Well It's Official: Hillary Has Been Exonerated for Everything She Ever Said or Done!

[Chasstev365]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

You know why? Because Hillary supporters on DU SAY SO, that's why! Reading these posts this afternoon, there is ZERO objectivity and it is reminiscent of W Bush supporters. Truly scary. Only a fool thinks they are right all of the time!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Exorhated?

Excoriated? Exonerated? Exorcised?

[doc03]

2. Good so now we can move on to something important like beating

Trump and getting a Democratic Congress.

[TimPlo]

39. We have to let people vote still.

And if there is even a 1% chance Sanders could win we owe it to everyone in remaining states to have their say. If we are going to assume SD are not going to change if Sanders some how gets the majority of pledged votes then that would not be a good thing for a party that really needs unity come Nov.

[Jack Bone]

77. To do what? Vote for the TPP? Nahhh I'll pass

[merrily]

81. LIke the Congress we had in 2006 and 2008 that never passed a public option, EFCA,

election reform, stiffer penalties for election fraud, etc."

A Democratic President was supposedly off the hook for anything and everything because a massively Democratic Congress wouldn't do the correct things and a Democratic President supposedly has no power over members of the Party he heads; and Democratic Congress was supposedly off the hook because conservative Democrats. Yet, that is the only kind the DCCC and the DSCC recruits.

So I guess we really need a Democratic President, a Democratic majority in the House and a Senate of 100 Democrats before we can before we can hope to hold any Democrat in Congress or the Oval Office accountable? Good luck with that!

[Jackie Wilson Said]

3. Welcome to Democratic Underground where the GOP works daily to

attack Hillary Clinton.

[nolawarlock]

22. Seriously! nt

[840high]

64. She's going to get us GOP money.

[doc03]

4. I see these newcomers constantly pushing Republican talking points

makes me wonder if they are actually Trump supporters. Who knows on the internet who they are.

[Chasstev365]

7. I have voted Democratic in every election since 1980, thank you very much!

I'm not new to DU snd you don't know anything about me!

[doc03]

9. Why in the hell are you carrying water for Republicans then.

[pdsimdars]

17. Why are you shilling for a Republican candidate?

It's about the ISSUES. What are you voting on?
.

[nolawarlock]

23. That graphic is misleading right out of the gate.

Hillary may not have supported marriage before that but she certainly supported a myriad of gay rights. This is just so disingenuous.

[senz]

48. That's some abusive Hill Bro tag line you've got there, nolawarlock.

"Bye Bye Birdie" with an image of a dead bird representing the Bernie Sanders bird logo.

Reminds me of all the ugly Hill Bro fly swatters, insect sprayers and even bloody hands killing the bugs with which Bernie supporters expressed solidarity with one of our own who had been banned.

We've always known who the bullies were around here.

[merrily]

59. +1 Nailed it.

[nolawarlock]

63. You mean Stockholm Willy?

is that the kind of racist you think we should be mourning the loss of?

[merrily]

84. Thanks for proving senz's point.

[nolawarlock]

88. All I'm proving is that racism is alive and well with the defense of WillyT on this site. nt

[merrily]

89. But you are not posting to WillyT, are you? Nor can you. You posted to senz.

You have a very interesting number of hides for someone who registered less than two months ago. Get a clue.

[nolawarlock]

90. ... who in turn was defending people like (and including) WillyT. nt

[merrily]

91. I call bs. Kindly quote the language in the post of senz to which you replied that defended WillyT.

[nolawarlock]

92. Post #86.

Senz, in saying "No, not that nice man. Another nice man named L0oniX," is saying that, while his initial post was defending L0oniX, he is also defending that "nice man" known as WillyT. The context is pretty clear. Did you miss post 86?

Edit: hoping that was kindly enough for you.

[merrily]

93. Nice try. Post 86 is not the post to which your Post 63 replied and we're discussing your Reply 63.

[nolawarlock]

94. I'm not just discussing post #63.

I had read both the sequential subthread and post #86 before I wrote posts #88 and #90 that you're disputing, and i used the phrase "like (and including) WillyT" to refer to the fact that his initial post was about L0oniX. While my initial post #63 may have assumed he was speaking of WillyT, it made no difference that the poster wasn't because poster included WillyT in post #86. And, just in case it's not clear, both 88 and 90 come after 86.

[merrily]

95. You know 63 comes before 86 right?

[nolawarlock]

96. Yes, I do.

And I already acknowledged that I was mistaken in post #63. But by post 88 and post 90, I was able to reinforce my point because post #86 defended WillyT. So whether Senz was invoking WillyT in post #48 or post #86, he ultimately invoked and defended him. I wasn't clear you were initially talking about post #63 until you actually numbered it. However, it's all rather a moot point because, in post #86, Senz clear does, in fact, defend WillyT who clearly has, in fact, posted something atrociously racist on this site. Do you also defend WillyT's racism?

[merrily]

97. Except for acknowledging that you were wrong in Reply 63, Reply 96 is a convoluted rationalization.

Also, you will find your desperate gotcha attempts generally don't work on me.

[nolawarlock]

100. As I just explained above ...

Your post #91 accusing me of being dishonest, was in response to my post #90 which already had the benefit of knowledge of post #86, in which Senz did in fact defend WillyT. Since it was clear to me by post #88 that Senz' initial post was not about WillyT but that he had gone on to defend WillyT in post #86, why was it not clear to you by the time you wrote post #91? I had acknowledged by my post #90 by using the phrase "people like (and including) WillyT" that I was mistaken in post #63, rendering your post #91 irrelevant if it was referencing my post #63 since I had already acknowledged that I was mistaken there. And this was buttressed by the fact that your post #91 was in response to my post #90 which had already acknowledged, albeit subtly, my mistake.

But, ultimately, Senz still defended WillyT, so I ask again, do you defend WillyT's racist behavior or should we continue playing numerical sequence games? I can't say I'm not enjoying them.

[nolawarlock]

103. did you get tired?

I can talk all night about number sequences. I find them so entertaining. Don't you?

[merrily]

105. Poster, please. You're not the only poster on the board right now. Get over yourself.

But yes, your posting games are tedious and boring.

[nolawarlock]

106. Games?

No, in fact, in post #86, Senz defended WillyT, who posted notoriously racist things to this website. Do you defend them too?

[nolawarlock]

98. And it probably also bears mentioning ...

... that your reply #91 which you first insinuated that I was lying, was in response to post #90 which, in fact, comes after #86, and since your post #91, in which you insinuated that I was lying, had the benefit of the defense of WillyT present in post #86, then it demonstrates, quite clearly, that I was not in any way mistaken by the time I had gotten to the post #90 that you had responded to with post #91.

Isn't math so much fun? It's almost as fun as Bernie math.

[merrily]

99. Don't get it twisted. The only discussions I've had with you related to your Reply 63.

Convoluted arguments and gotcha attempts seem to be your stock in trade.

[nolawarlock]

101. On the contrary,

Your post #91, which was the first to outright call my honesty into question, was a direct response to my post #90 in which I acknowledged the mistake but also acknowledged that, in the end, Senz defended WillyT. Your post #91 clearly says it is in response to post #90. There's nothing twisted about it. It's all very logical and sequential.

[merrily]

102. Luckily for me, most who read at DU can follow a conversation and a subthread and can recognize your

tactics. This entire subthread is under your reply 63.

[senz]

107. You don't need to waste your time on someone like that, merrily.

I'm putting him on ignore and won't be able to see his comments nor yours in reply to him. Please spare yourself the unpleasantness.

And thanks for being so logical and good.

[merrily]

109. Hey! I can enjoy exposing someone like that for what he or she is.

However, it's only useful for just so long and he or she has grown tedious at this point. Even the glee at what he or she imagines is cleverness is no longer funny.

[senz]

111. Well, I'm glad you enjoy it.

At least they do some good in the world.

I just find the whole thing a drag on the spirit and a waste of time.

Take care, nice lady.

[merrily]

112. Well, to a point. And I did learn about another new DU poster with a lot of hides already, so

there is that! Maybe every cloud really does have a silver lining!

[senz]

86. No, not that nice man. Another nice man named L0oniX.

Neither of which you are entitled to even talk about, imho.

[nolawarlock]

87. Are you saying that WillyT is a nice racist?

I'm just so confused because what I saw him say was really racist and I didn't think there was such thing as a nice racist.

[senz]

104. Racist? I never ever saw any sign of racism in WillyT.

I get the impression that Hill supporters use accusations of racism and sexism in a very cynical way, knowing full well that the accusations aren't true. I think it's just a form of character assassination, and I find people who do things like that rather repulsive.

I see your new tag line, a row of long nosed "liars" with a sign that says Bernie lies. Bernie Sanders is one of the most honest people I have seen in my very long life. Your new tag line is just as ugly and offensive as your old one and I'm getting the impression that you are not a very nice person. I don't think I want any further exposure to you. So as soon as I post this reply, I'm putting you on ignore.

Bye bye.

[nolawarlock]

108. Have a lovely day.

[senz]

15. I've been voting straight Democratic since the 1960s

and Hillary reminds me much more of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney than JFK, RFK, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.

Maybe that's why she's making a play for Republicans now.

[calguy]

27. Who does TRUMP remind you of?

Better think long and hard about it because if everyone thought like you do that's what you're going to get!
Time to cut the BS and start uniting as a party!!

[senz]

41. Somebody Bernie can beat -- easily.

[Databuser]

55. On the internet...

...no-one knows I'm a dyslexic god

[BootinUp]

5. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan nt

[catnhatnh]

20. OK-Sniper Fire

Absolute proof she cannot stop lying.

[BootinUp]

25. I understand why you think you proved something, but it really

says more about you than Sec. Clinton.

[senz]

49. Yeah, it says catnhatnh can remember her lies.

[BootinUp]

54. Accepting for arguments sake that it was a bald face lie

I take far more seriously lies that are used obvious gain. For example, if Sen. Sanders is knowingly lying about his campaign to fleece money from his supporters, I consider that a more egregious category of lie.

I don't know all the circumstances of the trip where the sniper fire story was told from Sen Clintons eyes and ears, and I don't know why she would want to tell a lie about it, it makes little sense.

[senz]

110. Bernie has never "fleeced" anyone, because he's not interested in money

unlike Hillary -- who worships wealth and materialism. Bernie has always been idealistic but also practical in pursuit of his ideals. Materialism bores him. I understand where he's coming from, because materialism (and materialistic people) bore me, too.

Sen. Clinton was running for president and trying to impress voters with her toughness, grit, and experience. She doesn't seem to connect the words that come out of her mouth with objective reality. I've seen it over and over. I don't know what happened to make her this way, but it makes me uneasy and is one of many reasons why I would never want her in the Oval Office.

[TM99]

53. So what's it say?

Don't leave us hanging.

Clinton flat out lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. She caught got by the media. She doubled down on the lie until she finally said she misspoke because of lack of sleep.

So tell us oh wise ass one!

[BootinUp]

56. When someone can look at one confusing case and draw a ridiculously

exaggerated conclusion? That they have lost all perspective on the person they oppose.

[TM99]

58. There was no fucking confusion about that sniper fire lie.

Just like there was never any confusion about the Marines, Chelsea running on 9/11, being named after a mountaineer, and on and on.

She is a pathological liar. That you can't or won't see shows your utter loss of perspective and so much more.

[BootinUp]

61. Her record in public life, the obvious trust

she gains from people of all walks of life says differently.

[merrily]

65. Massive logical fallacy.

[TM99]

72. No all that says is

that most Americans are low information voters distracted by pretty shinies and bullshit.

[BootinUp]

74. I am referring to people she has formed a relationship with

over the many years and in many different capacities. Where are the people that know or knew her that dissociated themselves from her because she's a pathological liar or even a fibber.

[merrily]

79. Now, it's even more of a fallacy.

[BootinUp]

82. You go on relying on the bits and pieces you

can scour up through the series of tubes or from the media that loves any story with a hint of scandal or from her political opponents, instead of relying on her success in life on the record and as told by people who know her. And I will do differently.

[merrily]

83. Um, no. That's another or your fallacies. Her life on the record is exactly what I do rely upon.

[merrily]

66. +1

[merrily]

60. Poster, please. Nothing about being handed flowers by a child on arrival is confusing.

That kind of thing happens all the time to members of the immediate family of a sitting President when they travel abroad.

She told that story because the Obama campaign called out her claim of having had foreign policy experience because of being FLOTUS.

Traveling and being treated like visiting royalty does not foreign policy experience make--unless of course, you were named after Sir Hillary six years before anyone in the US had heard of him.

Of course, being shot in a foreign nation at does confer foreign policy, either, but I guess she hadn't thought that through very well. Much as she didn't think through her story about trying to join the Marines very well.

She is full of "misspeaking" and half truths and flip flops she cannot bring herself to acknowledge.

[840high]

67. Nah - she lied. Period.

[Chasstev365]

6. Due to Trump and the possibly of Ted Cruz as Attorney General, I will vote for Hillary no matter wh

But some of the Clinton supporters here can literally not tolerate anything but Hillary being perfect and it's so childish Grow Up! She has flaws as a candidate.

[pdsimdars]

18. If you're REALLY worried, then you'd be supporting the candidate who performs better against them

So that's obviously not the real reason. You should take your own advice.

[merrily]

68. They've been making the same baseless, unconvincing arguments for a year.

Makes replying on a message board easier, but it hasn't done much else.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. yes but

we may not be able to

NO TRUMP!

[seabeyond]

8. So, because of all this wasted time and effort and money, finding NO wrong, you are pissed at who?

[pat_k]

24. No "intent to mishandle" found. Unfortunately, there are other factors.

The likelihood of an indictment is not zero. The chances may be tiny, but factors other than intent may come into play.

Nathan Sales, an associate law professor at Syracuse University, disagrees with Lowell's and others' assessment. "Many scholars and lawyers think it's unlikely. I'm actually kind of in the minority on this," Sales says. "But, based on what we do know so far, I think there is a not insignificant chance that a grand jury could look at the facts and say, 'Actually, she may have violated various laws protecting classified information.'"

Sales points to the Petraeus case in particular, noting that the former CIA head did not, in the end, plead guilty to charges related to sharing classified information with his mistress and biographer, but rather to those related to him keeping the information in a desk drawer inside his home. "The conduct that is being investigated [in Clinton's case] — keeping the documents on an unclassified server — that's kind of the digital equivalent of locking it in your desk drawer, which is ultimately what did in General Petraeus," he says.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-should-we-make-of-the-hillary-clinton-indictment-speculation-20160503#ixzz47pDlWWxL

[COLGATE4]

26. You mean there's STILL A CHANCE?????

[pat_k]

28. Unfortunately, yes. Not much of one, but "not insignificant." (nt)

[seabeyond]

34. Why don't you get how desperately unethical this sounds?

[pat_k]

42. If "unethical" tell it to the law professor quoted in Rolling Stone.

I'm just passing along information from the article.

[COLGATE4]

46. You didn't see the movie?

[pat_k]

47. No. Found the scene when I googled "still a chance" tho.

Since posting the quote from the Rolling Stone article, another poster provided info on the source. Looks like he's a right wing hack. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1908787

So, the chances are probably about as good as Lloyd's.

[seabeyond]

33. Seriously? Like a dog diggin for a bone, a repug clawing away at Benghazi. Pathetic.

[pat_k]

43. I don't consider Rolling Stone a repub rag.

I'm just passing along information from the article.

[procon]

10. Not again... is the rightwing forum over at Free Republic offline? nt

[Grassy Knoll]

11. WHOOO HOOOO, GOOD NEWS!!!!!

[Mike__M]

12. The skies have opened,

the light is coming down, celestial choirs are singing and everyone knows we are doing the right thing and the world will be perfect.

(cough cough)

[Petrushka]

13. Jury results --->

On Thu May 5, 2016, 07:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well It's Official: Hillary Has Been Exonerated for Everything She Ever Said or Done!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511907619

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Comparing Hillary supporters to Bush supporters is outright trolling.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 5, 2016, 07:12 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've seen Bernie supporters accused of being Republicans. Same difference.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter, the comparison to Bush supporters is uncalled for. This also has nothing to do with the primaries, it's just whining about fellow DUers.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[99Forever]

14. Good grief.

They even whine in the jury results when getting pounded for their constant alert trolling.

[politicaljunkie41910]

16. This is truly a joke. It's the Bernie supporters who have no objectivity.

It's not that Hillary supporters think she is perfect. Perfection does not exist in human beings. Speaking for myself, I happen to think that she is the best candidate running for the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean she may not have made some mistakes in the past or took a stance that I might not have, though none currently come to mind. But being human is making mistakes and learning from those mistakes.

Bernie on the other hand is purist, whom I don't care for. He's a protest candidate and always has been. He votes against things to make a point, when no bill is ever perfect. Things get added to bills that the bill's sponsor doesn't like but congressmen and congresswomen vote for because sometimes it's all or nothing. You have to give something to get something, and if what you get is more than you have to give up than it can still be considered a win. In a perfect situation where Democrats control both houses by a veto proof majority you can sometimes ram your agenda through. That's not the usual setting we find ourselves in. We have to work with people on the other side of the aisle to get thing done, and compromise cannot become a dirty word.

[TM99]

19. Hey as long as it is found 'legal'

or 'not enough evidence to prosecute' oh well. She is 'innocent until proven guilty'.

This is the same shit we all heard through out the GW Bush years. It was craven then, and it is craven now.

Appropriate professional behavior and doing the ethical thing no longer count. That is political purity don't you know and not 'pragmatic'.

[catnhatnh]

21. "Hillary Clinton-Avoiding Indictment since 1978"

See:Cattle Futures


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

[COLGATE4]

31. You forgot to mention how she

killed Vince Foster.

[catnhatnh]

40. You know how I judge a Clinton scandal?

If they make money and someone else goes to jail, then yeah-that's for real...

[COLGATE4]

29. Believing in the principle that, in order to convict a person

of something formal charges must be brought and that person's guilt needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt is "craven then and craven now".

A new standard for American justice.

[TM99]

32. Be a good German

and keep defending the indefensible.

[COLGATE4]

36. Now THAT's funny. Calling the principle of innocence

'defending the indefensible'. And you're calling ME a good German?????

[TM99]

38. You appear to be well educated

and maybe you even had an ethics class or two.

Study up on history.

[COLGATE4]

44. I hope your don't hurt too much

when you fall from your high horse.

[seabeyond]

37. That should be a hide.

[ucrdem]

30. And we were right.

As usual.

[Joob]

35. ok

Hillary was not Willfully Aware of email compromise , too bad we're #WillfullyAware of her Incompetence

[COLGATE4]

45. Yep. Your disapproval is going to really mean a lot to her

when she's elected President.

[Joob]

50. Like I said, Incompetence.

If she was smart, it would. Beccause it's definitely not just my disapproval, it includes many people. And if elected. It will be her downfall

[COLGATE4]

71. People like you have been predicting her 'downfall' for the past

30 years. Kind of like waiting for the End of Days - it's coming... anytime now... just wait... you'll see...

[Joob]

73. Didn't realize so many young voters, a whole generation, saw her as corrupted 30 years ago.

Sorry

[COLGATE4]

75. Actually, most young people then as now were smart enough to

not believe RW bullshit about her.

[Joob]

76. What RW bull shit are you referring too?

[scscholar]

51. She is the most investigated woman in history...

and they have nothing.

[840high]

70. Don't you wonder why? Why do the Clintons

keep doing things that need investigating. 20 years + of baggage.

[bjo59]

52. Am agreeing with you over here.

[w4rma]

62. Clinton's defense has morphed to: She broke the law, but she didn't understand that law. (nt)

[riversedge]

78. Oh, stop making stuff up. You sound silly.

[ContinentalOp]

85. Her main problem is all of that pesky saying and doing things.

She should have been more like Bernie and emerged pure and fully formed with no past history to even speak of. That's the great thing about Bernie. He was born in 1941, sat quietly for 74 years and meditated on economic justice before rising to become our flawless leader. He never did anything stupid like write about rape fantasies, praise communist leaders, help the NRA in exchange for campaign funding, make a nuclear waste deal in exchange for a $4000 a year job for his wife, talk trash about democrats for 35 years before deciding he needed to become one for the media exposure, etc. Nope, no sir, he never did anything of the sort because his supporters of DU surely would have mentioned it if he had!