[quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd] . . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .[/quote]That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can’t for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ….
I note Huma isn’t traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a “come to Jes*s convo” with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt “trapped” into staying with “Mr. Danger” fully 5 years and 2 months past his “sell-by date” and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid “sexual phone forays.”
HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, “Mr. Danger” was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family’s computers and cell phones. Still …. she kept Huma on and didn’t bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her “right-hand woman’s” (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC’s e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America’s secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.[/quote]
Once again, BG, you have misquoted me by adding emphasis where there was none. It really riles me – I have explained on a couple of occasions now in painfully clear terms that I resent your misrepresentations. So have other people. Stop it.[/quote]nj, you’re certainly free to tell the Piggs what you meant by this phrase you posted:
[quote=njtosd]…Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. …[/quote]
Instead of berating me for giving MY opinion, why don’t you give yours? What exactly did to mean by the [bolded] phrase?
