English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What is your take on this? And please no arguments just opinions.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_po/clinton_archives

2007-11-05 13:55:29 · 11 answers · asked by Abbey loves Jesus 3 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

My opinion is that they are looking for a smoking gun, she has more possible troubles as campaign contributions seem to be creeping into the news

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58449

2007-11-05 14:15:06 · answer #1 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 2 2

I think its a red herring, once before, with papers relating to the Rose Law firm Hillary worked at, she was castigated and it was assumed she was 'hiding something'. The papers were found, under 'suspicious' circumstances, and lo and behold!!! She was telling the truth. People forget that part and just remember The Papers.
You notice they aren't suing Hillary, because she doesn't control their release, except for private papers, as I assume the ones between her and her husband are.
Between now and Election Day, we are going to be hit with innuendo and whispers and false assumptions. But you really can't argue with the fact that shes been investigated from one end to the other and she may actually be the cleanest candidate ever, or the most careful. State, Federal, Special Investigators, no ones ever tied her to anything illegal, and they tried their best. She may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but neither is she the only one with ambition, or an error or two, or a misjudgment. All of them have their problems with followers and donations, mostly because they really don't know every ones story who donates. I'd be more worried about whats happening now, with Bush refusing to release either his non security papers or his people to testify.
I'd worry more about now than anything ten years ago, ten years in which there is still no convincing evidence linking Hillary with anything illegal. Slurs to the contrary.

2007-11-05 14:38:36 · answer #2 · answered by justa 7 · 2 2

This shows what an idiot she is along with being immoral with Partial birth abortions.

Mommy’s Baby
By Mike McCracken
A baby gets conceived today
Unexpectedly
Who’d of believed
Mommy, I’m your baby

Mommy knows about me
She doesn’t seem too happy
Don’t like the way it feels
Because it’s real

Mommy wakes up sick
I’m sorry mommy
I accidentally kick
Please forgive me

She calls the abortion Doctor
Helplessly, I lay here
Mommy please don’t kill me
I’m your baby

I’m starting to grow
Mommy, I love you
Just wanted you to know
And I want to tell you

We are at the abortion clinic
She won’t go through with it
Mommy, how could you kill me?
I’m your baby.


Abortion is just another name for murdering your unborn- children.


Partial birth abortions is where you take a drill when a baby is half born and suck the baby's brains out.

2007-11-05 14:03:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

My take is that Hillary is twisting the truth, as is often the case. She said that Bill was in charge of releasing the documents and then said that she released most of them. In truth, she was the person who was able to release the documents and only released something like 13,000 pages when in reality, there are 3 million pages that should have been released. Some things never change.

2007-11-05 14:01:05 · answer #4 · answered by turkeybrooknj 7 · 4 2

She doesn't want the records to be viewed or publicized until after the 08 election. Bill Clinton asked that they be sealed back in 02. If these records are released, then the nation would know she is the anti-christ.

2007-11-05 14:08:15 · answer #5 · answered by Sparxfly 4 · 4 2

IT is only a matter of time. The landslide will be in lawsuits not electoral votes. Thank you very much. Having followed them for 10 yrs this is just the tip of the iceberg. I foresee the SS Hilliam
shall be sinking in days to come.

Just add it to the growing list:http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm

edit: Rose Law Firm? surely u jest? after 2 yrs found in her private residence?!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/recs.html

2007-11-05 14:38:12 · answer #6 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 1 2

It is pretty funny. The Bush administration [which, BTW, is in charge of the National Archives] is notorious for delaying and denying Freedom of Information Act requests. We still don't know what went on in Dick Cheney's energy task force. Republicans have been doing everything possible to establish an imperial presidency, which is above all laws.

But now conservatives think that government openess is a good thing. That public interest groups should be able to snap their fingers and get whatever information they want.

It is very funny.

2007-11-05 14:07:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

Bill and Hillary Clinton have concealed 23 boxes of information from the public--here--http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/documents/Finding_Aid_HealthCare.pdf

2007-11-05 14:03:13 · answer #8 · answered by Jeremiah Johnson 7 7 · 2 1

I find it ironic indeed. The woman claims to be the most experienced candidate for the job due to her years in the White House while her husband was president. But resists any attempt to find out exactly what it was she was doing in that White House.

One could easily make a case that she is flawed and unacceptable as a presidential candidate.

.

2007-11-05 14:20:51 · answer #9 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 5 2

It is a daunting task to review all the records--look for part of it in her brilliant second term.

2007-11-05 14:14:59 · answer #10 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers