Hillary Clinton

[Delta1212]

That picture can be framed in two different ways. A hand over the mouth like that can be a sign of shock or of intense concentration. I do that myself sometimes when watching something tense simply deep in thought.

 

And yet it's so easy to see it the other way on Hillary, isn't it? I wonder why.

[tar]

OK, she is the only one in the room concentrating intensely, everybody else is daydreaming.

[Willie71]

Since we are discussing Mrs. Clinton and if you genuinely consider her the better candidate, shouldn't you be arguing here in favor of her candidacy since she is likely the better alternative? Also, it isn't unbiased reporting I recommend, it's unbiased evidence that is public record and provided independent of partisan commentary unlike the video you posted.

Evidence itself isn't biased. That's why I made the distinction of the reporting. I have taken time to look at the reporting in the Empire Files video. It's public record, but it's time consuming to track down. You never did note your source of "unbiased evidence." Care to share with us? You are aware the Empire a Files is a center left/left outlet, not a right wing outlet, right? Criticisms from the left tend to be much more credible on average, and I have not seen a neutral source in years.

 

The better alternative isn't necessarily a good alternative. That isn't a logically sound position. If I was American, I would vote third party, or write in Sanders. In contrast to most people, you think positively of H. Clinton. Not one to argue from the majority, as this is logically weak, but I'm certainly not alone being concerned by a Clinton presidency. Why do you think that is? The left tends to ignore the right wing smears. I don't give much credibility to Benghazi, whitewater etc. and most on the left I talk to do as well. With this much negativity to surrounding her, and recent polls showing her tied with trump, the DNC plan to put their thumb on the scale for Clinton in the primary isn't looking very wise now. This race is way too close for comfort.

[Phi for All]

OK, she is the only one in the room concentrating intensely, everybody else is daydreaming.

 

I've never agreed with your politics, or your views on women. Much of your reasoning has always seemed backwards to me, but until now I didn't realize how hard you have to work at being this unreasonable.

 

Without knowing what's being shown, what was said just before and just after, SOMETHING to put her gesture in context, you're just letting your hate and bias paint this as her being "petrified". There's a lot of reasons why someone puts their hand up to their mouth, most mundane. There's also a lot of reasons why the press might pick this photo out of all the rest to publish.

 

But for you to pick a single scenario and insist she alone in a room of peers is "petrified" shows a bias that makes it difficult to take any of your opinions seriously.

[tar]

swansont,

 

Well you are right, she can look the part. If this is the Hilary you have faith in, then I can go along with this Hilary being the leader of the free world.

Phi for All,

 

I remember seeing the moving pictures of the scene in the situation room and made my assessment of her being the most uncomfortable in the room, based on that, not on this picture alone. I posted it, because it looks exactly like she looked in the motion pictures. Yes, I do not know what was being shown, but I understand it was helmet cam pictures from the team that did the deed.

 

Obama is leaning forward others have their arms folded their jaws set. She was the most uncomfortable in the room. I did not dream it up. I saw it happen.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

OK, she is the only one in the room concentrating intensely, everybody else is daydreaming.

Intense focus is one reason that people put their hand over their face like that. It is not the only reason that people place their hand their. Neither is it the only thing people do with their hands when they are focusing.

 

But we all know that. You're just being disingenuous now.

[tar]

But NBC came out with a piece about that photo and Obama says Hilary covered her mouth at a point where a delta force helicopter was "having a problem". Hilary explained herself by saying that is how she looks when her husband drags her to an action movie.​ I tried to link it, but my paste was not pasting.

 

So NOT concentration.This is how Hillary described it: "That's how I usually look when my husband drags me to an action movie." She also said it was "just an extraordinary experience and a great privilege to be part of.”

Edited September 9, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

So it's not a choice of the lesser of two evils. It's a choice between a white supremacist who wants to be POTUS, and a qualified woman who doesn't have the kind of poker face you think is appropriate when watching action movies and briefings where our helicopters are under fire.

[DrmDoc]

Evidence itself isn't biased. That's why I made the distinction of the reporting.

 

Ridiculous. We both know evidence can be fabricated, which is why we investigate evidence for facts versus fiction and, furthermore, some reporting is almost always biased (e.g., Fox News).

 

You never did note your source of "unbiased evidence." Care to share with us?

 

Your presented a video opinion piece as evidence for discussion and, as I commented, opinion isn't evidence. This is why I subsequently requested more direct evidence of the argument you were trying to make through the video your posted. Contrary to your opinion, direct source of the type of information I requested is available for those so interested (e.g., Congressional Hearings). If I'm not mistaken, you are claiming some maleficence in Mrs. Clinton's actions; therefore, it's incumbent upon you to support that claim with valid evidence.

 

The better alternative isn't necessarily a good alternative. That isn't a logically sound position. If I was American, I would vote third party, or write in Sanders. In contrast to most people, you think positively of H. Clinton. Not one to argue from the majority, as this is logically weak, but I'm certainly not alone being concerned by a Clinton presidency. Why do you think that is? The left tends to ignore the right wing smears. I don't give much credibility to Benghazi, whitewater etc. and most on the left I talk to do as well. With this much negativity to surrounding her, and recent polls showing her tied with trump, the DNC plan to put their thumb on the scale for Clinton in the primary isn't looking very wise now. This race is way too close for comfort.

 

In America's presidential election, third part voting is notoriously a bad idea, particularly when there's not the slightest possibility that a third party candidate would ever win. Third party candidates syphon votes from major party candidates supported by a majority of voters in our, primarily, two party system. The results is often an elected official not supported by a majority of our electorate because of this vote syphoning effect. Therefore, choosing the best candidate among the two major parties is the most effect way to keep a less qualified candidate from being elected. As to polls, they are not always an accurate reflection of how intelligent American voters are.

Edited September 9, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Willie71]

Ridiculous. We both know evidence can be fabricated, which is why we investigate evidence for facts versus fiction and, furthermore, some reporting is almost always biased (e.g., Fox News).

 

 

 

Your presented a video opinion piece as evidence for discussion and, as I commented, opinion isn't evidence. This is why I subsequently requested more direct evidence of the argument you were trying to make through the video your posted. Contrary to your opinion, direct source of the type of information I requested is available for those so interested (e.g., Congressional Hearings). If I'm not mistaken, you are claiming some maleficence in Mrs. Clinton's actions; therefore, it's incumbent upon you to support that claim with valid evidence.

 

 

 

In America's presidential election, third part voting is notoriously a bad idea, particularly when there's not the slightest possibility that a third party candidate would ever win. Third party candidates syphon votes from major party candidates supported by a majority of voters in our, primarily, two party system. The results is often an elected official not supported by a majority of our electorate because of this vote syphoning effect. Therefore, choosing the best candidate among the two major parties is the most effect way to keep a less qualified candidate from being elected. As to polls, they are not always an accurate reflection of how intelligent American voters are.

 

Here's a definition of evidence:

 

ev·i·dence

ˈevədəns/

noun

1.

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation

"they found evidence of his plotting"

verb

1.

be or show evidence of.

"that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings"

synonyms: indicate, show, reveal, display, exhibit, manifest; More

 

Congressional hearings are factually based? Ok, I see where you are going. Not interested.

[tar]

An article suggests that people tend to vote for the taller candidate, when two are placed side by side.

 

I can't paste the link at the moment, but it also suggests that either Hilary is getting taller or the internet is getting dumber. When she ran for president against the 6' 1" Obama she was listed at 5' 5". She lost in the primaries.

 

Now the internet lists her at 5' 7". However Trump is listed at 6' 3".

 

Obama beat the shorter John McCain, but he also beat the taller Mitt Romney so it is not and iron clad rule.

 

Coincidently Putin is 5' 7".

Clinton did however beat the 6' 0" Sanders in the primary, so obviously height is not the only criteria.

Edited September 9, 2016 by tar

[DrmDoc]

Here's a definition of evidence:

 

 

Congressional hearings are factually based? Ok, I see where you are going. Not interested.

 

Congressional hearings are where facts are introduced and discussed as sworn testimony. A congressional hearing was where the FBI's assessment of Mrs. Clinton's email handling was delivered and discussed in detail. During that congressional hearing, the FBI introduced and discussed the facts of her case as evidence in sworn testimony. We have explored and debated some of those facts here. If you're truly interested in supporting your claims, you certainly should be interested in providing a similar source of evidence rather than partisan opinion pieces.

Edited September 10, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Willie71]

Congressional hearings are where facts are introduced and discussed as sworn testimony. A congressional hearing was where the FBI's assessment of Mrs. Clinton's email handling was delivered and discussed in detail. During that congressional hearing, the FBI introduced and discussed the facts of her case as evidence in sworn testimony. We have explored and debated some of those facts here. If you're truly interested in supporting your claims, you certainly should be interested in providing a similar source of evidence rather than partisan opinion pieces.

Believe what you like. Do you remember how congress handled climate change?

 

You don't believe anyone lies under oath? No political favours were cashed in? No evidence was ignored, mishandled, lost, or destroyed?

 

Yeah, and Cosby, O.J., and the L.A. Rodney King cops were innocent? Sorry, that's simply intellectually dishonest to try to use that as factual information. I get it, you think Abby Martin is biased, but she's pretty much as close as we get to investigative journalists in the modern media. Too bad that's not good enough for you, but the fiction presented in a congressional hearing is "fact."

[Tampitump]

Abby Martin is biased, but she's pretty much as close as we get to investigative journalists in the modern media. Too bad that's not good enough for you, but the fiction presented in a congressional hearing is "fact."

Abby Martin is an idiot. She used to be a 9/11 truther, and her reason for not debating Sam Harris on Islam was because "he was a neuroscientist", and therefore not in the correct line of work to be speaking on foreign policy. Her bias is not her downfall, her stupidity is. Just my opinion.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Tampitump

[tar]

Hilary said tonight that half of Trump supporters are in the bucket of deplorables and listed all the derogatory labels by which progressives label conservatives.

 

Figuratively is how she meant it, perhaps, but figuring about 130 million voters, and putting Trump supporters currently at 38 percent of voters, that is about 50 million US citizens she just called stupid or racist or hateful or deplorable (well 25 million, but how do you know, if you are a trump supporter whether you are the deplorable half or the non-deplorable half). Interesting stance for someone who wants to be seen as the candidate that is not divisive.

By my 90 10 rule, she is speaking to the 10 percent against the 90 percent. She should lose in a landslide.

by logic and the numbers populists should defeat elitists

Edited September 10, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

Hilary said tonight that half of Trump supporters are in the bucket of deplorables and listed all the derogatory labels by which progressives label conservatives.

 

Figuratively is how she meant it, perhaps, but figuring about 130 million voters, and putting Trump supporters currently at 38 percent of voters, that is about 50 million US citizens she just called stupid or racist or hateful or deplorable (well 25 million, but how do you know, if you are a trump supporter whether you are the deplorable half or the non-deplorable half). Interesting stance for someone who wants to be seen as the candidate that is not divisive.

25 million sounds about right, given the volume of rancor we've heard in this campaign.

 

By my 90 10 rule, she is speaking to the 10 percent against the 90 percent. She should lose in a landslide.

 

by logic and the numbers populists should defeat elitists

 

Trump is an elitist, pretending to be a populist. He's a frikkin' billionaire, born into wealth, for crying out loud!

[Airbrush]

Hillary finally shot herself in the foot by getting into the mud with Donald and calling half of Donald's supporters "deplorables". Stupid Hillary. That was something she never NEEDED to say, ((but we all are thinking what kind of people are unaffected by Trumps endless absurd antics? His obsessive need for constant attention and adulation? His obnoxious mannerisms?)). Even though we are wondering that, it should never be SAID.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Airbrush

[DrmDoc]

Believe what you like. Do you remember how congress handled climate change?

 

You don't believe anyone lies under oath? No political favours were cashed in? No evidence was ignored, mishandled, lost, or destroyed?

 

Yeah, and Cosby, O.J., and the L.A. Rodney King cops were innocent? Sorry, that's simply intellectually dishonest to try to use that as factual information. I get it, you think Abby Martin is biased, but she's pretty much as close as we get to investigative journalists in the modern media. Too bad that's not good enough for you, but the fiction presented in a congressional hearing is "fact."

 

As you are not an American citizen, perhaps you are not entirely familiar with the process of congressional hearings as some of our citizenry. The handling of climate change issues, for example, are done by order of congressional legislation or executive order by our President. Hearings are just that, which is a forum where facts and potential legislation are introduced and discussed. Potential legislation is sent to a congressional committee that may or may not hold hearings for that legislation. Legislation in Congress doesn't become law until after this review process, a vote by both Houses of Congress, and finally the signature of our President. Yes, people do lie at hearings and they are subject to perjury penalties when found guilty of doing so. However, the detailed facts presented as evidence in those hearings stand alone from potentially perjured testimony, which is how perjured testimony is primarily uncovered. I gave the Congressional Hearings link as an example of where you may find the sort of facts in evidence that stand alone from testimony or opinion as you provided through the video you supplied. That linking isn't intellectual dishonesty; however, providing opinion pieces as, seemingly, facts in evidence certainly is.

Edited September 10, 2016 by DrmDoc

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

But the republican elite are embodied by the Bushes and the Democratic elite are embodied by the Clintons, and the Billionaire elite are embodied by Bloomberg and the oracle of Omaha, who have all disavowed Trump. Most of the Hollywood elite are against him as well. He is basically against the elite and for the population. You say he is pretending, but he is about as populist as you can get. Regardless of being born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

 

Can we trust him? Probably not. He is a salesman and a negotiator, and lies through his teeth.

 

But, my comment was not so much about him but about Hilary calling a huge portion of our country ignorant and hateful. Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 10, 2016 by tar

[waitforufo]

Wow, so much to go through after taking a three day business trip. I had no idea my opener would be such a popular topic.

Elfmotat, thank you for pointing out a few of the laws broken by Hillary. You did miss that the National Archives and Records Administration requires all work-related emails to be properly preserved. Federal rules required Clinton to preserve work emails and turn them over before leaving office, but she did not turn over her emails until 21 months after she left office.

DrmDoc, no the 30000 emails that Hillary deleted were not recoverd. About half of them were. Thank you for at least acknowledging that at least three of those emails violated the federal rules requiring Hillary to preserve her work related emails. Evidence of three crimes right there. Also, the only reason the 30000 email were found was because a FOIA request was made on her emails was made and the National Archives had no Hillary emails recorded by the National Archives. Evidence of another legal violation. Why is it that only those irredeemable, not America, people found in the basket of deplorables find this so obvious?

Now we all know that Hillary is confused about or can't remember about how clasified documents were marked. Perhaps she would have remembered if her training included the following image.

 

 

I don't actually remember the entirety of Maxwell's equations by rote. I can always look up the details if I need them.

Looking things up is always a great way to jog one's memory. I bet the Secretary of State could simply just ask someone about properly securing classified documents. Oh wait, she did, but simply didn't like or follow their answers. But I guess that's okay if Hillary can't remember.

Edited September 10, 2016 by waitforufo

[Willie71]

Wow, so much to go through after taking a three day business trip. I had no idea my opener would be such a popular topic.

 

Elfmotat, thank you for pointing out a few of the laws broken by Hillary. You did miss that the National Archives and Records Administration requires all work-related emails to be properly preserved. Federal rules required Clinton to preserve work emails and turn them over before leaving office, but she did not turn over her emails until 21 months after she left office.

 

DrmDoc, no the 30000 emails that Hillary deleted were not recoverd. About half of them were. Thank you for at least acknowledging that at least three of those emails violated the federal rules requiring Hillary to preserve her work related emails. Evidence of three crimes right there. Also, the only reason the 30000 email were found was because a FOIA request was made on her emails was made and the National Archives had no Hillary emails recorded by the National Archives. Evidence of another legal violation. Why is it that only those irredeemable, not America, people found in the basket of deplorables find this so obvious?

 

Now we all know that Hillary is confused about or can't remember about how clasified documents were marked. Perhaps she would have remembered if her training included the following image.

 

 

 

 

Looking things up is always a great way to jog one's memory. I bet the Secretary of State could simply just ask someone about properly securing classified documents. Oh wait, she did, but simply didn't like or follow their answers. But I guess that's okay if Hillary can't remember.

 

I rarely agree with you, but on this issue, I do. It also confounds me that Clinton is presented as super qualified but didn't know how documents were marked classified, what the laws were regarding storage of government documents, and claimed to not know what wiping a hard drive meant. "You mean like with a rag?" Or something similar was her quote. I'll have to dig up that video again. Either she's inept, and unqualified, or she's lying through her teeth. I pick the latter. Why smash the blackberries with a hammer if there was nothing to hide? Pathetic apologetics.

As you are not an American citizen, perhaps you are not entirely familiar with the process of congressional hearings as some of our citizenry. The handling of climate change issues, for example, are done by order of congressional legislation or executive order by our President. Hearings are just that, which is a forum where facts and potential legislation are introduced and discussed. Potential legislation is sent to a congressional committee that may or may not hold hearings for that legislation. Legislation in Congress doesn't become law until after this review process, a vote by both Houses of Congress, and finally the signature of our President. Yes, people do lie at hearings and they are subject to perjury penalties when found guilty of doing so. However, the detailed facts presented as evidence in those hearings stand alone from potentially perjured testimony, which is how perjured testimony is primarily uncovered. I gave the Congressional Hearings link as an example of where you may find the sort of facts in evidence that stand alone from testimony or opinion as you provided through the video you supplied. That linking isn't intellectual dishonesty; however, providing opinion pieces as, seemingly, facts in evidence certainly is.

This might jog your memory on the 'facts" and "evidence" in congressional hearings.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/21/congress-manufactures-doubt-and-denial-in-climate-change-hearing

 

Consensus Denial

The expert consensus on human-caused global warming was discussed several times during the hearing. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked of Christy,

 

You ever feel like Galileo? You remember Galileo? The overwhelming amount of science was against Galileo, and the other side of this got money from the Church, they got money from the government from their research opposing Galileo, and yet Galileo was right.

 

This is of course incorrect – the scientific evidence was on Galileo’s side, although it’s correct to note that the climate science evidence is overwhelmingly against Christy. Christy himself has tried to have it both ways on consensus, previously having claimed to be part of the 97% (he’s not), and in the hearing claiming in response to a question about a NASA statement on the on the consensus,

 

I would hope I could disabuse you of that 97% number. That’s been debunked by several studies ... remember, the NASA website is controlled by a specific government.

 

This claim is false. Two poor responses to our 97% consensus paper were published in off-topic journals and were themselves debunked. This was also an ironic choice of words by Christy. As documented in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Christy previously wrote a letter of complaint to the president of Michael Mann’s university after Mann correctly noted in Senate testimony that the myth that Christy’s satellite data contradicted surface temperature data had been debunked.

 

My colleagues and I have thick skins and won’t be writing to the president of Christy’s university, but he’s once again confused about just what has been debunked.

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc, no the 30000 emails that Hillary deleted were not recoverd. About half of them were. Thank you for at least acknowledging that at least three of those emails violated the federal rules requiring Hillary to preserve her work related emails. Evidence of three crimes right there. Also, the only reason the 30000 email were found was because a FOIA request was made on her emails was made and the National Archives had no Hillary emails recorded by the National Archives. Evidence of another legal violation. Why is it that only those irredeemable, not America, people found in the basket of deplorables find this so obvious?

 

A violation of rules isn't necessarily a violation of law or a criminal act. According to the FBI investigation led by a respected republican appointee, it's my understanding that Mrs. Clinton's email mishandling may have violated the rules but was not a violation of law or a criminally prosecutorial offense. What you may consider "evidence of three crimes", were merely violations of rules that do not rise to criminality according the investigative arm of our government. Those were three mole hills that partisans want us to believe are mountains, which they are not according to a fair and thorough investigation. It's time to let this one go.

[DrmDoc]

This might jog your memory on the 'facts" and "evidence" in congressional hearings.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/21/congress-manufactures-doubt-and-denial-in-climate-change-hearing

 

 

Your link led to an article discussing the false testimony of a expert witness before Congress. Once again, you are conflating opinion presented as testimony to Congress during a hearing with actual facts presented as evidence during those hearings--which opinion is not. Those climate change hearings also involved actual data entered as evidence other than so-called "expert" opinion. Although congressional hearings may include false testimony, most testimonies are accompanied or supported by facts, data, and details that can be independently scrutinized for validity in support of claims other than partisan opinion.

Edited September 10, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Willie71]

Your link led to an article discussing the false testimony of a expert witness before Congress. Once again, you are conflating opinion presented as testimony to Congress during a hearing with actual facts presented as evidence during those hearings--which opinion is not. Those climate change hearings also involved actual data entered as evidence other than so-called "expert" opinion. Although congressional hearings may include false testimony, most testimonies are accompanied or supported by facts, data, and details that can be independently scrutinized for validity in support of claims other than partisan opinion.

 

Who is the arbiter of what is true or false? I've shown that sworn testimony in a congressional hearing can be false. Sorry, the fact that it is a congressional hearing does not mean the information is factual or unbiased. I am not conflating anything here. I linked the Abby Martin video because it contains multiple issues that have been shown to be factual, regardless of the format it is presented in. Whether Abby Martin was incorrect years ago or not has no bearing on this actual information. Whether it was presented in a hearing, on a blog, or in an empire files report doesn't change whether it's accurate. That is too simplistic a metric. The only inference that can be made by the source is the probability of inaccuracy based on historical accuracy. I already told you the information is hard to get to, and I'm simply not interested in taking a long time to search it out again to show you that you are incorrect. I think you are falling prey to motivated reasoning, and are invested in maintaining your false view of Clinton. You were wrong about the definition of evidence, and you were wrong about congressional hearing sworn testimony. Your haughty responses remind me of the dunning Krueger effect. You appear to not know what you don't know and appear overconfident you are correct.

[waitforufo]

TAVELGATE!!

Nope. Fail.

 

Thanks for bringing up travelgate. Travelgate is where Hillary tried to have an innocent man, Billy Dale, sent to prison so she could get her campaign contributing Hollywood buddies a crony capitalist job of running the white house travel office. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it.

 

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

 

On January 5, 1996, a new development thrust the travel office matter again to the forefront. A two-year-old memo from White House director of administration David Watkins surfaced that identified First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the motivating force behind the firings, with the additional involvement of Vince Foster and Harry Thomason.^[39]"Foster regularly informed me that the First Lady was concerned and desired action. The action desired was the firing of the Travel Office staff."^[40] Written in fall 1993, apparently intended for McLarty, the Watkins memo also said "we both know that there would be hell to pay" if "we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes."^[39] This memo contradicted the First Lady's previous statements in the GAO investigation, that she had played no role in the firings and had not consulted with Thomason beforehand; the White House also found it difficult to explain why the memo was so late in surfacing when all the previous investigations had requested all relevant materials.^[40]House committee chair Clinger charged a cover-up was taking place and vowed to pursue new material.^[39]

Why is it that Hillary always has a problem with documents surfacing? Why do such documents surface so late? Why are her previous comments always being contradicted?

 

These developments, following Hillary Clinton's prior disputed statements about her cattle futures dealings and Whitewater, led to a famous exchange in which high-profile New York Times columnist William Safire, who had endorsed Bill Clinton in the previous election, wrote that many Americans were coming to the "sad realization that our First Lady—a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation—is a congenital liar,"

 

So Hillary has been outed as at congenital liar since 1996.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html

 

As for Billy Dale...

 

At the 13-day trial in October and November 1995,^[37] prominent journalists such as ABC News' Sam Donaldson and The Los Angeles Times' Jack Nelson testified as character witnesses on Dale's behalf.^[8] Much of the trial focused on the details of the movement of Travel Office funds into Dale's personal account, and not on the political overtones of the case.^[38] The jury acquitted Dale of both charges on November 16, 1995,^[4] following less than two hours of deliberations.^[37]

 

I know. Hillary Clinton supporters are proud of her for getting away with things like trying to get innocent people sent to jail in order to service there political friends. They consider such actions as a positive character trait.

Edited September 10, 2016 by waitforufo