Hillary want's to play fair.....what a joke.

And on Sunday, she said she would release the transcripts - if everyone who has ever given a paid speech also did. “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them,” she said on ABC’s This Week program. “We’ll all release them at the same time. ... These rules need to apply to everybody.”

Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

After hearing her say this in an interview, it just made me laugh. I could give a rats ass about her speeches. maybe there's some hidden gem in there somewhere, but it's likely irrelevant. But, while she is riding high on the "you can't touch me" bandwagon regarding her issue with classified e-mail being stored on her unsecured server, and people like General Patreaus are punished for mishandling classified documents, you have to just laugh at the irony here.

You want the same rule for everyone Mrs. Clinton? are you sure about that?

a reply to: network dude

Greetings- We would have to make the word "IF" even larger than it already is...

Again w/the forwarded fart jokes and farcebook™ nudges and pokes.. How about the $6B that went missing when She was in charge of The State Dep't. and then $2B shows up in The Clinton Fraudation™ 'donated' by Her Saudi puppet-masters? Nothing, not a word...

Let Us scour the globe for Eddie Snowden and let the politicos continue to $ell the future to the highest bidder...

a reply to: network dude

Her statement was clearly a way to side step the issue. If I was in her shoes and had nothing to hide, I would just say "sure, I'll have my office send you copies of my speeches within the next week." She's running for the highest office in the country. Presenting something that the media and the voting public have questions about shouldn't be an issue.

Don't hold back releasing requested documents by pointing the finger at other candidates. If there's an issue with another candidate, those requests should be granted from them too.

a reply to: network dude

Technically Gen Patreaus falls under the UCMJ which is a totally separate set of laws from common law and Hillary is only subject to common law. I agree with your thread, but that was a poor comparison.

originally posted by: JimNasium

Let Us scour the globe for Eddie Snowden and let the politicos continue to $ell the future to the highest bidder...

Sadly, I don't see that changing anytime in the near future. they system is too corrupt. It's like Chicago mafia on steroids.
In 1776 Eddie would be a true patriot. today, he's a wanted man.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it's irreverent which system of juris prudence is in effect. The laws governing classified material are universal. it's the court system that differs. I just enjoy pointing out irony when it exists. Patreaus' crime is very similar to this, though his pales in comparison to the magnitude of what Hillary did, and he was found guilty and punished.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except he was charged and pled guilty with/to a federal charge, not a UCMJ charge. Unless I'm mistaken. I thought he appeared in federal court and not a military one.

ETA - I checked, he was charged by DOJ, not the military, and charged with a USC violation, not a UCMJ violation.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well if that is the case, I'll retract my statement. I just know from experience that the UCMJ tends to be far more strict than common law.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

in punishment, yes, but the laws are universal. (supposed to be, but as we all know, for politicians things don't always work that way)

I honestly don't care if she was paid to make speaking engagements. I'm a bit jealous it's that easy for her to make a fine living. But I wasn't married to a president.
What I don't like is the attitude she gives when the source of the money is questioned. You want me to trust you with the future of the country and yet you get less of a background check than somebody buying a gun. Yeah, that's an exaggerated example but you get my point.
This job should require your whole life to be an open book.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

in punishment, yes, but the laws are universal. (supposed to be, but as we all know, for politicians things don't always work that way)

They are supposed to be universal, but there are differences in the flexibility of laws in one system versus the other.

Bill just came out calling Bernie a LIAR, how fair is that getting your lying rapist husband to campaign for you. Those poor old Avon ladies that believe them .

www.aol.com... lnk2%26pLid%3D1441294020

a reply to: network dude

…her issue with classified e-mail being stored on her unsecured server, and people like General Patreaus are punished for mishandling classified documents…

Thanks for pointing that out. The people exposed and ousted are just the ones fallen out of favor. The 'state of secrets' train rolls on.

“We’ll all release them at the same time. ... These rules need to apply to everybody.”

Is this the new issue with her? From Ben Ghazi, to secret server, to speech transcripts?

Next it ll be, "Who's your hair stylist… confess!"

"Never!"

a reply to: network dude

Another fine example of Hillary's absolute lack of good judgement!

It would be one thing if she told Bernie Sanders, "I'll show my speeches if you show yours," and I'm confident he would be happy to accommodate.

But, by attempting to bring the entire GOP field of candidates into this issue, she's just creating an excuse for her own refusal to be transparent.

Unless she has something to hide, good judgement would dictate that she release her records in unison with Bernie's and let the records speak for themselves.

Then later on, whichever candidate won the Democratic nomination would be open to challenge their GOP counterpart to match their own record of transparency.

But then, that would only work if she had nothing to hide" and IMO, therein lies the problem.

On top of that, in her latest attempt to defend her voting record on the 2001 bankruptcy bill that she reversed her opinion on and voted for, she's now basically calling Elizabeth Warren a liar as well.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, "Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy!"

a reply to: network dudedemocrats-benghazi.house.gov...


Not exactly.

a reply to: WeRpeons

This may sound simple but why shouldn't this be mutual ? I'll show you mine and you show me yours.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dudedemocrats-benghazi.house.gov...


Not exactly.

actually, there is an investigation ongoing and it will be up to the DOJ to decide if in the 4 years she was Secretary of State and had her own insecure e-mail server that entire time, if she ever had even ONE classified, secret, or top secret e-mail sent to or from her. If any of that is the case, she should be charged just as others in the past have been for mishandling classified data.

If you wish to believe that in her entire time as US Secretary of State, that she never once sent or received a classified message, you fall into a category I call silly.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: WeRpeons

This may sound simple but why shouldn't this be mutual ? I'll show you mine and you show me yours.

it's kind of irrelevant, but the irony lies in her wanting to be on a different plane of existence from the common person regarding security rules, but demands everyone else be fair when it comes to answering questions. The whole,
"you can't have it both ways" comes to mind.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: WeRpeons

This may sound simple but why shouldn't this be mutual ? I'll show you mine and you show me yours.

It should be!

Problem is, "mutual" isn't enough for Hillary. She's basically demanding "all inclusive" or she doesn't want to play.

It wasn't a GOP candidate who issued the challenge, it was Bernie Sanders. I'm sure that Bernie would be more than happy to provide transcripts of all his speeches, (paid or not) and Hillary knows it.

By demanding the GOP candidates to participate in this challenge is pure deflection. It's just her way of saying "hell no I won't do it," without actually saying the words.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not psychic . I nor anyone else knows what might be found.
As of right now however comparing her to Petraeus is unfounded.