Not A Single Piece Of Evidence

Even Chris Wallace on FOX News says so:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492

News Buzzard wrote:http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492

Yup.

If I want the truth about the Clintons' wheeling-dealing, I'll consult the site funded by a Billionaire Nazi collaborator.



.

Sources: Clinton Foundation, CGEP (Canada) and Canadian tax records | May 3 at 8:11 PM



Follow the Money!



.

That's right, follow the money. That's why all of the Koch and Adelson donors should be disclosed. If we're going to play this game we should play it fair and square. In the meantime, still no evidence!!

News Buzzard wrote:Even Chris Wallace on FOX News says so:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492

Citing mediamatters.org is like citing Fox

It's not about Media Matters, Red Hill. It's about all of the other linked sites that are quoted in the article, such as Time, Us News, Fact check. org, ABC and Politico. Why are their positions not good because they are contained in the body of an article posted by Media Matters? Even Chris Wallace on FOX News claimed that Schweizer had no evidence!

Can anyone here tell me, with a straight face, that all of the leading Republican contenders are not being controlled by their donors??

News Buzzard wrote:Even Chris Wallace on FOX News says so:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492

Nonsense.


Government Employee Code of Ethics:

“An employee shall not, except pursuant to such reasonable exceptions as are provided by regulation, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting, activities regulated by the employee’s agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s duties."

I guess one has to define the word “ethics”.

At Hillary's Conformation hearing she stated that the foundation would be completely transparent and any foreign donations would be submitted for approval.
For the three years served there were no foreign donations reported at all.


Not to congress and not to the IRS.

Then after the book comes out showing $96 million dollars in foreign donations for those same three years, suddenly the Clinton foundation announces that they are going to refile their tax returns for those years. How Honest of them, CAUGHT RED HANDED lying to the IRS, Congress and the American people.

Yes, our "foundation" overlooked paying taxes on $32-million dollars. For 3-years. But obviously it's all a GOP Conspiracy."

love, Hill & Bill

And I suppose they all (both sides of the aisle) follow that code of ethics??????? That BS went out the window with the Citizens United decision!!

I thought the left didn’t need evidence.  As long as the attack is effective and you get the results you were looking for. The truth doesn't really matter.
Isn't that right Harry Reid?

Don’t worry this time.

There is plenty of evidence to make a claim that the Clintons took money in order for political favors. Just because it is not hard-evidence does not mean it isn't evidence.  People have gone to jail over the right circumstantial evidence.  It's called a "Preponderance of the Evidence" and it screams: Open an investigation immediately.  Finding a “smoking gun” might be difficult...remember, Hillary erased 300,000 yoga emails from her server.

There is a pattern of behavior that paints the Clintons as criminals and they are. You can look at the facts such as Russia owning 20% of the US uranium. Follow the trail of money...it leads to the Clintons.

The Clinton’s say: "There is no evidence or shred of evidence against us or any wrong doing." They then play the game of a circular denial in which they mince words and never say they didn’t do this or that. It’s there MO because they know that they can trust the liberals to defend them to a fault.

I got to say…I love Hillary’s new ad.

Her campaign spokesperson says: “We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” - Aint that the truth.  

Plenty of evidence? Haven't seen it yet!!

But not too hard...

Hillary ‘Didn’t Know About a Lot of’ Foundation Donations

Former President Bill Clinton stated that Hillary Clinton “didn’t know about a lot of” the foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation in an interview with CNN International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday.

[Bill] Clinton said, in response to a question about whether the foundation’s foreign donations influenced Secretary Clinton’s policy, “No. She didn’t know about a lot of them. And we had a policy, when she was secretary of state that we would only continue accepting money from people that were already giving us money. And I’ve tried to re-create that policy as nearly as I can now during the campaign."

Taking the word of the 2nd US President to be impeached?



.

News Buzzard wrote:Plenty of evidence? Haven't seen it yet!!

Of course you don’t see any evidence; you are too busy smearing those who have produced the evidence.

There is a mountain of evidence on Bill and Hillary’s “pay to play” and more is added every day.

The circumstantial evidence on Senator Robert Menendez lead to an indictment and that was far less compelling than what has been collected on the Clintons.

You can dismiss this all as a political attack, but any objective observer can look at the evidence, tens of millions in donations and speaking fees, the “misfiled” taxes, the unreported donors, the erased emails from a private server, and see it stinks like rotting carcass.

On a side note...

Good ole’ Bill Clinton, told a reporter yesterday: “…it (Clinton Foundation) was, by a good long stretch, the most transparent of all the presidential foundations and more transparent than a lot of other major foundations in the country."

I suppose you see that as a truthful statement.

Outerlimits wrote:

News Buzzard wrote:Plenty of evidence? Haven't seen it yet!!

Of course you don’t see any evidence; you are too busy smearing those who have produced the evidence.

There is a mountain of evidence on Bill and Hillary’s “pay to play” and more is added every day.  

The circumstantial evidence on Senator Robert Menendez lead to an indictment and that was far less compelling than what has been collected on the Clintons.  

You can dismiss this all as a political attack, but any objective observer can look at the evidence, tens of millions in donations and speaking fees, the “misfiled” taxes, the unreported donors, the erased emails from a private server, and see it stinks like rotting carcass.

On a side note...

Good ole’ Bill Clinton, told a reporter yesterday: “…it (Clinton Foundation) was, by a good long stretch, the most transparent of all the presidential foundations and more transparent than a lot of other major foundations in the country."

I suppose you see that as a truthful statement.  

I was listening to Mark Thompson last night, his very D listeners and guests were having all sorts of misgivings about Ms Clinton's candidacy (as well as the Bill Clinton "problem")

Still not a single piece of evidence!

Patterns of behavior don't mean squat!!

News Buzzard wrote:Still not a single piece of evidence!

Patterns of behavior don't mean squat!!

Evidence does not matter in the court of public opinion, but you know that...

red_hill wrote:

News Buzzard wrote:Still not a single piece of evidence!

Patterns of behavior don't mean squat!!

Evidence does not matter in the court of public opinion, but you know that...

That's right and that's the Republican game plan. You assemble all of these patterns of behavior and then refer to them as evidence, and then it turns out that you don't really have any evidence, but the damage is done. It's one of the most common plays in the Republican playbook.

Meanwhile, the NBC/WSJ poll published on May 4th still has Hillary beating everybody.

Wait until Hillary gets out in the open field with whichever goofball the Republicans nominate. The Republicans are all idiots!!! That's a very real pattern of behavior!!

Oh please. If one of the Republican candidates had done what Hillary has done, he would have quit the race already. The press would have been on him/her until they quit.

WHL wrote:Oh please.  If one of the Republican candidates had done what Hillary has done, he would have quit the race already.  The press would have been on him/her until they quit.

Oh really?? Rick Perry has been indicted for 2 felonies and he is appearing at the Pink Cadillac Diner in Rochester tomorrow morning for his possible presidential campaign!

How many felonies has Hillary been indicted for? Oh, wait a minute: There is no evidence that Hillary did anything wrong!!

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:Oh please.  If one of the Republican candidates had done what Hillary has done, he would have quit the race already.  The press would have been on him/her until they quit.

How many felonies has Hillary been indicted for? Oh, wait a minute: There is no evidence that Hillary did anything wrong!!

Same as Tom Brady?



.

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:Oh please.  If one of the Republican candidates had done what Hillary has done, he would have quit the race already.  The press would have been on him/her until they quit.

Oh really?? Rick Perry has been indicted for 2 felonies and he is appearing at the Pink Cadillac Diner in Rochester tomorrow morning for his possible presidential campaign!

How many felonies has Hillary been indicted for? Oh, wait a minute: There is no evidence that Hillary did anything wrong!!

Hillary Clinton & Attorney CAUGHT IN LIE to Trey Gowdy Benghazi Committee About Clinton Email

The Republican National Committee published proof Monday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, through her attorney David Kendall, lied to the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi terror attack by stating that Clinton only used one private email account during her tenure as secretary.

The RNC based their claim on Clinton emails published Monday by the New York Times that show her sending emails from an address named hrod17@clintonemail.com. Kendall, in a letter dated March 27, 2015 in response to a subpoena for emails from the hrod17 account and another account named hdr22@clintonemail.com, told the committee Clinton only used the account named hdr22.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/hillary-clinton-attorney-caught-in-lie-to-trey-gowdy-benghazi-committee-about-clinton-email-accounts/

What does Hillary need an attorney for, anyway?

She can lie all by herself, and save the money...



.

Archives officials worried about preserving Hillary’s records

Before Hillary Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in early 2013, National Archives officials were warned that her official records might wind up outside the control of the State Department and pledged to take steps to address the issue, newly released records reveal.

“We need to discuss what we know, and how we should delicately go about learning more about, regarding the transition plans for Secretary Clinton’s departure from State,” Paul Wester, chief records officer for the U.S. Government wrote to National Archives colleagues in a Dec. 11, 2012, email message obtained by POLITICO.
Politico

The same National Archives officials in charge when Sandy Berger stole their official records containing Bill Clinton's handwritten notations.  

What is it about transparency and the Clintons?



.