Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Goodness! So Mr. Khan is involved in a law firm that specializes in questionable visas for big money Middle Eastern people, including Iranians; that does Hillary Clinton’s tax returns, aided her in setting up her server, and has connections with her big Middle East donors.

What a shame that Mr. Khan would use his son’s memory to support his business interests in this way. One would expect it of Hillary Clinton, but a father?
Click to expand...
he was trying so hard to be honorable now it comes out he is as unclean as Hillary?! It is sad he would use the memory of his son who died valiantly to help Hillary.
 
Ex-top Christie aide backs Clinton over Trump

(CNN) Longtime Chris Christie aide Maria Comella says she plans to vote for Hillary Clinton – saying that after Donald Trump’s nomination, Republicans are “at a moment where silence isn’t an option.”

Comella is breaking from the governor she helped elevate into the national political limelight. Her decision, announced in an email interview with CNN’s Jamie Gangel, comes the day after a top Jeb Bush aide said she was leaving the Republican Party.

Comella blasted Trump over his attack on the Muslim parents of an American soldier killed in combat, calling it emblematic of the rhetoric that has led her to reject her own party’s nominee.

“Donald Trump has been a demagogue this whole time, preying on people’s anxieties with loose information and salacious rhetoric, drumming up fear and hatred of the ‘other,’” Comella said.

“Instead of trying anything remotely like unifying the country, we have a nominee who would rather pick fights because he views it as positive news coverage,” she said. “It may make him media savvy, but it doesn’t make him qualified or ready to be president.”
Comella’s decision is a dramatic departure from her former boss, whose image she helped shape on the national stage as one of his closest advisers and strategists while a long-serving top aide in Trenton, New Jersey.

Christie was among the first failed 2016 GOP candidates to endorse Trump, appearing alongside the Republican nominee at events and even lobbying to become his running mate.

But Comella – like longtime Jeb Bush adviser Sally Bradshaw, who told CNN on Monday that she’s left the GOP over Trump’s nomination – said party members can’t stay silent amid Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric.

“Instead of speaking out against instances of bigotry, racism and inflammatory rhetoric whether it’s been against women, immigrants or Muslims, we made a calculus that it was better to say nothing at all in the interest of politics and winning elections. For me, if our party has a future, we have to change that trajectory and lead by example,” she said.

(cont. at link)
 
7_Sorrows said:
he was trying so hard to be honorable now it comes out he is as unclean as Hillary?! It is sad he would use the memory of his son who died valiantly to help Hillary.
Click to expand...
How is anything he’s doing unclean? The visas he obtains, if that’s ever confirmed, are totally legal. Just because some object to them doesn’t negate that he’d be providing a totally legitimate service.

That said, have not seen this confirmed by any of the more legitimate news sites, nor has it even been confirmed Mr. Khan took his site down. Given how many Trump supporters are seemingly angry at Trump who knows who took the site down in the absence of confirmation.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Republican Rep. Richard Hanna will vote for Clinton

Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) will cast his ballot for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton this November, becoming the first Republican member of Congress to cross party lines and vote directly against Donald Trump.

“For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country,” Hanna wrote in an op-ed for Syracuse.com published Tuesday.

Hanna, a three-term lawmaker who had previously said he could never back Trump, acknowledged long-standing issues with Clinton but noted her commitment on common issues.

“Secretary Clinton has issues that depending on where one stands can be viewed as great or small. But she stands and has stood for causes bigger than herself for a lifetime,” Hanna wrote. “That matters. Mrs. Clinton has promoted many of the issues I have been committed to over the years including expanding education and supporting women’s health care.”

While noting that he disagrees with her “on many issues,” wrote Hanna, who previously said he’ll retire at the end of his term, “I will vote for Mrs. Clinton.”

“I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing. I trust she can lead,” he wrote. “All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public’s anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.”

Hanna represents the state’s 22nd district, which narrowly voted for Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama in 2012—49.2 percent to 48.8 percent.
Click to expand...
He might end up turning Dem in the end. I think there could be a fair number of legislators who will do this. Remember the complaints against Repubs for the last 20-odd years; that they ended up doing back-scratching with the Dems. “You help with my pork, I’ll help with yours.” If Hillary Clinton knows anything at all, she knows corruption, and she’ll corrupt lots of people before this is over, and perhaps after it’s over. It will be our money, of course.

Trump, on the other hand, might actually act in a responsible way with our money; the ultimate bad outcome for so many in congress.
 
Ridgerunner said:
He might end up turning Dem in the end. I think there could be a fair number of legislators who will do this. Remember the complaints against Repubs for the last 20-odd years; that they ended up doing back-scratching with the Dems. “You help with my pork, I’ll help with yours.” If Hillary Clinton knows anything at all, she knows corruption, and she’ll corrupt lots of people before this is over, and perhaps after it’s over. It will be our money, of course.

Trump, on the other hand, might actually act in a responsible way with our money; the ultimate bad outcome for so many in congress.
Click to expand...
So, your argument is that if Trump loses political endorsements it’s that the other guy is corrupt? Can it also not be that some politicians within his own party legitimately think that there actual real and serious flaws in Trumps campaign, his message, and his style?
 
Millie123 said:
So, your argument is that if Trump loses political endorsements it’s that the other guy is corrupt? Can it also not be that some politicians within his own party legitimately think that there actual real and serious flaws in Trumps campaign, his message, and his style?
Click to expand...
Sure it’s possible, and with some that probably is part of it. But we know, for example, that Cruz was hated by many Repubs in congress. Part of that was his abrasive personality. But part of it was also that he overtly criticized “going along to get along” within the party.

A substantial part of the populace is sick of the leaders we have had for a very long time. It’s part of the reason for the support of Sanders, just as it is with Trump. But whenever any candidate threatens to shake up the way things have worked, they make enemies they would possibly not have made even with the most off-putting messages and styles.
 
Millie123 said:
So, your argument is that if Trump loses political endorsements it’s that the other guy is corrupt? Can it also not be that some politicians within his own party legitimately think that there actual real and serious flaws in Trumps campaign, his message, and his style?
Click to expand...
And there aren’t any flaws in Hillary’s campaign?
 
Inisfallen said:
In the same vein, have a look at this
Click to expand...
Maybe this person was a Republican, but it sure doesn’t seem so. From the article:

“The Iraq War, the financial meltdown, the utter failure of supply-side theory, climate denial, and our strange pursuit of theocratic legislation have all been troubling. Yet it seemed that America’s party of commerce, trade, and pragmatism might still have time to sober up. Remaining engaged in the party implied a contribution to that renaissance, an investment in hope. Donald Trump has put an end to that hope.”

“…our strange pursuit of theocratic legislation…”? Wonder what this reference is? Oh, maybe prolife legislation?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Goodness! So Mr. Khan is involved in a law firm that specializes in questionable visas for big money Middle Eastern people, including Iranians; that does Hillary Clinton’s tax returns, aided her in setting up her server, and has connections with her big Middle East donors.

What a shame that Mr. Khan would use his son’s memory to support his business interests in this way. One would expect it of Hillary Clinton, but a father?
Click to expand...
Questionable? If you’ve got any evidence that Mr. Khan is doing anything illegal, or even “questionable,” let’s hear it. Otherwise, he’s an immigration lawyer. So what? There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

And the Breitbart article is pretty scurrilous. Hogan Lovells had the government of Saudi Arabia as a client? Again, so what? That hardly “connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves.”

Look, my law firm has an office in Riyadh (and Abu Dhabi, and Dubai), and plenty of Saudi clients. Am I connected directly to the government of Saudi Arabia?

This is all just innuendo and an attempt to imply guilt by association. There’s nothing to it.
 
jediliz said:
And there aren’t any flaws in Hillary’s campaign?
Click to expand...
Of Course there are SERIOUSLY HUGE FLAWS in Hillarys campgain. I was one of those people glued to the tv crossing my fingers that she would be indicted over her emails. She is a seriously flawed candidate and just like Trump, I don’t think that she has any businnes running for the presidency.

But the argument that when Trump looses his endorsement among his party, because of serious controversies that he’s poorly managing. That his loss of emdorsements by those republicans are doing so because of their own corruption. I believe that is a logical fallacy.
 
Inisfallen said:
And the Breitbart article is pretty scurrilous. Hogan Lovells had the government of Saudi Arabia as a client? Again, so what? That hardly “connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves.”
Click to expand...
The level of denial here is stunning. If one is a senior partner at a firm retained by the government of Saudi Arabia, then yes, that connects one directly to the government of Saudi Arabia.
Inisfallen said:
Look, my law firm has an office in Riyadh (and Abu Dhabi, and Dubai), and plenty of Saudi clients. Am I connected directly to the government of Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...
If one of your clients is the government of Saudi Arabia, then yes.
Inisfallen said:
This is all just innuendo and an attempt to imply guilt by association. There’s nothing to it.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rolleyes: :rotfl: :rolleyes: :rotfl:
 
Inisfallen said:
Questionable? If you’ve got any evidence that Mr. Khan is doing anything illegal, or even “questionable,” let’s hear it. Otherwise, he’s an immigration lawyer. So what? There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

And the Breitbart article is pretty scurrilous. Hogan Lovells had the government of Saudi Arabia as a client? Again, so what? That hardly “connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves.”

Look, my law firm has an office in Riyadh (and Abu Dhabi, and Dubai), and plenty of Saudi clients. Am I connected directly to the government of Saudi Arabia?

This is all just innuendo and an attempt to imply guilt by association. There’s nothing to it.
Click to expand...
I agree. And if and when Trump is associated in his business dealings with governments that are not too friendly with the U.S., that might very well be excused by his supporters as simply par for business people.
 
Monkey1976 said:
The level of denial here is stunning. If one is a senior partner at a firm retained by the government of Saudi Arabia, then yes, that connects one directly to the government of Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
Hogan Lovells is a firm with over 2,000 lawyers. Most of them have never even met each other, and have absolutely nothing to do with one another’s clients.

That said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with representing the government of Saudi Arabia. Are they not entitled to hire counsel to help them with their affairs in the United States and elsewhere?

Really, there’s nothing to see here.
 
Inisfallen said:
Hogan Lovells is a firm with over 2,000 lawyers. Most of them have never even met each other, and have absolutely nothing to do with one another’s clients.
Click to expand...
How many of them are senior partners in the Washington, DC office - the one most likely to deal with their client, the government of Saudi Arabia? Another lawyer in that same office noted how well-known and well-liked Mr. Kahn was.
Inisfallen said:
That said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with representing the government of Saudi Arabia. Are they not entitled to hire counsel to help them with their affairs in the United States and elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Of course they are. The problem is when their counsel - who also prepared Mrs. Clinton’s taxes, bundled some $50,000 toward Mrs Clinton’s campaign, and handled legal paperwork regarding the running of her famous email server - presents himself as nothing more than the concerned father of a soldier who died in a war that Mrs. Clinton supported, and is presented as such to the country by the Democratic Party in a disgustingly partisan misuse of his son’s death in order to support Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.

It’s called “the appearance of impropriety” at best. Something with which - as a lawyer yourself - you should be well acquainted. If you are arguing a case before a judge who has personally supported one of the parties, would your first move not be to have the judge recuse themselves?
Inisfallen said:
Really, there’s nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
Except for that rather large pachyderm in the middle of the room. But just ignore him - I’m sure he’ll go away by the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, right? :rolleyes:
 
Monkey1976 said:
Something with which - as a lawyer yourself - you should be well acquainted.
Click to expand...
I’m not a lawyer – I’m an IT guy at a very large law firm.

Roll your eyes all you want – I really don’t think there’s an issue here. You may or may not agree with what Mr. Khan had to say at the convention, but I don’t think there’s anything “questionable” going on here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top