Why Hillary Clinton should not be the next president

[Atomoa]

More leaks.

DNC lawyers were giving advice to Hillary's team on how to smear Bernie Sanders. Those DNC lawyers are also in the paid services of none other than Hillary Clinton.

Also the money laundering issue turns out to be true as well.

The Democratic National Committee scrambled to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties. During the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.

Big ticket donors got to donate 380,000 a person to the "Hillary Victory Fund" which was suppose to go to DNC candidates in the midterms. They got 0.5% of the 82 million and Hillary got the rest by promising people who have 380,000 extra dollars favours.

I'd never want people to get hurt, but I hope there is a riot at the convention.

People need to freak out.

[averagejoe]

Interesting....

Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss


Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up.

Read more...

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hi ... ormer-boss

[sobrohusfat]

Ben Shap's take on the Democratic National Convention.







Many of them booing their witch - the circus continues.

[goatboy]

Interesting....

Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss


Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up.

Read more...

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hi ... ormer-boss

Even more interesting as it seems this is not true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

[averagejoe]

Here are other news outlets that covered the story....

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillar ... -behavior/

http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm

http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-che ... stigation#

[goatboy]

Here are other news outlets that covered the story....

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillar ... -behavior/

http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm

http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-che ... stigation#

What did you think after reading the Snopes opinion, is it true or not? I think they laid out some pretty good points that it isn't true.

[Glacier]

"Tonight at the DNC convention, the Democrats gave stage time to Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, Lena Dunham, Bill Clinton, and the mother of Michael Brown. For anyone keeping track at home, that's one mass murderer, one woman who admitted to fondling her sister, one alleged serial abuser and rapist, and the mother of an attempted cop killer. And it's only Tuesday. They've still got two more days to go. Perhaps Charles Manson and Kermit Gosnell will make appearances later in the week.
The Democrat Party is morally bankrupt. The RNC may be so often stupid, cowardly, and inept, but the DNC is just plain evil. If you don't believe me, turn on your TV at any point between now and Thursday night. They're practically advertising the fact. They're proud of it."
~mwalsh

[averagejoe]

What did you think after reading the Snopes

I don't read snopes because....

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.
Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.


Real investigating looking couple...LOL

http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.ca/2 ... noped.html

[averagejoe]

*removed*

[Glacier]

Always use multiple sources when possible. Snopes is a good one. Maybe not perfect, one of the best sites out there.

Certainly a lot better than the DNC protesters burning Israeli flags and shouting "Death to the USA" tonight.

[the avenger]

Only sjw's use snopes.....Nebula use to use it all the time...LOL

It's SJWs. apostrophes show possession and should not be used to assign plural form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

Snopes aims to debunk or confirm widely spread urban legends. The site has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN,[11] Fox News Channel,[12] MSNBC,[13] and Australia's ABC on its Media Watch program.

The problem is that you used a Fox news story as a starting point for your argument, a news organization that has consistently had it's stories debunked, rebutted, and shot down. That's weak leverage.

[dontrump]

The problem is that you used a Fox news story as a starting point for your argument, a news organization that has consistently had it's stories debunked, rebutted, and shot down. That's weak leverage.

really? I have read hundreds of Fox article over the years and have not seen or experienced such
could you give us some examples of such

[averagejoe]

The problem is that you used a Fox news story as a starting point for your argument, a news organization that has consistently had it's stories debunked, rebutted, and shot down. That's weak leverage.

I guess Fox news is just to hard on millenniums?

They like being lied too? I guess?

Ok How about the Daily Mail from Great Britain? Does it meet millenniums approval as a news source?

Famed Watergate reporter blasts Hillary over email scandal: 'Clinton has a huge problem because she does not tell the truth very, very often'

Carl Bernstein hammered Hillary on CNN as a serial liar
He wrote in his 2008 biography of her that '[s]ince her Arkansas years ... Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth'
The classified email scandal has solidified Democrats' impression of her as untrustworthy, Bernstein said
'She's been less than truthful. She's been less than open,' he declared

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... often.html

[goatboy]

really? I have read hundreds of Fox article over the years and have not seen or experienced such
could you give us some examples of such

That's because you take the articles at face value. Did you fact check any of them?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/pants-on-fire-analysis-shows-60-of-fox-news-facts-are-really-lies/205563/

[Queen K]

Given that it is now de facto that Hilary is now the choice future POTUS according to the DNC, I say we have a new thread outlining all the reasons she SHOULD be president of the United States.

Okay, there's only one reason.

1. Otherwise Donald Trump is.

End of story.