Muchy and Sessions

[ComradeMilton]

2 hours ago, Doc Martini said:

Whitewater Travelgate The Suspected Murder of Vince Foster The Benghazi Scandal The Clinton Foundation Scandal Private Email Server Debacle Setting Free a Child Rapist 

Foster was a suicide. Benghazi is entirely the fault of the ambassador. Clinton Foundation is fine. Email server isn't her doing. Never heard of the molester, though i don't really believe that one. Whitewater's settled and Travelgate was a staff dispute, not a big problem.

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

On 8/3/2017 at 11:32 PM, Caecus said:

There are several things wrong with your statement, the most obvious being that your statement suggests Trump is not corrupt and a massive puppet.

The huge difference is Trump was not always in the limelight for most of my life. Hillary is. Does that make it any better? Not in the least. Both sucked. We live with the suck. Next four years I predict we suck. Next election will suck too. We will have another four years of suck.

 

And as for ComradeMilton's statement, expected.

[ComradeMilton]

30 minutes ago, Doc Martini said:

And as for ComradeMilton's statement, expected. Perhaps I was too flippant regarding your list.

Travelgate, conclusion of investigation by the Independent Counsel: 

"He said that despite Mrs. Clinton's role as disclosed by the investigation, ''the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the travel office firings were knowingly false.''

''Accordingly,'' he said, ''the independent counsel has declined prosecution of Mrs. Clinton.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/23/us/the-first-lady-is-chided-but-not-charged.html

Whitewater, conclusions of the Independent Counsel: "This office investigated whether President and Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct related to Madison Guaranty, C.M.S., or Whitewater Development or had any knowledge of such conduct. This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty, C.M.S., or Whitewater Development or knew of such conduct. The evidence relating to their testimony and conduct, in connection with this investigation and other investigations involving the same entities, was also, in the judgment of this office, insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either of them committed any criminal offense, including perjury or obstruction of justice." http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/21/us/statement-by-independent-counsel-on-conclusions-in-whitewater-investigation.html

Benghazi: After several committees and investigations conducted by Republican Trey Gowdy have found no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of HRC, despite very serious attempts to do so as a way of minimizing her character so near an election. No charges have been filed against Clinton despite all of this and has repeatedly stated it didn't matter if the movie they initially thought was the triggering event was the cause or an organized attack by a terrorist group and that in either event the history of what happened was secondary to ensuring such an event never occurs again. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other military officials began preparations in the immediate aftermath of increasing security levels at all US diplomatic facilities worldwide and shifting Marine FAST units strategically around the world to provide the military response the Department of Defense was not able to muster in time to prevent or even address the attack on the Benghazi facility and made a number of changes to required security practices in the longer term to ensure both that such an attack could not be repeated anywhere else, again, and in the unlikely event that it did so more prepositioned Marine units capable of rapid response were deployed strategically throughout the world to combat attempts of a similar type in any future event if it somehow repeated itself. Gowdy has now investigated this matter eleven times more than Congress investigated the 9/11 attacks and despite the number of investigations, probing of documents throughout the executive branch, and many witnesses has been unable to do so much as censure Clinton's actions, let alone indicate even the possibility of official wrongdoing or related criminal charges due to a thorough lack of evidence against Clinton and her actions in response to the attack.

Clinton Foundation: The William J. Clinton Foundation periodically accepted financial contributions from foreign governments before Hillary Clinton was in office. Traditional standards of similar foundations doesn't even require or suggest disclosing the names of donors is necessary and an ethics agreement was reached for the foundation for now Hillary Clinton's position as Secretary of State. Aside from a few, slight documentation errors or delays this was observed and repeated during Clinton's presidential campaign, where no evidence was found to indicate any wrongdoing on the part of Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton during that campaign. As Americans, each of these decisions against prosecution due lack of evidence means she is innocent until proven guilty and that even with the political attacks conducted by Gowdy's committee for political advantages, including repeated Congressional hearings on the same matter over and over again has failed to find any reason to believe wrongdoing had occurred. It's an absolute non-issue.

Private email server: The State Department's Inspector General examined this and found that it wasn't an advisable practice, but admitted it was  a very common practice among Cabinet-level officials historically including Colin Powell, John Kerry and many others. For me, I find it difficult to believe a seventy year old woman could possibly have been directly involved in setting up the server or specifically understanding and permitting the personnel responsible for its creation due to the level of knowledge necessary to properly create and configure sendmail to say nothing of anything else. It's unclear if she understood what was being done and whether it being a traditional practice for large numbers of previous Cabinet-level government officials in the same manner as she did. The report indicated there was a potential issue, but also informed investigators it was a common, permitted practice in a de facto sense if not a de jure one as the only difference in HRC's case was keeping the data more secure by not using a third-party to host the email account and found that given the history of this and nearly identical practices practiced over a period of decades recommended more detailed briefing upon these officials entering into their official capacity in the future by breaking its status as a traditional practice of senior officials in both parties. There have been no findings despite massive investigation citing anything other than minor mistakes and it being unclear if HRC even understood enough about computer use to be able to even understand the differences related to how she sent and received email. This has also gone on for quite a while and no problems sufficient to even charge, let alone prove, was found.

Work as a defense counsel: Everyone is entitled to a defense as part of the United States system and requirements for those trials to be kept fairly by, unless specifically requested and being explained to the defendant by a judge that not using an attorney for their defense was strongly discouraged and would not be cause for a mistrial or appeal if the defendant opted out of utilizing a defense attorney. As defense attorneys are required in the United States, Hillary was at an early period of her career doing her job in representing an accused kidnapper/child molester and providing him a defense as all are entitled to do and encouraged to do during a trial, if not earlier. in order for that to happen attorneys need to be found to be willing to continue the fairness of the US judicial system and in this case was performed by Hillary Clinton.

Per your source (which appears to be some kind of GOP blog): 

From a legal ethics perspective, once she agreed to take the case, Clinton was required to defend her client to the fullest even if she did believe he was guilty.

"We’re hired guns," Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of legal ethics at Chapman University, told the Washington Free Beacon. "We don’t have to believe the client is innocent…our job is to represent the client in the best way we can within the bounds of the law."

Contrary to your title a plea bargain was reached and due to a good deal of work done for the prosecution failing to have been performed properly enabled Hillary Clinton to have her client enter into a plea bargain of one year in prison minus two months for time served waiting for trial. So basically she provided the required defense of an abhorrent person (who is still required to be offered a defense) successfully. How working in favor of the US judicial system is a problem beyond it being objectionable to even the defense attorney they're required to zealously perform on your behalf and attempt to defend the person from the prosector. Clinton not only committed no wrong-doing, it appears to show she's a very skilled attorney and that Arkansas at the time had unsettling judges or required sentencing for such crimes, but as it was at the time you're basically saying Hillary Clinton did her required legal representation successfully, violated no laws and freed no one from anything.

"Taylor, who pleaded to unlawful fondling of a chid, was sentenced to one year in prison, with two months reduced for time served. He died in 1992." <-- Also your source

[Doktor Avalanche]

This rock does not bleed. I am more than familiar with both sides of each link I posted. There are more things to add to the list if you wish to act flippant and then comment on those, too.

[ComradeMilton]

Are they all so easily disproven?

[Caecus]

11 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

The huge difference is Trump was not always in the limelight for most of my life. Hillary is. Does that make it any better? Not in the least. Both sucked. We live with the suck. Next four years I predict we suck. Next election will suck too. We will have another four years of suck.

 

And as for ComradeMilton's statement, expected.

Spoken like the EAP himself. Black raven and shit. Whoot. 

[Rozalia]

On 03/08/2017 at 11:19 PM, ComradeMilton said:

Oh, so you're declining. I hadn't been told. As for terms you defined them aside from me wanting some action to convince me you'd follow-through. So the wager you suggested, under the terms you suggested plus a minor one of my own you're no longer willing or able to do it? I'm not the one declining if you hadn't noticed. This is pretty much what I assumed would happen when I won the bet. Sounds good: You dismiss your own suggestion, have shown exactly why my trusting you to honor your end of the bet was valid and after all that are insulting me with the most childish insults. Good job.

You're just so damn disgusting with this trolling. Scrubbing you out will be a good deed I'll certainly be remembered for. 

What I put forward was based on a comment you made stating that I was wrong, that Assad wasn't going to win and the so called rebels were fine. I asked you to step up on that if you dared as the statement you made was so damn stupid, so lets see if you can really get behind it. You couldn't. The conditions also are not based on whatever I feel. The condition is a real life event and what it's result is. If Assad loses I can't suddenly say "actually he won". He wins he wins. He loses he loses. 
What you have put forward in another pathetic way to run away is something whose condition being met is completely up to you. You can fail me on it at any time, for any reason, no limitations. No one in their right mind is going to get involved in something like that unless the other person can be trusted to be fair, which a dishonest and craven person like you cannot be. I could take you up on it and not post a single time in the 6 months and you'll then just fail me on something randomly, craven as craven is. 

Long story short. Mine is an actual wager with conditions not within my hands, I can't just fail you whenever I feel like it. Yours is a pathetic attempt to call me a coward because I won't be part of your set up trap.
 

On 04/08/2017 at 5:32 AM, Caecus said:

The operative word is "may." 

There are several things wrong with your statement, the most obvious being that your statement suggests Trump is not corrupt and a massive puppet. Again, not denying that Clinton may have done something. I'm just saying that if Clinton did it, there isn't any solid, conclusive proof of it sitting around. If you are going to be corrupt and manipulative, at least be good at it. For god's sake, Trump can't even keep his own damn staff together, and leaks in the WH continue because he understands nothing about discipline and order. At least when people leak about Clinton, it's because of Russian hackers, not because her own staff disrespects her and doesn't give a shit. 

The problem about monarchies and hereditary rule is that every 50 years or so, you get a dumbass, a madman, or a dumbass madman who comes to the throne and &#33;@#&#036; over the entire dynasty. The great Roman and Chinese empires alone have several centuries of history to submit as evidence. This trend, however, does not apply to the Ottoman empire at the height of its power. Why? Because after the death of every sultan, there would be a bloodbath Game-of-Thrones style fratricide &#33;@#&#036; fest where one half-brother killed off all other contenders to the throne. For 10 generations, the Ottoman empire produced powerful sultans which expanded the empire and its wealth, culminating into Suleiman the Magnificent. For you to win the throne, you had to be corrupt, buy off bodyguards. You had to be smart, biding your time. You had to be ferocious and without mercy, killing off family without hesitation. That's why the Ottoman empire produced 10 solid generations of sultans which kicked ass. 

My point is, Trump is just as corrupt as Clinton (if not more so) and is a lot worse at getting away with it (if Clinton is indeed corrupt). But let's just assume Clinton is corrupt for the sake of argument. I still would choose Clinton over the orange dumbass that allowed North Korea to develop a missile that could hit Chicago. Clinton, in the worst light you could possibly put her, would be akin to an Ottoman sultan, but at least she would do good for this country. But that's my two cents on spilt milk that has gone bad and is no longer relevant except that it still leaves a nauseating odor that floats around. We're here to talk about someone who actually matters now. No Roz, that's not you. 

What is with the odd Ottoman love out of nowhere? Dealing with your brothers doesn't mean you're talented as you can be a good schemer and a terrible leader. In fact the lack of heirs would lead to Ottomans having to spare some brothers and worse child Sultans who'd then be controlled. The conclusion you reach is pretty silly and funnily enough the Jin dynasty looked at that sort of thing, rendering family powerless, as a weakness. Both Han and Cao Wei had the system of rendering family powerless and they got taken down. So with the evidence of the previous rulers of those dynasties they gave loads of power to their family members instead... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Eight_Princes

Just because the Ottomans had some success under that system does not mean the system is a good one. Likewise failures don't mean it is a bad one. Circumstances is the most important thing involved.

 

Now for Trump's problems... it is easy to attack the man for it but it is largely situation based. Jeremy Corbyn who in character and how he carries himself is as far away from Trump as you can get has the same problem Trump has. A small group of loyal people who have up to now been kept well away from power, while the majority are disloyal establishment types that want to see him fail so constantly work against him.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Rozalia

[Caecus]

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I WANT UR ATTENTION NOW CAECUS! STOP IGNORING ME!

No. 

[ComradeMilton]

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

You're just so damn disgusting with this trolling. Scrubbing you out will be a good deed I'll certainly be remembered for. It's not trolling, lol.

What I put forward was based on a comment you made stating that I was wrong, that Assad wasn't going to win and the so called rebels were fine. I asked you to step up on that if you dared as the statement you made was so damn stupid, so lets see if you can really get behind it. You couldn't. I agreed, actually, with a single condition that you've since demonstrated was a wise one. You are the one who has declined the wager you suggested. The conditions also are not based on whatever I feel. The condition is a real life event and what it's result is. If Assad loses I can't suddenly say "actually he won". He wins he wins. He loses he loses. 
What you have put forward in another pathetic way to run away is something whose condition being met is completely up to you. You can fail me on it at any time, for any reason, no limitations. No one in their right mind is going to get involved in something like that unless the other person can be trusted to be fair, which a dishonest and craven person like you cannot be. I could take you up on it and not post a single time in the 6 months and you'll then just fail me on something randomly, craven as craven is.  For some reason I assumed you'd wriggle out of it if you lost based on past observations and you've already proven it was wise to add one term of my own since I didn't trust you to uphold the terms; I was pretty sure you wouldn't follow through in either case and you have now declined to do so. I'm still willing with my one condition.

Long story short. Mine is an actual wager with conditions not within my hands, I can't just fail you whenever I feel like it. Yours is a pathetic attempt to call me a coward because I won't be part of your set up trap. I think you've quite clearly shown the community how reliable and trustworthy you are.

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

13 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Are they all so easily disproven?

Copypasta others who agree with you. Damned if I dare continue opposed to such dangerous and infallible rhetoric!

I bow to the fancies of your Social Justice Warrior elite copypasta-banter.

In other words, its just not worth the effort, nor do I really care to change the mind of a middle-20's SJW bent on proving everyone else must be free to believe his opinion and you are damned to Pandemonium and be caned if you do not. Land of the Free!

Funny side note is I also do not believe most of the crap thrown at HC, except I seriously believe Whitewater and the Server issue she is guilty of. Amazing stuff can happen when one has power and authority.

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Copypasta others who agree with you. You act as if you'd prefer me not to quote sources, including the person in charge of several of the cases you mentioned and his literal words describing his very extensive investigation into these matters. Could there be a more important and knowledgeable person to quote? Damned if I dare continue opposed to such dangerous and infallible rhetoric!

I bow to the fancies of your Social Justice Warrior elite copypasta-banter. Thank you, especially the source you provided as it defeated the argument your citation of it was meant to support.

In other words, its just not worth the effort, nor do I really care to change the mind of a middle-20's SJW bent on proving everyone else must be free to believe his opinion and you are damned to Pandemonium and be caned if you do not. Land of the Free! It's a debate forum. Why would you post here if you didn't want to discuss/debate things? I don't force anyone to adapt to my opinion.

Funny side note is I also do not believe most of the crap thrown at HC, except I seriously believe Whitewater and the Server issue she is guilty of. Amazing stuff can happen when one has power and authority.  I don't even like HRC; just the stupid anecdotes that are so trivial to defend as being normal behavior for someone. One of your claims was a literal lie (as proved by the source you provided). If you dislike debating, discussion or the possibility of others questioning statements you make or disagreeing this probably isn't one of the forums you'll enjoy.

edit: Personally with the last example you provided I'm a lot more horrified that the prosecutor agreed to such a light sentencing recommendation and with the judge for not rejecting the recommendation and putting an admitted rapist into prison for a more proper amount of time.

Edited August 6, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Rozalia]

On 03/08/2017 at 11:19 PM, ComradeMilton said:

Nonsense

 

As I have told you several times now. I will not accept anything whose condition for success or failure is up to your whimsy. You are well known to be dishonest, cowardly, and a lunatic. 

[ComradeMilton]

I'm not really concerned with your approval or disapproval; everything was posted inaccurately; sometimes within the source provided by the accuser. You may accept it or not; it changes nothing.

[Doktor Avalanche]

On 8/5/2017 at 11:18 PM, ComradeMilton said:

edit: Personally with the last example you provided I'm a lot more horrified that the prosecutor agreed to such a light sentencing recommendation and with the judge for not rejecting the recommendation and putting an admitted rapist into prison for a more proper amount of time.

Honestly, I mostly post here so the forums are not 100% dead. Other times I post just to troll.

I also never said I agreed with everything I linked.

 

[ComradeMilton]

I didn't mean to suggest you did. Just that that example was really only an example of Hillary being so effective a defense attorney when she practiced that results like she produced were extraordinarily well represented as required and also offended by the two others with the power to have ensured a more appropriate permitted that sentence recommendation to first be agreed upon and then a judge accepting that recommendation. Basically, great work by Hillary for a terrible person and including so effective a plea bargain like that was possible, but that there were two other ways to alter the sentence, but they weren't done.

[Ogaden]

I like the hilarious incompetence of the Trump administration.  They're doing what the US govt has always done but so ham handedly and ineffectively that people finally noticed the problems inherent in the system.  It's just too bad they ascribe those problems to Trump rather than America in general.

[ComradeMilton]

Trump seems to have thought government was at all like business so his experience and his cabinet's experience would lead to a fantastic government rather than having all your shit not even pass judicial review.

[Rozalia]

3 hours ago, Ogaden said:

I like the hilarious incompetence of the Trump administration.  They're doing what the US govt has always done but so ham handedly and ineffectively that people finally noticed the problems inherent in the system.  It's just too bad they ascribe those problems to Trump rather than America in general.

Democrats have been white washing Bush and his vile cronies ever since Trump took office. 

[ComradeMilton]

Right. Because Trump is worse.  We seriously elected a citizen kept from being drafted by periodically flying planes in or near Texas, started as already quite wealthy and a member of the Bush Dynasty and its inherent power. George H. W. used connections to get him into university where he was so &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid that he could barely reach C grades in his classes, spent the most time in the history of the Presidency on vacation, created ISIS due to DeBaathization following the 2003 invasion and the thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers to die for a war that actually made people want Saddam back, failed again and again to protect the United States, violated American and international law by holding hundreds of prisoners without charges in Guantanamo Bay, etc. Trump is worse than that.

[Ogaden]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Democrats have been white washing Bush and his vile cronies ever since Trump took office. 

I know right.  The biggest foreign policy complaint from Democrats at the moment is Trump isn't nuking Russia.

[Rozalia]

First off, if Bush was stupid or not is quite irrelevant in all this Milton. Just mean attacks that don't matter. Now on to the second bit... what has Trump done compared to that? Said some mean words? Did an anaemic travel ban? Launched some laughably ineffective missiles at Syria as a distraction? Bush's actions resulted in death and destruction that continues to this day. To try and put Trump as worse is white washing of the highest order. I've seen Democrats refer to Bush cronies as moral authorities as they ask them to attack Trump. Please. Trump derangement syndrome is heavily infecting your brain I would say Milton. See a doctor and take some pills. 

20 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

I know right.  The biggest foreign policy complaint from Democrats at the moment is Trump isn't nuking Russia.

When Trump launched those missiles at Syria was he was finally apparently "presidential" and loved by all of his usual critics. The sheer crazy of that is incredible. 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Ogaden said:

I know right.  The biggest foreign policy complaint from Democrats at the moment is Trump isn't nuking Russia. Uh, not really. It's more the physically assaulting the head of government with NATO membership and continually tries to undermine NATO and its members regarding whether the US can be trusted to honor its place in NATO and its nuclear umbrella for protection.

 

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

First off, if Bush was stupid or not is quite irrelevant in all this Milton. Not really, people didn't like W and that they think Trump is even worse is quite telling Just mean attacks that don't matter. Now on to the second bit... what has Trump done compared to that? Said some mean words? Did an anaemic travel ban? Launched some laughably ineffective missiles at Syria as a distraction? Continually mishandling North Korea and from appearances force a third world war between North Korea and two significant nuclear powers, or three if we include ours. and Bush's actions resulted in death and destruction that continues to this day. To try and put Trump as worse is white washing of the highest order. I've seen Democrats refer to Bush cronies as moral authorities as they ask them to attack Trump. Please. Trump derangement syndrome is heavily infecting your brain I would say Milton. See a doctor and take some pills. That's funny, but I actually think you might seriously benefit from psychiatric evaluation.

When Trump launched those missiles at Syria was he was finally apparently "presidential" and loved by all of his usual critics. The sheer crazy of that is incredible. 

 

[Rozalia]

The push on that Montenegro guy? Seriously? This is something you list when I ask to say comparable things to you know, Bush getting millions of lives destroyed. 

Yet Bush won two terms and Trump if the Democrats continue with this silly business will also win a second. Politics is not a popularity contest. As long as dislike for Trump doesn't stop people voting for him then it is all quite irrelevant. 

Did a single death result from that? A one? That is comparable to American efforts in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Libya? In Syria? He stood up to a little dog that likes to bark to get concessions like food bribes to shut up. The dog promptly backed off when finally stood up to just as I said they would. America is the most powerful country in the world and people think it should be intimidated by North Korea of all countries. Please. 

[ComradeMilton]

11 hours ago, Rozalia said:

The push on that Montenegro guy? Seriously? How would it be handled if the head of Montenegro's government assaulted Trump?  It's just more of his contempt for NATO, undermining trust that the United States will abide and participate in the NATO alliance and that those shielded under the American nuclear umbrella don't see themselves so at risk that proliferation starts growing massively. This is something you list when I ask to say comparable things to you know, Bush getting millions of lives destroyed. 

Yet Bush won two terms Only one election and Trump if the Democrats continue with this silly business will also win a second. Politics is not a popularity contest. That's actually quite literally with a political system structured as the American one is. The Democrats lost the last election rather than following the feelings of Democrats supportive of Bernie. That's easily changed with qualified, slightly leftish candidates with immense popularity like Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, among others. long as dislike for Trump doesn't stop people voting for him then it is all quite irrelevant. 

Did a single death result from that? Occur from what? You're so bad at quoting it's impossible sometimes to even know what you're trying to reference. A one? That is comparable to American efforts in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Libya? In Syria? He stood up to a little dog that likes to bark to get concessions like food bribes to shut up. The dog promptly backed off when finally stood up to just as I said they would. America is the most powerful country in the world and people think it should be intimidated by North Korea of all countries. Please. There's no intimidation. There are tons of ways to contain North Korea without Trump's ridiculously obvious efforts at forcing escalation. We could just go back to competing as to who has the taller flag pole (This is a literal thing done in the past) You ignore the bluster because they always do that; you don't threaten him, you minimize military reasons for them to return the Korean War back into activity. American presidents up until Trump did so quite easily and if Trump actually knew what he was doing it would be his policy.

 

[Rozalia]

??? If the Montenegro guy pushed Trump they'd still be talking about what a hero he is over in America no doubt. Please.

Lol at the Cory Booker mention. Tulsi Gabbard is the strongest candidate on the left. Bernie will be like a billion years old to be running for a first term by 2020 and is despised among those not in the Progressive wing. Elizabeth Warren is shaky but possible I suppose.  

How can I be bad at quoting when I didn't quote in the first place? This combined with the whole "fake quotes" thing really shows you don't understand what a quote is. Did a single death occur from Trump standing up to North Korea is what was asked. As for North Korea, again. America in the past has given food and the likes to placate North Korea. Their barking works on weaklings clearly, but Trump didn't have none of it. What a meany. North Korea will not escalate because they know they'll get stuff again once a Democrat is in office and second that America will be able to clean them up without China getting involved if North Korea makes the first move.