The Clinton Discussion Thread

[Shimmer.Fade]

Split off several posts from the Trump thread; please discuss the various Clinton scandals herein- swilow

Not only do they get scrutiny, they get the Attorney-General & the Director of the FBI to cover for them when investigators have found direct evidence of serious crimes.

Source please? Seems like wildly dishonest speculation.

Really?...But that's basically how the AG & FBI Director colluded to get Clinton off the hook. One of the (if not the) most blatant cover-ups and perversions of justice that I have ever witnessed.

Yes, really. Source please? Seems like wildly dishonest speculation.

 

[Scrofula]

You guys know how in movies, the heroic LEOs have to "KEEP HIM ON THE LINE!" when the serial killer or kidnapper calls to gloat or offer clues, so they can "finish" a trace of the call? Or something?

I feel like that is what's happening with our aqueous colleague. Except he is keeping us on the line. For what diabolical purpose, though?

Is it possible he's actually a sophisticated AI?

We need a test . . .

OK, Liquid, what do you think of Jammin83's belief in the pizza and satanism connection? I don't see it, personally.

 

[LiquidMethod]

Yes, really. Source please? Seems like wildly dishonest speculation.

It is not, I just succinctly explained to you what happened.
You can form your own conclusions relating to that investigation but you should be familiar with the details of the case by now.

 

[spacejunk]

^ but you haven't provided any sort of reliable source.

 

[LiquidMethod]

For which claim? One must be more specific than that and honestly it's just intellectual laziness to not be informed on the details of the Clinton FBI investigation by now.


30 Oct 2016:

"Last Friday it became public record that FBI Director James Comey reopened the Hillary Clinton email server investigation after repeatedly testifying before Congress up to last July that he'd closed the case when he claimed to have not found sufficient evidence of "any criminal wrongdoing" to indict her, in spite of her four years as Secretary of State egregiously breaching US national security, committing obstruction of justice and willful tampering with evidence, deleting 30,000 emails after receiving a court subpoena constituting destruction of evidence, not to mention repeatedly engaging in perjury before Congress and the FBI."

Comey: Loretta Lynch asked me to call Clinton email investigation a 'matter,' which concerned me

 

[spacejunk]

^ you'l have to ask shimmer fade, i was just noting your avoidance of the request for a source.

"Seems like wildly dishonest speculation" - when you bdon't support your claims with evidence, it does. i've lost track of which bit of dishonest speculation on your part he was referring to.

it's just intellectual laziness to not be informed on the details of the Clinton FBI investigation by now.

why? we're talking about trump. stop changing the subject.


now - regarding these "fire and fury" comments about North Korea.
how's trump going as a peacemaker diplomat? seems to be stumbling into nuclear holocaust.

this is just great, thanks for electing a braindead mutant, america.

 

[LiquidMethod]

this is just great, thanks for electing a braindead mutant, america.

lol

Trump commenting on North Korea back in 1999. What a braindead madman!!!!!11

why? we're talking about trump. stop changing the subject.

Oh sorry. Can we talk about how Bill Clinton is responsible for the mess we are in now or does that not matter either? Let's just let anyone named Clinton do whatever they like guilt-free. Chelsea, would you like to club some seals? The Left can cheer her bravery.

 

[Scrofula]

Oh sorry. Can we talk about how Bill Clinton is responsible for the mess we are in now or does that not matter either? Let's just let anyone named Clinton do whatever they like guilt-free. Chelsea, would you like to club some seals? The Left can cheer her bravery.

No. No we shall not talk about chelsea or the clintons.

Or anything that came from sott.net or RT.

Let's talk about Trump instead.

 

[drug_mentor]

For which claim? One must be more specific than that and honestly it's just intellectual laziness to not be informed on the details of the Clinton FBI investigation by now.

This annoyed me. Lets talk about intellectual laziness for a moment.

In this post you claimed the Clinton Foundation stole billions in Haiti relief money. In this post Escher pointed out this was a dubious claim and asked how you arrived at such a conclusion. In this post you responded "[w]e count", implying that there was hard data to count, and provided a link to a youtube video where someone with a vested interest in smearing the Clinton's asserts, without evidence, that your claim was true. Here I pointed out the shortcomings of your video and asked for a link to the hard evidence which you implied there was. You responded by spamming a bunch of links, which I am guessing you didn't read and assumed that I wouldn't bother reading either. I took the time to read all of them (except for the one you acknowledged was speculative) and responded, pointing out that not a single article you linked provided any hard evidence in support of your allegation, and asked you again where you got the figures which you supposedly counted.

You have been quite active in this thread since, but, I have received no response. You made a claim, were asked to back it up, spammed a bunch of links which didn't back up your claim, and, when called out you just ignored the post. In my view, that is pretty much the definition of intellectual laziness. It would be amusing if it were not so audacious, you appear to be supposing that the intellectual burden of supporting your wild claims with evidence lies with those who would disagree with you.

 

[Scrofula]

Liquid, Mr. Mentor has done more scholarship on your posts than most of us could survive. You should probably stop and reflect on his post, and never annoy him again--he clearly has a mind of steel.

 

[LiquidMethod]

provided a link to a youtube video where someone with a vested interest in smearing the Clinton's asserts

Or the Clintons are pieces of shit and you have zero grounds to doubt this former Senate President's testimony. Suggesting he is committing perjury and slander simply because he is a Republican? The evidence is the missing money. It is pretty common knowledge now that the Clinton Foundation is just a pay-for-play criminal enterprise.

I'll choose to believe Sansariqc, and I'll choose to believe the Harvard Human Rights Journal when they stated that the Clintons personally intervened to organize the release of child traffickers who were caught at the Haitian border. If they are facilitating child trafficking then I am not surprised that they were also engaging in embezzlement of charity donations.

Liquid, Mr. Mentor has done more scholarship on your posts than most of us could survive. You should probably stop and reflect on his post, and never annoy him again--he clearly has a mind of steel.

He is the only one so far that has legitimately called me out. I do not have hard evidence for the claim that he is referring to. Although one reason that we do not have solid evidence is possibly due to witnesses winding up suicided.

 

[drug_mentor]

Or the Clintons are pieces of shit and you have zero grounds to doubt this former Senate President's testimony. Suggesting he is committing perjury and slander simply because he is a Republican? The evidence is the missing money.

Zero grounds? How about the fact he cites zero evidence in favour of his claim (much like yourself). Surely, a lack of evidence is sufficient grounds to doubt someones testimony if anything is. I said he has a vested interest, not just because he is Republican (though, these days that is relevant, considering how well the 'Lock her up!' rhetoric played with Republican voters), but because he was invited to attend Trump rallies to make these (seemingly) baseless accusations. It seems quite clear he has financial or political incentive (or both) to say these things.

I asked for figures that show the Clinton Foundation received billions of dollars which were misappropriated. The "missing money" is evidence which you concede you lack access to, if it exists at all.

He is the only one so far that has legitimately called me out. I do not have hard evidence for the claim that he is referring to. Although one reason that we do not have solid evidence is possibly due to witnesses winding up suicided.

So, you admit then, that you don't have access to the figures which you earlier claimed to count? Why the need to misrepresent the strength of the evidence in favour of your claims? Maybe, just maybe, you are clutching at straws? It is odd, not to mention inconsistent, that you are quick to question the critical thinking skills of others, when you are advancing claims which you now admit you cannot substantiate. Surely, it is an uncontroversial principle of critical thinking that one should not accept claims which have insufficient evidence to support them.

 

[G.R.S.H.]

No. No we shall not talk about chelsea or the clintons.

Or anything that came from sott.net or RT.

Let's talk about Trump instead.

That is what the title of this thread led me to believe it was about, the Trump presidency, but maybe I misread the title? Maybe it's how Trump got elected in the first place- make sure to bash a Clinton?

As an American, my apologies to the rest of the world that Trump is the president of the US, I couldn't possibly feel worse about the results of any election if I were personally responsible for every vote that took place. I find it humiliating that, as all (or almost all) of Liquid's comments show you, we as the American people have stopped voting for the person that would best represent us, or the best person for the job, or any other reason related directly to the person we actually vote for; but for reasons regarding the person we are voting against. In the end, I do not think that Trump was truly a favorite of the American people, rather that he had the most successful smear campaign, making Hilary more frightening or unpatriotic to vote for... Does that make sense? Personally I would rather have Donald Duck in the White House.

While I am a patriot, and believe that America was once, and has the potential to again be, the 'greatest country in the world', or at least one to be proud of. I am ashamed that we allowed the scare tactics of the Trump campaign to frighten us enough to think he is the lesser of the 'two evils' we were presented with. We as a people need to learn to find the facts, and just the facts, that media no longer presents to us in regards to politics. Honesty in media is so hard to find, that believing news reports is a very gullible act these days.

ALTERNATIVE FACTS ARE LIES- grsh

PS- I guess this isn't much on the presidency either, just a point about how things are working these days and an excuse as to why he ended up president (mostly for my own sanity).

 

[LiquidMethod]

Zero grounds? How about the fact he cites zero evidence in favour of his claim (much like yourself). Surely, a lack of evidence is sufficient grounds to doubt someones testimony if anything is.

Do you have the records of where the billions of dollars of relief aid went?

It is odd, not to mention inconsistent, that you are quick to question the critical thinking skills of others, when you are advancing claims which you now admit you cannot substantiate.

A claim. That you cannot disprove. Funds have been misappropriated and we have Haitian officials and the Haitian people calling out the Clinton Foundation (which has a history of engaging in dubious activities). This is just the tip of the iceberg. I do not have hard evidence for one claim out of how many? I'm happy for you that you've found something I've said that you can try to discredit me with but nobody is addressing the most important or egregious claims I've made - because they are true and easily verifiable. I notice that you do not call me out on the claim that the Clintons were facilitating child trafficking. Good luck deflecting from that one.

 

[drug_mentor]

Do you have the records of where the billions of dollars of relief aid went?

No, do you? You seem to be supposing that the burden of proof lies with me to disprove your claim that the Clinton's stole this money, that is not how intellectual honesty works - to suggest otherwise is intellectually lazy. So far as I can see, from no less than two of your own sources, the Clinton Foundation didn't receive billions to misappropriate in the first place.

A claim. That you cannot disprove. Funds have been misappropriated and we have Haitian officials and the Haitian people calling out the Clinton Foundation (which has a history of engaging in dubious activities). This is just the tip of the iceberg. I do not have hard evidence for one claim out of how many? I'm happy for you that you've found something I've said that you can try to discredit me with but nobody is addressing the most important or egregious claims I've made - because they are true and easily verifiable. I notice that you do not call me out on the claim that the Clintons were facilitating child trafficking. Good luck deflecting from that one.

I can't disprove God or Russell's teapot, either. That isn't a good reason to believe that they exist.

You seem to be a fan of a kind of inductive ad hominem sort of reasoning - 'the Clinton's (may) have been dishonest in the past, therefore, unsubstantiated claims about their dishonesty are likely to be true'. I hope you realise, given you are now acknowledging your dishonesty in relation to the claim that I have questioned, that a similar ad hominem argument (albeit, a non-fallacious one) could be employed against you to show that you are being inconsistent vis-a-vis unsubstantiated allegations against the Clinton's and (what you take to be) unsubstantiated claims about Donald Trump. If Trump's detractors are committing a hasty fallacy, it seems that you must be too.

I don't need to 'deflect' a claim which I never addressed, and which is not relevant to any claim which I made or addressed. The issue here is the veracity of your claims about the Clinton's. I must admit that I now take your claims about what is "true and easily verifiable" with a pinch of salt - seeing as how you are now admitting you were bullshitting about the ease of verifying the truth of the claim that the Clinton Foundation has misappropriated Haitian relief funds. It is quite ironic that the principles of reasoning which you are implicitly endorsing undermine the plausibility of what you are alleging.

 

[LiquidMethod]

So far as I can see, from no less than two of your own sources, the Clinton Foundation didn't receive billions to misappropriate in the first place.

You're acting as if the money doesn't even exist.

I hope you realise, given you are now acknowledging your dishonesty in relation to the claim that I have questioned, that a similar ad hominem argument (albeit, a non-fallacious one) could be employed against you to show that you are being inconsistent vis-a-vis unsubstantiated allegations against the Clinton's and (what you take to be) unsubstantiated claims about Donald Trump. If Trump's detractors are committing a hasty fallacy, it seems that you must be too.

I get what you're trying to illustrate but I did not acknowledge any dishonesty. I stand by my claims that the Clintons/CF/CGI misappropriated donations meant for Haiti. The case is still open, Haitians are blowing the whistle and there are deaths linked to the scandal which are worrying. My criticism of the Trump detractors is that they do not even attempt to justify their accusations when thoroughly questioned.

Also my original comment that you took offense to was directed at being uninformed of an investigation that happened a year ago where the information is all readily available. Now that I think about it though, my comment was out of line. I shouldn't blame someone whose main source of news comes from Clinton PR firms for not getting the complete story relating to the FBI criminal investigation into Hillary's server.

I must admit that I now take your claims about what is "true and easily verifiable" with a pinch of salt - seeing as how you are now admitting you were bullshitting about the ease of verifying the truth of the claim that the Clinton Foundation has misappropriated Haitian relief funds.

Money (among other things) disappeared while the Clintons were overseeing Haiti. It is true and easily verifiable that the Clintons were helping human traffickers steal children, but I guess now you have all the justification that you need to ignore that story, or maybe even take with a pinch of salt.

 

[alasdairm]

A claim. That you cannot disprove.

seriously. we're here now?

the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. by shifting the burden - and, by implication, trying to assert that something is true unless or until it is proven otherwise - is fallacious.

let's not go down this road, please?

alasdair

 

[swilow]

Okay, if you missed the edit in the OP (Sorry shimmer-fade, I hate to edit posts for any reason!), this thread has been split (perhaps clumsily) from the Trump thread. That thread was being derailed by discussion of the Clinton family.

I think its a legitimate discussion indeed, so let's do it here.

 

[Scrofula]

The Clintons have been investigated more intensely than my carpet since he was Arkansas governor. Republicans really don't like them.

Who wants to bet that now that Hillary's career is over and Chelsea hasn't entered politics, you won't hear any more odd stories of dead witnesses or billions in cash disappearing?

I mean, no new aspects to anything, from right-wing outlets? Only the same talking points like above, circling around and around forever, some kind of Clinton whirlpool, the MaelHillarstrom. THe Billpool.

ETA: conveniently recurring every 2-4 years.

 

[swilow]

The Clintons have been investigated more intensely than my carpet since he was Arkansas governor.

Love your turn of phrase, my friend :D