Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Edge-]

I'm talking about Hillary Clinton and the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that's out to get her.

Except that at this point, there is. Case in point the continued conspiracy theories from folks on the right that we see crop up on a weekly basis.

[May90]

So, when are people going to start asking for Hillary's birthday certificate?

[Lenonis]

Ignorance truly is bliss. The smoke is basically black at this point, and you give 0% chance of there being a fire. It doesn't have to be so black and white either, you don't have to believe she's hiring hitmen to kill people who could connect her to anything, but to believe she is squeaky clean, and ALL of this smoke going back to the Bill Clinton days is just mostly bad luck, a simple oversight, or republicans out to get her and there is absolutely ZERO fire would have to mean that you just want to believe what you want to believe, and nothing would change your opinion of her.

You don't get to run around generating controversies that end up showing no wrongdoing and then turn around and say "well because there are so many controversies there MUST be something there."

That's what the GOP has been doing to the Clintons for decades, and now they've duped people into thinking that because there have been so many scandals they must be guilty.

It's a smear campaign plain and simple. I could easily do similar to you right here on these forums and in a few years you'd likely be banned using your logic even if you were 100% innocent.

The problem at this point isn't even whether the Clintons are guilty of anything, but rather that the GOP has spent so much time and money going after them for so-called scandal after so-called scandal that they've lost all credibility with anything but their duped base who runs around saying there is so much smoke there must be fire -- ignoring, of course, that the smoke is being entirely generated by the GOP.

[alexw]

Demonizing the Clintons has been a big moneymaker for the right for 25 years. Basically, pretend the Clintons are WoW and all of the radio show hosts, cable news segments, book writers, and websites over the years have 'Gaming' attached to the end. They're all making a YT channel and leading off with 'Hey guys, what's up?!'.

They don't have to be rational. Nothing they say has to be true. It just needs to exist and they make money. The result is millions of people being obsessed with crazy conspiracy theories not only against Clinton, but others like Obama. They're gonna have to keep coming up with stupid shit in order to keep getting those paychecks.

pssst. Have you noticed that we never see Hillary Clinton and Ben Ghazi in the same room at the same time? What does that mean? What is going on? Clearly its something suspicious. Stommped needs put his tin foil hat on and get on to the case.

[Felya]

So, when are people going to start asking for Hillary's birthday certificate?

Like 3 months ago when Trump insinuated her and Obama's aligence to Islam. Before the "founders of ISIS" became a big deal.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that at this point, there is. Case in point the continued conspiracy theories from folks on the right that we see crop up on a weekly basis.

Someone linked me a "Clinton body count reaches 5" article just an hour or so ago in another thread.

[alexw]

It's one thing for a bunch of yahoo nobodies to believe in conspiracy theories...but it's quite another when a Presidential candidate actually believes in them in such a way that reveals the sheer depth of her paranoia.

Err what???? There is only one presidential candidate that is peddling conspiracy nutjob nonsense and it sure isn't Clinton. Oh and when are you Trumpists going to give us your evidence which shows Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK?

[DocSavageFan]

You mean the demonstrable fact that the right has continuously attacked her every perceived failing since she and Bill left the White House?

Perceived failings like the Russia "reset", Libya (her lies to get us involved in the first place & the resulting failed State and massive human suffering that occurred as a direct result of our involvement), failed judgment regarding the threat of radical Islamic terrorism especially in regard to ISIS, or the overall lack of a cogent approach to the Middle East? Or are you talking about perceived failings like hiring private investigators to dig up dirt on Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones as well as threatening them if they go public, illegally obtaining FBI files on her enemies, Travelgate, Whitewater, the pardon of Marc Rich who financed her 2000 Senate bid, being fired from the Watergate investigation (by a Democrat) for being unethical and dishonest, lying, more lying, and even more lying?

[cubby]

Didn't he release them recently? I'm not really following the elections, but I've heard something about that.

Not yet. And it doesn't look like he's going to, either. Which is pretty bad for a number of reasons.

As for Hillary, there are valid reasons for criticism, mainly some of her policies and stances... But people choose to pick on "e-mails", "health", "political assassinations" and other nonsense instead. :/

I agree that there are valid reasons for criticism, as no candidate is perfect. But the GOP's reasons border on insane at this point.

[anyaka21]

Perceived failings like the Russia "reset", Libya (her lies to get us involved in the first place & the resulting failed State and massive human suffering that occurred as a direct result of our involvement), failed judgment regarding the threat of radical Islamic terrorism especially in regard to ISIS, or the overall lack of a cogent approach to the Middle East? Or are you talking about perceived failings like hiring private investigators to dig up dirt on Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones as well as threatening them if they go public, illegally obtaining FBI files on her enemies, Travelgate, Whitewater, the pardon of Marc Rich who financed her 2000 Senate bid, being fired from the Watergate investigation (by a Democrat) for being unethical and dishonest, lying, more lying, and even more lying?

it even goes farther and even things that don't matter.

"I'm a lifelong Cubs fan". But when running for the NY Senate seat, "I'm a lifelong Yankees fan."

And lets be clear, nobody would give a crap if she stuck by the Cubs because that wouldve actually showed loyalty. Hell, most probably wouldnt even care if she said she's not really into baseball.

All it means is someone who consistently lies to try and gain advantage and votes. To me, completely untrustworthy.

Don't get me wrong here, this election sucks. South Park has it right, this is between a big douche and a turd sandwich. There isn't a good choice between the two.

[Stommped]

You don't get to run around generating controversies that end up showing no wrongdoing and then turn around and say "well because there are so many controversies there MUST be something there."

That's what the GOP has been doing to the Clintons for decades, and now they've duped people into thinking that because there have been so many scandals they must be guilty.

It's a smear campaign plain and simple. I could easily do similar to you right here on these forums and in a few years you'd likely be banned using your logic even if you were 100% innocent.

The problem at this point isn't even whether the Clintons are guilty of anything, but rather that the GOP has spent so much time and money going after them for so-called scandal after so-called scandal that they've lost all credibility with anything but their duped base who runs around saying there is so much smoke there must be fire -- ignoring, of course, that the smoke is being entirely generated by the GOP.

But as I stated, this isn't just the GOP who are making accusations. Juanita Brodderick and Patricia Smith.

[Lenonis]

But as I stated, this isn't just the GOP who are making accusations. Juanita Brodderick and Patricia Smith.

Not sure how that's relevant to my point. Just because people have gotten on the "there must be fire" bandwagon doesn't mean the source of it all isn't different.

[Stommped]

You've got this backwards.

Nobody is saying the Clintons have never made mistakes. Bill Clinton really shouldn't have gotten on with Lewinsky. That was a mistake. He freely admitted to that. Among other things. Hillary's admitted to issues where she made a decision she later regretted, like voting to go into Iraq.

The conspiracy theory is when the right wing players start claiming that these weren't "mistakes", but were instead nefarious manipulations, done to accomplish some shady purpose that is never actually described or outlined in any detail. That's an accusation of deliberate and malicious intent, and for that there is absolutely-freaking-zero evidence.

All that's been "proven" is that the Clintons are human, and occasionally make mistakes. And more, they work to do better in the future. And in this election, it's particularly galling, because pretty much any of these accusations could be much more easily directed at Trump and find far more grounds in which to get purchase, but those same right wing players don't have the capacity for self-reflection to understand this.

They'll take Clinton saying one thing a decade ago, and changing her mind in the interim, and saying something different today, and claim she "lied" at one of those points, because "changing one's mind based on better understanding" apparently isn't a thing. But Trump will say one thing in the morning, reverse himself completely in the afternoon, only to double back down in the evening, and then confirm before bed that he absolutely did mean both of those contradictory statements at the same time. And somehow, this ISN'T a lie.

Enabling and covering up the sexual abuse of potentially dozens of women doesn't really fall into the categories you are talking about here. This isn't just about Benghazi and private email servers. Juanita Brodderick is not a "right wing player" last I checked.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how that's relevant to my point. Just because people have gotten on the "there must be fire" bandwagon doesn't mean the source of it all isn't different.

How is the same source? The abuse allegations are from the women who were actually abused... Not right wing politicians looking to gain an edge for their party.

[DocSavageFan]

I hope a Trump PAC puts up a few ads about Juanita Brodderick....people need to know what happened.

[Stommped]

Bryan Pagliano ignores subpoena for the 2nd time, committee will purse contempt charges

I understand that the dems think this a republican witch hunt, but no matter how stupid you think it is, the law says you have to appear when subpoenaed, how can that not be a crime? If you are arrested for stealing something in Maine, and you've never been to Maine, no matter how stupid you think it is you can't just ignore it. You have to go through the legal process. I really don't understand how "this is stupid and partisan" is a valid legal defense.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I hope a Trump PAC puts up a few ads about Juanita Brodderick....people need to know what happened.

Um. No bullshit, just asking a question here... what does a rape accusation against Bill have to do with Hillary? I didn't notice anything that said she knew about it, much less was complicit.

[DocSavageFan]

Um. No bullshit, just asking a question here... what does a rape accusation against Bill have to do with Hillary? I didn't notice anything that said she knew about it, much less was complicit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...g-bill-clinton

[Felya]

Bryan Pagliano ignores subpoena for the 2nd time, committee will purse contempt charges

I understand that the dems think this a republican witch hunt, but no matter how stupid you think it is, the law says you have to appear when subpoenaed, how can that not be a crime? If you are arrested for stealing something in Maine, and you've never been to Maine, no matter how stupid you think it is you can't just ignore it. You have to go through the legal process. I really don't understand how "this is stupid and partisan" is a valid legal defense.

But, to go through the legal process, according to the article, is for this to be submitted to the justice department, which then chooses the course of action. According to the article, any action by the justice department is unlikely. Meaning, for your assertion to be genuine, him not responding to the subpoena is following the legal process, which would result in nothing from him not showing up. What you are actually saying is that they shouldn't follow the legal process and take action without justice department.

Just FYI, "this is stupid and partisan" isn't a legal defense. Pleading the 5th is... So is choosing to not answer a subpoena that will not have any action against him.

[LaserSharkDFB]

You should look it up.

...okay, it's a bit buried, but I see what it is. Thanks for the help. Jackass.

Okay, so. After her alleged assault by Bill, she then claims Hillary intimidated her into silence. This happened almost 40 years ago and apparently nobody else saw it happen.

Okay, I know this is something the right really wants to believe, but is there any credible reason to do so? Even assuming Bill raped her and assuming this meeting happened the way she says it did, it's a situation where an emotionally distressed woman encounters the wife of her rapist and reads hostile intent from her facial expression. That's a long, long way from anything even vaguely resembling proof. She could have misinterpreted Hillary's expression, Hillary could have had an off day... it's not something that can even be investigated at this point. This is a complete wash of an issue. There's no proof either way, so people will believe what they want to believe, or withhold judgement until some proof appears, which will likely never happen.

[Stommped]

But, to go through the legal process, according to the article, is for this to be submitted to the justice department, which then chooses the course of action. According to the article, any action by the justice department is unlikely. Meaning, for your assertion to be genuine, him not responding to the subpoena is following the legal process, which would result in nothing from him not showing up. What you are actually saying is that they shouldn't follow the legal process and take action without justice department.

Just FYI, "this is stupid and partisan" isn't a legal defense. Pleading the 5th is... So is choosing to not answer a subpoena that will not have any action against him.

Ok then I must not understand what a subpoena actually is. I was always under the impression that a subpoena means you HAVE to show up on the date you are told. He just ignored it. If he showed up and plead the 5th then it would be entirely different. Him following the legal process would have been to actually show up on the date the subpoena told him to.

If you can voluntarily ignore subpoenas with no penalty what would be the purpose of subpoenas in the first place?

- - - Updated - - -

...okay, it's a bit buried, but I see what it is. Thanks for the help. Jackass.

Okay, so. After her alleged assault by Bill, she then claims Hillary intimidated her into silence. This happened almost 40 years ago and apparently nobody else saw it happen.

Okay, I know this is something the right really wants to believe, but is there any credible reason to do so? Even assuming Bill raped her and assuming this meeting happened the way she says it did, it's a situation where an emotionally distressed woman encounters the wife of her rapist and reads hostile intent from her facial expression. That's a long, long way from anything even vaguely resembling proof. She could have misinterpreted Hillary's expression, Hillary could have had an off day... it's not something that can even be investigated at this point. This is a complete wash of an issue. There's no proof either way, so people will believe what they want to believe, or withhold judgement until some proof appears, which will likely never happen.

I mean, you can either choose to believe that she had no idea ALL of these sexual assaults were going on, or you can believe that despite her saying "that every woman of sexual assault deserves to be heard," she just chose to ignore it, not encourage the women to get justice, because she felt it was more important for Bill to stay in power and further her own political career.

Whether or not she threatened Brodderick is really irrelevant to me, it's that she's so disingenuous and cares far more about staying in power than about helping victims of sexual abuse.

[Felya]

Ok then I must not understand what a subpoena actually is. I was always under the impression that a subpoena means you HAVE to show up on the date you are told. He just ignored it. If he showed up and plead the 5th then it would be entirely different. Him following the legal process would have been to actually show up on the date the subpoena told him to.

According to the article, he did do just that during Benghazi hearings. His side is claiming that these will be the same line of questioning, while his opponents claim it will be a new line of questioning. This dispute would than be resolved by the justice department. If they conclude that this is a justified subpoena, then they take further action. According to the article, justice department taking action is very unlikely. Meaning, that his reason for not showing up, will be confirmed by the justice department.

If you can voluntarily ignore subpoenas what would be the purpose of subpoenas in the first place?

As long as you have free will, you can ignore warrants and subpoenas. If you believe your subpoena will be cleared, there is no reason to show up. It's absolutely a risk, but according to the articles conclusion, it doesn't seem to be much of a risk.

A simple question... Can you tell me the likely conclusion listed in the article? Now the difficult part, pretend the justice depaetment is not in Hillary's cabal. What do you think the conclusion means to the subpoena? Remember, no cabal...

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, you can either choose to believe that she had no idea ALL of these sexual assaults were going on, or you can believe that despite her saying "that every woman of sexual assault deserves to be heard," she just chose to ignore it, not encourage the women to get justice, because she felt it was more important for Bill to stay in power and further her own political career.

Whether or not she threatened Brodderick is really irrelevant to me, it's that she's so disingenuous and cares far more about staying in power than about helping victims of sexual abuse.

Trump cheated on his wife. Trump has an accusation of raping a 13 year old. Not his wife or husband, he him self. Yet, you have issues with Hillary standing by her husband? What the what?