"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

She lost because she's Hillary Clinton, and people don't like her, especially folks who really liked Comrade Bernie. Trump's in the White house because Big D believed it was her turn. Not that she was actually qualified, not that people liked her message or politics, it's just her turn! Well, it sure was, it was her turn to lose.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I hope my post didn't read as criticism of anyone other than human nature. I'm grateful for those who try for justice inspite of it all.

Well JALLEN, explain it to me. Explain how people with money and power have a different set of laws than people with no money or no means. Is that the way out justice system should operate?

To say it is too difficult or too costly is a cop out. When has that ever stopped the US Government from prosecuting someone they wanted to prosecute? I'm sure as hell glad I didn't spend my life in a profession that believes the law applies differently to people from different classes.

You seem to be critical of everything I post, do you have a problem with me?

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I hope my post didn't read as criticism of anyone other than human nature. I'm grateful for those who try for justice inspite of it all.

I think that is right.

Many cling to ideals, properly so, without any concept of how difficult it can be to execute, for a variety of reasons. That biases their expectations, leading to disillusionment.

I prefer reality, when I can figure out what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Well JALLEN, explain it to me. Explain how people with money and power have a different set of laws than people with no money or no means. Is that the way out justice system should operate?

To say it is too difficult or too costly is a cop out. When has that ever stopped the US Government from prosecuting someone they wanted to prosecute? I'm sure as hell glad I didn't spend my life in a profession that believes the law applies differently to people from different classes.

You seem to be critical of everything I post, do you have a problem with me?

What reality do you live in?

quote:

King (from Platoon, 1986):
Shit. You gotta be rich in the first place to think like that. Everybody know the poor are always being fucked over by the rich. Always have, always will.

I agree with Para, the best thing to do is to let Hillary and Co. keep talking. The MSM has no interest in protecting her any more as they feel she betrayed them by losing the election to Trump. Now she's just another story to grab viewers/readers attention.

Hillary, BLM, AntiFa, let them all keep talking so people can understand what they truly represent.

Has she blamed her gardener yet?

Of course there are two sets of rules. Always have been, always will be.

I see. So people are fine with allowing "special" people to break the law and endanger lives and national security. Sweet. Just becaue it happens, does not make it right. People ought to be disgusted by it. Hillary didn't just run a stop sign.

I guess I wanted to live in a reality where the law meant something. Oh well, who needs laws anyway, right? I guess without laws we can get rid of lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Well JALLEN, explain it to me. Explain how people with money and power have a different set of laws than people with no money or no means. Is that the way out justice system should operate?

I did list some of the many factors above.

If HilLIARy robbed a 7-11, I imagine she would get equal treatment. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is much more readily forthcoming in these cases and not nearly as ambiguous. Meeting the burden of proof is complicated when there is so much, some of which may not be admissible for one reason or another, some of which may be reasonably susceptible to innocent explanation, some of which might not be available at trial for one reason or another, among other things. You can be absolutely certain that every item will be tested to the maximum.

We don't convict people just because we disagree with them or their activities unless it can be proved that the activities are indeed criminal. There has been a massive amount of investigation of many aspects of her conduct. So far, there have been differing conclusions about whether some or any of it has been criminal, by professional investigators. A jury verdict has to be unanimous.

quote:

To say it is too difficult or too costly is a cop out. When has that ever stopped the US Government from prosecuting someone they wanted to prosecute?

Pretty often, actually. The decision to prosecute or not involves more than mere suspicion, or ill will. OTOH, when the proof is there, such that they can be confident of meeting the burden of proof, it's game on.

quote:

I'm sure as hell glad I didn't spend my life in a profession that believes the law applies differently to people from different classes.



You seem to be critical of everything I post, do you have a problem with me?

No reason to take it personally. The great thing about the internet is the unparalleled opportunity to share what you know and learn what you don't. Sometimes, we get confused about which we are doing at any given time.

It was quite clear she broke the law. The fact that classified material was found on non classified systems proves this. You cannot "mistakenly" send a classified email to your Yahoo account. It does not work that way. The fact that she deliberately removed and then sent classified material to a non classified account is not only a violation of the law, it shows intent. At the very LEAST there should have been a grand jury. They should have decided weather or not to prosecute. NOT the director of the FBI. That was outside his scope of responsibility. She should have had her day in court to prove or disprove her innocence like any regular citizen would have had to do if they were in her place. She was not prosecuted because the government did not want to, not because it may have been difficult, but because of her name. That is an absolute DISGRACE.

And because the POTUS at the time was a co-conspirator. Pretty simple really.

She's working on a follow up book to blame people for the failures in this first book...

When will these dogs bite the hands that fed them?

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
The bitch couldn't get people to go to her rally's for free what makes her think they are going to pay ridiculous prices to listen to her piss and moan?

I don't know how fed up the DNC is with her. She just isn't useful to them right now. I will never let myself believe the Clinton's are out of the political game until they are taking the big sleep.

If they had lived in Chicago, they'd still be voting after dying.

flashguy

I'm with mbinky on this. I think it would have been mandatory for the government to push it's case against her and at least give her her day in court. Had she been convicted or not is just a after thought.

Just given what we know the wrong doing is a foregone conclusion. Can you imagine the things we don't know that have been hidden from us?

To me it's become less about Hillary and more about changing to what extent it can be the corrupt culture in politics especially in Washington.
Bringing cases against the likes of Hillary with the full weight of a honest justice system behind it, that alone would change some of that culture. That alone would be a win even if the guilty don't always pay their due.

And of course you always run the potential risk of a supposed non prosecuted criminal and potential traitor of the country damn near becoming President oF the United States!
There is much more to lose than gain by not bringing the case against her.

While I think she is a felon, and should be prosecuted and jailed; and that one of us doing the same things would be - it won't happen.

While DOJ could prosecute, they'd never find a jury that would convict. Period.

Along with the 'Beast, why aren't these bums, John Koskinen & Lois Lerner in jail? They get to retire in good standing, life long pensions & the best benefits. Yes, different rules for them thats got. No one in the Swamp is held accountable.

The view from north of the border:

Thinking of dishing out for Hillary's book? I'll save you the expense

It’s great news for Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Even though neither metropolis has American voting rights nor shares territory with Wisconsin (or so I gather from a quick glance at the atlas and a furtive leap over to Wikipedia), they are among the 15 cities chosen for Hillary Clinton’s Weeping over Spilt Milk Tour—the launch of the most eagerly awaited memoir since Augustine’s early 5th century potboiler, Confessions.

Canadians eager to plumb the secrets of her losing tussle with noted cat-fancier and plutocrat Donald Trump earn entrance for a mere $89 (GA) or $229 (VIP). And for the more dedicated to the lost cause, $3,000 will place them in proximity of Hillary herself, while also securing them a photograph with the author and her signature on the book. Literature isn’t dead friends, it’s merely in a mercantile phase.

Whether What Happened—for that is the teasing title of Ms. Hillary’s oeuvre—is worth the admission price is an open question. Certainly, the comments from some of her own inner circle come touched with a note of equivocation on the merits of the book and tour. Doubtless the publishers will not be blurbing the reactions of one high-placed Hillarylander: “Oh, God,” “I can’t handle it… the final torture.”

The title itself is troublingly ambiguous. Is What Happened a question or an answer? If the former, best leave the tome on the shelf, for if Hillary still doesn’t know what happened, there’s not a lot of point tracing her perplexity for $40 or $50 over several hundred pages and leaving, curiosity unassuaged. But if What Happened is a listing of the vile forces that denied the “most qualified nominee” in American history the final prize, why, sadly, that’s stale news.

For ever since the night of November 8 Hillary has been telling everyone in earshot (or eyeshot of her blistering Twitter volleys) just that: why and how, for reasons beyond her control, she lost to a jumped-up, reckless, 69-year-old amateur with a hairstyle like a matador’s cape in high wind who had never run for public office, and whose chances of beating her were put at less than 2 per cent at 7 o’clock on the night of the election by the infallible Cassandras of HuffPo (politics for people who like pictures).

Book lovers, rightly, are asking what’s left to tell. In the public interest, therefore, I have compiled revelations already offered by Hillary or her team, and a few extrapolations of my own—evidence-based to be sure—from some of the more sinuous observations of her followers. Reading this will save National Post readers a trip to the bookstore and $50, which they will undoubtedly throw to a carbon offset charity of their choice.

Depending on the day of the week, or the time of the day, the reasons offered for her loss—in effect, what happened—include, but by no means are exhausted by, the following:

(a) The Russians, (b) James Comey, (c) Neanderthal sexism, (d) Global warming, (e) The invention of e-mail, (f) The terra incognita known to explorers as Wisconsin, (g) John Podesta’s texting habits, (h) Donna Brazile’s slack delivery of debate questions, often mere hours before her debates with the superannuated socialist stooge, (i) The pathetic feminizing of Ghostbusters, (j) Robert E. Lee, (k) Bill and Loretta’s tango on the tarmac—“How’s the grandchildren?” “I beg your pardon,” (l) The socialist grouch Bernie Sanders promising shinier ponies than she was promising, (m) The Russians again, (n) Film distributor, auteur, Anthony Weiner, (o) Chronic iron deficiency, (p) Failed séances with Eleanor Roosevelt, (q) Cell phones, (r) The Siege of Khartoum, (s) Sunspots, (t) The high visibility of the shuttle service between secret Wall Street speeches and public speeches denouncing Wall Street, (u) Obama holding her back on lacerating Bernie as a “fifth-columnist” Democrat, (v) That g-d d—ed basket of deplorables, (v) Obama, for not going prime time to attack the Russians, (w) Charlie Rose’s sleepy monotone, (y) The Knights Templar, and (z) A miserable campaign where nobody performed up to par except Hillary.

It will be noted that nowhere in this abecedarian of plump and ready excuses for what happened does there exist a hint that her opponent—amateur and boor that he was—probably ran a better campaign. Maybe those offering $3,000 dollars for a selfie with the twice-defeated will have that personally whispered into their one-percenter ears. After all, for such a price, there’s got to be something new.

_________________



You guys need to get on the right side of this thing.



DEPORT FASHISOM!!

"Deport fashisom!"

LOL. My early morning glance read 'Deport fashion!' LOLOL.