Liar Liar, Pantsuits on Fire!
I don’t expect Mueller to hold a press conference and simply announce that the election was stolen and that Trump isn’t a legitimate president. But…what if he does?
If HRC can troll DT and wind him up, raise his blood pressure, inch him toward the grim reaper; ok by me, okay by me.
As usual, HRC is 100% correct.
Which thing did she say that was a lie? And do be specific.
She should challenge the election.
A clip of the Russian parliament applauding Trump’s victory right after Hillary’s concession speech should pretty much say it all.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky meanwhile said: “We will make up Mr Trump a telegram of congratulations: Dear Donald, we congratulate you on a well-deserved victory. Grandmother Hillary can take some rest now.”
Trump being a few years older but Hillary is grandma? Misogyny is alive and well in Russia. Hell, it’s alive and well pretty much all over.
All options should be on the table. If the election was illegitimate, all of the results should be annulled.
Thanks.
We didn’t know that you wear pantsuits.
There is no constitutional or legal way to do that.
There is no way to do that.
And no, she should not.
Clinton said she wouldn’t “rule out” challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 election, but clarified Tuesday she has no plans to “contest” the election,
Let me restate: Clarifier Clarifier, Pantsuits on Fire!
And if you want ‘specific’ lies, here you are:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
We didn’t know that you wear pantsuits.
What’s in your closet?
Jesus H. Christ. It was perfectly goddamned clear what she meant the first time she said it and equally clear that what she said on Colbert was what she meant. And I know that because she carefully made the exact same distinction the first time she said it, despite the best effforts of the headline writers to muddle it up.
The distinction between challenging legitimacy and contesting the election may be lost on people who don’t like it when politicians (especially politicians named “Clinton”) use all these complicated grown-up words with very precise meanings, but it isn’t actually all that subtle.
And so it has always been for the Clintons. Willfully misinterpreted by people trying to stir up shit and then derision for being a weasel-word slippery oily icky politician when they have to come back and explain what they meant in words of one syllable.
I just want to take this opportunity to thank you for your efforts to put Trump in the White House. A grateful nation thanks you.
There is no constitutional provision for it but there is likewise no prohibition against it. So there is no reason why a remedy and a way to deal with an illegitimate election couldn’t be crafted. It could.
Jesus H. Christ yourself. And spare me the 'all these complicated grown-up words with very precise meanings, …" She hides behind those grown-up precise words as habit, designed to give her wiggle room, as when a reporter/interviewer digs down and queries her on one of her open ended answers/statement, she always has an out to qualify, quantify or clarify what she really ‘meant’. And when you do it all the time Steve, IT’S CALLED LYING! It’s what identifies her for fuck’s sake! It’s on of the reasons she lost, her lack of credibility. Enough voters simply didn’t believe her. And that includes not enough white affluent white collar professions, the ones she identifies with.
“We knew that.” —Nathan Thurm