The many faces of Hillary - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

mudwhistle · #31 (**permalink**) 11-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

That's untrue and doing exactly what you are comdemning them for allegedly doing. Lawyers are trained to apply facts and arguments to the law. The laws are created by the people. This is a nation of laws right down to traffic codes, not an anarchy. And the mass categorical attacks on them are also plainly false. In a civil dispute between one side or another, one side challenges the other in court on the disputed claims using the law, the lawyer for each side argues their client's case, and the judge or jury decides it. It's the same in criminal law. The government pleads and tries to prove its case within the law. The government has its lawyers and the defendants have theirs. The case is resolved between the parties prior to trial or the judge or jury decides it. That's what we do here. It's called law and order in a democratic republic, the benchmark for any civilised and properly functioning society. Without that the nation would become violent and anarchistic, because no one here would live by another's whims or mob rule.

As for some lawyers speaking down to you, you will find such people but no more so amongst them than anywhere else. It's called arrogance--a human failing, not more or less specific to lawyers. I have equal respect for doctors but have found some to be just as arrogant. It's the same with people all around me at my local diner, pub, shops, business associates, clients, etc., even the 'uh oh--that one' relative most have and know. Closed minded bloviating 'know it alls' are unfortunately commonplace. Some people just haven't recognised that God gave people two eyes and two ears and only one mouth for a good reason.

The best jury is one that hasn't formed an opinion and is easy to manipulate. The simple-minded are preferred to the intelligent and the well informed. The best choice for a jurist in a murder trial is somebody that can't tell the difference between homicide and homosexual.

Lawyers tell a story and use evidence to reveal the possibilities of what the evidence means to a jury. The job of the lawyer is present the evidence in a manner favorable to their client. They attempt to maximize evidence which helps their case and minimize evidence that hurts their case even if it means misleading the jury. They must jealously defend their client or face possible disbarment.

Legal documents are next to impossible for the layman to read because of a lawyers' need to feel self-important. Writing in plain understandable English is scorned and warranties and liabilities for products as straight forward as peppermint flavored cavity-preventing toothpaste are filled with legal jargon that only lawyers understand. The simple becomes the complex because of all of the possibilites and ramifications that lawyers can dream up. And this to you is a good thing. Every law has loop-holes a dishonest and imaginative lawyer can take advantage of. This is why the Clintons have been able to get away with as much as they have over the years.

The US and state code annotated are merely precedent established in earlier court decisions. The law can be wrong but 'Slippery-Slope' issues are avoided at all cost because of the legal ramifications that could happen as a result of novel decisions. In other words, lawyers and judges are afraid to rock the boat for fear of possible legal actions in future cases that could result from their new ideas. But recent legal developments have started to change this, and not for the better. Same-sex marriage advocates are attempting to change our laws by establishing new precedence. The ACLU is attempting to use our laws to give our enemies new rights they never had and don't deserve by changing the definition of combantants in our laws. We won't be able to fight wars the way we used to because enemy soldiers will just call a lawyer if we shoot them or lock them up.

A lawyer is the only person in court that isn't sworn in every day and are considered to be under oath but many times are dishonest. As long as they aren't caught red-handed they continue to lie to the judge and jury to defend their clients. Some will refuse to lie for their clients and others do it willingly and are rewarded handsomely for it. The OJ Simpson trial was a prime example of this. And this to you is a good thing.

mudwhistle · #32 (**permalink**) 11-12-2007

Examples of the Clinton's normal bullying tactics with the media:

Quote:

The Obama camp clearly welcomed the humanizing glimpse at Obama's life; his rivals, probably not so much. In an ordinary campaign, that might have been it. But this is no ordinary campaign--not when Hillary Clinton is a candidate. And so, the Clinton team let Times reporter Patrick Healy, who covers the Hillary beat, know about their "annoyance" with the story, as Healy later put it.

If grumbling about a basketball story seems excessive, it's also typical of the Clinton media machine. Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record--"They're too smart," one furtively confides. "They'll figure out who I am"--privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary's aides don't hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."
Bunker Hillary

So much for Hillary's lie about the Bush Administration being the most secretive administration in history.

O'Sullivan Bere · #33 (**permalink**) 11-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

The best jury is one that hasn't formed an opinion and is easy to manipulate. The simple-minded are preferred to the intelligent and the well informed. The best choice for a jurist in a murder trial is somebody that can't tell the difference between homicide and homosexual.

Not so. Unintelligent simple-minded jurists make all sorts of erratic decisions that are totally unreliable as to what they will decide. Lawyers want jurists that are able to comprehend their side of the story. Moreover, they are the most prone to bias and closed-mindedness, of what sort it is too hard to guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Lawyers tell a story and use evidence to reveal the possibilities of what the evidence means to a jury. The job of the lawyer is present the evidence in a manner favorable to their client. They attempt to maximize evidence which helps their case and minimize evidence that hurts their case even if it means misleading the jury. They must jealously defend their client or face possible disbarment.

They argue the evidence--including its relevant strengths and weaknesses and potentials for reliability or lack thereof--and all inferences that can be taken from the evidence. Yes, they are supposed to do that in the light most favourable to the client. That comes from age-old wisdom. By selecting the centuries old antagonistic approach, it allows each side to argue the matters where one tries to show the strengths of their side and the weaknesses of the others. The juries are specifically instructed to repy upon the evidence, and that lawyers' statements are not evidence, but arguments about how they should value the each and all portions of the evidence. The juries examine what they all say and decide from the evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Legal documents are next to impossible for the layman to read because of a lawyers' need to feel self-important. Writing in plain understandable English is scorned and warranties and liabilities for products as straight forward as peppermint flavored cavity-preventing toothpaste are filled with legal jargon that only lawyers understand. The simple becomes the complex because of all of the possibilites and ramifications that lawyers can dream up. And this to you is a good thing. Every law has loop-holes a dishonest and imaginative lawyer can take advantage of. This is why the Clintons have been able to get away with as much as they have over the years.

You're putting words in my mouth about what I feel is 'a good thing.' I don't agree with that summation. Lawyers don't create legal documents to feel important. They do it to cover their client's asses. The need for that is not the fault of the lawyers but the public. Why is a will often full of ass-covering provisions? To prevent a greedy relative from attacking the will after death. Assuming someone 'would never do that' are famous last words in too many cases. Why is a divorce property settlement agreement likewise also full of long ass-covering provisions? Too many times the ex-spouse will go through any avenue you leave out to get back into court to go after your client. Many times, although not all, that means a lengthy document. Business contracts are no different.

Most states today have 'plain English' requirements and documents that fail to follow them are subject to invalidation. However, the public is also deemed to know the law because they make the law, it would encourage bogus 'I didn't know' claims, and would encourage and reward societal laziness in learning the laws--thus, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Also, 'loopholes' are misnomers. The law is the law. People and the governments are allowed to do what the laws allow and not allowed to do what the law disallows. If there is a problem with that, then the legislators are the ones who need to change it, if indeed they feel it is a 'loophole' at all (often a subject of disagreement between people on philosophical grounds). The lawyer did what was correct, and the blame, if any, belongs on those responsible for it.

As for the Clintons, no case has been proved on them. And we certainly don't hold people legally guilty here because we don't like them, as much as some would love such a kangeroo court to do so against all those they dislike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

The US and state code annotated are merely precedent established in earlier court decisions. The law can be wrong but 'Slippery-Slope' issues are avoided at all cost because of the legal ramifications that could happen as a result of novel decisions. In other words, lawyers and judges are afraid to rock the boat for fear of possible legal actions in future cases that could result from their new ideas. But recent legal developments have started to change this, and not for the better. Same-sex marriage advocates are attempting to change our laws by establishing new precedence. The ACLU is attempting to use our laws to give our enemies new rights they never had and don't deserve by changing the definition of combantants in our laws. We won't be able to fight wars the way we used to because enemy soldiers will just call a lawyer if we shoot them or lock them up.

Again, that is a misperception. Common law and statutory law has been an ongoing development and recasting since it started. Never at any time have litigants been afraid of pushing envelopes or asking for changes in the law. The law has always been evolving and always will be. As for the ACLU, that is a loaded characterisation of them that isn't accurate. You and I may or may not agree with every argument they raise in court, but that does not mean they are what was represented. And as for the government, they are accountable for what they do. Anyone who would give carte blanche to the government in anything doesn't believe in the American Constitution and the nation's traditional principles. Moreover, the ACLU does lose cases. What you are missing, IMO, is that litigation leads to some winner and some loser. The decision settles the argument in question. Thus, both the winner and the loser do the public a service by litigating the issue and getting a result determined on it so the public knows what is allowed and disallowed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

A lawyer is the only person in court that isn't sworn in every day and are considered to be under oath but many times are dishonest. As long as they aren't caught red-handed they continue to lie to the judge and jury to defend their clients. Some will refuse to lie for their clients and others do it willingly and are rewarded handsomely for it. The OJ Simpson trial was a prime example of this. And this to you is a good thing.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth about what I feel is 'a good thing.' Lawyers are court officers. If they are caught knowingly lying about something they are subject to disbarment and possibly criminal charges. Given all the other parties and the judges are watching, it is really hard to pull off deceit successfully, and that's assuming a lying scumbag is there to do it, which isn't the case with most people, lawyers or otherwise. The odd person eventually gets caught doing that but those who do are fools besides liars. Most value their integrity but even for those who wouldn't ordinarily, their law licence and career is made too much to sacrifice to get involved in that. Those that cheat get caught. Just ask disbarred and disgraced ex-DA Mike Nifong of the Duke lacrosse players trial whose legal problems are still piling up as a result of what he did . . . which leads to the following comment on your reference of the OJ trial.

OJ's trial was blown by criminal misconduct by its officers inside and outside the case. The defence did their job competently. Place the blame where it belongs.

During cross-examination, the key witness, Mark Fuhrman, denied using the word "nigger" in the previous ten years. OJ's defence team then produced 4 witnesses as well as the McKinney audiotape that exposed him as having lied under oath on the stand. Not only was he a member of a secret LAPD group called MAW (Men Against Women), he bragged about beating black alleged gang members and was quoted as saying:

Quote:

"Yeah we work with niggers and gangs. You can take one of these niggers, drag 'em into the alley and beat the shit out of them and kick them. You can see them twitch. It really relieves your tension . . . We had them begging that they'd never be gang members again, begging us" and telling blacks "You do what you're told, understand, nigger?"

The defence team then asked Fuhrman whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, something that by law allows the jury to take an adverse inference that he did indeed do so.

Even the prosecution was forced to denounce this chief witness in their closing argument as "a bad cop." Fuhrman subsequently pleaded 'no contest' to perjury in the case and is thus a convicted felon for a crime of dishonesty as a result of his criminal misconduct on the stand. He was also proven to be a vicious racist criminal abuser who acted out on such in police uniform.

And then you had this funny business too:

Quote:

1) DNA testing of the blood under Nicole's finger nails was from an unidentified person who was never found.

2) DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom were proven to be Nicole’s blood; however, the blood on the socks had the same identical shape on both sides. Leading medical examiner Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified in court that the only way this could happen was if he had a "hole" in his ankle and that the more likely scenario was that someone intentionally placed the blood on the socks while they were on the floor of OJ Simpsons' bedroom. Lee also noted the collection procedure of the socks was inappropriate and caused contamination.

3) DNA analysis of blood on the left-glove, found outside Nicole Simpson's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson’s, Nicole’s, and Ronald Goldman’s. However, even though the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.

4) LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter also could not give a reasonable explanation why after taking Simpsons blood, and before recording this part of the evidence, he walked around for hours with the 8 cc's of OJ Simpsons' blood on his person. Most police departments require that evidence custody logs be kept and that no one officer and detective hold evidence of this type on their person for any extended period of time.

5) The LA County District Attoney's Office and the Medical Examiners Office never had an explanation as to why there were 1.5 cc's of blood missing from the original 8 cc's amount taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.

6) The lion's share of the evidence — bloody glove, bloody socks, blood on the Bronco — was found by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman, who in turn committed perjury on the witness stand and then pleaded the 5th Amendment against self incrimination to avoid questioning after his integrity came into question.

O. J. Simpson murder case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add in a plethora of other well known bunglings by the cops and prosecutors to the criminal misconduct of Furhman and the suspicious circumstances surrounding much of the evidence he and others close to him supposedly discovered but lent a very suspicious character that it may have been 'beefed up' with blood to make the case stick, and it spelled reasonable doubt to the jury.

That verdict also has to take into consideration that race played a big role in it. It's commonly assumed that the mostly black jury bent over backwards to cut OJ a break on evaluating the evidence. Then again, the LAPD at that time--and just fresh from the Rodney King beatings and riots--had a notorious reputation for abusing blacks and playing crooked with the law concerning them plus corruption. Fuhrman and the funny business only confirmed what blacks often knew that the police lied about. And getting detected doing that in this case--even directly with Furhman's perjury and exposed racism and misconducts in uniform coupled by suspicious discrepancies in the evidence--got OJ acquitted.

I think most people know today that he did the crime, even blacks. I thought he did it then and now, even if I credited the defence that Fuhrman was a rotten egg and possibly some evidence beefing was done. There was too much independent evidence to show that even if the police tried to rig some of it to help solidify the case that there was still enough to show it.

But, in court, credibility is key. Juries are instructed that they are allowed to credit all, some or none of the evidence. And with liars, they are instructed that if someone is caught lying then they can discredit all of the evidence if they so choose. And the LAPD blew it big time. And, this time, unlike so many other times, they paid the penalty for it. Much good has come from these events, including a needed housecleaning and change of the racist and corrupt atmosphere in that police department. Sometimes a good lesson must be learnt the hard way, and had OJ been convicted, maybe the bad eggs in that department would have felt that they could keep acting that way with no accountability. It was a good reminder that "If you seek justice, you must do justice."

As for Fuhrman, I still turn the channel every time that lying scumbag felon who chiefly helped OJ get away with double homicide is picked by FOX for an analyst. It's a disgrace that FOX would choose him over the countless honourable law enforcement agents who did their duty instead of being a racist beater, evidence rigger and perjurer.

Francois · #34 (**permalink**) 11-12-2007

Oh, here we go again, another attempt at trying to polish up Hilary's image for the '08 elections. By god, I've had enough of this crap. Hillary is nothing but a crook. Somebody who hires a convicted felon to be a campaign advisor is not to be trusted. Not to the general behavior of the Clinton campaign, which continues to reaffirm that the Clintons will stop at nothing to get what they want.

mudwhistle · #35 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Not so. Unintelligent simple-minded jurists make all sorts of erratic decisions that are totally unreliable as to what they will decide. Lawyers want jurists that are able to comprehend their side of the story. Moreover, they are the most prone to bias and closed-mindedness, of what sort it is too hard to guess.

They argue the evidence--including its relevant strengths and weaknesses and potentials for reliability or lack thereof--and all inferences that can be taken from the evidence. Yes, they are supposed to do that in the light most favourable to the client. That comes from age-old wisdom. By selecting the centuries old antagonistic approach, it allows each side to argue the matters where one tries to show the strengths of their side and the weaknesses of the others. The juries are specifically instructed to repy upon the evidence, and that lawyers' statements are not evidence, but arguments about how they should value the each and all portions of the evidence. The juries examine what they all say and decide from the evidence.

You're putting words in my mouth about what I feel is 'a good thing.' I don't agree with that summation. Lawyers don't create legal documents to feel important. They do it to cover their client's asses. The need for that is not the fault of the lawyers but the public. Why is a will often full of ass-covering provisions? To prevent a greedy relative from attacking the will after death. Assuming someone 'would never do that' are famous last words in too many cases. Why is a divorce property settlement agreement likewise also full of long ass-covering provisions? Too many times the ex-spouse will go through any avenue you leave out to get back into court to go after your client. Many times, although not all, that means a lengthy document. Business contracts are no different.

Most states today have 'plain English' requirements and documents that fail to follow them are subject to invalidation. However, the public is also deemed to know the law because they make the law, it would encourage bogus 'I didn't know' claims, and would encourage and reward societal laziness in learning the laws--thus, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Also, 'loopholes' are misnomers. The law is the law. People and the governments are allowed to do what the laws allow and not allowed to do what the law disallows. If there is a problem with that, then the legislators are the ones who need to change it, if indeed they feel it is a 'loophole' at all (often a subject of disagreement between people on philosophical grounds). The lawyer did what was correct, and the blame, if any, belongs on those responsible for it.

As for the Clintons, no case has been proved on them. And we certainly don't hold people legally guilty here because we don't like them, as much as some would love such a kangeroo court to do so against all those they dislike.

Again, that is a misperception. Common law and statutory law has been an ongoing development and recasting since it started. Never at any time have litigants been afraid of pushing envelopes or asking for changes in the law. The law has always been evolving and always will be. As for the ACLU, that is a loaded characterisation of them that isn't accurate. You and I may or may not agree with every argument they raise in court, but that does not mean they are what was represented. And as for the government, they are accountable for what they do. Anyone who would give carte blanche to the government in anything doesn't believe in the American Constitution and the nation's traditional principles. Moreover, the ACLU does lose cases. What you are missing, IMO, is that litigation leads to some winner and some loser. The decision settles the argument in question. Thus, both the winner and the loser do the public a service by litigating the issue and getting a result determined on it so the public knows what is allowed and disallowed.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth about what I feel is 'a good thing.' Lawyers are court officers. If they are caught knowingly lying about something they are subject to disbarment and possibly criminal charges. Given all the other parties and the judges are watching, it is really hard to pull off deceit successfully, and that's assuming a lying scumbag is there to do it, which isn't the case with most people, lawyers or otherwise. The odd person eventually gets caught doing that but those who do are fools besides liars. Most value their integrity but even for those who wouldn't ordinarily, their law licence and career is made too much to sacrifice to get involved in that. Those that cheat get caught. Just ask disbarred and disgraced ex-DA Mike Nifong of the Duke lacrosse players trial whose legal problems are still piling up as a result of what he did . . . which leads to the following comment on your reference of the OJ trial.

OJ's trial was blown by criminal misconduct by its officers inside and outside the case. The defence did their job competently. Place the blame where it belongs.

During cross-examination, the key witness, Mark Fuhrman, denied using the word "nigger" in the previous ten years. OJ's defence team then produced 4 witnesses as well as the McKinney audiotape that exposed him as having lied under oath on the stand. Not only was he a member of a secret LAPD group called MAW (Men Against Women), he bragged about beating black alleged gang members and was quoted as saying:

The defence team then asked Fuhrman whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, something that by law allows the jury to take an adverse inference that he did indeed do so.

Even the prosecution was forced to denounce this chief witness in their closing argument as "a bad cop." Fuhrman subsequently pleaded 'no contest' to perjury in the case and is thus a convicted felon for a crime of dishonesty as a result of his criminal misconduct on the stand. He was also proven to be a vicious racist criminal abuser who acted out on such in police uniform.

And then you had this funny business too:

O. J. Simpson murder case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add in a plethora of other well known bunglings by the cops and prosecutors to the criminal misconduct of Furhman and the suspicious circumstances surrounding much of the evidence he and others close to him supposedly discovered but lent a very suspicious character that it may have been 'beefed up' with blood to make the case stick, and it spelled reasonable doubt to the jury.

That verdict also has to take into consideration that race played a big role in it. It's commonly assumed that the mostly black jury bent over backwards to cut OJ a break on evaluating the evidence. Then again, the LAPD at that time--and just fresh from the Rodney King beatings and riots--had a notorious reputation for abusing blacks and playing crooked with the law concerning them plus corruption. Fuhrman and the funny business only confirmed what blacks often knew that the police lied about. And getting detected doing that in this case--even directly with Furhman's perjury and exposed racism and misconducts in uniform coupled by suspicious discrepancies in the evidence--got OJ acquitted.

I think most people know today that he did the crime, even blacks. I thought he did it then and now, even if I credited the defence that Fuhrman was a rotten egg and possibly some evidence beefing was done. There was too much independent evidence to show that even if the police tried to rig some of it to help solidify the case that there was still enough to show it.

But, in court, credibility is key. Juries are instructed that they are allowed to credit all, some or none of the evidence. And with liars, they are instructed that if someone is caught lying then they can discredit all of the evidence if they so choose. And the LAPD blew it big time. And, this time, unlike so many other times, they paid the penalty for it. Much good has come from these events, including a needed housecleaning and change of the racist and corrupt atmosphere in that police department. Sometimes a good lesson must be learnt the hard way, and had OJ been convicted, maybe the bad eggs in that department would have felt that they could keep acting that way with no accountability. It was a good reminder that "If you seek justice, you must do justice."

As for Fuhrman, I still turn the channel every time that lying scumbag felon who chiefly helped OJ get away with double homicide is picked by FOX for an analyst. It's a disgrace that FOX would choose him over the countless honourable law enforcement agents who did their duty instead of being a racist beater, evidence rigger and perjurer.

The law is not just the law. It is not written in stone, especially with Civil cases. Laws are open to enterpretation. Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you that.

I think OJ was set up and evidence was planted by Mark Furman and the FBI. He may have been guilty but LAPD tried to railroad him. Why white people couldn't get over the trial results I can't figure.

OJ was set up again in this stupid Las Vegas case.

My point about simple-minded jurists is that the Defense attorney wants them, the Prosecutor wants vindictive jurists or someone with an axe to grind. Defense Lawyers don't want someone who can think for themselves. They want someone who is easily misled by evidence or a colorful presentation.

As for the Clintons, nobody dares to go after them for the crimes they are involved in. If you do you can expect terrible things to happen to you. Something always seems to happen to the evidence. Breakin's are common with anti-Clinton witnesses as well as angry phone calls, visits from the IRS, and stories released to the media about gay lifestyles. Very few think it is worth the hassle. The Clintons really don't have any decency and have proved it many times. Even if they get caught and it looks like a conviction is soon to follow they cut a deal and soon their friends in the press makes it look like they were fighting the good fight and we should all be proud of them for it.

You tell me I'm wrong about lawyers and that I'm putting words in your mouth then you turn around and prove my point. You oversimplify my statements. Lawyers know that other lawyers are dishonest and will find any loophole in a document. Part of the reason they do this is because many of them love arguing a novel idea in court that will change precedence. Most of them do it because of pride and the desire for wealth and fame.

And sure I know the ACLU loses cases, but this doesn't seem to stop them mainly because they are supported with taxpayers money, so they have a huge war-chest to pursue these stupid cases meant to change our country or whatever nefarious goals they may have.

They say you can indict a Ham Sandwich. It doesn't mean you can convict. But if you get the right jury anything is possible.

mudwhistle · #36 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007

Latest on Hillary's habit of planting audience questioners to make herself sound more knowledgable on the issues:

Quote:

GRINNELL, Iowa (CNN) -- The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events said "voters have the right to know what happened" and she wasn't the only one who was planted.

Student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff said a staffer told her what to ask at a campaign event for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Student describes how she became a Clinton plant - CNN.com
Student describes how she became a Clinton plant - CNN.com

"Let's talk, let's chat, let's start a dialog!" - Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Opens Presidential Bid - washingtonpost.com

She wants us all to be part of the discussion............as long as we ask the correct (wink, wink) questions.

Captain Trips · #37 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbussey

Which politician wouldn't? I'm not asking that rhetorically.

I'm not scared. Let's ask it right out loud. What business does this old bitch have running our country???

None.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbussey

None I say. Not one iota. What does she know about you or me? Nothing. She knows about hiding bodies.

And doublespeak, lies and deception.

Her two faced deceptive nature is too well known for her to have a snowballs chance in hell of being the leader in the whitehouse a SECOND time.

Which leads us to wonder what she thinks she's doing running for the nomination ?

She's dumber than a doorknob.

OR

She's insane and has delusions of grandeur.

....... hard to figure WHICH at this point

Captain Trips · #38 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

............................

She wants us all to be part of the discussion............as long as we ask the correct (wink, wink) questions.

I have some questions for numb brain hillary:

Which is it ?

Are you dumber than a doorknob ?

OR

Is it that you're insane and have delusions of grandeur ?

Sheriff · #39 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

November 09, 2007 9:06 PM

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: The Clinton campaign has admitted to planting questions in Iowa. They have confirmed that a campaign staffer approached a student to ask Sen. Clinton a question about global warming during a campaign stop at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, on Nov. 6.

The story was first reported by Patrick Caldwell, a junior at Grinnell College and the features editor of The Scarlet and Black college newspaper. He reported that student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff was approached by the campaign to ask a question. She told the reporter that "they wanted a question from a college student." She also said that she "noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped beforehand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message."

Clinton Campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee tells ABC News that "on this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton's energy plan at a forum. However, Sen. Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

The staffer still remains with the Clinton campaign and they would not reveal his or her name. The campaign did not comment on whether this is the only time they have planted questions among audience members.

Last month Clinton got into a tough exchange with Iowan Randall Rolph at an event in New Hampton, Iowa. She accused him of being a plant from another campaign and the two engaged in a heated back and forth. The exchange prompted extended media coverage.

Sheriff · #40 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

Obama team say:

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

Meridious · #41 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff

Obama team say:

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

PLANT HOPE, NOT QUESTIONS

Post messages, not spam.

Sheriff · #42 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

It is the campaign slogan, not a spam. As you see, it refers, successfully, to the question-planting in Hillary's Iowa campaign. I found the slogan very on- the-mark

Meridious · #43 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007