Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal | Page 14 | INFJ Forum

Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal

Donald is actually acting out the way he is to push people in to voting for her....cause he's bought and paid for too

see Hanlon's Razor: Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "never assume bad intentions when assuming stupidity is enough", "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice", and "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It recommends a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for a phenomenon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kgal
The Judicial Watch depositions pertaining to their civil suit on whether or not Clinton's private email sever was set up to foil Freedom of Information Act access to Governmental actions will probably end up being more politically damaging then the threat of indictment.
The judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of United States District Court in Washington, has been sharply critical of the State Department’s handling of the email affair over the last year.
“It just boggles the mind that the State Department allowed this circumstance to arise in the first place,” said Judge Sullivan, who was appointed to the Federal District Court in 1994 by President Clinton.
The judge called the email episode “very, very, very troubling.”
Mr. Lukens, a former ambassador to Senegal, was the leadoff witness in the Judicial Watch depositions. He served as executive director of the State Department’s executive secretariat under Mrs. Clinton until 2011, providing her with logistical, administrative and travel support. Judicial Watch said it was seeking his testimony because records that have already been released indicated that he had emailed Ms. Mills and others about Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

Thomas Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, who took part in Mr. Lukens’s deposition, said afterward that he could not discuss the substance of the testimony because of the ground rules set by Judge Sullivan.
But Mr. Fitton predicted that once the testimony is publicly released – perhaps as early as next week – it would show “why the State Department and Mrs. Clinton have slow-rolled this and withheld a complete explanation of what went on with her email system. What we learned is going to be embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton and the administration – maybe more than embarrassing.”
He refused to elaborate, citing the court’s restrictions.
After the deposition, State Department lawyers invoked a procedure to review Mr. Lukens’s testimony for three days before deciding whether to ask the judge to keep any parts of it confidential for security or legal reasons.
The State Department declined to comment on the deposition.
“As is standard, the State Department does not comment on matters in litigation,” a department spokesman said.
The Clinton campaign had no immediate comment on the deposition, and Mr. Lukens could not be reached for comment.
Pub may 18 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/u...-hillary-clinton-testifies-on-email.html?_r=0
 
see Hanlon's Razor: Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "never assume bad intentions when assuming stupidity is enough", "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice", and "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It recommends a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for a phenomenon

In reference to your signature I dont believe liberals have small minds or are any less intelligent than any other political affiliation. However I do believe they are unrealistic and embrace ideas outside the realm of possibility. They live in an embraced fantasy world in other words.
 
The Judicial Watch depositions pertaining to their civil suit on whether or not Clinton's private email sever was set up to foil Freedom of Information Act access to Governmental actions will probably end up being more politically damaging then the threat of indictment.
Pub may 18 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/u...-hillary-clinton-testifies-on-email.html?_r=0

Thats a lot of "verys". I think that if Clinton was smart, real word smart, she would be hoping to do nothing other than stay out of jail. In her arrogance though I bet she still thinks she has a chance at being President.
 
This is what I think. I think that if the FBI ends up with an air tight case Obama will allow it to move forward. I dont see any reason Obama would have any love of the Clintons other than party affiliation. Now that hes been President, what difference does it make if his own party chastises him for allowing indicment in a slam dunk case? Why should he care?
I think we are seeing history. The jailing of perhaps the highest profile criminal politician America has ever seen and may see. It will be talked about for decades perhaps centuries and Watergate will all but be forgotten other than for Hillarys own role associated with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PintoBean
In reference to your signature I dont believe liberals have small minds or are any less intelligent than any other political affiliation. However I do believe they are unrealistic and embrace ideas outside the realm of possibility. They live in an embraced fantasy world in other words.

I know you probably believe this, as most people on the right, do. They like to tell themselves that they are are the hard nosed realists that promote self sufficiency. There is also a general appeal to the "good ol' days" before entitlements made people stupid/lazy and everyone had to work for whatever they had. Implicit in the watery-eyed nostalgia is the idea that everyone knew their place (minorities and women) and things were just better back then. This at least partially explains the appeal of Trump for some.

What Ms. Bacall was talking about was not closing yourself off to the future and freeing your mind from prejudice or preconceived notions. Prescient advice for these times.
 
I know you probably believe this, as most people on the right, do. They like to tell themselves that they are are the hard nosed realists that promote self sufficiency. There is also a general appeal to the "good ol' days" before entitlements made people stupid/lazy and everyone had to work for whatever they had. Implicit in the watery-eyed nostalgia is the idea that everyone knew their place (minorities and women) and things were just better back then. This at least partially explains the appeal of Trump for some.

What Ms. Bacall was talking about was not closing yourself off to the future and freeing your mind from prejudice or preconceived notions. Prescient advice for these times.

You are accurate on the first part. Personally I believe men are losing their sense of responsibility and duty to family, society, and nation. It is disheartening. I am not sure why you added minorities or women into the mix. Women are left with carrying the burden of todays younger men who are lost. Women know their place in society. It is men who have lost theirs.
 
[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION] I personally believe none of it because I am a leftist. When those on the right talk about being "hard nosed realists" that mean they are against "entitlements" they aren't for or pro anything else for the most part. Poverty and other social problems is for the most part "not my problem", or they content to let churches handle it. Thatcher famously said once there there is no such thing as society. There no such as society until you need to fight a war, repair a road that has so deteriorated its preventing goods from getting to market, or bail out an investment bank that was allowed to get to big to fail.

I would argue that both men and women struggle because there is no preset predetermined path that no one questions. With freedom comes responsibility. For men the preset paradigm of being the sole breadwinner, the sole decision maker in the household, the master of the public space while in the women run the household, no that doesn't work, the exceptions being a tiny minority of zealots (Quiverful, JW etc.) so of course there is a period of social adjustment. The women who were "oppressed" are now free, so yes that might an easier adjustment than the men, who have been a position of relinquishing control. However, I do think that it makes men more human when power is shared. The point about minorities is the same. Its easier for the formerly oppressed to deal with freedom than the former oppressors to relinquish their control. There is always backlash, two steps forward and one step back. Social conservatives are the one step back, and are almost always on the wrong side of history. What happened to those who opposed civil rights for African-Americans? Well they are in the dustbin of history.
 
[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION] I personally believe none of it because I am a leftist. When those on the right talk about being "hard nosed realists" that mean they are against "entitlements" they aren't for or pro anything else for the most part. Poverty and other social problems is for the most part "not my problem", or they content to let churches handle it. Thatcher famously said once there there is no such thing as society. There no such as society until you need to fight a war, repair a road that has so deteriorated its preventing goods from getting to market, or bail out an investment bank that was allowed to get to big to fail.

I would argue that both men and women struggle because there is no preset predetermined path that no one questions. With freedom comes responsibility. For men the preset paradigm of being the sole breadwinner, the sole decision maker in the household, the master of the public space while in the women run the household, no that doesn't work, the exceptions being a tiny minority of zealots (Quiverful, JW etc.) so of course there is a period of social adjustment. The women who were "oppressed" are now free, so yes that might an easier adjustment than the men, who have been a position of relinquishing control. However, I do think that it makes men more human when power is shared. The point about minorities is the same. Its easier for the formerly oppressed to deal with freedom than the former oppressors to relinquish their control. There is always backlash, two steps forward and one step back. Social conservatives are the one step back, and are almost always on the wrong side of history. What happened to those who opposed civil rights for African-Americans? Well they are in the dustbin of history.
Men are oppressed because they are expected to give up their lives and health. Women are oppressed because they make less money and ... well... why????
I mean women have the pants in the house now adays . http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008...at-home-public-mixed-on-gender-roles-in-jobs/
by a LOT.
Women were treated cruelly? Men are more likely to commit suicide and this has risen substantially in recent history.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...ed64f12e7f6f92e00474f6eafde7d8cao0&ajaxhist=0
Male Oppression: Men are over 5 times more likely to die in their occupation than women.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/
They work the riskier and dirtier jobs and this doesn't even include all the chemicals men were exposed to in industry and construction that shortened their life span much further than it should have in comparison to women.

Men are less likely to get help when on the streets than a women. They are less likely to get help from a stranger when in trouble. Male medical groups get less money and less attention than their counterparts (Breast cancer) even though more mend die than women do from these diseases.

women are continually more encouraged to go to advance their education than men and the results show... a little too well. https://www.bing.com/images/search?...a0ec332c24108888a447465fcaec227ao0&ajaxhist=0

Men are also more likely to get harsher and longer punishments for the same crimes as women.

Liberals, conservatives, etc... IDK they are all fucktards and men as a whole are suffering for it. It is Men vs Women and Women vs Men that is fucking killing America. We need Men With Women and Women With Men to fix it.
 
My brother the other day said something profound to me. He said in regard to Hillary, "She has no idea how bad a person she is." And I thought about it. I thought long enough to realize that was a big source of my anger. The idea that a lying, cheating, stealing, thieving person could allow themselves to be that way and not remove themselves from the world was unthinkable to me. But then it makes sense if she doesn't know, if she doesn't realize how bad and sick of a person she is.
She is probably completely oblivious as to why lying is wrong. Its just part of who she is, her foundation. So, I can forgive her. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be stopped but, I can forgive her. I can't forgive though the people that support her. They see what she is and still ...
 
25sa87n.jpg


Woah. Is this really true? 169 Federal Lawsuits?? LOL, omg. That can't be true, must be propaganda... I don't think I can believe that someone who has had such disregard for American law that they have managed to get 169 Federal Lawsuits against them would be interested in running for President??! If this is really true, maybe all 169 lawsuits were all simply filed by some sort of haters? Not sure... mystified, can't really explain or understand this?
 
25sa87n.jpg


Woah. Is this really true? 169 Federal Lawsuits?? LOL, omg. That can't be true, must be propaganda... I don't think I can believe that someone who has had such disregard for American law that they have managed to get 169 Federal Lawsuits against them would be interested in running for President??! If this is really true, maybe all 169 lawsuits were all simply filed by some sort of haters? Not sure... mystified, can't really explain or understand this?

Snooze. Not the same thing.
 
Shhh! He's sleeping. Leave him to his cognitive dissonance.

I am always practicing to try to develop the openness of my mind and to disrupt my inherent sense of personal "rightness", and to develop patience and kindness towards others... and I try to get just a little bit further with those things every day... but it is very slow process though :hug: :hug: :hug:
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
I am always practicing to try to develop the openness of my mind and to disrupt my inherent sense of personal "rightness", and to develop patience and kindness towards others... and I try to get just a little bit further with those things every day... but it is very slow process though :hug: :hug: :hug:
An excellent quality, and just one of the many reasons why I <3 you.
Lovefest!
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisible