The Atlantic: Tracking all the Clinton controversies

[francoHFW]

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

Some reality for the RW fringe...

 

[francoHFW]

The emails have become a classic Clinton scandal. Even though investigations have found no wrongdoing on her part with respect to the Benghazi attacks themselves, Clinton’s private-email use and concerns about whether she sent classified information have become huge stories unto themselves. This is a pattern with the Clinton family, which has been in the public spotlight since Bill Clinton’s first run for office, in 1974: Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior. The canonical case is Whitewater, a failed real-estate investment Bill and Hillary Clinton made in 1978. While no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing, investigations ultimately led to President Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.

With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here’s a primer. We’ll update it as new information emerges.

From link...

The RW fringe being half the GOP

 

[MisterBeale]

This is CFR propaganda to minimize the Truth. It's a propaganda campaign to make folks feel better about voting for a corrupt politician.

FrancoHFW is known on this forum as one of the many that having absolutely no ability to do any critical thinking or analysis of the sources he uses. He never seeks out any secondary sources and seeks out sources to confirm his cognitive bias.

If you really want the nuts and bolts of their past folks, here is the dirty awful truth.
Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith

 

[francoHFW]

^^ RW fringer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^^ RW fringer

^ Obama's English teacher at Columbia

 

[MisterBeale]

^^ RW fringer

^ Obama's English teacher at Columbia

I'm not so sure. I don't think he has enough intelligence and education to teach a Head-start class. . . .

 

[MisterBeale]

^^ RW fringer

See, this is what I mean about critical thinking skills.

You have been on this forum for how long?

You have read my posts how long? Or do you actually read them?


There are so many posters that know that I am not a "rightwinger" or a "leftwinger" or a conservative, or a liberal.

They know that I do not subscribe to any particular partisan position. Faction is the death of this nation.


You either;

A) Didn't even click on the link.

or

B) Just as soon as you found something mildly objectionably, decided to insult me rather than use an intelligent rebuttle. Fair enough, I started the insulting. But what I said was mostly true. Your favorite word is "hater dupe." I am frankly surprised you haven't trotted it out yet.

You didn't have to read down very far to find out about Clinton's mentor, Carol Quigley.

"Clinton goes to Georgetown University where he finds a mentor in Professor Carroll Quigley. Quigley writes: "That the two political parties should represent opposed ideals and policies. . . is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical . . .The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in detail, procedure, priority, or method. "
Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith


What does this mean? It means that the Clintons are in deep in the CFR. IN the CFR, they don't believe in partasanship. Why do you think that the GOP party elites are talking about throwing their support behind Hillary if Trump can take the nomination?


You just don't understand how the establishment works. You call folks names but don't have a clue. There is no difference between those you call RW nutjobs and yourself.

 

[whitehall]

Actually the opposite is true. Something that the media considers innocuous regarding the Clintons often turns out to be scandalous before they get a chance to bury it. Hillary's psychological profile indicates an abused woman who blamed everyone but her husband even when overwhelming evidence indicated his infidelity. Hillary is a "normal" woman's worst enemy. She used the power of the state government and later the federal government to threaten the lives of women who were abused by her husband. Benghazi might not lead to an indictment but it is a clear indication of Hillary's instability. If the media was doing it's job she would have been laughed out of town for blaming an obscure you tube video for the negligence that led to the Benghazi debacle. The inappropriate (hysterical?) laughter when Madam Albright offered an opinion that there was a "special place in hell etc" and the screeching "what difference does it make" before a Senate committee indicates an unstable personality. It's possible that rumors are true that Hillary might have suffered some sort of brain episode similar to V.P. Biden that the DNC is covering up. The fact that loyal democrats in Sanders' home state crushed Hillary in an almost unanimous vote for an old commie is an indication that she is not likeable even among the loyal rank and file democrats.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually the opposite is true. Something that the media considers innocuous regarding the Clintons often turns out to be scandalous before they get a chance to bury it. Hillary's psychological profile indicates an abused woman who blamed everyone but her husband even when overwhelming evidence indicated his infidelity. Hillary is a "normal" woman's worst enemy. She used the power of the state government and later the federal government to threaten the lives of women who were abused by her husband. Benghazi might not lead to an indictment but it is a clear indication of Hillary's instability. If the media was doing it's job she would have been laughed out of town for blaming an obscure you tube video for the negligence that led to the Benghazi debacle. The inappropriate (hysterical?) laughter when Madam Albright offered an opinion that there was a "special place in hell etc" and the screeching "what difference does it make" before a Senate committee indicates an unstable personality. It's possible that rumors are true that Hillary might have suffered some sort of brain episode similar to V.P. Biden that the DNC is covering up. The fact that loyal democrats in Sanders' home state crushed Hillary in an almost unanimous vote for an old commie is an indication that she is not likeable even among the loyal rank and file democrats.

ACTUALLY, the video caused many attacks/protests at the same time, and only RW fringers KNOW it has nothing to to with it, while no attacker has ever been asked, and the CIA STILL thinks it was probably the trigger. Since no one knows, what does all the Pub BS MATTER? That's what she was asking, brainwashed hater dupes...

 

[francoHFW]

^^ RW fringer

See, this is what I mean about critical thinking skills.

You have been on this forum for how long?

You have read my posts how long? Or do you actually read them?


There are so many posters that know that I am not a "rightwinger" or a "leftwinger" or a conservative, or a liberal.

They know that I do not subscribe to any particular partisan position. Faction is the death of this nation.


You either;

A) Didn't even click on the link.

or

B) Just as soon as you found something mildly objectionably, decided to insult me rather than use an intelligent rebuttle. Fair enough, I started the insulting. But what I said was mostly true. Your favorite word is "hater dupe." I am frankly surprised you haven't trotted it out yet.

You didn't have to read down very far to find out about Clinton's mentor, Carol Quigley.

"Clinton goes to Georgetown University where he finds a mentor in Professor Carroll Quigley. Quigley writes: "That the two political parties should represent opposed ideals and policies. . . is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical . . .The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in detail, procedure, priority, or method. "
Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith


What does this mean? It means that the Clintons are in deep in the CFR. IN the CFR, they don't believe in partasanship. Why do you think that the GOP party elites are talking about throwing their support behind Hillary if Trump can take the nomination?


You just don't understand how the establishment works. You call folks names but don't have a clue. There is no difference between those you call RW nutjobs and yourself.

Except they believe a gigantic pile of BS lol...and are probably racist ugly American ignoramuses...

 

[francoHFW]

Actually the opposite is true. Something that the media considers innocuous regarding the Clintons often turns out to be scandalous before they get a chance to bury it. Hillary's psychological profile indicates an abused woman who blamed everyone but her husband even when overwhelming evidence indicated his infidelity. Hillary is a "normal" woman's worst enemy. She used the power of the state government and later the federal government to threaten the lives of women who were abused by her husband. Benghazi might not lead to an indictment but it is a clear indication of Hillary's instability. If the media was doing it's job she would have been laughed out of town for blaming an obscure you tube video for the negligence that led to the Benghazi debacle. The inappropriate (hysterical?) laughter when Madam Albright offered an opinion that there was a "special place in hell etc" and the screeching "what difference does it make" before a Senate committee indicates an unstable personality. It's possible that rumors are true that Hillary might have suffered some sort of brain episode similar to V.P. Biden that the DNC is covering up. The fact that loyal democrats in Sanders' home state crushed Hillary in an almost unanimous vote for an old commie is an indication that she is not likeable even among the loyal rank and file democrats.

ACTUALLY, the video caused many attacks/protests at the same time, and only RW fringers KNOW it has nothing to to with it, while no attacker has ever been asked, and the CIA STILL thinks it was probably the trigger. Since no one knows, what does all the Pub BS MATTER? That's what she was asking, brainwashed hater dupes...

Funny? Read it again, google any questions, and come back to planet Earth, dupe.

 

[MisterBeale]

^^ RW fringer

See, this is what I mean about critical thinking skills.

You have been on this forum for how long?

You have read my posts how long? Or do you actually read them?


There are so many posters that know that I am not a "rightwinger" or a "leftwinger" or a conservative, or a liberal.

They know that I do not subscribe to any particular partisan position. Faction is the death of this nation.


You either;

A) Didn't even click on the link.

or

B) Just as soon as you found something mildly objectionably, decided to insult me rather than use an intelligent rebuttle. Fair enough, I started the insulting. But what I said was mostly true. Your favorite word is "hater dupe." I am frankly surprised you haven't trotted it out yet.

You didn't have to read down very far to find out about Clinton's mentor, Carol Quigley.

"Clinton goes to Georgetown University where he finds a mentor in Professor Carroll Quigley. Quigley writes: "That the two political parties should represent opposed ideals and policies. . . is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical . . .The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in detail, procedure, priority, or method. "
Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith


What does this mean? It means that the Clintons are in deep in the CFR. IN the CFR, they don't believe in partasanship. Why do you think that the GOP party elites are talking about throwing their support behind Hillary if Trump can take the nomination?


You just don't understand how the establishment works. You call folks names but don't have a clue. There is no difference between those you call RW nutjobs and yourself.

Except they believe a gigantic pile of BS lol...and are probably racist ugly American ignoramuses...

^^ RW fringer

 

[francoHFW]

^^ RW fringer

See, this is what I mean about critical thinking skills.

You have been on this forum for how long?

You have read my posts how long? Or do you actually read them?


There are so many posters that know that I am not a "rightwinger" or a "leftwinger" or a conservative, or a liberal.

They know that I do not subscribe to any particular partisan position. Faction is the death of this nation.


You either;

A) Didn't even click on the link.

or

B) Just as soon as you found something mildly objectionably, decided to insult me rather than use an intelligent rebuttle. Fair enough, I started the insulting. But what I said was mostly true. Your favorite word is "hater dupe." I am frankly surprised you haven't trotted it out yet.

You didn't have to read down very far to find out about Clinton's mentor, Carol Quigley.

"Clinton goes to Georgetown University where he finds a mentor in Professor Carroll Quigley. Quigley writes: "That the two political parties should represent opposed ideals and policies. . . is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical . . .The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in detail, procedure, priority, or method. "
Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith


What does this mean? It means that the Clintons are in deep in the CFR. IN the CFR, they don't believe in partasanship. Why do you think that the GOP party elites are talking about throwing their support behind Hillary if Trump can take the nomination?


You just don't understand how the establishment works. You call folks names but don't have a clue. There is no difference between those you call RW nutjobs and yourself.

Except they believe a gigantic pile of BS lol...and are probably racist ugly American ignoramuses...

^^ RW fringer

Nonsensical

 

[MisterBeale]

^^ RW fringer

See, this is what I mean about critical thinking skills.

You have been on this forum for how long?

You have read my posts how long? Or do you actually read them?


There are so many posters that know that I am not a "rightwinger" or a "leftwinger" or a conservative, or a liberal.

They know that I do not subscribe to any particular partisan position. Faction is the death of this nation.


You either;

A) Didn't even click on the link.

or

B) Just as soon as you found something mildly objectionably, decided to insult me rather than use an intelligent rebuttle. Fair enough, I started the insulting. But what I said was mostly true. Your favorite word is "hater dupe." I am frankly surprised you haven't trotted it out yet.

You didn't have to read down very far to find out about Clinton's mentor, Carol Quigley.

"Clinton goes to Georgetown University where he finds a mentor in Professor Carroll Quigley. Quigley writes: "That the two political parties should represent opposed ideals and policies. . . is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical . . .The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in detail, procedure, priority, or method. "
Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith


What does this mean? It means that the Clintons are in deep in the CFR. IN the CFR, they don't believe in partasanship. Why do you think that the GOP party elites are talking about throwing their support behind Hillary if Trump can take the nomination?


You just don't understand how the establishment works. You call folks names but don't have a clue. There is no difference between those you call RW nutjobs and yourself.

Except they believe a gigantic pile of BS lol...and are probably racist ugly American ignoramuses...

^^ RW fringer

Nonsensical

Yup. . . that's how the whole board feels about your posts. . . .

 

[francoHFW]

^^ RW fringer

See, this is what I mean about critical thinking skills.

You have been on this forum for how long?

You have read my posts how long? Or do you actually read them?


There are so many posters that know that I am not a "rightwinger" or a "leftwinger" or a conservative, or a liberal.

They know that I do not subscribe to any particular partisan position. Faction is the death of this nation.


You either;

A) Didn't even click on the link.

or

B) Just as soon as you found something mildly objectionably, decided to insult me rather than use an intelligent rebuttle. Fair enough, I started the insulting. But what I said was mostly true. Your favorite word is "hater dupe." I am frankly surprised you haven't trotted it out yet.

You didn't have to read down very far to find out about Clinton's mentor, Carol Quigley.

"Clinton goes to Georgetown University where he finds a mentor in Professor Carroll Quigley. Quigley writes: "That the two political parties should represent opposed ideals and policies. . . is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical . . .The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in detail, procedure, priority, or method. "
Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith


What does this mean? It means that the Clintons are in deep in the CFR. IN the CFR, they don't believe in partasanship. Why do you think that the GOP party elites are talking about throwing their support behind Hillary if Trump can take the nomination?


You just don't understand how the establishment works. You call folks names but don't have a clue. There is no difference between those you call RW nutjobs and yourself.

Except they believe a gigantic pile of BS lol...and are probably racist ugly American ignoramuses...

^^ RW fringer

Nonsensical

Yup. . . that's how the whole board feels about your posts. . . .

It IS about 75% RW idiots like you. Nobody is talking about going for Hillary in the GOP. The establishment defends to the death their low taxes for the rich she wants to change, and the hater dupes like you believe she's satan. lol