This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

Topic: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?  (Read 1608 times)

cateyes1

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 5564 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 193x
So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« on: September 04, 2015, 07:03:41 am »

 
  If you're under 50 you really need to read this, if you are
  over 50, share it with those under fifty. Amazing to me how
  much I have forgotten!
 
 When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to
  assume authority over a health care reform. Even after
  threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in
  a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the
  American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies,
  promotion, and other efforts.
 
  Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting
  a female attorney general. Her first two selections
  were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to
  withdraw their names from consideration. Next she
  chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as
  “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that
  Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch
  Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens
  of deaths of women and children.
 
 > > Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the
 > > head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was
 > > her selection. When a little probing led to the
 > > discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to
 > > be withdrawn from consideration.
 > >
 > > Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to
 > > make some more recommendations. She chose former law
 > > partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster
 > > for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the
 > > Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel
 > > went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and
 > > Kennedy was forced to resign.
 > >
 > > Many younger votes will have no knowledge of
 > > “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered
 > > travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and
 > > the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She
 > > managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired.
 > > This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and
 > > caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee,
 > > Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the
 > > enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A
 > > jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
 > >
 > > Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to
 > > recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the
 > > position of Director of White House security. When
 > > Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of
 > > about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the
 > > widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly
 > > Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone,
 > > and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White
 > > House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its
 > > White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of
 > > service to seven presidents.
 > >
 > > Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of
 > > sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put
 > > in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal
 > > defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the
 > > debacle was:
 > >
 > > She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones
 > > lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled
 > > with Ms. Jones.
 > >
 > > She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led
 > > to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After
 > > $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's
 > > investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill
 > > lying about and later admitting his affairs.
 > >
 > > Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his
 > > license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand
 > > jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of
 > > Representatives.
 > >
 > > Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of
 > > justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do
 > > not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I
 > > don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
 > >
 > > After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return
 > > an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and
 > > artwork that she had stolen.
 > >
 > > What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year
 > > of this type low-life mess?
 > >
 > > Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly
 > > incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State
 > > and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation
 > > – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to
 > > her loyal fans - “what difference does it make?”
> >
 > > Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting
 > > Satan absolution and giving him the keys to heaven!
 >

southernhorizons

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2914 (since 2008)
  • Thanked: 57x
Re: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2015, 08:32:00 am »
She's got to be one of the most corrupt people ever to walk the face of the earth. And in an atmosphere of corrupt politicians, that's saying something.

vickysue

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4927 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 135x
Re: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2015, 03:30:06 pm »
I know I would not vote for her. I lived through her crap and his. I think both are corrupt, he also took money from the social security fund to help balance the so called budget.  That money is still owed to the ss He another couple democrats just dipped into when ever.  Now this one is giving money right and left to countries that will  never pay it back. Our country has gone to pot.

ktheodos

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 5504 (since 2008)
  • Thanked: 88x
Re: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2015, 11:43:29 am »
Wow...is all of that really true?

vickysue

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4927 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 135x
Re: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2015, 01:26:17 pm »
 Yes it is true. Just ask several of your parents for some of it, they will tell you unless they had their head in the sand.

monnee

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4426 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 52x
Re: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2015, 03:00:50 pm »
Too much drama.

JediJohnnie

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4521 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 166x
Re: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2015, 04:04:28 pm »
I was only a teen at the time of the Clinton Administration, but yeah, much of that I remember well!

Hard to believe she's being seriously considered as a presidential candidate today!

Google JediJohnnie and May the Force be with you!

potluck6

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4021 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 111x
Re: So the Clintons were not so bad, huh?
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2015, 09:10:59 pm »
i can't believe you typed all that i don't know about Hillary for pres .My son  now 24 liked Clinton when he was 5 but that is as far as his interest in politics went.

  • Print