Hillary Clinton...traitor?

Is is drugs? First you say that Hillary was above the decision process (the NYT says different) and now you say that you don't know who was in the decision process. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And you just out and out lie. The Times does NOT say different. This is a quote from the article.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level.

And another:

Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.

SEEMED to warrant attention. That's not the same as claiming something. I can't take you seriously on anything when you can't correctly spell and construct a sentence or be truthful about what an article actually contains.

You're dishonest, like your partner in crime JD. It doesn't place the majority of uranium production under Putin's control. The article states 20 percent. I'm not a math whiz, but that's not a majority. Not even half of a majority. The words you use matter. You don't get to just throw them around because you think it makes your case stronger. If you're found wanting, as in this instance, it makes your case look weaker because you had to fudge it.

You have no way of knowing if it could be easily cleared up by viewing the emails. That's speculation. As is the entire thing. If it's true, she should be charged with treason, but we don't have enough evidence, no matter how bad you WANT it to be true.

The State Dept has over 60K employees, give or take. You think the SOS has their hands in every single thing? How many people in the world do you think can give millions of dollars to a foundation? How many people have that kind of money. There are only 12 million millionaires in the entire world. Out of 8 billion people. People like that run in small circles. Look at who else they received money from. Look at who else he gave money to. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Talk about lying. You owe me a kiss right on my asshole Baby Killer. I NEVER (or wrote) majority, that is all on you and your lying lips. Maybe I don't want those lips on my asshole after all...

So you're trying to tell us that a committee concerned with trade and national security has some low level hack making a decision about a strategic mineral....won't fly, not this time. This was on the desk of the SOS and it is on her but people from the White House signed off on this as well. Maybe you should choose; Obama or Hillary? Which one to throw under the bus?

Actually they are looking at all the Clinton donors now. To see if they stood to gain anything, or did gain something, from a decision made by the SOS. Are you going to stay on this ship to the last rat?

Talk about lying. You owe me a kiss right on my asshole Baby Killer. I NEVER (or wrote) majority, that is all on you and your lying lips. Maybe I don't want those lips on my asshole after all...

So you're trying to tell us that a committee concerned with trade and national security has some low level hack making a decision about a strategic mineral....won't fly, not this time. This was on the desk of the SOS and it is on her but people from the White House signed off on this as well. Maybe you should choose; Obama or Hillary? Which one to throw under the bus?

Actually they are looking at all the Clinton donors now. To see if they stood to gain anything, or did gain something, from a decision made by the SOS. Are you going to stay on this ship to the last rat? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your reading skills are tenuous. This is not news. I never said you mentioned a majority. That's why the post was in response to someone else, not you. Not a low-level hack. There are scads of other positions.

And the highlighted portion is more of the same. We don't know that yet. I know you want it to be true, but that isn't enough to make it so. Just like your famous 777 hidden in the bushes. I'll wait for the evidence, which you wouldn't understand.

1.

It explicitly states in the article that the decisions of the SD were not made at her level.

2.

The State Dept has over 60K employees, give or take. You think the SOS has their hands in every single thing?

3.

You have no idea who these decisions are left to.

4.

I said that the article stated the decision was at a lower level. And the truth is we don't know who made the decision.

5.

This is a quote from the article.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level.

And another:

Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.

SEEMED to warrant attention. That's not the same as claiming something. I can't take you seriously on anything when you can't correctly spell and construct a sentence or be truthful about what an article actually contains.

6.

And the highlighted portion is more of the same. (highlighted portion: This was on the desk of the SOS) We don't know that yet.

So lets break this down.

1. The article explicitly states Hillary did not make the decision
2. The SOS does not have her hand in every decision
3. We don't know WHO these decisions were left to (but it wasn't Hillary, see points #1 and #2)
4. Still sticking with the we don't know strategy. Still sticking with the article pointing out that Hillary didn't make the decision.
5. First backpeddle. Transition from the article states Hillary didn't make the decision, to "in general these matters don't rise to the secretary's level. That plus the super important word "seemed" suddenly mean that the article doesn't mean what you keep saying it means. Now suddenly, its not the same thing as claiming something. (See points #1-4 please)
6. Oh, here we go! Now you say "we don't know that" in regards to this matter being on Hillary's desk. Au contraire, mon frère! How many different ways can you tell us that Hillary wasn't a part of the decision making process!

Do you know why we can believe her spokesperson when he said that in general these matters don't rise to the level of the Secretary? Because if that were not in fact the case, why isn't Hillary tripping over herself today to correct his claim that she is so grossly incompetent, that she left the decision to give Putin control of American uranium deposits to a low level lackey?

Might it be that appearing to be incompetent beats the pants off of Hillary having to admit that well, golly shucks, yeah actually. I did take $2.3 million in donations from Uranium One's chairman, and then personally made the decision to green light Uranium One's deal?

You take your pick Womb. Is Hillary grossly incompetent, or is she a criminal?

By the way, it really doesn't matter. At this point, you completely lost the argument.

He has already admitted to her criminality with his opine that "what's the big deal, she isn't the first to take advantage of her political power/situation"...............

A story from the New York Times (when the liberal paper of record goes after a liberal you have to take note) lines out how the Russians bought into a company named Uranium One. Note: they mine and process uranium, a strategic mineral. Anyway, to complete this transaction a government panel with Hillary Clinton representing the State Department had to okay the deal. This and other deals gave Russia (and Putin) control of 20% of the US supply. In return, the Clinton foundation got a 2.35 million dollar donation from the family who owns Uranium One. A donation that was not reported to the administration in violation of the rules, regs, and agreements of the executive branch. It also turns out that the Clinton foundation breaks off about 15% of their donations to go to charity and they keep the other 85% for who knows what. Maybe a $10 million condo in New York City, maybe a fancy new van, maybe a presidential campaign.

Anyway, even the New York Times is starting to think that Hillary is a dirty bird though that will probably not stop their support....unless they can get an O'Malley or a Warren.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...pany.html?_r=0

Doesn't she look stylish in prison colors?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Reckon ole Slick Willy is donating his " slightly used ", skid-marked underwear to charity as a tax dodge ? Mr. " I did not inhale " , " I did not have sex with that woman " and MR. " It depends on what the definition of "is" is ? Wonder if Goodwill will take my " slightly used " boxers, sans skid marks ?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

So lets break this down.

1. The article explicitly states Hillary did not make the decision
2. The SOS does not have her hand in every decision
3. We don't know WHO these decisions were left to (but it wasn't Hillary, see points #1 and #2)
4. Still sticking with the we don't know strategy. Still sticking with the article pointing out that Hillary didn't make the decision.
5. First backpeddle. Transition from the article states Hillary didn't make the decision, to "in general these matters don't rise to the secretary's level. That plus the super important word "seemed" suddenly mean that the article doesn't mean what you keep saying it means. Now suddenly, its not the same thing as claiming something. (See points #1-4 please)
6. Oh, here we go! Now you say "we don't know that" in regards to this matter being on Hillary's desk. Au contraire, mon frère! How many different ways can you tell us that Hillary wasn't a part of the decision making process!

Do you know why we can believe her spokesperson when he said that in general these matters don't rise to the level of the Secretary? Because if that were not in fact the case, why isn't Hillary tripping over herself today to correct his claim that she is so grossly incompetent, that she left the decision to give Putin control of American uranium deposits to a low level lackey?

Might it be that appearing to be incompetent beats the pants off of Hillary having to admit that well, golly shucks, yeah actually. I did take $2.3 million in donations from Uranium One's chairman, and then personally made the decision to green light Uranium One's deal?

You take your pick Womb. Is Hillary grossly incompetent, or is she a criminal?

By the way, it really doesn't matter. At this point, you completely lost the argument. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

I've been pretty consistent on the fact that the article said it didn't rise to her level. And you're just continuing to be intellectually dishonest. Not everyone below her is a 'lackey' as you say. Again, he doesn't have control over a MAJORITY of our uranium, which is what you stated and I noticed you've never gone back to that point, since 1/5 is nowhere near a majority. You're consistent on pointing out my perceived shift, which wasn't a shift, but forgetting or glossing over your own mistakes.

The truth is, we don't know. We simply don't know what happened. We have all these facts but nothing that links them to anything, it's pure speculation at this point. Those who hate her will see what they want to see. I still say, and I've said it before in this thread, if they find evidence linking her to wrongdoing, she should be charged. What more do you want? I think that's a rational, reasonable position to take. I'm just not going to join the mob that wants to burn her at the stake until there's actual evidence of wrongdoing.

Here's what you said:

Its easy for her spokesperson to say that such deals are made below the secretary, but pardon me while I guffaw. We are talking about a deal that placed the majority of uranium production under Putin's control, and you are willing to believe that a State Dept lackey had more to do with it than the Secretary of State. Okey dokey then.


That statement was patently false. Do you not admit that?

He has already admitted to her criminality with his opine that "what's the big deal, she isn't the first to take advantage of her political power/situation"............... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Is she?

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You stupid motherfucker. You've been measured and you've been found wanting. FALSE.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp


"A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions. "


Translation; he's full of shit. And so are you, you lying cunt.

You stupid motherfucker. You've been measured and you've been found wanting. FALSE.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp


"A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions. "


Translation; he's full of shit. And so are you, you lying cunt. Originally Posted by WombRaider

So, no comment on your post that was completely full of shit? I guess that's republican logic.