Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, look at the way how she treated people who was inferior o her, servants, cooks, security detail in the White House, her subordinates in he state department. You can do your own research. For me it is disgusting. I am sure she will treat you the same way too.

Except that that's not true. You seem to believe everything you read on right wing blogs. I know actual people who have worked for her, and they say that's not true at all.

I know this from people who worked with her too. That is why I didn't link any articles, but encouraged op to go and do her own recearch.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cc.com/video-clips/st6k1m/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-the-divinity-of-donald-trump?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20160804_525080260_The%20Daily%20Show_Video%20with%20Link&linkId=26914967

That was good. "I ran the numbers and they don't check out."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, look at the way how she treated people who was inferior o her, servants, cooks, security detail in the White House, her subordinates in he state department. You can do your own research. For me it is disgusting. I am sure she will treat you the same way too.

Except that that's not true. You seem to believe everything you read on right wing blogs. I know actual people who have worked for her, and they say that's not true at all.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Op, look at the way how she treated people who was inferior o her, servants, cooks, security detail in the White House, her subordinates in he state department. You can do your own research. For me it is disgusting. I am sure she will treat you the same way too.

Except that that's not true. You seem to believe everything you read on right wing blogs. I know actual people who have worked for her, and they say that's not true at all.

Op, look at the way how she treated people who was inferior o her, servants, cooks, security detail in the White House, her subordinates in he state department. You can do your own research. For me it is disgusting. I am sure she will treat you the same way too.

I classify people as good people - people who would throw themselves on a grenade - or. Ad people - people who look out for their own self interests.

Hillary appears many times to look out for her interests. From firing the whole whitehouse travel department, to investing in insider deals from cattle futures to real estate to enrich herself, to saying whatever is politically expedient in the moment to Sean Smith's mom, lying to the public in a lawyer like way "these documents were not MARKED classified"......when she clearly knows it's sensitive information, and if she didn't, well then she's not a good person and she's incompetent....the Wall Street speaking fees while claiming she's for increased regulation, her foundation pay to play, enriching her daughter as a board member I her $10,000,000 New York condo, telling her son in law critical Greece negotiations, not that it worked out for him ironically, but hey, it was a hedge fund, not his money......These are not acts of a person with a good heart. For Benghazi was horrible because she used her position and was instrumental in Ghaddafi's demise and instability in the country in the first place which set those people up. That's the travesty - she set them up. American Embassy personnel should probably made the decision to evacuate given additional security wasn't being assigned. I would characterize her as a person with a bad heart who looks out for her own interests ...... one of which would be achieving the presidency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious answer, and I mean it genuinely. Read what she did to Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.

(And definitely do this before you start crying about the next Brock Turner incident.)

This.

Read it where? In some right wing hatchet piece? No thanks. I'll leave the fiction to you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
Clinton Accuser's Story Aired, 1999

David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment proceedings, said Tuesday that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."

Appearing on MSNBC's "Hockenberry," Schippers said he concluded that no one connected with the White House had suggested that Broaddrick file a false affidavit. "I think it would have been folly for us to have attempted to just poison the water with this story, when it really had no specific bearing on the impeachable offenses," he said.

more recent - Paula Jones
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/14423-paula-jones-i-cant-believe-bill-clinton-has-the-nerve-to-campaign-for-hillary
Paula Jones: I Can't Believe Bill Clinton Has the Nerve to Campaign for Hillary

Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, made headlines in 1994 when she accused Clinton of propositioning her and exposing himself. The court eventually threw out her suit on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate damages.

Clinton, who has denied her claims, reportedly paid her $850,000 in an out-of-court settlement, although Jones says she only walked away with $151,000 after attorneys’ fees.

WP - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm
Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000, 1998

Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's chief attorney in the case, said the president still insists Jones's allegations of a crude proposition in a Little Rock hotel suite seven years ago "are baseless" but agreed to make the payment in the interest of finally putting the matter behind him.

"The president has decided he is not prepared to spend one more hour on this matter," Bennett said. "It is clear that the American people want their president and Congress to focus on the problems that they were elected to solve. This is a step in that direction.

. . .

The extraordinary case came to an extraordinary finale, with the defendant agreeing to pay $850,000 even though the plaintiff originally only asked for $700,000 when she filed suit -- and even though the case was dismissed without a trial.

The late 90s was a busy time for Bill!

So Hillary did nothing to them. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Here's what you're saying.


If Billy Boy molested/raped your daughter, you'd be fine casting a vote for Hillary.

That is all.

It's all good until it hits home.

Well, that would be very different from the current situation where there's no proof he taped or molested anyone.

Anonymous wrote:How is Benghazi debunked? Embassy made repeated requests for more security, not 600 like some report. The fact that all the staff wasn't evacuated before is what shows lack of interest of the head of the State Department, Hilary Clinton. Whole region knew that it was days before killings started but the Ambassador and some staff stayed? Yet, in the past Embassies were evacuated without so much as a fired shot? Belgrade 1992 for example, just for political show? She was the head of State Dept. and she is hence responsible for what happened there, as she couldn't be bothered to look into it.

And WHY would she email Chelsea about this mess? blurry lines indeed from someone who doesn't know the meaning of ethical

How is Benghazi debunked? Embassy made repeated requests for more security, not 600 like some report. The fact that all the staff wasn't evacuated before is what shows lack of interest of the head of the State Department, Hilary Clinton. Whole region knew that it was days before killings started but the Ambassador and some staff stayed? Yet, in the past Embassies were evacuated without so much as a fired shot? Belgrade 1992 for example, just for political show? She was the head of State Dept. and she is hence responsible for what happened there, as she couldn't be bothered to look into it.

She's not evil. She is elitist and thinks rules and procedures are for the little people, but she is not evil.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious answer, and I mean it genuinely. Read what she did to Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.

(And definitely do this before you start crying about the next Brock Turner incident.)

This.

Read it where? In some right wing hatchet piece? No thanks. I'll leave the fiction to you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
Clinton Accuser's Story Aired, 1999

David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment proceedings, said Tuesday that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."

Appearing on MSNBC's "Hockenberry," Schippers said he concluded that no one connected with the White House had suggested that Broaddrick file a false affidavit. "I think it would have been folly for us to have attempted to just poison the water with this story, when it really had no specific bearing on the impeachable offenses," he said.

more recent - Paula Jones
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/14423-paula-jones-i-cant-believe-bill-clinton-has-the-nerve-to-campaign-for-hillary
Paula Jones: I Can't Believe Bill Clinton Has the Nerve to Campaign for Hillary

Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, made headlines in 1994 when she accused Clinton of propositioning her and exposing himself. The court eventually threw out her suit on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate damages.

Clinton, who has denied her claims, reportedly paid her $850,000 in an out-of-court settlement, although Jones says she only walked away with $151,000 after attorneys’ fees.

WP - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm
Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000, 1998

Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's chief attorney in the case, said the president still insists Jones's allegations of a crude proposition in a Little Rock hotel suite seven years ago "are baseless" but agreed to make the payment in the interest of finally putting the matter behind him.

"The president has decided he is not prepared to spend one more hour on this matter," Bennett said. "It is clear that the American people want their president and Congress to focus on the problems that they were elected to solve. This is a step in that direction.

. . .

The extraordinary case came to an extraordinary finale, with the defendant agreeing to pay $850,000 even though the plaintiff originally only asked for $700,000 when she filed suit -- and even though the case was dismissed without a trial.

The late 90s was a busy time for Bill!

So Hillary did nothing to them. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Here's what you're saying.


If Billy Boy molested/raped your daughter, you'd be fine casting a vote for Hillary.

That is all.

It's all good until it hits home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious answer, and I mean it genuinely. Read what she did to Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.

(And definitely do this before you start crying about the next Brock Turner incident.)

This.

Read it where? In some right wing hatchet piece? No thanks. I'll leave the fiction to you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
Clinton Accuser's Story Aired, 1999

David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment proceedings, said Tuesday that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."

Appearing on MSNBC's "Hockenberry," Schippers said he concluded that no one connected with the White House had suggested that Broaddrick file a false affidavit. "I think it would have been folly for us to have attempted to just poison the water with this story, when it really had no specific bearing on the impeachable offenses," he said.

more recent - Paula Jones
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/14423-paula-jones-i-cant-believe-bill-clinton-has-the-nerve-to-campaign-for-hillary
Paula Jones: I Can't Believe Bill Clinton Has the Nerve to Campaign for Hillary

Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, made headlines in 1994 when she accused Clinton of propositioning her and exposing himself. The court eventually threw out her suit on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate damages.

Clinton, who has denied her claims, reportedly paid her $850,000 in an out-of-court settlement, although Jones says she only walked away with $151,000 after attorneys’ fees.

WP - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm
Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000, 1998

Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's chief attorney in the case, said the president still insists Jones's allegations of a crude proposition in a Little Rock hotel suite seven years ago "are baseless" but agreed to make the payment in the interest of finally putting the matter behind him.

"The president has decided he is not prepared to spend one more hour on this matter," Bennett said. "It is clear that the American people want their president and Congress to focus on the problems that they were elected to solve. This is a step in that direction.

. . .

The extraordinary case came to an extraordinary finale, with the defendant agreeing to pay $850,000 even though the plaintiff originally only asked for $700,000 when she filed suit -- and even though the case was dismissed without a trial.

The late 90s was a busy time for Bill!

So Hillary did nothing to them. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious answer, and I mean it genuinely. Read what she did to Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.

(And definitely do this before you start crying about the next Brock Turner incident.)

This.

Read it where? In some right wing hatchet piece? No thanks. I'll leave the fiction to you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
Clinton Accuser's Story Aired, 1999

David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment proceedings, said Tuesday that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."

Appearing on MSNBC's "Hockenberry," Schippers said he concluded that no one connected with the White House had suggested that Broaddrick file a false affidavit. "I think it would have been folly for us to have attempted to just poison the water with this story, when it really had no specific bearing on the impeachable offenses," he said.

more recent - Paula Jones
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/14423-paula-jones-i-cant-believe-bill-clinton-has-the-nerve-to-campaign-for-hillary
Paula Jones: I Can't Believe Bill Clinton Has the Nerve to Campaign for Hillary

Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, made headlines in 1994 when she accused Clinton of propositioning her and exposing himself. The court eventually threw out her suit on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate damages.

Clinton, who has denied her claims, reportedly paid her $850,000 in an out-of-court settlement, although Jones says she only walked away with $151,000 after attorneys’ fees.

WP - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm
Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000, 1998

Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's chief attorney in the case, said the president still insists Jones's allegations of a crude proposition in a Little Rock hotel suite seven years ago "are baseless" but agreed to make the payment in the interest of finally putting the matter behind him.

"The president has decided he is not prepared to spend one more hour on this matter," Bennett said. "It is clear that the American people want their president and Congress to focus on the problems that they were elected to solve. This is a step in that direction.

. . .

The extraordinary case came to an extraordinary finale, with the defendant agreeing to pay $850,000 even though the plaintiff originally only asked for $700,000 when she filed suit -- and even though the case was dismissed without a trial.

The late 90s was a busy time for Bill!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious answer, and I mean it genuinely. Read what she did to Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.

(And definitely do this before you start crying about the next Brock Turner incident.)

This.

Read it where? In some right wing hatchet piece? No thanks. I'll leave the fiction to you.