Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 54. (Read 234761 times)

There is an option for you.



 

Hillary Clinton is a waste of human life, as is Obama, and pretty much any other politician you can think of. I'm personally a fan of Ron and Rand Paul, and a few other smaller names. Of course we will always find some facet of their policies/beliefs that we will not agree with. Go ahead and criticize if you feel the need 

It does unfortunately come down to choosing the least evil candidate you can find. However I believe the problem is that nothing is going to change the "machine" until a global tragedy occurs. I'm not talking a war with a few thousand dead, or people being shot up in the streets by terrorists. I mean 100+ million, or 1 billion dead. A total reshuffling of the modern world.

That's all you need to know about their party.

Woman asks Hillary: If all rape accusers have the right to be believed, should we believe the women who say your husband raped them?


She’s not asking this question idly. Hillary, who’s gearing up for a sub-moronic identity-politics campaign, actually did say recently that rape accusers have “the right to be believed” even though her own husband has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault. How does she resolve that dilemma?

I thought she’d never be asked, for the simple reason that no one in the media would dare risk access to a future Clinton administration by putting her on the spot about it. But sometimes, my friends, the questions don’t come from the media. Sometimes a candidate has to face the voters.

And that’s when magical things can happen.

Here’s the clip, via the Free Beacon. Obviously there’s no good answer to this question, which is why so many righties perked up when she first said something about the right to be believed. She set a trap for herself. If she stands by it now, it means she sides with Juanita Broaddrick over Bill. If she walks it back, which is what she has no choice but to do — accusers should be believed unless the evidence says otherwise, she clarifies — then it undermines the whole point of the pander. The “right to be believed” bit was her way of trying to leverage the feminist frenzy over “rape culture”; she was signaling to young women, whose votes she desperately needs, that she shares the progressive belief that rape defendants are guilty until proven innocent. Now that she’s on the spot, she retreats to the banal point that we should go where the evidence leads us. In practice, the “right to be believed” amounts to nothing more than the idea that the police should investigate when someone claims they’re the victim of a horrendous violent crime. All of us who took first-grade civics can agree.

Exit question: If accusers have a right to be taken seriously, if not quite “believed,” does that mean she took Broaddrick seriously when she first accused Bill of assault? That’s a follow-up question for the next townhall attendee who gets to quiz her.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wr9PFK52wg



http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/03/woman-asks-hillary-if-all-rape-accusers-have-the-right-to-be-believed-should-we-believe-the-women-who-say-your-husband-raped-them/

im not on usa but my opinion its republicans do take a better world wide secure policy into the  world then the democrats but hilliry amasingly is 60% trustworty and ssoo its jebb

the wise men say that, better the devil you know than an angel you dont know anything about. they may look better just because they are not in office but wait till they get they want, you will never recognize you. and anyway, you cannot make everybody happy. I hope next time the one you choose will win. all the best but vote wisely

I never trust politicians. She's not different than others. Why would you trust politicians anyway? If you don't have a gain from them you shouldn't trust any of them.

She answers this question for you.... Wait, she does not answer much of anything and when she does, she answers it with another question or she makes sure that she avoids the topic of the question completely.  She sucks, just apparently not as good as her husbands girlfriends!!

I find her trustworthy when she's unconscious - happened a few times when she was secretary.

Too deep.

The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza joint and says, "Make me one with everything."

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3199

I checked out The Laugh Factory and didn´t find much that should have offended the nutbag. They did wonder who looked better in a shoulder-padded waist suit Hillary or that fruitcake from the Kardashians, the one who had her dick chopped off. And they wondered how well it would work out for a whore to be descended from four  nationalities,  I didn´t get that one but maybe someone else did.

Cool link. 

A book I intend to read, the 50 shades of polotics



The Clintons' War on Women - by Roger Stone (Author), Robert Morrow (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Clintons-Women-Roger-Stone/dp/151070678X


Although Alex Jones tends to be too hysterical, but this is a good interview on the Clintons talking to Roger Stone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tveor3jjM7k

Yeah she not at all trust worthy for her own hubby and she ll not trusty person for the world. here there is no fools to believe hilary and her thoughts. she can do some other works instead of her fake proposals.

Well, psychopaths aren´t exactly known for something called "self-depreciating humor". Of course moderation and humility isn´t among their strong suits either, I´m sure there´s a connection.

Clinton Goes after Laugh Factory Comedians for Making Fun of Her


In what appears to be a first for a serious presidential contender, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club.

A video of the short performance, which is less than three minutes, is posted on the website of the renowned club, Laugh Factory, and the Clinton campaign has tried to censor it. Besides demanding that the video be taken down, the Clinton campaign has demanded the personal contact information of the performers that appear in the recording. This is no laughing matter for club owner Jamie Masada, a comedy guru who opened Laugh Factory more than three decades ago and has been instrumental in launching the careers of many famous comics. “They threatened me,” Masada told Judicial Watch. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

Practically all of the country’s most acclaimed comedians have performed at the Laugh Factory and undoubtedly they have offended politicians and other well-known personalities with their standup routines. Tim Allen, Jay Leno, Roseanne Bar, Drew Carey, George Carlin, Jim Carrey, Martin Lawrence, Jerry Seinfeld and George Lopez are among the big names that have headlined at the Laugh Factory. The First Amendment right to free speech is a crucial component of the operation, though Masada drew the line a few years ago banning performers—including African Americans—from using the “n-word” in their acts.

The five short performances that Clinton wants eliminated include some profanity and portions could be considered crass, but some of the lines are funny and that’s what the Laugh Factory is all about. The video features the individual acts of five comedians, four men and a woman. The skits make fun of Clinton’s wardrobe, her age, sexual orientation, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the former First Lady’s relationship with her famous husband. The Laugh Factory has appropriately titled it “Hillary vs. The First Amendment.”

Masada told Judicial Watch that, as soon as the video got posted on the Laugh Factory website, he received a phone call from a “prominent” person inside Clinton’s campaign. “He said the video was disgusting and asked who put me up to this,” Masada said. The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify, also demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians that appear in the video. Masada refused and hung up. He insists that the comedy stage is a sanctuary for freedom of speech no matter who is offended. “Just last night we had (Emmy-award winner) Dana Carvey doing Donald Trump and it was hilarious,” Masada said.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/11/clinton-goes-after-laugh-factory-comedians-for-making-fun-of-her/


------------------------------------------
Funny bone...

FBI steps up interviews in Clinton email probe
Questions focus on whether State officials improperly sent classified material.


Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former secretary of state's home-made email system and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.

The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and Justice Department officials interviewed by POLITICO.

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

The FBI declined to respond to questions about the scope of its ongoing work.

But POLITICO learned that around early October, the FBI requested documents from a company involved in the server arrangement after Clinton left State. It also interviewed a former high-ranking policy official at State about the contents of top Clinton aides’ emails.

The official, who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, said the questions explored whether anyone at State was concerned about classified information being put at risk by communicating via email. The source did not know of any such concerns.

Confirmation of the interview and document requests is the first public indication that the agency is moving ahead with its inquiry – and possibly expanding it.

The former State official interviewed by the FBI, for example, had little to do with the Clinton server set-up or any approval process allowing her to use personal email for work — suggesting the FBI’s initial inquiry about the actual physical security of Clinton’s home-made server now also includes looking at the content of messages shared by staff.

Former FBI and Justice officials familiar with the investigative procedures on such matters said the agency must determine two main things: whether the use of an outside email system posed any risks to national security secrets and, if so, whether anyone was responsible for exposing classified information.

FBI Director James Comey acknowledged in October that his agency was probing the server matter generally and believed it had the resources to look into the issues, though he didn't give specifics.

Over the summer, the Department of Justice said it received a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General about potentially exposed classified information on Clinton’s home-made email server. The referral, Justice said at the time, was not criminal in nature but focused on the counterintelligence law governing national security secrets.

The matter at the time was considered a “preliminary” inquiry.

Clinton’s campaign and lawyers have said they are cooperating, turning over her server and a thumb drive backup of her messages to the FBI. They’ve also said they’re encouraging everyone who worked on the server issue to do the same. Platte River Networks, the Denver-based company that housed her server since she left State in 2013, for example, has said it’s cooperating; so has Datto, another tech company that provided a cloud backup of Clinton’s messages.

But exactly who they’re talking to at the staff level has been unclear. For example: Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff at State and lawyer who helped determine which of her emails were personal and work related, wouldn’t say in a recent Washington Post interview whether she had been contacted due to confidentiality surrounding the FBI’s work.

The FBI ultimately decides whether to take a preliminary inquiry to a full-fledged investigation — and if it does so, it is under no obligation to say so publicly. The classification level of any compromised information "may be a factor in determining whether an FBI investigation is warranted," reads an overview of FBI procedures.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630

Who told you to participate in elections? Did you learn it in government schools? Why might government want you to vote? Do you think that maybe they are hiding the way to beat them when they make you into a slave?

Get back to the basics and see that we rule by common law. Government is nothing without our support, and if government takes us to court for ANYTHING, they better be prepared to get on the stand and show how they were harmed or damaged and that we were the ones who did it to them.

According their own law, the plaintiff government must take the oath, get on the stand, speak with their own mouth into the record the harm or damage they received. Plaintiff government can't do this, because plaintiff government is simply paperwork. Government loses.

Of course, if we let them do it their way, they will win or lose as they wish.

If you don't trust any of the politicians and don't participate in the elections, then people such as Hillary Clinton will be able to win. That is because all of her low-IQ supporters will be voting for her, no matter who happens to be the opponent. And indirectly, that makes you one of her supporters, who helped her to win the elections.

And a lot of the time she is simply a wolf.