(02-17-2022 04:53 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 03:39 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Maybe they mean WV Governor Jim Justice is coming for Hillary? He's a bit heavy, so I expect she can outrun him.

Nice, now you loons are fat shaming people.

He's a Regressive, they have carte blanche to do what they criticize other people for doing.

(02-17-2022 04:32 PM)shere khan Wrote:  That would be the first thing to come for her in about 50 years

(02-17-2022 04:57 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 04:53 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 03:39 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Maybe they mean WV Governor Jim Justice is coming for Hillary? He's a bit heavy, so I expect she can outrun him.

Nice, now you loons are fat shaming people.

He's a Regressive, they have carte blanche to do what they criticize other people for doing.

Truth, I forgot.

Clips of Hillary At Dem Convention In New York


HRC goes on ranting about Trump, Republican and FOX News

(02-17-2022 03:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Durham’s filings prove TRUMP WAS RIGHT
The comeback of Nixon 'dirty tricks' from the Democrats

Quote:“Dirty tricks” was a term used to describe the behavior of operatives within the Nixon administration to smear the reputations of opponents and undermine the appeal of certain politicians. Fifty years ago, these dirty tricks included a false allegation that Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson had fathered an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old girl and the break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, when Nixon aides and operatives attempted to find materials the Nixon team could use against his perceived “enemies.”

Dirty tricks are not to be confused with negative campaigning, which at least has some component of truth, but a filing by special counsel John Durham that alleges the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton paid a technology company to “infiltrate” or “spy” — the word former President Donald Trump uses — on his presidential campaign and later while he was president, goes beyond dirty tricks into the illegal.

In a court filing, Mr. Durham alleges the purpose behind Russian “collusion” allegations was to establish a “narrative” between then-Republican presidential candidate Trump and Russia.

Mr. Trump denied it at the time and many times since, including during an interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes.” Ms. Stahl said there was “no evidence” for Mr. Trump’s claim. Mr. Trump said there was and that her job was to investigate and find it. Now that there is at least a credible allegation, will Ms. Stahl deliver a correction? Not likely, and neither is it likely other major media, which flogged the Russian collusion story, will acknowledge error. These include The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and numerous liberal websites. They seem to have their own narrative, and it is based on a visceral hatred of Mr. Trump. Consider this: Mr. Trump was being effectively slandered as a Russian agent, or minimally a Russian asset.

On Tuesday, The New York Times published a story about the Durham report on its website but seemed to dismiss it as “old news,” a familiar tactic often used when it reported on the various Clinton scandals.

The Times and Washington Post won Pulitzer Prizes for basically repeating Democrat talking points. The prizes should be returned, and the newspapers penalized by not allowing them to apply for another one for at least 10 years.

Rep. Adam Schiff, California Democrat, did not cover himself in glory as he chaired a House panel investigation into all things Mr. Trump and repeatedly accused Trump of violating laws. Don’t expect an apology from him, either. And then, there were the four FISA warrants obtained because of allegations by then-FBI Director James Comey and others that proved untrue. The Justice Department later admitted that two of the warrants lacked probable cause and said information from all four warrants would not be used.

A New York Post editorial summed up the matter: “A candidate for president (Hillary Clinton) weaponized the nation’s Justice Department to pursue an investigation into their political opponent based on what they knew were lies. Americans were wiretapped! Some were entrapped for flimsy claims of perjury. The director of the FBI (Comey) went into the Oval Office to tell the president that there was a sexual rumor floating around so that it could be promptly leaked to the media. ‘Outrageous’ doesn’t cover it.”

Mr. Durham has only scraped the surface of what could, if proven, be the biggest scandal in American political history, and that’s saying something, given past political behavior by members of both parties.

Will the grand jury that is being presented with this information issue indictments of higher-ups? Will the powerful and connected finally be held accountable when so many have escaped accountability in the past? News consumers may have to search for their information in other places than the major media because so far, they are engaging in a cover-up that resembles what Richard Nixon did.

Durham is just letting small bits of info drip out. There is much more coming and it will start coming in bigger doses.

(02-17-2022 04:53 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 03:39 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Maybe they mean WV Governor Jim Justice is coming for Hillary? He's a bit heavy, so I expect she can outrun him.

Nice, now you loons are fat shaming people.

Being fat is the least of things to shame him about. Start with his propensity to never pay vendors and then counter sue them when they seek relief. I have many stories, personally verified, on what a dirt bag he is. The fact that he’s a morbidly obese dirt bag is secondary and just adds to his overall Boss Hogg reputation.

Know nothing about him. However, wondering why a Governor would not be able to at least dress to the level of an aspiring executive. That sportcoat is way too big with sleeves too long. Just odd to see an individual at such an esteemed position care so little about image items that are easily corrected.

If the Dems want her in 24, we'll get her.

(02-18-2022 08:30 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  If the Dems want her in 24, we'll get her.

all this is posturing to keep the base riled up, we will see more of it in the next few months, and a lot as 2024 rolls around.

Mrs. Clinton is one of the most loathed politicians ever to run for anything, a carpetbagger, liar, and very old news. Most people including the left see Hillary as a poster child of everything that's wrong with politics in this country. Add to this that she will be 77 when the next election rolls around, was rumored and appeared to be in questionable health 5-6 years ago, and you an an un-viable candidate.

Hillary will not be the nominee of the Dems.. they have turned the page. When the committee claimed AOC as the face of the future of the party i believe them.. look for the Dems to run a FAR left candidate.

(02-18-2022 11:17 AM)Oman Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 08:30 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  If the Dems want her in 24, we'll get her.

all this is posturing to keep the base riled up, we will see more of it in the next few months, and a lot as 2024 rolls around.

Mrs. Clinton is one of the most loathed politicians ever to run for anything, a carpetbagger, liar, and very old news. Most people including the left see Hillary as a poster child of everything that's wrong with politics in this country. Add to this that she will be 77 when the next election rolls around, was rumored and appeared to be in questionable health 5-6 years ago, and you an an un-viable candidate.

Hillary will not be the nominee of the Dems.. they have turned the page. When the committee claimed AOC as the face of the future of the party i believe them.. look for the Dems to run a FAR left candidate.

I hope you're wrong that it will be a far left candidate, but I definitely agree it isn't going to be Hillary. It isn't going to happen either, but Al Gore has a better chance of topping the ticket again than Mrs. Clinton. She may not like it, but she knows she had her shot and she lost.

(02-18-2022 11:25 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 11:17 AM)Oman Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 08:30 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  If the Dems want her in 24, we'll get her.

all this is posturing to keep the base riled up, we will see more of it in the next few months, and a lot as 2024 rolls around.

Mrs. Clinton is one of the most loathed politicians ever to run for anything, a carpetbagger, liar, and very old news. Most people including the left see Hillary as a poster child of everything that's wrong with politics in this country. Add to this that she will be 77 when the next election rolls around, was rumored and appeared to be in questionable health 5-6 years ago, and you an an un-viable candidate.

Hillary will not be the nominee of the Dems.. they have turned the page. When the committee claimed AOC as the face of the future of the party i believe them.. look for the Dems to run a FAR left candidate.

I hope you're wrong that it will be a far left candidate, but I definitely agree it isn't going to be Hillary. It isn't going to happen either, but Al Gore has a better chance of topping the ticket again than Mrs. Clinton. She may not like it, but she knows she had her shot and she lost.

Gore is also a relic of the old Dem party and will be 76 as well. no one under 40 would be motivated by him, he's been absent for a decade . look for newsome from CA, Islee from Washington.. or similar. a Governor the dems can spin as having done great work for their state fighting covid and keeping their economy strong.