Folks here and elsewhere keep saying HRC is extremely corrupt

[bigbird 60,926]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The ball isn't in my court to prove that Hillary gained from being corrupt. If it's your accusation, you have to prove it. 

I agree, do I think she is corrupt? Most likely. Do I think OJ killed Nicole? Most likely.  That said, neither opinions will change a thing and therfore I don't worry about proving it one way or another. When evidence come out one way or another I will consider it and reevaluate my position.

I never attempted to say she was or wasn't, just that no one would be able to prove either way if she was or wasnt.

[bigbird 60,926]

2 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You whip out "OJ is innocent too" for your first post in the thread and now you want to be seen as legitimately skeptical?

Sorry if you took it to mean that I was calling her out..not my intention. I brought that out to show that no matter ones opinion, it would be impossible to prove it in this case, just like in OJ'S. That's why I followed it up with my other post about proving negatives and lack of evidence as opposed to she did this or that.

 

[Auhud08 596]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

So you have no actual evidence of political corruption then. Thank you. If you do, please share.

It is difficult to prove that HRC is politcally corrupt, all the evidence is circumstanstial and biased to say the least- but Texas, what evidence do you have of her integrity? 

Integrity:the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

what about evidence of honesty: the quality of being fair and truthful

was she not removed from the watergate trials for her lack of integrity and honesty. Did she not lie about her trip to Bosnia?

I can't prove shes politically corrupt, maybe someone else here can, but if shes to be our next president i would love to ne convinced that there is some evidence pf the above two qualities  

 

[TexasTiger 14,070]

10 minutes ago, Auhud08 said:

It is difficult to prove that HRC is politcally corrupt, all the evidence is circumstanstial and biased to say the least- but Texas, what evidence do you have of her integrity? 

Integrity:the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

what about evidence of honesty: the quality of being fair and truthful

was she not removed from the watergate trials for her lack of integrity and honesty. Did she not lie about her trip to Bosnia?

I can't prove shes politically corrupt, maybe someone else here can, but if shes to be our next president i would love to ne convinced that there is some evidence pf the above two qualities  

 

No, she was not removed for lack of integrity and honesty. Hating Hillary is a thriving cottage industry. Ironically, you've been lied to, yet you will continue to go back to the dishonest sources that feed what you wish to believe. What does that say about your integrity?

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

 

[Auhud08 596]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

No, she was not removed for lack of integrity and honesty. Hating Hillary is a thriving cottage industry. Ironically, you've been lied to, yet you will continue to go back to the dishonest sources that feed what you wish to believe. What does that say about your integrity?

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

 

That article didnt disprove or prove anything. They referenced a briefing yet never made the briefing available. Im asking the question bc i am open to being convinced, i.e i am currently against Hillary, but perhaps with enough evidence I could be swayed pro-hillary. 

[TexasTiger 14,070]

2 minutes ago, Auhud08 said:

That article didnt disprove or prove anything. They referenced a briefing yet never made the briefing available. Im asking the question bc i am open to being convinced, i.e i am currently against Hillary, but perhaps with enough evidence I could be swayed pro-hillary. 

I'm not really interested in trying to convince someone to be pro-Hillary. You stated something that is demonstrably false as a basis for your belief. You've been fed a steady stream of distortions. Believe what you wish.

[AURaptor 1,137]

34 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

No, she was not removed for lack of integrity and honesty. Hating Hillary is a thriving cottage industry. Ironically, you've been lied to, yet you will continue to go back to the dishonest sources that feed what you wish to believe. What does that say about your integrity?

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

 

That still doens't paint a very flattering picture of Hilliary , whether Zeifman did or didn't fire her. 

 

" If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her " - Jerome Zeifman. 

Sounds like , at best, it's a he said - she said on what 'exactly ' took place, but one doesn't need to read too much between the lines to see that she's corrupt, to her very core. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I'm not really interested in trying to convince someone to be pro-Hillary. You stated something that is demonstrably false as a basis for your belief. You've been fed a steady stream of distortions. Believe what you wish.

If recounting the corruption and trails of investigations the Clintons have left in their wake is a "steady stream of distortions" maybe its you that should possibly open your eyes to the reality of these scumbags. These people embrace such unbecoming entitlement mentalities they literally stole $1000s and $1000s of dollars worth of furnishings from the WH. They intended to keep it but were forced to return most of it and write a check for $86,000 to cover the rest. Their sleeze virtually turned the WH into an Arkansas double wide. I know you worship these frauds and that's just a sad commentary on the state of American politics. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

3 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

That still doens't paint a very flattering picture of Hilliary , whether Zeifman did or didn't fire her. 

 

" If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her " - Jerome Zeifman. 

Sounds like , at best, it's a he said - she said on what 'exactly ' took place, but one doesn't need to read too much between the lines to see that she's corrupt, to her very core. 

She withheld evidence and had she actually presented her brief she would probably have been disbarred for unethical conduct. She's never had much use for ethics. She and her entire staff refused to take the required Course in Ethics when she became SoS.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

That still doens't paint a very flattering picture of Hilliary , whether Zeifman did or didn't fire her. 

 

" If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her " - Jerome Zeifman. 

Sounds like , at best, it's a he said - she said on what 'exactly ' took place, but one doesn't need to read too much between the lines to see that she's corrupt, to her very core. 

I know you don't work, but in organizations including governmental functions like that investigation it's pretty common for folks to have differing agendas and views of staff. Her supervisor disagreed.

[TheBlueVue 177]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I know you don't work, but in organizations including governmental functions like that investigation it's pretty common for folks to have differing agendas and views of staff. Her supervisor disagreed.

YES he did because he knew what she was doing was HIGHLY unethcal. She was going to present a brief trying to persuade the court that Nixon did not deserve and was not entitled to have legal representation.

[AURaptor 1,137]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I know you don't work, but in organizations including governmental functions like that investigation it's pretty common for folks to have differing agendas and views of staff. Her supervisor disagreed.

 

Shows you don't know anything. If Hillary lied then, she's lied ever since then, and continues to lie, how much a stretch is it to come to the clear conclusion that she's a liar and utterly corrupt ? None. Because she is. 

[Grumps 3,706]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Putting your opinion in italics with a green background does not make them true.

And I though we had gotten rid of you a long time ago.  Why are you back?  Did your wounds heal or something?

Do you LIKE being the way that you are? Is it really fun for you to treat people that way?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

14 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

She withheld evidence and had she actually presented her brief she would probably have been disbarred for unethical conduct. She's never had much use for ethics. She and her entire staff refused to take the required Course in Ethics when she became SoS.

You just make stuff up. You didn't read the snopes link or can't process facts.

[homersapien 12,172]

4 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Do you LIKE being the way that you are? Is it really fun for you to treat people that way?

Sorry, you need to explain what you are talking about.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

11 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

YES he did because he knew what she was doing was HIGHLY unethcal. She was going to present a brief trying to persuade the court that Nixon did not deserve and was not entitled to have legal representation.

She was a low level attorney assigned the task of drafting a brief making the legal argument that one is not entitled to counsel during a congressional EVIDENTIARY hearing. It's not unethical to make a legal argument. The Court either is persuaded or isn't. You don't understand the arena you're making such bold statements in.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

8 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 

Shows you don't know anything. If Hillary lied then, she's lied ever since then, and continues to lie, how much a stretch is it to come to the clear conclusion that she's a liar and utterly corrupt ? None. Because she is. 

Anyone who ever lied is politically corrupt. Okay, flat earth Bob.

[Grumps 3,706]

Just now, homersapien said:

Sorry, you need to explain what you are talking about.

I don't really think I need to. But thanks for your input about what I need. Eventually, this forum will consist only of people who think like you do and then you can be happy and treat people with respect.

[AURaptor 1,137]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, you need to explain what you are talking about.

^ Homer seems to say this often. He really does need to have things explained to him 

[TheBlueVue 177]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

She was a low level attorney assigned the task of drafting a brief making the legal argument that one is not entitled to counsel during a congressional EVIDENTIARY hearing. It's not unethical to make a legal argument. The Court either is persuaded or isn't. You don't understand the arena you're making such bold statements in.

She drafted a brief that was HIGHLY unethical by its very nature because she was actually withholding the case precedent that proved her wrong before she began. She never presented the brief because Nixon resigned.If she had, her career as an attorney very possibly would have been shortened significantly

[homersapien 12,172]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't really think I need to. But thanks for your input about what I need. Eventually, this forum will consist only of people who think like you do and then you can be happy and treat people with respect.

Apparently you don't remember ET.

I do.  He deserves no more respect than Blue or Raptor.  Just wait and see.

But to your point, I would love to see several posters leave this forum for good. We'd be better off without them.  

[homersapien 12,172]

4 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

^ Homer seems to say this often. He really does need to have things explained to him 

Unfortunately, there are a lot of passive-aggressive, weasely posts made on this forum.  I prefer to ask for clarification before making assumptions.

[AURaptor 1,137]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Apparently you don't remember ET.

I do.  He deserves no more respect than Blue or Raptor.  Just wait and see.

Huh ? What the frak is THAT suppose to mean ?  Is that some sort of a threat ?  

[homersapien 12,172]

5 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Huh ? What the frak is THAT suppose to mean ?  Is that some sort of a threat ?  

Just like you, he will expose himself.  Just a prediction based on his history.

[AURaptor 1,137]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Just like you, he will expose himself.  Just a prediction based on his history.

Exposed ? What in the hell is that suppose to mean?  Oh, your false accusations that I'm a liar, racist and such ?  Pure b.s. the Leftist crowd loves to invent so they don't have to engage in intellectually honest discussions or defend their indefensible nonsense. 

If you have something to say, man up and don't be a coward. You think you have something on me, then out w/ it. Or STFU already.