More whining and excuses from sore loser HRC.

[Matata]

How do you explain the huge foreign speaking fees Bill received when his wife was Secretary of State?

Without looking up any data to see what he earned prior to her being secretary of state, I'd wager that the huge fees he gets for all his speaking engagements is because he is an ex-president. His wife being SoS is not what gave and gives Bill Clinton attention.

 

[lovedogs]

This entire thread has become nonsensical. I'm sorry, but enough is enough. If someone ignores facts, reason, and logic and prefers to randomly blame others for everything trump does, and/or invokes "but hillary/Bill", at what point is it a complete waste of time for the rest of us to try and use reason and fact-based arguments?

 

[redwood66]

Actually discussing politics here is a complete waste of time on both sides.

 

[AnnaH]

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

Brief article, quick read.
Maybe a waste of time, but maybe not as HRC is out of the woods.

 

[t-c]

So, tc, you think Loretta and Bill discussed grandchildren and golf on the tarmac?

Well, yeah. Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary? It would have been better all around for HRC if there had been no meeting at all. The meeting actually hurt Hillary Clinton and gave her no plausible "out" with the emails because for people like you, she was either guilty or it was a clear cover-up with the tarmac meeting as the evidence.

 

[redwood66]

Well, yeah. Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary? It would have been better all around for HRC if there had been no meeting at all. The meeting actually hurt Hillary Clinton and gave her no plausible "out" with the emails because for people like you, she was either guilty or it was a clear cover-up with the tarmac meeting as the evidence.

Your reply is interesting because there has not been "evidence" of collusion on Trump's part with Russia either. Yet he is guilty in the eyes of dems and much of the media. Its all partisanship. Frankly I don't care what Hillary does now and wish she would just go away.

 

[lovedogs]

Your reply is interesting because there has not been "evidence" of collusion on Trump's part with Russia either. Yet he is guilty in the eyes of dems and much of the media. Its all partisanship. Frankly I don't care what Hillary does now and wish she would just go away.

Do you honestly not see or believe the evidence of collusion? Paige, Flynn, Manafort, his own freaking son-in-law?? I am confused at how anyone can say there isn't evidence.

 

[redwood66]

Flynn will fall if he is guilty. I specifically spoke about Trump.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ia-probe-we-have-no-smoking-gun-at-this-point

 

[lovedogs]

I know, but my point comes down to whether or not you believe it's all some epic coincidence that everyone in his campaign /inner circle has deep ties to Russia that they all "forgot" to disclose. I honestly don't see how Trump could be innocent in any of this--at best he's complicit.

 

[redwood66]

I know, but my point comes down to whether or not you believe it's all some epic coincidence that everyone in his campaign /inner circle has deep ties to Russia that they all "forgot" to disclose. I honestly don't see how Trump could be innocent in any of this--at best he's complicit.

Kind of like me and how I felt with Hillary's emails except she actually did it and it was proven. See what I mean? No offense intended but the shoe is just on a different foot.

 

[Arkteia]

How do you explain the huge foreign speaking fees Bill received when his wife was Secretary of State?

He is an ex-President. They all have huge speaking fees, domestic and foreign.

Whether the practice is right or wrong, it is there. I just read about its history. Apparently, Ford was the first President who started giving speeches for money. To compare who charges what is useless; as long as they pay taxes and there is transparency, it is OK, it is established practice.

It seems, however, that Carter donates most of his proceedings. But then, I respect Carter the most. https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

 

[t-c]

Your reply is interesting because there has not been "evidence" of collusion on Trump's part with Russia either. Yet he is guilty in the eyes of dems and much of the media. Its all partisanship. Frankly I don't care what Hillary does now and wish she would just go away.

Well, for one thing the investigation re Russia is not complete (unlike the Hillary email investigation that was completed (twice!) - I'm making it pink because you guys seem to miss this point), so "there has not been evidence of collusion on Trump's part with Russia" doesn't mean there would not be. There could well be nothing, but there could also be something. However, John Brennan, former CIA director, said during his testimony before Congress said "I saw interaction that in my mind raised questions of whether it was collusion."

There ought to be a set of facts that are not partisan. It is sad that you don't think so.

 

[redwood66]

Well, for one thing the investigation re Russia is not complete (unlike the Hillary email investigation that was completed (twice!) - I'm making it pink because you guys seem to miss this point), so "there has not been evidence of collusion on Trump's part with Russia" doesn't mean there would not be. There could well be nothing, but there could also be something. However, John Brennan, former CIA director, said during his testimony before Congress said "I saw interaction that in my mind raised questions of whether it was collusion."

There ought to be a set of facts that are not partisan. It is sad that you don't think so.

Raised questions in his mind which does not equal evidence. And there are multiple investigations going on. I am perfectly willing to wait until that is finished to see the outcome.

But my comment to you was about the tarmac meeting of which there is no record of what was said that we know of (but appears to be requested under FOIA). You believe without evidence that it was about grandchildren and I do not. Pretty much the same thing as believing Trump is guilty of collusion without evidence as of yet. I believe Hillary set up a server to keep her emails from being part of public record for secretive reasons. Her stupidity was in allowing top secret information to be transmitted through it as well. Why would you need to do this if you are emailing innocuous things? She is sneaky and not trustworthy. There have been many writings by foe and friend alike of this fact. Please be willing to admit that this is at some level based on partisanship on both sides.

 

[AnnaH]

Ark, the half million speaking fee Bill Clinton received for speaking in Russia is unusual. Bet he's not getting that kind of cash now.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I have not see nor heard of any evidence of collusion of the trump team and Russia in the election.
It looks as if Trump had a "grand plan" to improve relations with Russia. If this is true , then I don't understand why they all lied about it, including the AG. What is the sameness about this is it looks as if , much like Clinton with the servers, Trump wants to hide what he is doing from other agencies.
I have said this before, but I don't know what is legal or illegal about all this. Flynn looks to be in the most trouble by lying and Jarrod comes next. I cannot conceive that Trump did not know about this.
I don't know if asking to use the Russian communication system is treasonous or insanity, maybe both.

Trumps issue will be clearer after the Comey testimony. The suspicion has to be why the firing of Comey and the lies were necessary as the investigation proceeded . It seems he is afraid. Of What is the question.

My bet is on Jarrod looking for that loan with the Russian bank. Trump now says it was a diplomatic visit. If he says that I assume it was financial.

There s no collusion at the moment. Lets wait for the evidence. Meanwhile we can speculate, as I have done.
Annette

 

[t-c]

Raised questions in his mind which does not equal evidence. And there are multiple investigations going on. I am perfectly willing to wait until that is finished to see the outcome.

But my comment to you was about the tarmac meeting of which there is no record of what was said that we know of (but appears to be requested under FOIA). You believe without evidence that it was about grandchildren and I do not. Pretty much the same thing as believing Trump is guilty of collusion without evidence as of yet. I believe Hillary set up a server to keep her emails from being part of public record for secretive reasons. Her stupidity was in allowing top secret information to be transmitted through it as well. Why would you need to do this if you are emailing innocuous things? She is sneaky and not trustworthy. There have been many writings by foe and friend alike of this fact. Please be willing to admit that this is at some level based on partisanship on both sides.

Okay, here we go again: the Hillary Clinton email investigation by the FBI has been completed. That means the FBI looked at everything regarding the emails, including the meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch. That they found no criminality from the people involved means there is no collusion between Clinton and Lynch. So yeah, based on that, I believe they talked about the grandkids. Now if you or someone else comes up with evidence otherwise, I will reevaluate -- I'm reasonable that way.

As for Trump, while you say there is no evidence, the investigation is not complete. The investigation could exonerate Trump or it could convict him. I would prefer the latter, but I will accept the former. Again, I'm reasonable that way. In the meantime, I am free to speculate on Trump's guilt because THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. Just as you can speculate on his innocence.

However, believing Hillary Clinton is doing something criminal with email or Benghazi or whatever else you wish to convict her on, after the investigations have cleared her, is simply conspiracy theorizing. So no, the two are not equivalent and I am not like you.

 

[t-c]

...My bet is on Jarrod looking for that loan with the Russian bank...

Trump's son-in-law's name is Jared.

 

[LLJsmom]

Okay, here we go again: the Hillary Clinton email investigation by the FBI has been completed. That means the FBI looked at everything regarding the emails, including the meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch. That they found no criminality from the people involved means there is no collusion between Clinton and Lynch. So yeah, based on that, I believe they talked about the grandkids. Now if you or someone else comes up with evidence otherwise, I will reevaluate -- I'm reasonable that way.

As for Trump, while you say there is no evidence, the investigation is not complete. The investigation could exonerate Trump or it could convict him. I would prefer the latter, but I will accept the former. Again, I'm reasonable that way. In the meantime, I am free to speculate on Trump's guilt because THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. Just as you can speculate on his innocence.

However, believing Hillary Clinton is doing something criminal with email or Benghazi or whatever else you wish to convict her on, after the investigations have cleared her, is simply conspiracy theorizing. So no, the two are not equivalent and I am not like you.

@t-c not related to the topic. I just wanted to tell you that you think/write very clearly and you make it easy for me to follow you train of thought, your arguments and your reasoning. I appreciate your thoughtful and informative posts.

 

[AnnaH]

No doubt the posters here are aware that legal experts were very critical of Comey's Clinton report. He reported why she was guilty and then concluded with, "Just kidding."
Seriously, I think that's why people are still discussing this. The thing was so strange. The FBI investigates. The agency doesn't indict, but Comey's boss, Lynch, got caught in that meeting with Bill. Some speculate that Comey was covering for her with his recommendation. I don't know, but his behavior has been strange overall.
McCabe admitted that the FBI rank and file were highly upset that Comey gave HRC a pass.

As to Trump and the Russians, I doubt there's anything there, but Meuller will find it if there is. To talk about the so called smoke is just pure speculation. Very unfortunate that this investigation could last for years.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Had HRC hired Lovedogs as her campaign manager she would be the POTUS today..

 

[Arkteia]

Ark, the half million speaking fee Bill Clinton received for speaking in Russia is unusual. Bet he's not getting that kind of cash now.

AnnaH, it was high. Today it is the new norm, Barack Obama gets $ 400,000 speaking fees, and his wife is not the state Senator. Actually, the highest fee Bill Clinton got was in Hong Kong, and I think people would pay because Bill - for all his personal flaws - is a brilliant speaker and a very, very smart man.

However, the highest speaking fee - ever - was received by Reagan. 1 million dollars. So the bar is habitually set very high. Is it right? Probably, not. Especially since only Carter donates his speaking fees to charities. But... it is what it is.

 

[Arkteia]

Okay, here we go again: the Hillary Clinton email investigation by the FBI has been completed. That means the FBI looked at everything regarding the emails, including the meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch. That they found no criminality from the people involved means there is no collusion between Clinton and Lynch. So yeah, based on that, I believe they talked about the grandkids. Now if you or someone else comes up with evidence otherwise, I will reevaluate -- I'm reasonable that way.

As for Trump, while you say there is no evidence, the investigation is not complete. The investigation could exonerate Trump or it could convict him. I would prefer the latter, but I will accept the former. Again, I'm reasonable that way. In the meantime, I am free to speculate on Trump's guilt because THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. Just as you can speculate on his innocence.

However, believing Hillary Clinton is doing something criminal with email or Benghazi or whatever else you wish to convict her on, after the investigations have cleared her, is simply conspiracy theorizing. So no, the two are not equivalent and I am not like you.

I agree. Personally - I am sick and tired of unproven "conspiracy theories" surrounding Clintons. Starting with some totally idiotic - pizzagate and Podesta's "spirit cooking" and ending with serious allegations that "too many people die around them" without any, any proof, and it is repeated in books and magazines! I dislike conspiracies and conspiracy believers because 99% of times it is sheer nonsense. It takes some weird minds to believe it.

Likewise, I do not believe that Clinton asked Lynch for personal favor for one reason - he is a smart man, and knows that a lot of things can be recorded these days. He used to be the president. He even had the nickname, "Slick Willie". He would never - bluntly - ask Lynn to help. It is another thing that as a very social man, he might have tried to "be nice" and use his charm on a person of whom so much depended, and as such, he might have discussed kids, cats or whatever she was known to like. But, it is called politics, and networking, and what not. I am positive that there was no collusion. It just does not fit his personality.

(Some gossips regarding Trump also hold no water - for example, I am positive that as the hotel owner he knows what can be recorded in the hotel).

As to the current investigation, I think that we should wait for Comey's deposition to make any conclusions.

 

[redwood66]

Okay, here we go again: the Hillary Clinton email investigation by the FBI has been completed. That means the FBI looked at everything regarding the emails, including the meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch. That they found no criminality from the people involved means there is no collusion between Clinton and Lynch. So yeah, based on that, I believe they talked about the grandkids. Now if you or someone else comes up with evidence otherwise, I will reevaluate -- I'm reasonable that way.

As for Trump, while you say there is no evidence, the investigation is not complete. The investigation could exonerate Trump or it could convict him. I would prefer the latter, but I will accept the former. Again, I'm reasonable that way. In the meantime, I am free to speculate on Trump's guilt because THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. Just as you can speculate on his innocence.

However, believing Hillary Clinton is doing something criminal with email or Benghazi or whatever else you wish to convict her on, after the investigations have cleared her, is simply conspiracy theorizing. So no, the two are not equivalent and I am not like you.

Thanks for the discussion. I am glad we are not all alike. That would be boring.

 

[AnnaH]

Just for the record--I don't think HRC killed Foster or ran a brothel from a pizza parlor.
Do you think she's planning another run for prez? I would never have thought so until very recently. I think she would arm wrestle Biden for the nomination.

 

[Dancing Fire]

A must read for the liberals...

https://www.amazon.com/What-Happene...1&keywords=hillary+clinton+what+happened+book

 

[Arkteia]

Thank you, preordered her book, preordered the book by Kathy Tur (about Trump's campaign). But they say that "Fantasyland: how America went Haywire" by Kurt Anderson is the best - for all of us.

 

[mrs-b]

A must read for the liberals...

https://www.amazon.com/What-Happene...1&keywords=hillary+clinton+what+happened+book

I really hate the way people divide the voting public into liberals and conservatives. Most people are a mix on issues, and 'liberals' is said as SUCH an insult. Because I voted Democrat doesn't mean I'm a whining cry-baby, or a whole host of other things associated with that slanging expression.

Hate it, hate it, hate it. But - hey! - great way to cause alienation, division and get under people's skin! So well done you, if that's where you were heading.

 

[ABKIS]

I wish all of Trumps lies would catch up with him.

Seriously. Trump could walk up and light DF's house on fire. DF's reaction? Well, Hillary's emails.

 

[soxfan]

Seriously. Trump could walk up and light DF's house on fire. DF's reaction? Well, Hillary's emails.

 

[Calliecake]

Seriously. Trump could walk up and light DF's house on fire. DF's reaction? Well, Hillary's emails.

So, so true @ABKIS