Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because Chelsea is...what, some kind of spy, mole, terrorist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And, exactly what do you suspect Chelsea Clinton of? Is she a potential terrorist in your not-paranaoid-not-deluded-world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I didn't say that you called her a spy or terrorist. I explicitly said you did not. I said you cannot on the one hand claim that Chelsea is an innocent in all this, and at the same time say she was involved in illicit, criminal activity. The two arguments contradict one another.
I'm saying that your argument to investigate these e-mails is irrational. Because it is.
You are saying that e-mails which have been in the public domain for over a year are suspicious because a daughter used an alias well-known to her mother (her mother may have even helped her choose this alias) in communications with her mother. And that that somehow justifies another FBI investigation (of e-mails the FBI has already examined). Because e-mails that have been released to the public for over a year might contain messages (and those messages must be hidden, because the e-mails have been in the public domain for over a year and if the messages weren't hidden, then the FBI and members of the public would surely have pointed out illicit messages by now) related to a Foundation that the daughter didn't work for during the time period in question. And the mother used her daughter because the Foundation in question had hundreds of other employees but why use them when you can put your daughter at risk, right? A daughter the mother has an extensive history of protecting. A daughter who might have political aspirations of her own one day. But yeah, that's the one person the mother would want to put at risk.
It's your argument that doesn't pass the smell test.
You sure have a funny way of "explicitly saying" I didn't call her a spy or terrorist.
And you keep ignoring the fact (probably the 3rd time now) that I've said that its not just these 67 emails. What happened to everything else that mom conveniently deleted or had her lawyers delete because they were not State Department related? I can see the conversation now with her lawyers: "Oh...um yeah, Diane...well yeah just a cute pet name I call my daughter, delete those, nothing to see there, obviously just personal yoga stuff" Were there other emails that were sent to other people inside our outside of the Clinton domain that we don't know about?
Yet again. Why would anyone make excuses for one of the most untrustworthy candidates in history to be communicating with people using fake email names? It makes no sense, and the obvious question to ask is what were you trying to hide. I don't have the answers on what she was trying to hide, but years ago I probably also wouldn't have told you that we were lied to about WMDs. You don't know what you dont know, but the one thing I do know is that Hillary has a very difficult time with the truth, so when I see fake names being used I'm confidently and justifiably going to call it a red flag.
Chelsea Clinton didn't work with the foundation until after her mother had left the Secretary of State office. Why would the foundation use Chelsea in this weird scheme you are envisioning? Didn't the foundation have plenty of employees? Why use Chelsea?
The Clintons have been extremely protective over the years of Chelsea. That FACT has been well-documented. Reporters could get in trouble for just approaching Chelsea. As President, Bill Clinton warned the media that Chelsea was out-of-bounds. When Hillary campaigned the first time for President, the Clintons kept Chelsea very insulated from the media and the campaign in general. Her appearances were carefully monitored and controlled.
But they just threw her into the lion's den when it came to the Foundation. Used her in an illicit scheme. Tainted her future. Because there weren't any other employees at the foundation that they could use in this GOP fantasy.
And the FBI completely dropped the ball. And the media did too, when these e-mails were dumped into the public domain over a year ago. No one saw any red flags. That is, until Julian Assange in his vendetta decided to start waving red flags.
And now you think there are "hidden" messages in the e-mails.
The bolded sound a lot like her mother as well, just saying..
Chelsea Clinton didn't work with the foundation until after her mother had left the Secretary of State office. Why would the foundation use Chelsea in this weird scheme you are envisioning? Didn't the foundation have plenty of employees? Why use Chelsea?
The Clintons have been extremely protective over the years of Chelsea. That FACT has been well-documented. Reporters could get in trouble for just approaching Chelsea. As President, Bill Clinton warned the media that Chelsea was out-of-bounds. When Hillary campaigned the first time for President, the Clintons kept Chelsea very insulated from the media and the campaign in general. Her appearances were carefully monitored and controlled.
But they just threw her into the lion's den when it came to the Foundation. Used her in an illicit scheme. Tainted her future. Because there weren't any other employees at the foundation that they could use in this GOP fantasy.
And the FBI completely dropped the ball. And the media did too, when these e-mails were dumped into the public domain over a year ago. No one saw any red flags. That is, until Julian Assange in his vendetta decided to start waving red flags.
And now you think there are "hidden" messages in the e-mails.
Hillary Clinto Secretary of State 2009 to 2013..
Chelsea Clinton oard of Directors Clinton Foundatikn 2011 to present.
Sweems like you need to fact check yourself.
Filed doesnt mean they were verified.. and if they went deeper into accounts, foriegn and domestic, all the spending etc etc.
Keep drinking the kool aid. Al Capone was eventually caught.
Released to the public.
Means released to the public. Where the GOP could review and verify to their heart's content.
And being on the Board of Directors does not mean that you have much to do with the day-to-day operations of an organization.
Not that I expect you to understand that.
Exactly, because "day to day operations" are for the non-connected peons that do things like payroll, set up events, write press releases, etc. You insulate these people from any unethical behavior because they are the first ones that will spill the beans if the press or authorities start asking questions because they just want to collect their "day to day" paychecks and not risk going to jail.
The corruption happens at the top, and most companies put people on their BoD who can help make connections, and influence other companies, organizations, or people that can help them advance in whatever they are trying to do. It isn't to say its always unethical, but its just to say that you are again, wrong.
Since your scenario is flawed, your next logical step is not, in fact, a logical step at all. That's why the FBI that has already reviewed these e-mails isn't going to do anything. Because your suspicions are stupid. And you know it, because I've asked you several times what it is that you think Chelsea is, a spy? a terrorist? and you keep on saying no, of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I think that you are talking from both sides of your mouth.
On the one hand, you don't think Chelsea is a spy or terrorist or a criminal or anything bad, and you don't think she was communicating anything related to spying or terrorism to her mother.
On the other hand, you think that Chelsea and her 67 e-mails should be RE-investigated to make sure that nothing related to spying or terrorism or criminal activity was contained in them.
The two things don't match. Your argument is irrational.
This is what explicitly saying that you don't think Chelsea is a spy or terrorist or a criminal looks like.
This is what explicitly saying that you don't think Chelsea is a spy or terrorist or a criminal looks like.
Yes, and mix that with my other examples and all you have is a mish-mosh of implying things about me, while making excuses to ignore the questions that any logical person would ask.
We have a VERY corrupt and proven liar who is now facilitating and communicating with a fake email address. Seems 100% legit in your eyes, I get it. I hope you feel proud to vote for her.
Exactly, because "day to day operations" are for the non-connected peons that do things like payroll, set up events, write press releases, etc. You insulate these people from any unethical behavior because they are the first ones that will spill the beans if the press or authorities start asking questions because they just want to collect their "day to day" paychecks and not risk going to jail.
The corruption happens at the top, and most companies put people on their BoD who can help make connections, and influence other companies, organizations, or people that can help them advance in whatever they are trying to do. It isn't to say its always unethical, but its just to say that you are again, wrong.
Once again, why Chelsea? The daughter you've protected for her entire life? Why not Bill, or Huma, or any of the countless other employees? Why Chelsea?
And of course, many of these e-mails were sent well before Chelsea joined the Board.
You think that message about whether the flowers used at the wedding could be moved to the reception afterwards is suspicious because Chelsea used her Diana Reynolds e-mail account?
Yes, and mix that with my other examples and all you have is a mish-mosh of implying things about me, while making excuses to ignore the questions that any logical person would ask.
We have a VERY corrupt and proven liar who is now facilitating and communicating with a fake email address. Seems 100% legit in your eyes, I get it. I hope you feel proud to vote for her.
In your opinion "we have a VERY corrupt" person. Who was communicating with her DAUGHTER.
I think Hillary is a flawed human being, just like the rest of us. I think Hillary has lied and made mistakes, just like the rest of us.
I think the propaganda against her is overblown and grossly exaggerates her flaws.
And I think it's beyond stupid to argue that e-mails between her and her daughter should be RE-investigated.
I will feel proud when I vote for her. 90% of the people who vote along with me will be voting for Trump. And they will probably feel proud of their votes, too. Because we should all vote for the person we think will best represent us for office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
