Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Jul '16 13:28 / 1 edit
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/07/13/new-york-post-yep-lynch-and-clinton-struck-a-deal-on-that-plane-n2192337

    According to the article, FBI agents are coming forward saying that an inside deal was struck to save Hillary.

    However, the agents were sworn to secrecy and made to sign a special agreement not to talk, which is very unusual if not unprecedented.. Who will be brave enough to come forward I wonder?

    It reminds me of the soldiers in Afghanistan who had to sign a similar agreement not to talk about the desertion of Bergdahl. The problem is, soldiers tend to be brave, brave enough to risk their own lives, hence soldiers came forward anyway. Will these FBI agents be as brave?
  2. 15 Jul '16 13:42
    If someone is brave enough to come forward, and subsequently surrender his career, if not his life, for telling the truth, who would investigate the FBI?
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jul '16 14:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    If someone is brave enough to come forward, and subsequently surrender his career, if not his life, for telling the truth, who would investigate the FBI?
    I'm sure if you were in charge and it was a republican candidate for president, you would keep the secret. Now that it is a dem,...........
  4. 15 Jul '16 15:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I'm sure if you were in charge and it was a republican candidate for president, you would keep the secret. Now that it is a dem,...........
    The more power one has typically the more is at stake and the less likely you will not end up corrupt.

    Party has little to do with that.
  5. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    15 Jul '16 19:46
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I'm sure if you were in charge and it was a republican candidate for president, you would keep the secret. Now that it is a dem,...........
    I forget: what party did Nixon represent again?
  6. 15 Jul '16 21:25
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I forget: what party did Nixon represent again?
    Is it too late to send him to prison where he belonged?
  7. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    15 Jul '16 23:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is it too late to send him to prison where he belonged?
    Pretty sure he made it.
  8. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    16 Jul '16 06:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    If someone is brave enough to come forward, and subsequently surrender his career, if not his life, for telling the truth, who would investigate the FBI?
    The truth is, there's no "there" there.

    You didn't listen the last dozen times I told you this, either.
  9. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    16 Jul '16 07:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/07/13/new-york-post-yep-lynch-and-clinton-struck-a-deal-on-that-plane-n2192337

    According to the article, FBI agents are coming forward saying that an inside deal was struck to save Hillary.

    However, the agents were sworn to secrecy and made to sign a special agreement not to talk, which is very unusual if n ...[text shortened]... to risk their own lives, hence soldiers came forward anyway. Will these FBI agents be as brave?
    "But according to a report from the New York Post, FBI agents believe an inside deal was struck on that plane to keep Hillary Clinton free of indictment."

    Freaky believes the earth is flat and that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attack, too.

    So much for what people "believe".

    The political right have had plenty of wood for a Hillary conviction forever. But regardless of what they hear on talk-radio that fuels their fantasies, there is no "there" there, and they need to get over it before Congressional Republican hit men spend another seven million dollars on this not-so-quiet desperation.

    Again, fear is all they have. Make people afraid and then tell them exactly who they should be afraid of. The problem is that they've been at this so long now that we've heard it all, and we're just not convinced. The boy has cried "wolf" enough.
  10. 16 Jul '16 10:09
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    "But according to a report from the New York Post, FBI agents believe an inside deal was struck on that plane to keep Hillary Clinton free of indictment."

    Freaky believes the earth is flat and that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attack, too.

    So much for what people "believe".

    The political right have had plenty of wood for a Hillary convi ...[text shortened]... ong now that we've heard it all, and we're just not convinced. The boy has cried "wolf" enough.
    Speaking of fearmongering, tell us again what will happen if Trump is elected.

    Also, don't you believe that Hilary never lies and that she is 100% competent to be the next President. If so, you are not in the majority.
  11. 16 Jul '16 10:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    Speaking of fearmongering, tell us again what will happen if Trump is elected.

    Also, don't you believe that Hilary never lies and that she is 100% competent to be the next President. If so, you are not in the majority.
    Who would you suggest to be the next president, having both the properties "never lies" and "100% competent"?
  12. 16 Jul '16 10:20
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Who would you suggest to be the next president, having both the properties "never lies" and "100% competent"?
    No one is 100% honest, however, not many people have the scandal record Hillary has, nor can they be proven to have lied so many times, especially when putting national security at risk at the same time.

    In short, Hilary is special in this regard.
  13. 16 Jul '16 10:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    However, the agents were sworn to secrecy and made to sign a special agreement not to talk, which is very unusual if not unprecedented.
    Actually such agreements are commonplace in government and industry. I myself have signed non-disclosure agreements (that I can't tell you more about). It would not surprise me if you support such agreements whenever terrorism is involved or the republicans support it.
    As for this particular case, the supposed existence of such agreements cannot be confirmed can it? So the reporters could be just making it all up.

    The funny part is, that if such agreements are in place then not only are the agents who mentioned it, guilty of violating the agreements - thus making them as naughty as Clinton is accused of being, but the reporters too are probably in violation of certain laws regarding classified information.
  14. 16 Jul '16 10:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    No one is 100% honest, however, not many people have the scandal record Hillary has,
    Well Trump has a much worse 'scandal record' and he got it without having to endure republican scrutiny for many years.

    nor can they be proven to have lied so many times
    Yet oddly enough this 'proof' comes in the form of a claim that there might be non-disclosure agreements to do with something unknown that might have been said. Not what I would call 'proof'. Whereas Trumps lies are on TV every single day for all to see.

    especially when putting national security at risk at the same time.
    I hope Trump never gets the opportunity to put national security at risk.

    In short, Hilary is special in this regard.
    That's what you said about Obama a few years ago.
  15. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    16 Jul '16 11:42
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Well Trump has a much worse 'scandal record' and he got it without having to endure republican scrutiny for many years.

    [b]nor can they be proven to have lied so many times

    Yet oddly enough this 'proof' comes in the form of a claim that there might be non-disclosure agreements to do with something unknown that might have been said. Not what I woul ...[text shortened]... short, Hilary is special in this regard.[/b]
    That's what you said about Obama a few years ago.[/b]
    I'll grant that Trump has been a lightning rod of controversy through the years on account of his style.
    Bombastic, outlandish, braggadocios and generally pompous.
    In contrast, besides coming across publicly as a bit of a ice-queen shrill, Clinton cannot be accused of any stylistic missteps (her private conduct isn't in consideration, of course, as she's def on the wrong end of the scale there, according those who have seen her in such situations).
    However, it is in the conduct of their affairs that emphatic contrast is found.
    Trump has had a handful of businesses fail out of literally hundreds and hundreds which he created--- but he'll get accused of being a failed businessman by those who wish to crop the picture in order to make it fit their narrative.
    Otherwise, he's pretty tame except as noted.

    Clinton, on the other hand, has been at or near the center on nearly countless scandals, all of them involving alleged misconduct or criminal activities as a result of her position of power.
    Gate after gate upon gate.
    But it's the deaths which really set her apart from the crowd.
    The death toll which has accumulated through the years is nothing short of staggering.
    If you were writing a soap opera using half of the particulars of facts in and around her, your script would be rejected on account of being too fantastic to be believed.

    Between the devil and the deep blue sea, perhaps not.
    But there certainly is an element of being damned by having anything to do with Clinton.