I’m afraid I don’t understand your point then, Scylla. Could you elaborate?
**
No. There was evidence. Those billing records constitute evidence. There was also other evidence. IMO, their was not convincing evidence, nor enough for an indictment. This being said, what case there was against her seems stronger IMO than the ones against Bush and Cheney which to all appearances upon close examination are manufactured out of whole cloth.
The “Crimes” are deniable, in that there is no real reason to suppose they occured other than wishful thinking.
So WHAT if her fingerprints were on the billing records. They were HER billing records. They were SUPPOSED to have her fingerprints on them. She never said she hadn’t TOUCHED the damn things, only that she couldn’t find them. Furthermore, there was absolutely nothing INCRIMINATING about them. They supported HER side of the story, so why would she hide them?
I am thinking that this word “undeniable” does not mean what you are thinking it means.
Pot. kettle. black. Undeniably.
I never understood this argument, either. Out of the entire Executive branch of the U.S. Federal government, one-third of the whole shebeng, there is one elected official (two if you count the veep, but he and the prez are a package deal). Hundreds, if not thousands, of other positions within the Executive branch are all appointed. Hillary was one of them. Big deal. This isn’t a case where nepotism got somebody’s idiot nephew a soft job like Deputy Vice-Assistant Sanitation Commissioner so he could collect a government paycheck. Get over it, already.
Sorry for the hijack, but I can’t let this pass.
What “undeniable, multiple corporate crimes” are you referring to? If you’re talking about Harken, we’ve covered that, not once but twice.
If you’ve got a concrete accusation to make, then make it.
Sorry for the hijack, but I can’t let this pass.
What “undeniable, multiple corporate crimes” are you referring to? If you’re talking about Harken, we’ve covered that, not once but twice.
If you’ve got a concrete accusation to make, then make it.
Actually, it was Kin Hubbard.
Sure. My point is that there was “nothing special” about Hillary to qualify her for the position of reforming healthcare other than that she was Bill’s wife.
The billing records are evidence of WHAT exactly? What “concrete” accusation are you making against Hillary? name one crime that you can say for sure that she committed. If that evil little fuck Ken starr couldn’t find anything, then there wasn’t anything to find.
I’ll elborate the objection.
It is generally traditional that the President give some duty to his spouse. These duties are generally clear cut. “Help fight drugs.” “Beautify America.” etc. They are presented with a task that is pretty unambiguous and clear-cut, and one that they can effectively aid in their position of stature.
Things like “Attack Iraq,” or “Institute tax reform” fall under a different category of policymaking which is best represented by either elected officials or by appointed and confirmed experts in the given area.
Reforming healtchare is a policy issue, and one that is important enough that the position should be confirmed and should belong to a genuine specific expert in the field, if not an elected official as healthcare and services represent a sizable portion of the Federal Budget.
Hillary was neither.
Hillary was plenty qualified. She was a successful corporate lawyer. she was a former head of the Children’s Defense Fund, She chaired several boards and comittees in Arkansas dealing with family health care issues. She was thoroughly informed, extremely intelligent, and motivated by compassion instead of self-interest. Now GWB, THAT little prick is unqualified.
They are evidence that she had financial dealings. Furthermore, they may be construed as some to suggest that she was being less than truthful. They had been requested, and she replied that she didn’t recall seeing them, and didn’t have them, or couldn’t find them (I don’t recall specifically which.)
Later they were found in a prominent position on her coffee table with her finger prints all over them.
You seem to be confused as to what this term “evidence” means, construing it to mean some kind of smoking gun that proves an accusation.
Evidence is something that can be used to support or deny an argument. Those files can be used in both ways as evidence.
I am not making an accusation. I am simply showing that your statement that there is not a “shred of evidence” is false.
I said there is not a shred of evidence that Hillary ever committed a crime, and there ISN’T. The billing records do not qualify. They supported her side of the story. Since when is it illegal to have “financial dealings?” What the hell does that mean.
I said there is not a shred of evidence that Hillary ever committed a crime, and there ISN’T. The billing records do not qualify. They supported her side of the story. Since when is it illegal to have “financial dealings?” What the hell does that mean.
You seem to be pretty rabidly partisan, here, so I’m not going to bother much more.
Yes, she was all those things (I’ll take your word for the Arkansas thing,) that does not make her qualified to make policy. Tradittionally those that make policy need to be elected or confirmed. It’s part of the system of checks and balances.
Now that she is an elected Senator and represents voters to which she is responsible, I would have no problem with her chairing a senatorial committee to reform healthcare.
However, I feel that to step outside the dual house system and your appoint your wife in charge of reforming healthcare by executive order is innapropriate regardless of her qualifications, nor do I think the qualifications you have cited are germaine to the actual issue of what her task was.
Healthcare administration is a specialist field. Hillary was not a specialist in that area though she posesses admirable credentials in other fields.
I think it is safe to say that the primary reason she was chosen was because she was the President’s wife.
Regardless of her qualifications, I don’t think that’s the right criteria for a public policy making position.
And those in a position to exert serious influence over policy hold their positions only after the Senate has given their advise and consent. Checks and balances, you know…
I just explained to you why the billing records qualify as evidence. You are repeating the exact same argument that I already specifically answered.
Evidence is simply something that supports an argument.
If you accuse person A of engaging in illegal activity with company B, you build your case with evidence.
A billing statement from company B made out to person A would show that the two entities engaged in activity together.
Now, it prove the person completley innocent. It might prove the person completely guilty, or more likely by itself it would prove neither.
One could nevertheless use it to support or rebut an argument of any of those. Therefore it is evidence.
Minty Green is a lawyer and a liberal. If you still doubt me, ask him.
Like “Undeniable,” “evidence” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
As I recall the records may have contradicted some statements she had previously made. However, regardless of whether they provided evidence against her, if she intentionally failed to comply with a subpeona, that would be some sort of a crime, I assume.
The cabinet positions are given only token examination by congress. It is generally acknowledged that these appointments are one of the perks of winning the presidency. Was Hillary given the heathcare committee because she was the president’s wife? Of course she was, but that doesn’t mean she was unqualified. What’s the difference anyway between nepotism and cronyism? GWB is certainly guilty of the latter. John Ashcroft, in particular has been an unqualified disaster as AG.
Except that there is no proof that she DID intentionally fail to comply with the subpoena.
Oh, and I’m getting away from the OP.
No. Hillary is not evil, and there is much to admire about her. By all accounts, including those that hate her, she is fiercely intelligent and a sharp lawyer. I have never seen a convincing argument that she was dishonest, and I think she did a fine job in how she dealt with the Presidential scandal of her husband.
I like her a lot better than I like Bill.
I think part of the reason she is labelled evil is her expression. It seems natural, and it’s not her fault that she looks this way, but her normal face seems to carry an expression like she’s swallowing a canary.
Republicans have made an issue that she looks like she’s being sarcastic when she claps during one of GWBs speeches.
The fact is that she looked vaguely sarcastic while clapping for her husband as well.
I don’t think there’s anything sarcastic about it, it’s just the way she looks.