to Sanders." Dear SoProgs...your overlords have a message for you: Suck it. Hillary isyour candidate. Get in line or your handouts will cease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Dear SoProgs America... your overlords have a message for you: Suck it. Hillary isyour candidate future president. Get in line or your handouts will cease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Just found this post, it's long (20+ pages and I'm only a bit of the way into it) but seems to cover Hillary's email scandal quite well: https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ Despite being a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her aides not only violated numerous federal criminal statutes, but may have conducted a cover up to hide incriminating evidence – the likes of which forced Richard Nixon to resign as President. This article was intended to be a quick, digestable piece to help everyone get caught up on the scandal, but I really had no idea how complex this issue was. Here is the takeaway – I believe the FBI will refer Hillary Clinton for indictment for a violation of Section 1924 and Section 793 of Title 18 US Criminal Code dealing with deletion, retention and transmission of classified documents. If prosecuted and convicted, the punishment would be some combination of a fine, a year in prison or 10 years in prison. The implications for the Presidential race will be discussed. While you’re taking that in, you’ll be happy to know the underlying controversy surrounds an issue we couldn’t possibly be more tired of hearing about – the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. I’ll break it to you now, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but she actually had something to hide. And there is proof. For any casual observer, these positions today would be the statements of a conspiracy-theorist, or someone spewing right-wing propaganda. This is why I’ve painstakingly written close to 20 pages to explain (and even litigate) these positions, and address every potential question you may ask. But my main purpose isn’t to convince you of anything (despite the title), this endeavor is primarily journalistic. Here are the facts, here are the perspectives, and take from that what you will, whether she is found guilty of criminal activity or not. I have really tried my hardest to separate suspect behavior from criminal behavior (for the law sticklers out there) because all I want to do is actually find out if the person who is about to be the Democratic nominee for President, and who I will likely vote for, will be forced to resign before (or after) she assumes office. This is our generation’s Watergate scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Just found this post, it's long (20+ pages and I'm only a bit of the way into it) but seems to cover Hillary's email scandal quite well: https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ Thanks for posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Just found this post, it's long (20+ pages and I'm only a bit of the way into it) but seems to cover Hillary's email scandal quite well: https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ Despite being a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her aides not only violated numerous federal criminal statutes, but may have conducted a cover up to hide incriminating evidence – the likes of which forced Richard Nixon to resign as President. This article was intended to be a quick, digestable piece to help everyone get caught up on the scandal, but I really had no idea how complex this issue was. Here is the takeaway – I believe the FBI will refer Hillary Clinton for indictment for a violation of Section 1924 and Section 793 of Title 18 US Criminal Code dealing with deletion, retention and transmission of classified documents. If prosecuted and convicted, the punishment would be some combination of a fine, a year in prison or 10 years in prison. The implications for the Presidential race will be discussed. While you’re taking that in, you’ll be happy to know the underlying controversy surrounds an issue we couldn’t possibly be more tired of hearing about – the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. I’ll break it to you now, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but she actually had something to hide. And there is proof. For any casual observer, these positions today would be the statements of a conspiracy-theorist, or someone spewing right-wing propaganda. This is why I’ve painstakingly written close to 20 pages to explain (and even litigate) these positions, and address every potential question you may ask. But my main purpose isn’t to convince you of anything (despite the title), this endeavor is primarily journalistic. Here are the facts, here are the perspectives, and take from that what you will, whether she is found guilty of criminal activity or not. I have really tried my hardest to separate suspect behavior from criminal behavior (for the law sticklers out there) because all I want to do is actually find out if the person who is about to be the Democratic nominee for President, and who I will likely vote for, will be forced to resign before (or after) she assumes office. This is our generation’s Watergate scandal. That was detailed and most of all TRUTHFUL. thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Just found this post, it's long (20+ pages and I'm only a bit of the way into it) but seems to cover Hillary's email scandal quite well: https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/ Despite being a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her aides not only violated numerous federal criminal statutes, but may have conducted a cover up to hide incriminating evidence – the likes of which forced Richard Nixon to resign as President. This article was intended to be a quick, digestable piece to help everyone get caught up on the scandal, but I really had no idea how complex this issue was. Here is the takeaway – I believe the FBI will refer Hillary Clinton for indictment for a violation of Section 1924 and Section 793 of Title 18 US Criminal Code dealing with deletion, retention and transmission of classified documents. If prosecuted and convicted, the punishment would be some combination of a fine, a year in prison or 10 years in prison. The implications for the Presidential race will be discussed. While you’re taking that in, you’ll be happy to know the underlying controversy surrounds an issue we couldn’t possibly be more tired of hearing about – the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. I’ll break it to you now, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but she actually had something to hide. And there is proof. For any casual observer, these positions today would be the statements of a conspiracy-theorist, or someone spewing right-wing propaganda. This is why I’ve painstakingly written close to 20 pages to explain (and even litigate) these positions, and address every potential question you may ask. But my main purpose isn’t to convince you of anything (despite the title), this endeavor is primarily journalistic. Here are the facts, here are the perspectives, and take from that what you will, whether she is found guilty of criminal activity or not. I have really tried my hardest to separate suspect behavior from criminal behavior (for the law sticklers out there) because all I want to do is actually find out if the person who is about to be the Democratic nominee for President, and who I will likely vote for, will be forced to resign before (or after) she assumes office. This is our generation’s Watergate scandal. LOL! Despite all that, if Hillary is not forced from the race, this person will still vote for her. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts