Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:08, did you happen to see the Politico interview with Trey Gowdy where he says he has turned up no evidence at all that Clinton refused to grant extra security or asked security personnel to stand down in BENGHAZI? Do try to keep up.

Turned up no evidence does not mean a thing. Police know this - which is why cold cases are often worked on. Turned up no evidence doesn't mean it's not there, it means it hasn't been found. And given Clinton used a personal server and personal email, is this a surprise?

Right, Darren Wilson is by your estimation now a "cold case" which should be worked on.

NP here - let’s try to stay on topic. Darren Wilson is another thread.

OK, so repeated investigations turn up nothing are "cold cases" that need to keep being retried if it's Hillary Clinton.

If it'a anyone else (and I won't say who), it's exoneration, and "move on, people!".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:08, did you happen to see the Politico interview with Trey Gowdy where he says he has turned up no evidence at all that Clinton refused to grant extra security or asked security personnel to stand down in BENGHAZI? Do try to keep up.

Turned up no evidence does not mean a thing. Police know this - which is why cold cases are often worked on. Turned up no evidence doesn't mean it's not there, it means it hasn't been found. And given Clinton used a personal server and personal email, is this a surprise?

Right, Darren Wilson is by your estimation now a "cold case" which should be worked on.

NP here - let’s try to stay on topic. Darren Wilson is another thread.

OK, so repeated investigations turn up nothing are "cold cases" that need to keep being retried if it's Hillary Clinton.

If it'a anyone else (and I won't say who), it's exoneration, and "move on, people!".

It’s one thing when all the evidence is in (as in the Darren Wilson case).
It’s another thing when the investigative team has been repeatedly stonewalled. (as in Hillary)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:08, did you happen to see the Politico interview with Trey Gowdy where he says he has turned up no evidence at all that Clinton refused to grant extra security or asked security personnel to stand down in BENGHAZI? Do try to keep up.

Turned up no evidence does not mean a thing. Police know this - which is why cold cases are often worked on. Turned up no evidence doesn't mean it's not there, it means it hasn't been found. And given Clinton used a personal server and personal email, is this a surprise?

Right, Darren Wilson is by your estimation now a "cold case" which should be worked on.

NP here - let’s try to stay on topic. Darren Wilson is another thread.

OK, so repeated investigations turn up nothing are "cold cases" that need to keep being retried if it's Hillary Clinton.

If it'a anyone else (and I won't say who), it's exoneration, and "move on, people!".

It’s one thing when all the evidence is in (as in the Darren Wilson case).
It’s another thing when the investigative team has been repeatedly stonewalled. (as in Hillary)

It’s another thing to when you delete all your emails while using a private email account as Secretary of State and nothing is done (Colin Powell)

Hillary turned over emails that involved work and kept the ones about her daughters wedding and cybering with Bill, Colin Powell DELETE every email.
Interesting he gets a pass for a crime, Hillary didn't follow protocol but it wasn't against the law.

[Anonymous]

It’s another thing to when you delete all your emails while using a private email account as Secretary of State and nothing is done (Colin Powell)

Hillary turned over emails that involved work and kept the ones about her daughters wedding and cybering with Bill, Colin Powell DELETE every email.
Interesting he gets a pass for a crime, Hillary didn't follow protocol but it wasn't against the law.

Did you ever ASK for Powell's emails? The House has been requesting HRC's emails for quite some time. Since, before she deleted them. There is a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s another thing to when you delete all your emails while using a private email account as Secretary of State and nothing is done (Colin Powell)

Hillary turned over emails that involved work and kept the ones about her daughters wedding and cybering with Bill, Colin Powell DELETE every email.
Interesting he gets a pass for a crime, Hillary didn't follow protocol but it wasn't against the law.

Did you ever ASK for Powell's emails? The House has been requesting HRC's emails for quite some time. Since, before she deleted them. There is a difference.

YES THEY DID. THAT.S HOW THEY FOUND OUT HE DELETED ALL HIS EMAILS WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE.
SHE DID NOT DELETE ANY SHE TURNED THEM OVER. SHE JUST MAINTAINS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO SEE PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE UNRELATED TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s another thing to when you delete all your emails while using a private email account as Secretary of State and nothing is done (Colin Powell)

Hillary turned over emails that involved work and kept the ones about her daughters wedding and cybering with Bill, Colin Powell DELETE every email.
Interesting he gets a pass for a crime, Hillary didn't follow protocol but it wasn't against the law.

Did you ever ASK for Powell's emails? The House has been requesting HRC's emails for quite some time. Since, before she deleted them. There is a difference.

YES THEY DID. THAT.S HOW THEY FOUND OUT HE DELETED ALL HIS EMAILS WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE.
SHE DID NOT DELETE ANY SHE TURNED THEM OVER. SHE JUST MAINTAINS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO SEE PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE UNRELATED TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.

and another accomplishment-fighting for her right to privacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She looks unbeatable to me.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Wow. RCP leans right, too.

Holy moly. Look at the state-by-state results. If something doesn't shift, she's going to crush the Republican candidate. Even in a deep red state like SC, Jeb Bush only beats her by 3 points, and Walker just barely ties her. Start planning for 2024, Republicans, because unless she self-implodes, you're looking at another 8 years of Clinton. Let's all just hope those 8 years are as good for the economy as the last Clinton presidency.

And the Obama presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She looks unbeatable to me.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Wow. RCP leans right, too.

Holy moly. Look at the state-by-state results. If something doesn't shift, she's going to crush the Republican candidate. Even in a deep red state like SC, Jeb Bush only beats her by 3 points, and Walker just barely ties her. Start planning for 2024, Republicans, because unless she self-implodes, you're looking at another 8 years of Clinton. Let's all just hope those 8 years are as good for the economy as the last Clinton presidency.

And the Obama presidency.

Do you not see a possible problem with this poll?

[Anonymous]

Wow. RCP leans right, too.

Do you understand what polls are? The polls listed on RCP have nothing to do with RCP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you not see a possible problem with this poll?

First, it's polls -- plural polls -- perhaps 20 or more of them all showing the same prediction of a resounding Republican loss. Second, I definitely see a problem with them ... if I work for the RNC or the Bush campaign.

[Anonymous]

On top of becoming POTUS, HRC will also win the Nobel peace prize.

[Anonymous]

Can't wait for Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Here's another accomplishment--she wiped her server clean!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472.html?hp=l2_4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's another accomplishment--she wiped her server clean!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472.html?hp=l2_4

Yeah. Because she has nothing to hide.
And, there are people who actually believe she would be a good commander-in-chief.
Such a pitiful state of our union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's another accomplishment--she wiped her server clean!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472.html?hp=l2_4

Yeah. Because she has nothing to hide.
And, there are people who actually believe she would be a good commander-in-chief.
Such a pitiful state of our union.

I would like to see a republican who is more qualified than HRC to be commander-in-chief.

It crushes your soul that this person doesn't exist in the racist, gun-hugging, bible-thumping, anti-science, republican party.

The state of the union is much better for having moved on from your specious positions.