Let's talk about the Clintons

[Elixir]

Can anyone come up with an example of another "president" trying to re-litigate his predecessor's secretary of State and the President of >15 years in the past?

No? Then I'd implore you to consider all possible reasons why someone might do that. Seems to me that the most likely reason is to distract from his own crimes.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Can anyone come up with an example of another "president" trying to re-litigate his predecessor's secretary of State and the President of >15 years in the past?

No? Then I'd implore you to consider all possible reasons why someone might do that. Seems to me that the most likely reason is to distract from his own crimes.

We do not appreciate that if not for Hilary, Libya would not be what it is today.

 

[just_me]

Why do you title your topic in the way you did just to bring up President Trump? Why not just title it appropriately so that people searching for a way to vent their frustration at having a person such as President Trump in office?

When I saw the topic, I thought it was a hit piece on Hillary.

 

[Jaecp]

You know those Clintons... Tricky

 

[Elixir]

When I saw the topic, I thought it was a hit piece on Hillary.

Yep - they gotcha AGAIN!

BTW, have you had any itching around the groin area? Clintons.

 

[Malintent]

It's just one of the three prong approach... Whataboutism... "don't ask about my crimes while there is still crime to ask about anywhere else". The other two prongs are Denial, "everyone is lying except me", and "Equivocation", "all actions are equivalent.. .rape, stealing a stick of gum.. identical".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Can anyone come up with an example of another "president" trying to re-litigate his predecessor's secretary of State and the President of >15 years in the past?

No? Then I'd implore you to consider all possible reasons why someone might do that. Seems to me that the most likely reason is to distract from his own crimes.

In my opinion the last several Secretaries of State are all guilty of war crimes. It would actually be a good thing to help clean up the reputation of the US were previous criminals to be tried instead of considered "off limits" due to being no longer in office.

 

[Elixir]

In my opinion the last several Secretaries of State are all guilty of war crimes.

Oh. Glad I asked about that.
So you wanna talk about Ben Gozzy some more? Go ahead. At least you won't have to worry about THAT any more, once the T-Rex cabal entirely does away with the Department of State ...

It would actually be a good thing to help clean up the reputation of the US were previous criminals to be tried instead of considered "off limits" due to being no longer in office.

So you want Trump impeached, removed and sent to jail, then. OK with me, and most American citizens.
Or are you still harboring delusions that Hillary - despite having been constantly investigated/persecuted for over thirty years with no criminal findings - must certainly be guilty of something ... ANYTHING... just LOCK 'ER UP!
Seems to be the common rethuglican stupidity.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you want Trump impeached, removed and sent to jail, then. OK with me, and most American citizens.

We are in agreement if you apply that principle to both sides of the aisle like I do. What separates me from the rest of this board is that I don't confine my criticism to just one party.

I don't consider Bengazi to be the crime, I consider Libya to be the crime. The Republicans only investigated Bengazi, they should have considered the warmilitary action in Libya as the crime. Unfortunately the Republicans don't think waging unprovoked war against a country that isn't threatening the US to be wrong. Neither do the Democrats.

Our military state is conservoprogressive.

 

[Elixir]

I consider Libya to be the crime.

I learned in school that Libya was a country. You say it is a crime?
You'll have to elaborate a little before I will buy that.
OTOH, treason, collusion with a hostile foreign power to corrupt our election system, obstruction of justice, abuse of power... those are all actual crimes still currently in process.
Unlike you, I find it a far more urgent matter to stop the current bleeding than to re-litigate the past. AFAICS the Clinton do not represent any clear and present danger to the Country.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well if you're going to play semantics, and ignore the clarifying sentence that came next...

I consider the unprovoked military action against Libya to be a war crime. I'm not interested in re-litigating the action or lack thereof at Bengazi, I'm interested in initial litigation of the war crime of the unprovoked military action against Libya. And Iraq. Both. As in both sides. As in the pet wars of both parties.

As I said, both sides. I'm against these conseroprogressive wars that you are so fiercely defending.

 

[Elixir]

Well if you're going to play semantics, and ignore the clarifying sentence that came next...

"the warmilitary action in Libya" might be covered by a statute, but you didn't name one. Not much of a clarifying statement IMHO.

I consider the unprovoked military action against Libya to be a war crime.

Yes - you said that. The fact that you so consider it is NOT a crime. Can you point to the crime?

As I said, both sides. I'm against these conseroprogressive wars that you are so fiercely defending.

I am not defending any wars, Jason. It is dishonest of you to misrepresent what I am saying that way.
What I am TRYING to defend is the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, which is currently under assault by a corrupt cabal of billionaire donors and the Tangerine Terror they have installed on the "throne". They are a clear and present danger. The Clintons are NOT. PERIOD.

 

[Playball40]

Can anyone come up with an example of another "president" trying to re-litigate his predecessor's secretary of State and the President of >15 years in the past?

No? Then I'd implore you to consider all possible reasons why someone might do that. Seems to me that the most likely reason is to distract from his own crimes.

We do not appreciate that if not for Hilary, Libya would not be what it is today.

Oh bull shit

 

[Elixir]

Can anyone come up with an example of another "president" trying to re-litigate his predecessor's secretary of State and the President of >15 years in the past?

No? Then I'd implore you to consider all possible reasons why someone might do that. Seems to me that the most likely reason is to distract from his own crimes.

We do not appreciate that if not for Hilary, Libya would not be what it is today.

Oh bull shit

These morons would have us ignore the fact that our country is CURRENTLY under attack, and would prefer prosecuting past (invented) crimes by their talking-point-criminals.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Can anyone come up with an example of another "president" trying to re-litigate his predecessor's secretary of State and the President of >15 years in the past?

No? Then I'd implore you to consider all possible reasons why someone might do that. Seems to me that the most likely reason is to distract from his own crimes.

We do not appreciate that if not for Hilary, Libya would not be what it is today.

Oh bull shit

http://www.wsj.com/video/sanders-at...ion/EFC91DDA-344E-4D05-AB66-887676F67C6D.html

The BS is from Hilary. As we know Libya is a cock up. It's worse off than before. Now we have rampant human trafficking and a brisk slave trade. Thank you Hilary, and Sanders is correct.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We do not appreciate that if not for Hilary, Libya would not be what it is today.

Oh bull shit

These morons would have us ignore the fact that our country is CURRENTLY under attack, and would prefer prosecuting past (invented) crimes by their talking-point-criminals.

As a result of past war mongering abroad the US is under attack at home.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004216623/hillary-clintons-legacy-in-libya.html

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is dishonest of you to misrepresent what I am saying that way.

Says the person who keeps trying to insinuate that I am somehow a Trump supporting conservative Republican. Perhaps you might want to take a second look at your own posts.

 

[Elixir]

It is dishonest of you to misrepresent what I am saying that way.

Says the person who keeps trying to insinuate that I am somehow a Trump supporting conservative Republican.

If I have so misrepresented you, I apologize - be sure to remind me if I do it again.
Meanwhile, why are you trying to prosecute all manner of past crimes when we have crime going on right now that transcends all of this bullshit in terms of its impact upon the future of the country? I'd be happy for a complete housecleaning, if it starts with the Groper in Chief.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, technically this thread is about Clinton, so I guess Clinton is off topic.

 

[Elixir]

Well, technically this thread is about Clinton, so I guess Clinton is off topic.

Only standard-issue alt-right blinders could so effectively obscure the actual topic of the thread. Since all nuance is lost on them, I might as well clarify -
this thread is about the rethuglican reflex to revert to talking about Clintons any time subjects such as Russia, Access Hollywood or any number of other matters come up.

Does that help you any?