Quit beating this dead horse. Hillary has been investigated for ethics countless times.

[Scuba]

None have ever been found.

[Matt_in_STL]

3. You may have missed the punch line....

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. May have? Hey, where'd she go?

[Matt_in_STL]

2. Did they look under the couch?

Maybe they were with the WMDs in Iraq?

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Hahahaha. I see what you did.

Almost fooled me this time.......

[Kip Humphrey]

5. Quit killing horses!

[Jenny_92808]

18. +1

[img][/img]

I just disagree with her policies that favor the 1% and foment more war.

[Kip Humphrey]

19. ROFL! Where DID you get those emoticons???

[Jenny_92808]

24. Let me share

Here it is. I added a few spaces so you can see the path. If you remove the spaces and paste it in a post, it will be that emoticon of beating a dead horse.
[img] http: //i.imgur.com/MaQFkdf.gif [/img]
[img][/img]

Here is another one - Bang Head (remove spaces and add to a post)
[img] http: //orig13.deviantart.net/cb55/f/2008/207/e/8/yahoo_bang_head_emoticon_by_whitedragon1983.gif[/img]
[img][/img]

I really like this one - Parachute love (I am a skydiver, btw - D8546 - Skydivers will know what that means)
https: //az545221.vo.msecnd.net/skype-faq-media/faq_content/skype/screenshots/fa12330/emoticons/fallinlove_40_anim_gif.gif


WooHoo
[IMG] http: //smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Respect/woohoo-022.gif [/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

What the #$%$%@
https: //az545221.vo.msecnd.net/skype-faq-media/faq_content/skype/screenshots/fa12330/emoticons/wtf_anim.gif
What the #$%$%@

[Kip Humphrey]

26. Wow! Thank you for the gif...gifts!

[Jenny_92808]

34. My pleasure

You Rock
https: //az545221.vo.msecnd.net/skype-faq-media/faq_content/skype/screenshots/fa12330/emoticons/rock_80_anim_gif.gif

[Jenny_92808]

31. Here is another one...

Computer Rage
https: //az545221.vo.msecnd.net/skype-faq-media/faq_content/skype/screenshots/fa12330/emoticons/computerrage_40_anim_gif.gif

[Kip Humphrey]

37. home, sweet home (DU, I mean)!

[Jenny_92808]

50. Love it!

[Politicalboi]

6. You got that right

She has no ethics what so ever.

[RiverLover]

8. LOL

[TheProgressive]

9. Ok, that was good...!

[Gwhittey]

10. It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'ethics' is.

noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:
the ethics of a culture.
2.
(used with a plural verb) the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:
medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
(used with a plural verb) moral principles, as of an individual:
His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
(used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

If we go with choice 2 and say Rich Elites Snob ethics, then your OP is wrong.

[VulgarPoet]

17. Man, you are on fire today. nt

[Hydra]

65. I agree with above!

[rhett o rick]

11. Ethics are an impediment if your goal is to amass great wealth and power. just sayin'. nm

[WDIM]

12. Thats what i was gonna say

When i read the headline

[pdsimdars]

13. No shame either.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

14. cut it out - she was under fire

she will look into it - kissinger will help

some like to live in the edge - some must - some can see it

[Jester Messiah]

15. Hah, took me a second. Good one! n/t

[Martin Eden]

16. I'm more concerned about what is legal

Wall Street doesn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches without expecting reciprocity.

This, of course, is par for the course for Washington politicians who work within the system of legalized bribery with campaigns financed by deep pocket special interests. This system is, at its core unethical, and without meaningful reform we don not have a functional representative democracy.

I don't care about her damn emails.

[marions ghost]

20. Hillary responds:

[Scuba]

23. These are my principles, and I can't wait to win the election and find out what I can get for them.

[thesquanderer]

33. "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Groucho Marx.

[Fairgo]

54. Groucho is classic

[pacalo]

59. +1.

[AgerolanAmerican]

25. And what results she gets!

[pacalo]

58. That really irritates me.

It's sad that she feels she needs to puff herself up in order to gain acceptance from the hawks who put us into such a foreign-policy mess.

That was my first impression.

However, I've learned through her e-mails that her close friend & main consultant, Sid Blumenthal, has business interests in Libya. She has claimed that she was the driving force to invade Libya, during which an assassination took place.

[frylock]

43. As far as she knows.

[Hiraeth]

21. looking for her ethics is like looking for Bernie's scandals !!

none can be found !!

[Snarkoleptic]

22. LOL

[senz]

27. If she has nothing to hide, why doesn't she stop hiding and come clean?

Release the transcripts.

Invite an examination of the Clinton Foundation and those "deals" with weapons manufacturers.

Cooperate with the investigation of the DNC data breach.

Stop hiding.

She does not deserve to be president if she can't tell us what she has been doing.

[libdem4life]

41. ^^^This^^^^ n/t

[artyteacher]

28. epic truth! eom

[Blue_In_AK]

29. I see what you did there.

LOL.

[Logical]

30. LOL, good one!

[CharlotteVale]

32. LOL.

[Dragonfli]

35. Sometimes a thing can not be found because the thing does not exist

Investigating Hillary for ethics.
Is like investigating a Sociopath for empathy.

One never finds what one is looking for.

Next up - in breaking news, a breathable atmosphere was searched for in space, so far, the atmosphere there has not been found, non-scientists are baffled by findings, complete report at 11.

DUzy by the way

[senz]

36. Okay, I finally got it.

Yes, I'm slow. There's a reason for that.

Very cute OP, Scuba.

BUT -- I believe we need to push harder on all of this. We need to raise public awareness of it. Somehow. Where there's a will there's a way.

Maybe we need to invade other sites' comments with reminders of it. Like, "Release the transcripts!" "Explain the weapons deals!" Things like that.

[VulgarPoet]

38. See what you did there, I do. nt

[dchill]

39. No dead horses were ever found.

Got it.

[MuseRider]

40. Perfect!

I love this.

[frylock]

42. You rascal!

[AtomicKitten]

44. SNL/2008/Hillary: "I have no ethical standards."

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/message-from-hillary-clinton/n12241

[Bettie]

45. I feel a little bad for laughing

but just a little.

[bobthedrummer]

46. Thanks! K&R

Bill Clinton pardon controversy (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. They were purchased at a generous price by Goldman Sachs. Who expects a healthy

return on their investment.

[Segami]

48. I know, they didn't find any....

[closeupready]

49. If ABSCAM had happened today, it'd be 'old news'/'dead horse'/'no there there'

[bkkyosemite]

51. It is not past tense...still happening.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

52. The Ted Cruz campaign thanks you for this.

[Fairgo]

53. First snicker of the day

Thanks!

[Bill USA]

55. always 'good' to hear from a GOPer 'for' Bernie. Democrats prefer to think for themselves

BENGHAZI BIOPSY: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO ONE OF AMERICA’S WORST POLITICAL OUTRAGES

Beyond Disgraceful

In the end, one thing is clear: This rabid partisanship or unmitigated deception or utter incompetence conflicts with everything this country stands for. Four men died serving their country; it is beyond disgraceful that their memories are used for cartoons and political buttons and television shows all for the purpose of advancing outright falsehoods just to gain political points.

In their refusal to read documents or accept facts over fantasies, Republican conspiracy theorists have damaged this country in ways that cannot yet be fully comprehended. No doubt, the terrorists set on attacking America are cheering them on. Nothing could delight some terrorist sitting in a Syrian or Libyan or Iraqi hovel while hearing a top Republican congressman brag on television that a relatively small attack on a U.S.compound continues to threaten to transform a presidential election in the most powerful country in the world.

Ambassador Stevens and the three other men who died on that terrible day in Benghazi are not shiny objects to be dangled for political entertainment. They are American heroes. Serve their memories: Disband this inexcusable Benghazi committee, throw out the buttons and bumper stickers and fundraising letters. Allow the dead to finally rest in peace.

Kevin McCarthy Admits Benghazi Was All About Doing Political Harm To Hillary Clinton

Kevin McCarthy gleefully admitted to Sean Hannity Tuesday night that the entire purpose of the Benghazi Select Committee was to hurt Hillary Clinton's political chances.
(more)

GOP lawmaker (Rep. Richard Hanna): Benghazi committee ‘designed to go after’ Clinton

One week ahead of her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is alleging the investigation has “zero credibility left” after a Republican lawmaker on Wednesday said it was “designed” to target the Democratic presidential front-runner.

In an interview with WIBX 950 in New York on Wednesday, moderate Republican Rep. Richard Hanna said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was speaking the truth when he said this month that the committee had successfully injured Clinton.

“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna told the upstate New York radio station. “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.”
(more)

Ex-staffer: Benghazi committee pursuing 'partisan investigation' targeting Hillary Clinton

Washington (CNN)A former investigator with the House Select Committee on Benghazi is accusing the Republican-led panel of carrying out a politically motivated investigation targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of the thorough and objective fact-finding mission it was set up to pursue.

Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative Republican, told CNN that the committee trained its sights almost exclusively on Clinton after the revelation last March that she used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. That new focus flipped a broad-based probe of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, into what Podliska described as "a partisan investigation."

Podliska, who was fired after nearly 10 months as an investigator for the Republican majority, is now preparing to file a lawsuit against the select committee next month, alleging that he lost his job in part because he resisted pressure to focus his investigative efforts solely on the State Department and Clinton's role surrounding the Benghazi attack. He also alleges he was fired because he took leave from the committee to fulfill his military service obligations, which would be an unlawful firing.

~~
~~

Podliska told CNN that the committee, which has spent $4.6 million so far and is chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, pulled resources away from probes of other individuals and agencies to focus almost exclusively on Clinton and the State Department she helmed for four years. Clinton will testify before the committee for the first time Oct. 22, and the committee is set to release the findings of its investigation next year, in the heat of the presidential race.
(more)

[font size="+1"]
Re this post, is it another example of: Republican Operatives Try to Help Bernie Sanders: "We'll win every state if Bernie's their nominee" ???[/font]

[noiretextatique]

57. What about that FBI investigation?

Nice bait and switch, but the FBI is not a GOP congressional committee. Is the FBI a rw conspirarcy too? Are Obama and Lynch out to get Clinton too?

[Bill USA]

67. the FBI is not investigating Clinton, no matter how many times Repugnants & Bernie supporters say so

F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

To track how the information flowed, agents will try to gain access to the email accounts of many State Department officials who worked there while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the officials said. State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton.

They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.

~~
~~
[font size="+1"]
Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation[/font], and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence...

(more)

IT seems strange to me that Bernie supporters recite so faithfully what Democrats recognize as Republlican propaganda. This is why I have said that it's difficult to separate Bernie Supporters from Repugnants based upon their rhetoric re Clinton. Both Bernie supporters and Repugnants depict Clinton as the anti-Christ. I suspect some portion of these attacks on Clinton on this site and elsewhere are efforts by the GOP to help Bernie get the Democratic nomination as he would be their preferred opponent. The GOP do NOT want to go up against Clinton.



FBI contacts Colin Powell as part of email probe

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the FBI has contacted him about his use of personal email when he was the nation's top diplomat, as a review conducted by the State Department inspector general concluded that Powell and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both received classified information through private email accounts.
(more)

[noiretextatique]

68. Okay. When they interview her

It really won't be an interview either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Nor any evidence of any!

So stop saying that!

Heh.

[HereSince1628]

60. Absence of evidence is a rhetorical problem as is suggesting that future events

must have the same outcome as past events.

Your argument suffers because an ethical history doesn't preclude future unethical acts or even tightly preclude past unethical acts. It's a basic problem with absence of evidence; it can arise in many ways, ways that to the mind of a prosecutor (or persecutor if you wish) do little to establish character or truth.

Innocence is perennially vulnerable to the problems of trying to prove a negative. Absence of evidence can be a feature of the truth, but as any non-naive person knows, it need not point to the truth. That's an inherent unfairness which is why our legal system is supposed to start with a presumption of innocence and requires evidence to show guilt.

The argument put forward above is basically of the form: "Joe's never been caught cheating on his taxes, and Joe has been audited by the IRS many times." The implication of which is supposed to but doesn't, actually, demonstrate that Joe doesn't cheat,

It only demonstrates that he's never been formally charged or prosecuted or convicted for cheating after an audit of his taxes. He might be a very clever cheat, the investigators might not be good at what they do, etc.

Importantly, that history doesn't preclude or in any way bar Joe from cheating now or in the future and having a future audit/investigation return a charge of cheating. Joe's circumstances may change, he may become motivated to cheat on his future tax preparation.

Fair people would recognize that a suspicion leading to an investigation shouldn't be based on supposition but at minimum on appearance of misbehavior.

Of course, public opinion isn't held to the expected fair rules of our legal system. An old white guy can be tainted with a charge of racism simply because it's undeniable that old white guys show up on television as racists. A suspicion shouldn't be baseless speculation it should be a reaction to at minimum an appearance of wrong doing.

Dealing with the vulnerability of innocence to baseless (perhaps even politicly motivated) charges is a perennial problem for people whose character is critical yet subject to public opinion. Protecting good character requires avoiding all appearance of wrong-doing.

IMO, HRC, and any other politician, should be presumed a person of, and standing for, high ethical integrity and character, so long as past, current and future behaviors show no appearance of intentionally approaching the boundaries of rules, laws and unethical behavior.

[Scuba]

61. So you're suggesting that she could, conceivably, at some future date, do something ethical?

Seems unlikely, but sure I suppose anything is possible.

[HereSince1628]

62. I'm saying that your argument doesn't preclude that. It's hard to establish truth

in the manner you've suggested.

Absence of evidence is unfortunately forensically murky, see examples I provided of Joe and his taxes.

This creates an inherent difficulty for -proving- in an airtight way that someone is innocent. An innocent person wouldn't have evidence, other than perhaps the circumstantial, to suggest wrong-doing. But absence of evidence isn't the same as proof that a person wasn't engaged in wrong doing*.

That's why our legal system, at least theoretically, presumes innocence and requires a variety of tests to be passed before prosecution proceeds.

In our system a person need not prove innocence, they just have to show that the evidence of the charge doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of a trial. But even our legal system isn't always fair, and public opinion is less fair than the legal system.

Fair people ought to presume innocence until an appearance of wrong doing raises suspicion. And even then, that suspicion must be tested before belief in the supposed wrong doing can be allowed to stand.

That should be true for both HRC, Sanders and all public figures. Unfortunately, it's not.

* you might remember the detour in logic that Dick Cheney and the neocons took when they discounted evidence of absence and argued it was -actually- evidence of 'well-hidden' weapons of mass destruction. Cheney and Rumsfeld operated on the assumption that bad guys were actually planning and doing everything that Cheney and Rumsfeld (and their staffs) could imagine.

[Scuba]

63. Kinda like how Hillary's supporters imagine her doing something ethical, despite the ...

... total lack of evidence that she ever has.

[HereSince1628]

64. Political supporters don't act like jurists, when they consider evidence

it's usually more like people considering preparing fish.

If the fish doesn't seem to smell right, they typically don't proceed to test that by eating it to see if they get sick.

There aren't any rules involved in supporting a political candidate, let alone voting for one. In that arena of concern, a suspicion is as valid as a 500 page biography by a pulitzer winner.

Which is why a politician interested in being seen as being of high character must avoid even the appearance of envelope pushing on ethics.

[vintx]

66. LOL

Nice one