Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jack Skellington

Clinton email explanation not credible

815 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

F3SS

That's an excellent book title.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I'm not sure writing her memoirs is such a good idea for a publisher to undertake based on sales of her 2014 book Hard Choices. Simon & Schuster paid her a $14M advance on the book and printed a million of them and then only sold about 180,000 copies (as far as I can find) through August of 2014 which was about the date book sellers could start sending the book back to the publisher to be shredded. Their losses were projected to be around $10M. http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/hard-sell-hillary-clintons-hard-choices-flops/

To add insult to injury, her book tour was a massive undertaking with visits to Good Morning America, NPR, BBC, CBS Sunday Morning, just to name a few http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/the-neverending-book-tour-52-days-of-hillary-clinton-and-counting/375278/ and the advertising was reckoned to be worth millions upon millions of dollars which makes the terrible sales even more disheartening and embarrassing for Hillary. Old S&S footed the bill for the massive failed tour adding even more to their loss.

Why go into all this? Well, I think it is important to point out how irrelevant Shrillary is looking in 2014 and 2015. S&S was remembering back to the glory days of the Clintons when they gave her the nearly unprecedented $14M advance on a memoir. Some say the advance was just a way for S&S to bypass the election donation laws, and that may be a part of it, but they really did believe they'd at least break even on the deal as I don't think they'd willingly take a $10M loss for Hillary's sake. Publishing is a competitive tightly knit world and this was an embarrassing disaster, especially after shipping a million hardcover books to stores only to get the bulk back for shredding (let's not forget the corporate and labor union bulk buys of this book which added thousands to the initial sales #).

Personally, I'd be worried if I was a democrat right now and someone else doesn't come forward to compete against her. She excites no one.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

ON the plus side you can get her book on Amazon for as little as $0.72 used.

post-26883-0-88635400-1426619822_thumb.j

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Interesting insight from someone who knows the Clintons better than anyone else...

Dick Morris says smoking gun will be found in Hillary's aides email.

Hillary's aides? --Probably something to do with Bill.

http://thehillarydaily.com/hillary-cant-type-look-to-humas-and-cheryls-emails/

Edited by Jack Skellington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

Interesting insight from someone who knows the Clintons better than anyone else...

Dick Morris says smoking gun will be found in Hillary's aides email.

Hillary's aides? --Probably something to do with Bill.

http://thehillarydaily.com/hillary-cant-type-look-to-humas-and-cheryls-emails/

Intriguing. Morris usually knows which pile of dirt to kick to uncover the s#%t.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Interesting insight from someone who knows the Clintons better than anyone else...

Dick Morris says smoking gun will be found in Hillary's aides email.

Hillary's aides? --Probably something to do with Bill.

http://thehillarydai...cheryls-emails/

Five to one odds that Hillary's aids had @clintonemail.com accounts. The server probably has those emails also. Unless they were personal and got deleted of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Five to one odds that Hillary's aids had @clintonemail.com accounts. The server probably has those emails also. Unless they were personal and got deleted of course.

Worry not. She will assure you that everything is kosher. Is that not enough for you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Worry not. She will assure you that everything is kosher. Is that not enough for you?

Since if she gets into office she'll basically have control of the FBI, NSA, IRS and other agencies, which could cause me a lot of trouble, and doubtless are collecting this post as I post it.... I'm going to say Yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Since if she gets into office she'll basically have control of the FBI, NSA, IRS and other agencies, which could cause me a lot of trouble, and doubtless are collecting this post as I post it.... I'm going to say Yes.

I say give her hell instead.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I say give her hell instead.

Yeah, I was teasing. She'll never crack the anonymity of the UM internet forum. Bwah, ha, ha!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Dum da dum dumb....

"In a CBS News poll out tonight, 29 percent of Americans say their opinion of her has grown worse as a result of revelations that she used her personal email account for State Department business. The number who view her favorably has fallen sharply from 38 percent to 26 percent. And less than half, just 42 percent, say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Dum da dum dumb....

"In a CBS News poll out tonight, 29 percent of Americans say their opinion of her has grown worse as a result of revelations that she used her personal email account for State Department business. The number who view her favorably has fallen sharply from 38 percent to 26 percent. And less than half, just 42 percent, say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy.”

I can't believe that 42% of Americans find this despicable human being in any way trustworthy? Hillary and Cattle futures, google it FTBs

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

Dum da dum dumb....

"In a CBS News poll out tonight, 29 percent of Americans say their opinion of her has grown worse as a result of revelations that she used her personal email account for State Department business. The number who view her favorably has fallen sharply from 38 percent to 26 percent. And less than half, just 42 percent, say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy.”

I'm curious about the age break down of that 42%, something the polling likely didn't provide.

Can anyone old enough to have been politically aware since the Clintons first arrived on the national stage be so naive as to find Mrs. Clinton "honest and trustworthy"? Are the 42% mostly millennials for whom the long trail of baggage preceding the email server issue does not exist? Or are the 42% folks so he'll-bent on electing the "first woman" president that being first with that first woman has made the quality of that candidate irrelevant in much the same way that a push to elect the "first Black" president made them not question things like "what do you mean by 'fundamentally transform, precisely?'" N

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

uh oh....

According to a Gawker report, Sidney Blumenthal, the top Clinton confidant, and “another former official from Bill Clinton’s administration were secretly lobbying the secretary of state on behalf of a billionaire in the former Soviet state of Georgia who was seeking closer ties with Putin’s Russia—seemingly in violation of a federal law designed to prevent foreign powers from covertly wielding influence within the United States.”

Blumenthal “passed along a note from John Kornblum, an international lawyer who had served as ambassador to Germany under Bill Clinton,” to Clinton that lobbied on behalf of Oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, a Georgian billionaire who “led the opposition Georgian Dream party, which called for closer relations with Russia.” At the time, Ivanishvili “was opposing the incumbent President Mikheil Saakashvili, who had enjoyed U.S. support.” Two years ago, a hacker named Guccifer released some of Blumenthal’s emails, which Gawker has been reviewing.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/report-accuses-hillary-adviser-who-ran-intel-service-of-illegally-lobbying-for-vladimir-putin-ally/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VictorVictor

Where do we get these people? IRS emails lost when a hard drive crashed? Videos that start riots? One device needed for every account? Obama hears about everything on the evening news? Jews in a kosher deli were all random targets?

The disdain this administration has for the people they were elected to serve knows no bounds. They clearly think we are all idiots. Since they are all supposedly educated people and they didn't attend their university alone they must be aware that there are many other educated people that hear these lame excuses. I just can't understand how their disregard for our Constitution and laws and their own employment regulations can be defended with such incompetent lies. Every five year old learns that to be useful a lie must be believable, that it must sound at least a little bit true. This is as out of touch with reality as when Marie Antoinette responded to the plight of her breadless peasants with "let them eat cake". I don't know which bothers me more, their cavalier approach to some of the most important jobs in the world or the lack of a healthy fear of the electorate to the extent that they feel no need to even tell a good lie.

Salient and thoughtful post. LikexLikexLikex

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Destroying the emails?

= consciousness of guilt

Not even Nixon destroyed the tapes. Remember him? The "other" impeached President?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Destroying the emails?

= consciousness of guilt

Not even Nixon destroyed the tapes. Remember him? The "other" impeached President?

Believe it or not, Nixon was never impeached, he resigned early. Clinton was impeached but it wasn't for having sex with an intern in his office, he was impeached on two counts of perjury and one count of obstructing Justice while in office. He also lost his law license because of the criminal charges (later reinstated).

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Semantics. Impeachment proceedings were underway and impeachment was a certainty. His resigning was the equivalent of uttering "you can't fire me, I quit!"

And what were his crimes?

Nefarious and clandestine (hidden) communications

Resistance of investigational probes

Obstruction of Justice

Attempted cover up

Perjury

Everything Clinton is doing, except you'd have to add a charge of destruction of evidence to Clinton, that Nixon didn't commit. He just wasn't quite as awful as Hillary.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Semantics. Impeachment proceedings were underway and impeachment was a certainty. His resigning was the equivalent of uttering "you can't fire me, I quit!"

And what were his crimes?

Nefarious and clandestine (hidden) communications

Resistance of investigational probes

Obstruction of Justice

Attempted cover up

Perjury

Everything Clinton is doing, except you'd have to add a charge of destruction of evidence to Clinton, that Nixon didn't commit. He just wasn't quite as awful as Hillary.

You called him an impeached president but that is not true and it is not a just semantic difference, it is the difference between being accused of murder and being found guilty murder. Being impeached and being threatened with impeachment are not the same thing and never will be. Clinton could've resigned, as Nixon did, but chose not to as he thought he could stare congress down but he lost and will forever be listed as an impeached president alongside Andrew Johnson. If you want to call Nixon the almost impeached president or should've been impeached president then fine, I have no argument with that as it is provably true but don't call him impeached when he wasn't.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Did Nixon commit perjury?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Did Nixon commit perjury?

Harte

Articles for impeachment were for Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power and Contempt of Congress. Hell, we should dust it off and swap the name Barack H. Obama for Richard M. Nixon and have at it. :yes::w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Hey Hillary....

Why don't you get it over with an testify tomorrow under oath. April Fools Day would be perfect, because no one's gonna believe a word you say anyways, then when your lies are found out (which they will be) you can laugh and say you were just kidding.

"Because of the Secretary's unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records during and after her tenure as Secretary of State." Gowdy wrote, "this Committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this Committee for a transcribed interview to better understand decisions the Secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately deletion of public records."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Hey Hillary....

Why don't you get it over with an testify tomorrow under oath. April Fools Day would be perfect, because no one's gonna believe a word you say anyways, then when your lies are found out (which they will be) you can laugh and say you were just kidding.

"Because of the Secretary's unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records during and after her tenure as Secretary of State." Gowdy wrote, "this Committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this Committee for a transcribed interview to better understand decisions the Secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately deletion of public records."

Can they force her to testify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Clinton agreed months ago to testify in public and under oath.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/27/politics/benghazi-hillary-clinton-testify/

Edited by Jack Skellington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I've seen this show before, she couldn't remember her last name last time she was called to testify. It was hilarious.

Edit: Apparently congress has the power to subpoena the server but haven't moved to do so yet. http://www.washingto...article/2562301

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.