Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

Search

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens





JOURNALISTS HOLD TOM BRADY TO HIGHER STANDARD THAN HILLARY CLINTON



Brady-Hillary-640x480.jpg
AP

by DANIEL J. FLYNN7 May 2015389

The transparency standards for an NFL quarterback rising higher than for the Secretary of State surely speaks to the bread-and-circuses quality of 2015 America.

We expect more from our gridiron heroes than from our nation’s leaders. Perhaps the tizzy over Tom serves as a tacit admission that we also expect more responsiveness to public opinion from 345 Park Ave. than from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
No law decrees that a quarterback must turn over his texts and emails to the NFL the way that the Federal Records Act demands that the Secretary of State turn over correspondence to the government. Yet the failure of the four-time Super Bowl winner to share his iPhones, computers, and other gadgets and gizmos with NFL investigator Ted Wells sends the Fourth Estate into a frenzy.
The Wells Report notes that “although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation.”
“If he had nothing to hide, then why not give Wells and his investigative team access to records that might help resolve the issue?” reacts a Newsday writer. “The fact that Brady would not surrender texts, phone records or emails suggests that there was plenty to hide.” If only Newsday’s reporters, op-ed writers, and editorial board applied the logic to the former Secretary of State.
The Wells Report validated Brady’s caution by publicizing salacious private emails extraneous to their investigation. What purpose, other than to embarrass him publicly and harm him professionally, did Ted Wells release emails between John Jastremski and his mother suggesting that the Patriots employee absconded with a ball of historic import earlier in the season as ownership believed it possessed the genuine article? “Funny…go to patriots.com,” Jastremski tells his mom. “They have an article about the 50,000 yard ball…if they only knew :).”
If Wells would use his investigative powers to attaint a low-pay, anonymous Pats employee, in what punitive ways would he have employed his findings to shame the NFL’s most famous player?
Surely that’s a fear of Hillary Clinton. Just as it’s “more probable than not” that Ted Wells doesn’t have Tom Brady’s best interests in mind, it’s “more probable than not” that
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
87%





, or too many other Republicans for that matter, care too much for the presumptive Democratic nominee. The difference here involves the distinction between private citizen and public official, of which the U.S. government, in its invasive searches of citizen emails but zealous protection of such correspondence from IRS officials and the Secretary of State, shows a bassackwards understanding. Public material shall remain private and private material shall be made public.If a private citizen doesn’t turn over his iPhone, he can’t play in the home opener. But if a public servant destroys thousands communiques during her tenure as leader of an old-line cabinet department, it acts as no disqualifier for presidential ambitions.
Perhaps the citizenry’s impotence to hold government officials accountable results in a zeal to force details out of celebrities and jocks. A parallel exists between double standards for #12 and the woman who would be #45, on the one hand, and the public’s outrage over the NFL’s initial weak punishment of Ray Rice and the public’s muted response to the non-existent punishment meted out by the courts to the star running back. The state of New Jersey threw the pillow at Ray Rice after he threw a right at his fiancée. Strangely, public anger centered not on the dereliction of duty by the criminal justice system but in the failure of the commissioner of the NFL to behave as though he wears a black robe.
America lacks control over its government. Taking out frustrations on the NFL appears not only as catharsis, but as a glaring form of displacement.



 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
22,594
Tokens
Hillary's Candidacy is almost a month old and she has done zero interviews.

Has that ever happened before in the modern TV era? I mean, she is so smart and accomplished​ why won't she go and take media questions?
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
State Department will not review Clinton ethics pledge breaches

By Jonathan Allen13 hours ago



.
View photo
Clinton Foundation iPad covers are seen for sale at the Clinton Museum Store in Little Rock, Arkansas, …



By Jonathan Allen



(Reuters) - The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family's charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.
Clinton, now the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat.
She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations.
In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.
The State Department "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, but does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.
"The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton's tenure," Rathke told reporters.
The broken ethics agreement has made it harder for Clinton to deflect accusations in recent weeks that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns can instead curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name.
The charities accepted new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria.
The governments of Australia and the United Kingdom, which were already funding projects at the time Clinton signed her ethics agreement, increased their funding by millions of dollars during this period.
The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations. In two instances, the charities said this was the result of "oversights"; for the other six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.
The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated list omitted donors to the foundation's flagship health initiative.
Rathke, the State Department spokesman, said the department was not aware of donations having an undue influence on U.S. foreign policy. When reporters asked how the department could know this without reviewing the belated disclosures, he declined to comment further.
(Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Leslie Adler)


(from the above)
When reporters asked how the department could know this without reviewing the belated disclosures, he declined to comment further.

Comment so when something is reported as needing an investigation the timing of when the possible irregularities occurred is not relevant. Liberal thinking all the way. The ends justify the means.


Our ruling
Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation "took money from from foreign governments while (Hillary Clinton) was secretary of state. It is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."
A clause in the Constitution does prohibit U.S. officials such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from receiving gifts, or emoluments, from foreign governments. But the gifts in this case were donations from foreign governments that went to the Clinton Foundation, not Hillary Clinton. She was not part of the foundation her husband founded while she was secretary of state.
Does that violate the Constitution?
Some libertarian-minded constitutional law experts say it very well could. Others are skeptical. What’s clear is there is room for ambiguity, and the donations are anything but "clearly illegal." The reality is this a hazy part of U.S. constitutional law.
Gingrich’s statement rate Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ingrich-clinton-foreign-donations-clearly-vi/

Mostly False??? Color me surprised.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Our ruling
Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation "took money from from foreign governments while (Hillary Clinton) was secretary of state. It is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."
A clause in the Constitution does prohibit U.S. officials such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from receiving gifts, or emoluments, from foreign governments. But the gifts in this case were donations from foreign governments that went to the Clinton Foundation, not Hillary Clinton. She was not part of the foundation her husband founded while she was secretary of state.
Does that violate the Constitution?
Some libertarian-minded constitutional law experts say it very well could. Others are skeptical. What’s clear is there is room for ambiguity, and the donations are anything but "clearly illegal." The reality is this a hazy part of U.S. constitutional law.
Gingrich’s statement rate Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ingrich-clinton-foreign-donations-clearly-vi/

Mostly False??? Color me surprised.
Lol. Same shit just a different year. They just keep making claims that get proven false. Don't know when these idiots are gonna learn.

The dot connector strikes again !!
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Lol. Same shit just a different year. They just keep making claims that get proven false. Don't know when these idiots are gonna learn.

The dot connector strikes again !!

Hahaha, yea... usually I don't read much of what Russ spams but when I do it honestly takes like 2 minutes to find something that completely debunks it. They are completely detached from the real world. But they provide some serious free entertainment, so can't complain.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Lol. Same shit just a different year. They just keep making claims that get proven false. Don't know when these idiots are gonna learn.

The dot connector strikes again !!

My favorite with these conservative jokers though is they have baseless accusations and then demand others hand over all their personal information so they can try to find something they did wrong. And when they refuse to hand over the information for their witch hunts they use that as evidence they are hiding something. It's hilarious. It's like "I really hate you, I'm going to try to do everything I can to accuse you of being a criminal, please hand over all your personal documents so I can get started! Thanks"
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
My favorite with these conservative jokers though is they have baseless accusations and then demand others hand over all their personal information so they can try to find something they did wrong. And when they refuse to hand over the information for their witch hunts they use that as evidence they are hiding something. It's hilarious. It's like "I really hate you, I'm going to try to do everything I can to accuse you of being a criminal, please hand over all your personal documents so I can get started! Thanks"
Lmao. Zit posted the same Brady/Hillary article in main forum. All these guys subscribe to the same spam bullshit....then it's like a retard race on who can post it first. All running to the finish line in helmets and drool. Doooooyyyyyyyyy !!! Here we come!!!! I win!!!
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
The fact Russ thinks that Brady/Hillary article has any relevance whatsoever to the real world is hilarious. They literally do live in these little Internet bubbles. It's crazy. I try to worry about how things work in the real world. These Hillary accusations have no legs just like all the baseless Obama accusations that failed every step of the way. I just can't wait for all the Benghazi crap to get brought back up for Hillary, lol. Going to be classic bumpable threads coming up here in the near future.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
The fact Russ thinks that Brady/Hillary article has any relevance whatsoever to the real world is hilarious. They literally do live in these little Internet bubbles. It's crazy. I try to worry about how things work in the real world. These Hillary accusations have no legs just like all the baseless Obama accusations that failed every step of the way. I just can't wait for all the Benghazi crap to get brought back up for Hillary, lol. Going to be classic bumpable threads coming up here in the near future.
Russ spends all day scratching his head wondering why people " don't get it" meanwhile the normal world is wondering if he will ever get it. Too bad Russ is in his 70's so he can't grasp how fucked up he is because he's been a zombie sheep his entire life. Poor guy just doesn't know any better.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,449
Tokens
If I had to choose between

Hillary Clinton vs Any Other Democrat

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would get my vote.

She has had so many scandals following her, her whole career. There is just to much smoke around her to think that there isn't some fire.

Also she is one of the most out of touch people running the past few elections, that it is hard to take anything she says seriously.

#ImWithBen
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,449
Tokens
If a baseball player slides into home plate and, right before the umpire rules if he is safe or out, the player says to the umpire - 'Here is $1,000.' What would we call that? We would call that a bribe.

If a lawyer was arguing a case before a judge and said, 'Your honor before you decide on the guilt or innocence of my client, here is $1,000.' What would we call that? We would call that a bribe.

But if an industry lobbyist walks into the office of a key legislator and hands her or him a check for $1,000, we call that a campaign contribution.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
If I had to choose between

Hillary Clinton vs Any Other Democrat

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would get my vote.

She has had so many scandals following her, her whole career. There is just to much smoke around her to think that there isn't some fire.

Also she is one of the most out of touch people running the past few elections, that it is hard to take anything she says seriously.

#ImWithBen

If she did something illegal, the billions of dollars spent to find that the past decade, would have found it. She'll be fine. I rather have a different Dem for another reason. Definitely not because of these ridiculous conservative "scandals".
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,449
Tokens
Hillary is just a power hungry person, who doesn't care who she hurts or lies to, to get what she wants.

She isn't at all my type of person

#ImWithBen
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
86,511
Tokens
the whole concept is an oxymoron boys

them there dots don't be connecting, never have, never will

and what difference does it make?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
86,511
Tokens



JOURNALISTS HOLD TOM BRADY TO HIGHER STANDARD THAN HILLARY CLINTON



Brady-Hillary-640x480.jpg
AP

by DANIEL J. FLYNN7 May 2015389

The transparency standards for an NFL quarterback rising higher than for the Secretary of State surely speaks to the bread-and-circuses quality of 2015 America.

We expect more from our gridiron heroes than from our nation’s leaders. Perhaps the tizzy over Tom serves as a tacit admission that we also expect more responsiveness to public opinion from 345 Park Ave. than from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
No law decrees that a quarterback must turn over his texts and emails to the NFL the way that the Federal Records Act demands that the Secretary of State turn over correspondence to the government. Yet the failure of the four-time Super Bowl winner to share his iPhones, computers, and other gadgets and gizmos with NFL investigator Ted Wells sends the Fourth Estate into a frenzy.
The Wells Report notes that “although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation.”
“If he had nothing to hide, then why not give Wells and his investigative team access to records that might help resolve the issue?” reacts a Newsday writer. “The fact that Brady would not surrender texts, phone records or emails suggests that there was plenty to hide.” If only Newsday’s reporters, op-ed writers, and editorial board applied the logic to the former Secretary of State.
The Wells Report validated Brady’s caution by publicizing salacious private emails extraneous to their investigation. What purpose, other than to embarrass him publicly and harm him professionally, did Ted Wells release emails between John Jastremski and his mother suggesting that the Patriots employee absconded with a ball of historic import earlier in the season as ownership believed it possessed the genuine article? “Funny…go to patriots.com,” Jastremski tells his mom. “They have an article about the 50,000 yard ball…if they only knew :).”
If Wells would use his investigative powers to attaint a low-pay, anonymous Pats employee, in what punitive ways would he have employed his findings to shame the NFL’s most famous player?
Surely that’s a fear of Hillary Clinton. Just as it’s “more probable than not” that Ted Wells doesn’t have Tom Brady’s best interests in mind, it’s “more probable than not” that
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
87%





, or too many other Republicans for that matter, care too much for the presumptive Democratic nominee. The difference here involves the distinction between private citizen and public official, of which the U.S. government, in its invasive searches of citizen emails but zealous protection of such correspondence from IRS officials and the Secretary of State, shows a bassackwards understanding. Public material shall remain private and private material shall be made public.If a private citizen doesn’t turn over his iPhone, he can’t play in the home opener. But if a public servant destroys thousands communiques during her tenure as leader of an old-line cabinet department, it acts as no disqualifier for presidential ambitions.
Perhaps the citizenry’s impotence to hold government officials accountable results in a zeal to force details out of celebrities and jocks. A parallel exists between double standards for #12 and the woman who would be #45, on the one hand, and the public’s outrage over the NFL’s initial weak punishment of Ray Rice and the public’s muted response to the non-existent punishment meted out by the courts to the star running back. The state of New Jersey threw the pillow at Ray Rice after he threw a right at his fiancée. Strangely, public anger centered not on the dereliction of duty by the criminal justice system but in the failure of the commissioner of the NFL to behave as though he wears a black robe.
America lacks control over its government. Taking out frustrations on the NFL appears not only as catharsis, but as a glaring form of displacement.




God is great, beer is good, and people are morons
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
the whole concept is an oxymoron boys

them there dots don't be connecting, never have, never will

and what difference does it make?

The irony of you guys using that Hillary quote is priceless! Honestly, what difference does it make? While you guys spend your lives trying to find ways to attack people that don't think like you, the rest of us are trying to figure out ways to solve problems in the real world. Great quote when it comes to conservatives.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
The irony of you guys using that Hillary quote is priceless! Honestly, what difference does it make? While you guys spend your lives trying to find ways to attack people that don't think like you, the rest of us are trying to figure out ways to solve problems in the real world. Great quote when it comes to conservatives.

If that’s the case then we’re all doomed!
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
If that’s the case then we’re all doomed!

Dave, you know me to be a very intelligent man. Do you really think you should be judging who should be making the decisions? I realize I'm putting you in a difficult spot here because if you say "yes", that just reiterates how crazy you actually are. If you say "no", then you are pretty much admitting you realize that you are... a lunatic. You have 2 hours.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,115,337
Messages
13,523,470
Members
100,262
Latest member
mensaextc
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com