(04-22-2015 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not being able to prove Romney didn't pay his taxes didn't stop Reid from claiming it repeatedly.

So. Reid was wrong to do so. How does that justify assuming facts not in existence here?

I just don't remember the uproar when Reid made hs comments that all.

(04-22-2015 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not being able to prove Romney didn't pay his taxes didn't stop Reid from claiming it repeatedly.

This thread is about the author of the book.

Okay, and the fact he can't prove what he said. Neither could Reid, but I don't recall any uproar over those unproven comments.

Quid pro quo is very difficult to prove. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

(04-22-2015 06:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Quid pro quo is very difficult to prove. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

You're wasting your time.

That's not proof it's a duck.

(04-22-2015 07:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 06:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Quid pro quo is very difficult to prove. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

You're wasting your time.

That's not proof it's a duck.

Right. The human brain would be able to determine that without a DNA test.

(04-22-2015 10:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash reportedly does not prove its speculative attacks on the Clintons and even relies on a hoax press release to support a claim, according to ThinkProgress.

Clinton Cash will be released on May 5, and media reports have already hyped the book's supposed revelations about connections between Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, donations to the Clinton Foundation, and paid speeches given by the Clintons.

According to ThinkProgress, which obtained an advance copy of the book, "Schweizer makes clear that he does not intend to present a smoking gun":

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/...not/203361

Maybe we should as the Dishonorable Harry Reid if it's okay to spout unsupported accusations about a candidate for POTUS. He seems to have set the bar for future elections.

(04-22-2015 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not being able to prove Romney didn't pay his taxes didn't stop Reid from claiming it repeatedly.

This thread is about the author of the book.

Okay, and the fact he can't prove what he said. Neither could Reid, but I don't recall any uproar over those unproven comments.

Uproar? What uproar?

Half a million dollars for a speech? Seems legit! lol

(04-23-2015 12:20 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Half a million dollars for a speech? Seems legit! lol

She's on a very very short list of living first ladies. Of course she should get 500k to speak.

We should be outraged if she got any less.

(04-23-2015 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:20 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Half a million dollars for a speech? Seems legit! lol

She's on a very very short list of living first ladies. Of course she should get 500k to speak.

We should be outraged if she got any less.

lol, now you are just talking nonsense. She isn't the one that got paid.

NYT and Reuters are staunch conservative outlets



The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.
The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.
The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”
And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

(04-23-2015 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:20 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Half a million dollars for a speech? Seems legit! lol

She's on a very very short list of living first ladies. Of course she should get 500k to speak.

We should be outraged if she got any less.

lol, now you are just talking nonsense. She isn't the one that got paid.

Then what is the book about?

(04-24-2015 09:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:20 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Half a million dollars for a speech? Seems legit! lol

She's on a very very short list of living first ladies. Of course she should get 500k to speak.

We should be outraged if she got any less.

lol, now you are just talking nonsense. She isn't the one that got paid.

Then what is the book about?

The kickback was camouflaged as a payment to Bill. Those Clintons are smart, but they got caught this time.

Traditional Democrat tactics and cover up groups scrambling and working overtime to plug up the holes while Hillary has wiped Her server clean. Sgt. Shultz said it best "I know Nothing "

(04-24-2015 09:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 09:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:20 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Half a million dollars for a speech? Seems legit! lol

She's on a very very short list of living first ladies. Of course she should get 500k to speak.

We should be outraged if she got any less.

lol, now you are just talking nonsense. She isn't the one that got paid.

Then what is the book about?

The kickback was camouflaged as a payment to Bill. Those Clintons are smart, but they got caught this time.

Caught doing what? Even the author admits he has no proof.

(04-25-2015 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 09:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 09:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  She's on a very very short list of living first ladies. Of course she should get 500k to speak.

We should be outraged if she got any less.

lol, now you are just talking nonsense. She isn't the one that got paid.

Then what is the book about?

The kickback was camouflaged as a payment to Bill. Those Clintons are smart, but they got caught this time.

Caught doing what? Even the author admits he has no proof.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - it's likely a duck.

Go ahead - bow and prostrate yourself to your queen like the surf you are. She might just give you a few crumbs.

Not his job to prove it. Others are charged with that. They should get on the job.

(04-25-2015 10:06 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not his job to prove it. Others are charged with that. They should get on the job.

Sounds like they are.

There are some serious rumblings among the major democratic donor donors right now. They do not want to pony up millions for a coronation, only to have this thing blow up a year from now when it would be too late to inject another serious candidate. Clinton is getting put under severe pressure to address these issues.

I believe they also see the writing on the wall that she is perfectly capable of tanking her ratings by opening her mouth. So they want it addressed now. They know it aint going away, and they know there is the real possibility that some harmful evidence is out there.

(04-25-2015 10:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:06 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not his job to prove it. Others are charged with that. They should get on the job.

Sounds like they are.

There are some serious rumblings among the major democratic donor donors right now. They do not want to pony up millions for a coronation, only to have this thing blow up a year from now when it would be too late to inject another serious candidate. Clinton is getting put under severe pressure to address these issues.

I believe they also see the writing on the wall that she is perfectly capable of tanking her ratings by opening her mouth. So they want it addressed now. They know it aint going away, and they know there is the real possibility that some harmful evidence is out there.

She, and her "team" are also getting put under serious pressure to politely bow out. Put a happy face on "want to spend more time as a Grandma", "I think this might be the time for a younger persons race" or whatever.

Once the real backers, the money guys, lose faith all the true believers and hollyweird celebs don't mean squat.

That, and of course, the potential jail time is rather unseemly...

Hillary is toast.