Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal | Page 15 | INFJ Forum

Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal

[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] - thought you might enjoy watching the video below (the youtube comments alone is just incredibly hilarious). Enjoy :)

[video=youtube;sPHukc36KLU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPHukc36KLU[/video]
 
How can there be a 30 minute video someone has made of just purely themselves talking about the FBI report on these activities? 30 minutes... purely ranting. If a friend of yours talked at your face for 30 minutes about the FBI report on these activities, would you find that entirely "normal"?

How can someone talk and talk and talk about Clinton's character as a liar and thief and whatever, to the point of rejecting the outcome of an FBI investigation, and to the point of being filled with anger at the thought of other people who do not have the same interest in ferreting out and discussing over and over again these evil facets of Clinton's character. And yet when it comes up in discussion that Trump has had 169 federal lawsuits filed against him, the response is of pure apathy: "Snooze". How can there be such an extreme interest in what an evil person Clinton is... but just simply ZERO interest in what this vast number of lawsuits is about?

It's like an attitude like no... that is completely different... we can talk endlessly and endlessly about this email activity... but 169 Federal lawsuits against a presidential candidate, what they are about, who filed them against him, and what it means for his potential as a candidate... just no interest whatsoever in discussing that at all?

Like... just curious here... what is it even like to exist in the world with that many Federal lawsuits against you? Do you sit down with your legal team over coffee and they're like "Oh, you know, dossier number 125..." and you're like "Um, which one is that again?" IDK... how do you even remember what all of those lawsuits are about? Like, getting another one, it doesn't even matter to you anymore, because you can't keep track of them all anyway. You get in the shower in the morning and you're like "OK, I've got to make a business decision... it may mean another Federal lawsuit... but who cares? I've got more than I can remember anyway!"
 
invisible said:
How can there be a 30 minute video someone has made of just purely themselves talking about the FBI report on these activities? 30 minutes... purely ranting. If a friend of yours talked at your face for 30 minutes about the FBI report on these activities, would you find that entirely "normal"?

How can someone talk and talk and talk about Clinton's character as a liar and thief and whatever, to the point of rejecting the outcome of an FBI investigation, and to the point of being filled with anger at the thought of other people who do not have the same interest in ferreting out and discussing over and over again these evil facets of Clinton's character. And yet when it comes up in discussion that Trump has had 169 federal lawsuits filed against him, the response is of pure apathy: "Snooze". How can there be such an extreme interest in what an evil person Clinton is... but just simply ZERO interest in what this vast number of lawsuits is about?

It's like an attitude like no... that is completely different... we can talk endlessly and endlessly about this email activity... but 169 Federal lawsuits against a presidential candidate, what they are about, who filed them against him, and what it means for his potential as a candidate... just no interest whatsoever in discussing that at all?

Like... just curious here... what is it even like to exist in the world with that many Federal lawsuits against you? Do you sit down with your legal team over coffee and they're like "Oh, you know, dossier number 125..." and you're like "Um, which one is that again?" IDK... how do you even remember what all of those lawsuits are about? Like, getting another one, it doesn't even matter to you anymore, because you can't keep track of them all anyway. You get in the shower in the morning and you're like "OK, I've got to make a business decision... it may mean another Federal lawsuit... but who cares? I've got more than I can remember anyway!"
Click to expand...

I think he's had way more than 169 lawsuits filed against him. I think people actually expect this of him. Well, there's over 3000 but I guess only 169 federal. Who knows. I would have to read them all to see whether or not they're relevant. If they're filed against him as a person that's a problem. If they're filed against his corporation then he's technically considered separate from that I believe.
 
SpecialEdition said:
I think he's had way more than 169 lawsuits filed against him. I think people actually expect this of him. Well, there's over 3000 but I guess only 169 federal. Who knows. I would have to read them all to see whether or not they're relevant. If they're filed against him as a person that's a problem. If they're filed against his corporation then he's technically considered separate from that I believe.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess that is technically the case, but it seems as though the idea of his suitability for this political role is largely being drawn from his business activities. So like if it's a corporation with his name on it but he can't be responsible for it, would he be different as leader for the US? Well I don't really know. But I am just really struck by the difference of approach. I mean there is a whole thread here about what seems to be a single federal investigation against Clinton, in which we are talking about she is this, she is that, type of person, as these events show. Where's the thread about the 169 cases of federal proceedings that Trump is inextricably bound up in?
 
Like you go from "Clinton is a liar and a thief and her exoneration in this single case means that America is rotten inside!" to "169 federal lawsuits? Snooze. Completely different." Doesn't seem to balance the scales properly?
 
And I guess... I am so intensely confused by the character scrutiny and analysis!!! Like this thread started when?

Like America is facing an absolute super super serious problem with gun violence, particularly against people of all sorts of diversities. But people are not wanting to discuss policy approaches related to correlations between healthcare access or tertiary education level achieved and fatal firearm victimisations... they are wanting to discuss whether Clinton is a liar or whether Trump really loves America??

WTF?????
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: acd
invisible said:
Like you go from "Clinton is a liar and a thief and her exoneration in this single case means that America is rotten inside!" to "169 federal lawsuits? Snooze. Completely different." Doesn't seem to balance the scales properly?
Click to expand...

They're kinda fucked up down there.

I think the problem with Clinton is that this single lawsuit is an umbrella for a whole host of other things that are shady and make people very uncomfortable.

Trump is kind of just involved in this lawsuits that aren't really... substantial. Reading up on some of them, they're ones that he or his company have filed. The 3500 are over the course of 30 years and from what I see so far (not that I have read every single one) they're not really related to his ability to run the country. The Obama administration has had over 2000 lawsuits and that's just over 8 years. I guess when you look at the average Trump wins. Apparently he uses lawsuits as negotiating tools and that is why he/his company has filed so many. Apparently this number of lawsuits is below average for a company that is the size of his. I guess it's just unprecedented for a presidential candidate. So for that reason I don't know that a comparison can be drawn between an FBI investigation into Clinton who was already in Government as Secretary of State and someone who just happens to own a massive and successful business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sassafras and acd
In other words, even if Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or Syrian spies had hacked into Clinton’s email servers, and if they’d pored through 60,000 emails and come across these eight chains that held top secret material, they would not have learned anything the slightest bit new or worthy of their efforts. The FBI’s discoveries should be viewed in that context.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...07/hillary_s_email_scandal_was_overhyped.html

The truth about the overhyped e-mail scandal
 
So for that reason I don't know that a comparison can be drawn between an FBI investigation into Clinton who was already in Government as Secretary of State and someone who just happens to own a massive and successful business
Click to expand...

A successful business? This really has be challenged at this point. Trump's returns are less even than those of an ordinary investor saving for retirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/

"Citing an independent evaluation, Business Week put Trump's net worth at $100 million in 1978. Had Trump gotten out of real estate entirely, put his money in an index fund based on the S&P 500 and reinvested the dividends, he'd be worth twice as much -- $6 billion -- today,.."

How "successful" has Trump actually been?
 
I think that Trump is very good at creating the *illusion* of success, with his recognizable name, branding everywhere, nice buildings, etc.

People see all his brand and think success, not seeing each venture crumble later on.


brightmoon said:
A successful business? This really has be challenged at this point. Trump's returns are less even than those of an ordinary investor saving for retirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/

"Citing an independent evaluation, Business Week put Trump's net worth at $100 million in 1978. Had Trump gotten out of real estate entirely, put his money in an index fund based on the S&P 500 and reinvested the dividends, he'd be worth twice as much -- $6 billion -- today,.."

How "successful" has Trump actually been?
Click to expand...
 
brightmoon said:
A successful business? This really has be challenged at this point. Trump's returns are less even than those of an ordinary investor saving for retirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/

"Citing an independent evaluation, Business Week put Trump's net worth at $100 million in 1978. Had Trump gotten out of real estate entirely, put his money in an index fund based on the S&P 500 and reinvested the dividends, he'd be worth twice as much -- $6 billion -- today,.."

How "successful" has Trump actually been?
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition.
 
Depends on your definition.
Click to expand...

My definition of success in business includes taking the money you have inherited and making more wealth out of it than an ordinary person who would just decide to invest that money in mutual funds.
 
Last edited:
SpecialEdition said:
They're kinda fucked up down there.

I think the problem with Clinton is that this single lawsuit is an umbrella for a whole host of other things that are shady and make people very uncomfortable.

Trump is kind of just involved in this lawsuits that aren't really... substantial. Reading up on some of them, they're ones that he or his company have filed. The 3500 are over the course of 30 years and from what I see so far (not that I have read every single one) they're not really related to his ability to run the country. The Obama administration has had over 2000 lawsuits and that's just over 8 years. I guess when you look at the average Trump wins. Apparently he uses lawsuits as negotiating tools and that is why he/his company has filed so many. Apparently this number of lawsuits is below average for a company that is the size of his. I guess it's just unprecedented for a presidential candidate. So for that reason I don't know that a comparison can be drawn between an FBI investigation into Clinton who was already in Government as Secretary of State and someone who just happens to own a massive and successful business.
Click to expand...

But Special, how can you even say that it is even possible that a federal level lawsuit can be insubstantial or can be meaningfully averaged with 168 others or can be described as an appropriate or useful "negotiation" tool? It is appropriate to analyse a single federal investigation regarding Clinton as saying all sorts of things about her person and her ability to lead, but not appropriate to draw any conclusions from Trump's involvement in 169 federal lawsuits? OK. I am just feeling very lost and unsophisticated here
 
invisible said:
But Special, how can you even say that it is even possible that a federal level lawsuit can be insubstantial or can be meaningfully averaged with 168 others or can be described as an appropriate or useful "negotiation" tool? It is appropriate to analyse a single federal investigation regarding Clinton as saying all sorts of things about her person and her ability to lead, but not appropriate to draw any conclusions from Trump's involvement in 169 federal lawsuits? OK. I am just feeling very lost and unsophisticated here
Click to expand...

There is a very large grey area with many different shades in this kind of thing. I think the problem most people are going to run into when comparing is that most lawsuits he is involved in are business related and is pretty much the standard for any big business. Hilary does not have a corporation to hide behind. She took some pretty deliberate actions as a human being while being in a high position within the government and was sloppy and dismissive about it. She doesn't seem to think she's done anything all that bad. Trump seems to be proud of his lawsuits and says that he is using them as a tool to essentially get what he wants business wise. I can understand that.

Now, I don't really have a personal opinion about Trump and I don't have much feeling towards Hilary either but I can see how many people would get hell bent on her complete disregard for security measures that were in place as she's demonstrated that even having this long political history and even being part of the government she doesn't give a shit about security and feels entitled to her private servers, blah blah. She also doesn't seem to upset that she destroyed a lot of those emails, too. On the other hand, you have Trump who up until this race has predominantly operated as a businessman who basically tries to take down everyone in his path. I think people like that he's so cut and dry. I think that both individuals are entitled and represent two very different sides of a very singular coin. You can either get someone in lawsuits and being bold and blazen about it because they know they're using it to their advantage, OR you can get someone involved in lawsuits and investigations because they're doing things they already know they shouldn't and are abusing their position.

Would Trump change after getting into office? Would the lawsuits stop or would he still have a couple thousand of them like Obama? Hard to say.
 
rawr said:
thank you for this insightful post. Really just adds quality to the thread :)
Click to expand...

At some point you realize argument is useless. That no fact, truth or any other related item will have an effect.
Briefly, I dont know if Trump has 169 federal lawsuits aimed at him or not. I do know that none of them are about handling of classified information. ..National secrets that are secrets for a reason.
 
rawr said:
I think that Trump is very good at creating the *illusion* of success, with his recognizable name, branding everywhere, nice buildings, etc.

People see all his brand and think success, not seeing each venture crumble later on.
Click to expand...

He turned a smaller amount of money into a much larger amount. No matter how you cut it, its a success story.
 
SpecialEdition said:
There is a very large grey area with many different shades in this kind of thing. I think the problem most people are going to run into when comparing is that most lawsuits he is involved in are business related and is pretty much the standard for any big business. Hilary does not have a corporation to hide behind. She took some pretty deliberate actions as a human being while being in a high position within the government and was sloppy and dismissive about it. She doesn't seem to think she's done anything all that bad. Trump seems to be proud of his lawsuits and says that he is using them as a tool to essentially get what he wants business wise. I can understand that.

Now, I don't really have a personal opinion about Trump and I don't have much feeling towards Hilary either but I can see how many people would get hell bent on her complete disregard for security measures that were in place as she's demonstrated that even having this long political history and even being part of the government she doesn't give a shit about security and feels entitled to her private servers, blah blah. She also doesn't seem to upset that she destroyed a lot of those emails, too. On the other hand, you have Trump who up until this race has predominantly operated as a businessman who basically tries to take down everyone in his path. I think people like that he's so cut and dry. I think that both individuals are entitled and represent two very different sides of a very singular coin. You can either get someone in lawsuits and being bold and blazen about it because they know they're using it to their advantage, OR you can get someone involved in lawsuits and investigations because they're doing things they already know they shouldn't and are abusing their position.

Would Trump change after getting into office? Would the lawsuits stop or would he still have a couple thousand of them like Obama? Hard to say.
Click to expand...

For me, yeah, this is a huge grey area, and the idea that it is in any way cut and dried is an illusion. There is a person who has been involved in 169 affairs that are questionable in American law, which is the field in which this person applies to represent, and so this is directly relevant. For example, it appears that the person did not pay labour fees that were contracted to American people, and refuses to pay those fees that were contracted. Clinton has been called a thief on this thread, but how is refusing to pay labour prices that had been agreed upon something other than theft? Is that not abuse of position? More importantly, why is there no discussion of whether it is or not?

Why does a single suit legitimately represent an umbrella for a range of crucial concerns, but 169 suits represents no concern at all? This is a person who seeks to enter politics on the strength of a business acumen; why then the studious resistance to examine the business history?

When I see these lawsuits regarding labour theft, what my thought is, is that "This person's commitment to established American fair labour law and to individual and collective American people and workers is questionable." For other people, as you will see in recent responses to this thread, "These lawsuits are categorically insubstantial or qualitatively separate from the politics of this person", or even "I don't care about those lawsuits and I am not interested in finding out about them, because no one can possibly be as wicked as Clinton."

Why the vast chasm of interest between the single federal lawsuit that has now been exonerated through long established legal practice and reported on by a highly educated and experienced spokesperson... against the 169 federal lawsuits of which many are outstanding?

I don't think I can grasp the significance of the entirely different standards here. Honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back