Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing with all theses illegal activities that the Clinton crime family Have seeming committed for years ... but post rumor and conjecture as Fact over and over and over .. then when asked to support their claims or shoot holes in their assertions they get responses like.. and sheeple still defend her
sadly there seem to be more Sheeple on the right if we use the term fairly in we dont need any stinking proof crowd
we just know it to be true !
and yet trump remains untouched in this forum no matter what he says or does .. its very telling
|
"why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing "
I see no irrefutable evidence that she ever committed a crime. But wrongdoing? You betcha.
There is videotape of her claiming she came under sniper fire on that overseas trip, when we know that didn't happen. And she still won't admit she lied. If such a lie means that Brian Williams is unfit to read news off a teleprompter, maybe it means she's unfit to be POTUS.
There's video evidence that she denied that Bill was cheating on her. Instead she claimed that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way. That means either she's a liar, or she genuinely believes that (in which case, she is insane).
We know there is video evidence that she attacked the victims of her husband's predation. Some feminist.
Regarding Benghazi, we know she flip-flopped about the root cause of the attack. By a stunning coincidence, every time she made a public statement, she said it was a spontaneous reaction to a video (and therefore not something she can be blamed for). In her private statements to Chelsea and others, she concedes it was terrorism. When pressed on the inconsistency, she said "what does it matter". To most people, the truth matters.
regarding the emails, we know she told multiple lies. She said she turned over all the emails (except the thousands that the FBI found on their own). She said she sent none that were flagged as classified at the time (except the ones that she sent which were flagged at the time). She said all the remaining emails were not related to work - wrong. Then she blames the nearest convenient black guy - Colin Powell.
While being investigated, her husband gets on the attorney generals plane for a chat. Two days later, the DOJ announces no charges. Immediately after, the Clinton campaign states that they would consider keeping her on as attorney general. No quid pro quo there, nope, not at all.
Now, the foundation. Is there direct evidence that you had to donate to see her? Of course not. Are there a lot of big donors who were able to see her, during her time as SecState? Yep. Does it have the appearance of impropriety? Yep.
She's not a murderer. But she has zero morals.
Hybrid Mode
