Bill Clinton claims he was threatened not to challenge the sitting president

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: Answer
Typical Clinton nonsense... they never do anything wrong, the whole world is just out to get them.

What a load of crap.

What does one thing have to do with the other. He can be everything you say he is and what he says still be true.

Bill is claiming that Hillary's email issues are nothing more than a GOP attack that is being blown out of proportion by the press.

That's a load of codswallop. Coming from the guy who very clearly said the famous line "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." how can you believe anything he says?

What the hell could "codswallop" possibly mean?

a reply to: burntheships

That could all be very well true, but it does not negate the fact that they were dishonest in their approach and condemned her to guilt before any guilt was proven. That is not how we should act as Americans and we should always let due process run it's course before we convict someone in the court of public opinion.

But of course, that is what most lazy, partisan people do.

a reply to: introvert

Lying to the American public has earned Hillary no points.

Election cycles are all about public opinion...if she did not
realize this it is her own problem.

She should have done the right thing and turned in her
records when she retired, like all Good Americans do.

Instead, she chose to disregard the laws that she is
required to turn in her records aka work emails
and sign off. She flagrantly disregarded that requirement.

Why? She cited convenience, translated: slovenly.

Then she lied about it! Not just one lie, but many.

Sure, she may never go to jail, but you can fool some
of the people some of the time, but you can't fool
all of the people all of the time.

Besides it is Obama throwing her under.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

That equals a conspiracy?

No. That's the point.

Really, this is laughable, Hillary started the birther rumor,
she started the "Muslim question".

Really?

Yes. She was SOS and she IS well liked in the circles of the elite. They like dirty, rotten scoundrels.

Obama's family goes way back with the Clinton family. Curiously, they go back to a banking spy software scandal and the organization at the center of it: Systematics, Inc. in Little Rock, Arkansas. (Later Alltel)

Hillary represented Systematics with the Rose Law Firm (along with Vince Foster), and Obama's uncle Cecil Goeldner (married to Stanley Dunham's sister, Virginia Goeldner) was the head banking software ARCHITECT for Systematics.

This much can be verified through the WayBackMachine and Cecil's personal website:

home.att.net/~c.goeldner/work.html

For more than 35 years, I've been a "Hired Gun", successfully extracting and separating banks from some of their money. Well, I guess a better way of putting it would be that I've been employeed by some of the finest bank computer software and service providers for the past three and a half decades and have thus managed to eke out a reasonably comfortable existance for myself and family.

AND

Major Assignments:

In the Alltel Little Rock office Have installed and tested all Systematics software products at dozens of domestic client locations as well as many major international institutions in England, large banks in Puerto Rico, the National Bank of Greece and Riyadh Bank of Saudi Arabia.

I refuse to believe that this is just an innocent coincidence given what Virginia told the press: "Goeldner said she told only a few close friends about her nephew, for fear that someone might do something that would hurt his chances to get elected."

(Source requoted and the original is no longer available on wayback: www.sherwoodvoice.com/articles/2008/11/14/maumelle_monitor/living/liv01.txt)

Hillary and Obama are in cahoots and tight. I doubt anyone could convince me otherwise at this point.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry, I made several edits to this comment to make sure all my sources were clear.

a reply to: burntheships

Once again, I agree. But you seem to be deliberately avoiding the point I am making.

a reply to: spav5

He should have never been put in the position in the first place..not over sex.

Seriously?

1. HE put himself in that position.

2. Not over sexual escapades with a subordinate, utilizing a cigar, all the while speaking on the phone with his Jordanian counterpart?
I strongly disagree.
He represented all of us when he is at his desk and that sexual misconduct, ( unbecoming the office of POTUS) is precisely the time to call him out. He held both the highest office in our country and expected highest moral representation of "we the people".

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships

Once again, I agree. But you seem to be deliberately avoiding the point I am making.

That you want to blame the GOP and claim
she is innocent of any malfeasance?

a reply to: burntheships

That you want to blame the GOP and claim
she is innocent of any malfeasance?

No. What I am saying is that we have to let due process run it's course. If she is guilty of something, act accordingly.

What the GOP is doing is using the issue to spread propaganda and misinformation for political/monetary gain and the people eat it up. But then when due process runs it's course, no wrongdoing was found and it turns out that everything the propagandists were saying was false. The propagandists and those that believe them simply forget the issue existed and move on to the next outrage.

This issue is the next issue of outrage. If she is guilty of something, act accordingly.

If she has not done anything wrong, will you openly admit it or will forget the issue and move on to the next outrage?

a reply to: introvert

But due process would only apply if she is charged.

In the court of public opinion, ordinary people come
to a conclusion based on her story, and her response.
Which is an epic disaster.

The media will publish anything that gets ratings,
so you draw your own conclusion; mine is that
the people do not like her, do not want her.

She is yesterdays news, yesterday and old and
an Albatross around the neck of the Democratic
party. This is what the people see and feel.

You are free to think otherwise, obviously.

Just a reminder, Benghazi-gate has been investigated longer than 9/11, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and Iran Contra.

Does that mean what happened at Benghazi was somehow more severe than any of those? Or does some congressional committee have an agenda?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: spav5

He should have never been put in the position in the first place..not over sex.

Seriously?

1. HE put himself in that position.

2. Not over sexual escapades with a subordinate, utilizing a cigar, all the while speaking on the phone with his Jordanian counterpart?
I strongly disagree.
He represented all of us when he is at his desk and that sexual misconduct, ( unbecoming the office of POTUS) is precisely the time to call him out. He held both the highest office in our country and expected highest moral representation of "we the people".

I am of the opinion that a person's sex life is their own concern. Not mine. Getting a BJ is not unbecoming of anything in my opinion. The whole procedure was a huge waste of time and money and absolutely nothing came of it.

I wish they had as much concern for the war crimes committed in the past two administrations. But war crimes don't interest people as much as sex, I guess.

a reply to: burntheships

She is yesterdays news, yesterday and old and
an Albatross around the neck of the Democratic
party. This is what the people see and feel.

No, she is today's news because a certain group of politically-partisan people make people see and hear about it constantly.

You're helping spread propaganda.

a reply to: spav5

Its the timing and the giver of those bjs that cause indignation. She was his subordinate. He was President.
Do it until you need glasses...just NOT in the Oval Office while conducting foreign matters of State, or any Presidential work.

originally posted by: introvert

No, she is today's news because a certain group of politically-partisan people make people see and hear about it constantly.

*rolls eyes*

Another partisan propagandist: Democrat Candidate Martin OMalley: Legitimate Questions Remain Concerning Hillarys Emails

"I believe that there are a lot of legitimate questions still to be answered about this particular controversy, the email, the email server, the FBI investigation and the like," Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley said regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Clinton Email Scandal Defining The Democrat Party

"I believe that the sort of leadership that actually moves a nation, moves a state, moves a city forward is leadership that states principles and doesn't wait from focus groups.

originally posted by: AstronautCliffTarpey

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: Answer
Typical Clinton nonsense... they never do anything wrong, the whole world is just out to get them.

What a load of crap.

What does one thing have to do with the other. He can be everything you say he is and what he says still be true.

Bill is claiming that Hillary's email issues are nothing more than a GOP attack that is being blown out of proportion by the press.

That's a load of codswallop. Coming from the guy who very clearly said the famous line "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." how can you believe anything he says?

What the hell could "codswallop" possibly mean?

Nonsense.

Funny, I WOULD have threatened him over Somalia.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: spav5

Its the timing and the giver of those bjs that cause indignation. She was his subordinate. He was President.
Do it until you need glasses...just NOT in the Oval Office while conducting foreign matters of State, or any Presidential work.

Of all of the despicable acts that he and fellow presidents have done..I just don't see this as being one of them. Although, lying in general, is not good..I kind of expect people who are cheaters to also lie about it.

a reply to: ProfusionI like this bioll quote: "“This is just something that has been a regular feature of all of our presidential campaigns, except in 2008 for unique reasons,” Mr. Clinton said, without elaborating on why he believed that President Obama had not faced similar Republican-led efforts to derail his candidacy."

Because as we saw from keeping all of W's policies, romneycare and TPP, Obama was a republican plant. Repubs just pretend to hate him to make it less obvious.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: spav5

He should have never been put in the position in the first place..not over sex.

Seriously?

1. HE put himself in that position.

2. Not over sexual escapades with a subordinate, utilizing a cigar, all the while speaking on the phone with his Jordanian counterpart?
I strongly disagree.
He represented all of us when he is at his desk and that sexual misconduct, ( unbecoming the office of POTUS) is precisely the time to call him out. He held both the highest office in our country and expected highest moral representation of "we the people".

do you support using more time to investigate bill lying about sex and Hillary lying about a video than the time spent on investigating 9/11?