Don't knock him that hard. He's still a waaaaaay better mod than Westwall.
I suspect we will hear more of Huma in the coming weeks. She is a close intimiate of Hillary. That means she received many of these emails. She also probably read many of them. She is doubtless complicit in this business.
I thought the OP was pretty clear that she is a sleaze.
I thought the OP was pretty clear that she is a sleaze.
Wrong, the OP makes some very clear points about Huma's reputation. She is a sleaze who works for a sleaze and is married to a sleaze. I can't imagine someone accusing a third party of 'tarnishing' her reputation when she works for Hillary, is married to Anthony Wiener and is knee deep in her very own scandal to boot, ffs!I thought the OP was pretty clear that she is a sleaze.
The OP made no point whatsoever. The story has to do with:
>> ....Grassley’s suggestions that Abedin was illegally overpaid during vacations and while on maternity leave during her time aiding the then-secretary of State. The letter also rebuts Grassley’s allegations that Abedin may have shown a conflict of interest by using her department clout to help a private consultant for whom she worked part-time.
Rodriguez reportedly claimed that Abedin was always working during trips for which she was paid at the State Department, and that she never used her government connections to get an official appointment for the head of a private client <<
None of that was addressed as to whether anyone's claims or suggestions might be valid or invalid. All he said was basically "you're a big stupid". A reader who may not know who the players are, and/or what the issue is, comes away with no working impression whatsoever.
And that's bullshit. Empty rhetorical calories.
I thought the OP was pretty clear that she is a sleaze.
The OP made no point whatsoever. The story has to do with:
>> ....Grassley’s suggestions that Abedin was illegally overpaid during vacations and while on maternity leave during her time aiding the then-secretary of State. The letter also rebuts Grassley’s allegations that Abedin may have shown a conflict of interest by using her department clout to help a private consultant for whom she worked part-time.
Rodriguez reportedly claimed that Abedin was always working during trips for which she was paid at the State Department, and that she never used her government connections to get an official appointment for the head of a private client <<
None of that was addressed as to whether anyone's claims or suggestions might be valid or invalid. All he said was basically "you're a big stupid". A reader who may not know who the players are, and/or what the issue is, comes away with no working impression whatsoever.
And that's bullshit. Empty rhetorical calories.
Wrong, the OP makes some very clear points about Huma's reputation. She is a sleaze who works for a sleaze and is married to a sleaze. I can't imagine someone accusing a third party of 'tarnishing' her reputation when she works for Hillary, is married to Anthony Wiener and is knee deep in her very own scandal to boot, ffs!
Whether you're deliberately obtuse, stupid or just a run-of-the-mill hack, the sleaze running through her and her life is undeniable. Get over it!I thought the OP was pretty clear that she is a sleaze.
The OP made no point whatsoever. The story has to do with:
>> ....Grassley’s suggestions that Abedin was illegally overpaid during vacations and while on maternity leave during her time aiding the then-secretary of State. The letter also rebuts Grassley’s allegations that Abedin may have shown a conflict of interest by using her department clout to help a private consultant for whom she worked part-time.
Rodriguez reportedly claimed that Abedin was always working during trips for which she was paid at the State Department, and that she never used her government connections to get an official appointment for the head of a private client <<
None of that was addressed as to whether anyone's claims or suggestions might be valid or invalid. All he said was basically "you're a big stupid". A reader who may not know who the players are, and/or what the issue is, comes away with no working impression whatsoever.
And that's bullshit. Empty rhetorical calories.
Wrong, the OP makes some very clear points about Huma's reputation. She is a sleaze who works for a sleaze and is married to a sleaze. I can't imagine someone accusing a third party of 'tarnishing' her reputation when she works for Hillary, is married to Anthony Wiener and is knee deep in her very own scandal to boot, ffs!
No, not wrong at all. The post drops some character assassination without giving any basis at all. Let's say you walk in here with no idea who the subject is. You've just been told the subject's reputation cannot be further tarnished because she works for entity A and is married to entity B. Neither of those make a ******* point. Neither working for someone nor being married is a source of tarnish.
It ain't rocket surgery. If you have a point, you put it on some kind of foundation. That doesn't exist here.
Whether you're deliberately obtuse, stupid or just a run-of-the-mill hack, the sleaze running through her and her life is undeniable. Get over it!I thought the OP was pretty clear that she is a sleaze.
The OP made no point whatsoever. The story has to do with:
>> ....Grassley’s suggestions that Abedin was illegally overpaid during vacations and while on maternity leave during her time aiding the then-secretary of State. The letter also rebuts Grassley’s allegations that Abedin may have shown a conflict of interest by using her department clout to help a private consultant for whom she worked part-time.
Rodriguez reportedly claimed that Abedin was always working during trips for which she was paid at the State Department, and that she never used her government connections to get an official appointment for the head of a private client <<
None of that was addressed as to whether anyone's claims or suggestions might be valid or invalid. All he said was basically "you're a big stupid". A reader who may not know who the players are, and/or what the issue is, comes away with no working impression whatsoever.
And that's bullshit. Empty rhetorical calories.
Wrong, the OP makes some very clear points about Huma's reputation. She is a sleaze who works for a sleaze and is married to a sleaze. I can't imagine someone accusing a third party of 'tarnishing' her reputation when she works for Hillary, is married to Anthony Wiener and is knee deep in her very own scandal to boot, ffs!
No, not wrong at all. The post drops some character assassination without giving any basis at all. Let's say you walk in here with no idea who the subject is. You've just been told the subject's reputation cannot be further tarnished because she works for entity A and is married to entity B. Neither of those make a ******* point. Neither working for someone nor being married is a source of tarnish.
It ain't rocket surgery. If you have a point, you put it on some kind of foundation. That doesn't exist here.
