Hillary Delegate Arrested For Attempted Murder Ahead Of DNC

A Democrat Delegate has apparently attempted to murder her Husband recently.

And she tried to kill him with a gun.

Ironic.

She said it was an "accident" but investigators say different.

The trial will bring out the truth.


Hillary Delegate Arrested For Attempted Murder Ahead Of DNC

A Democratic delegate has been accused of trying to kill her husband, a week before she was set to back Hillary Clinton for president at the party’s National Convention.

Mother-of two Denna Vicites, 47, was arrested and charged with attempted murder after she allegedly shot her other half, Vincent, in the neck during a drunken argument in their Uniontown, Pennsylvania, home on Sunday.

When she was interviewed by police, she told officers it was an accident.

But she later changed her story and said she fired at her Fayette County commissioner husband when he was choking her, claiming he had been abusive for a long time.

a reply to: xuenchen

Bernie Sanders approves this message.

a reply to: xuenchen

Not sure why this is ironic or related to Clinton. Scraping the bottom of the barrel. Deja vu again !

a reply to: xuenchen

I have four words for you and this thread.

"Yeah. And. So. What."

It's not hard to show either side as having Delegates that are Scum Individuals. We're talking about Politics after all ya know.

Maryland Trump Delegate Indicted on Child Porn, Explosives and Gun Charges

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen

Not sure why this is ironic or related to Clinton. Scraping the bottom of the barrel. Deja vu again !

I'm thinking it is because Clinton is an avid anti-gun person who has vowed to take away the second amendment, so here we have a Clinton supporter, an actual delegate, who used a gun she wouldn't be allowed to have if Clinton got her way. That's kind of the definition of ironic: "happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this."

It fits, but I agree that it is a minor issue and could have happened to any candidate. It's probably more ironic that it has to be explained.

a reply to: schuyler

What makes you think she wouldn't have still had a gun???

I doubt she shot her husband with an Assault Rifle. Most likely just a hand gun. Nobody's saying to take away all guns. Odds are she'd still have that same hand gun even if Hillary passed some new Gun Laws.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen

Not sure why this is ironic or related to Clinton. Scraping the bottom of the barrel. Deja vu again !

It is ironic because they hate guns and only dangerous Republican hillbillies use them to hurt others. /sarcasm Democrats also want AR/AK rifles banned.. Wait a second, was it the LEFT or the right who just blasted 8 officers dead.......So yes Reldra, it is EXTREMELY ironic.

a reply to: schuyler

I'm thinking it is because Clinton is an avid anti-gun person who has vowed to take away the second amendment

This is where the talking points lead to absurdity, and the purpose of this thread in the first place. To promote a false narrative.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

No, they don't like guns because people use them to kill innocent people and guns make doing that extremely easy.

It's not Ironic at all though since I think she used a hand gun to do it and nobody is trying to ban hand guns.

She might have even used it in self defense as well and nobody's saying not to do that either.

So really, there is no irony here at all.

Just Republicans making up sh*t that isn't correct to fit their agenda. Isn't that Ironic and funny???

a reply to: reldra

Just thought I would throw this out there lol


Isn't it ironic lol

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: xuenchen

I bet she deleted all her files from her computer too! If you hang around the Clinton's too long, you start acting like them. (sarc.)

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: schuyler

What makes you think she wouldn't have still had a gun???

I doubt she shot her husband with an Assault Rifle. Most likely just a hand gun. Nobody's saying to take away all guns. Odds are she'd still have that same hand gun even if Hillary passed some new Gun Laws.

Hillary is saying take away all guns. Repealing the second amendment, which I believe she wants to do by executive order, is saying exactly that. Assault rifles and machine guns (capable of fully automatic fire) are already illegal and have been since the Firearms act of 1934. If she wants to take away something else, she is talking about regular guns not assault rifles. And lets not forget that this is what democrats do. Daley said he would make Chicago a "gun free zone" and said it would stop the violence. Gun free doesn't happen without banning guns.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well, first of all you're talking about Hillary Clinton and what she said and wants and someone named Delay which I don't think is part of this story at all.

Obviously this woman in the story doesn't want a complete gun ban or she probably wouldn't have one herself. Not all Democrats or even people on the left politically want to ban all guns. You're generalizing to the point of complete fiction.

Clinton also isn't going to ever be able to ban all guns I don't care how much she wanted to. It won't happen. I'm not sure that is what she's going for either. I don't remember her saying Ban all Guns. But maybe she did. But in either case Hillary and this woman and especially all those on the left don't share that idea.

I think that is becoming a real problem and is why the division is so bad and impossible to fix. It's because the rhetoric has become a complete fiction but nobody will admit it. Things get said which are far from reality, but they're said so much that people just go with it even though they know there is major holes in that kind of thought, they just go along with it anyway.

We need to get back to reality here and stop playing games. I'm sure you've noticed all this fantasy is causing big problems in reality. People are getting killed every day because of Political games and nobody seems to want to fix that. But we're going to have to sooner or later.

#delegatehusbandlivesmatter

#safespacefromClintonnominators

#safespacefromClintonsupporters/

I love the back and forth here about which side's leadership is worse.


Everyone comes out with dirt to call to call the opposition hypocritical and dangerous and only end up proving how terrible the people who run for office are.

Please continue, I love these threads.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

It's like a race to the bottom. Regardless of who wins we can be proud to have one of the two worst human being ever as our leader.

Such a wonderful accomplishment isn't it?

Fairness Doctrine, in effect.

Hillary Clinton....her and her followers are always worthy of a few lols

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well, first of all you're talking about Hillary Clinton and what she said and wants and someone named Delay which I don't think is part of this story at all.

Obviously this woman in the story doesn't want a complete gun ban or she probably wouldn't have one herself. Not all Democrats or even people on the left politically want to ban all guns. You're generalizing to the point of complete fiction.

Clinton also isn't going to ever be able to ban all guns I don't care how much she wanted to. It won't happen. I'm not sure that is what she's going for either. I don't remember her saying Ban all Guns. But maybe she did. But in either case Hillary and this woman and especially all those on the left don't share that idea.

I think that is becoming a real problem and is why the division is so bad and impossible to fix. It's because the rhetoric has become a complete fiction but nobody will admit it. Things get said which are far from reality, but they're said so much that people just go with it even though they know there is major holes in that kind of thought, they just go along with it anyway.

We need to get back to reality here and stop playing games. I'm sure you've noticed all this fantasy is causing big problems in reality. People are getting killed every day because of Political games and nobody seems to want to fix that. But we're going to have to sooner or later.

Daley was a democrat and mayor of Chicago. He espouses the same political views as most democrats, which is why he and his repeated attempts at gun bans are relevant. It is what democrats do.

I appreciate that you say not all democrats want a complete ban on guns. But you are endorsing a candidate who does. hillary is the perfect example of the give an inch - take a mile philosophy. If she gets any progress at all on banning some form of guns not currently banned she will not stop. I have no crystal ball nor can I predict the future with 100% certainty. But I honestly believe, after all her rhetoric, she will not stop until there is nothing left to ban. And when it all fails and the crime continues, she will not admit she was wrong, she will blame everyone else for not embracing her plan fully.

Its just two very different ideologies. I see the fantasy from the left, not the right. And it is hurting. Using Chicago as as example again of democrats failed policies, we have suffered through decades of democrat ruled government with repeated failed attempts at solving the murder crisis in this city. Democrats have tried law after law to ban this kind of gun, that kind of gun, make this a gun free zone, etc. And not one thing they have tried worked. Yet they refuse to change their tactics and try something else. Who was it that said insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results? That is what democrats have been doing as long as I can remember. You will never take guns out of the hands of criminals with legislation. But that is the theme song of the democrats. And it has to end. If anyone is feeding the lies its the media and the democrats. I know you don't see it that way, and thats ok. But I believe this is true and based on all my years in and around the city of Chicago, I think I have a pretty solid footing to make that argument.

I do want to see an end to this violence. More than you can imagine. But we will never solve a problem we can't even acknowledge. Like obama who refuses to call terrorism by its name, here in Chicago they call it 'gun violence'. It makes me so damned angry I could spit nails. When I was in high school I had a friend who was killed in Chicago on a Saturday night. Another teen was killed that same night. My friend was beaten to death by a street gang using baseball bats. The other teen was shot. The news, even back then, said my friend was killed by a street gang. But they said the other teen was killed by a gun. Not a gang, or a person. A gun. No one ever said my friend was killed by a baseball bat. No one said Ernie Banks was a bad roll model. No one tried to sue Louisville Slugger for making the bat. No one tried to sue KMart for selling the bat. They blamed the gang, the people, who did it. And that is exactly how it should be with every murder, not just the ones that can be sensationalized with the word GUN.

I hope you can understand why I hold my views with such tenacity. I have seen this horror first hand. And I know the methods of the democrats have failed for decades. Put republicans in office in Chicago and you will see a difference. But if you want to know why that doesn't happen, take a look at the district maps for Chicago. They are an absolute joke, and drawn up by the democrats.

Applying all of this to the topic of the thread leads to some critical thinking. As has been noted, I am sure there is a Trump follower who has done something similar, and a clinton, and so on. But this was a delegate, somewhat higher on the political food chain, so to speak, than just a voting citizen. This is a person who is making an endorsement of a candidate for POTUS, who clearly has issues and decision making problems. Call it letting the inmates run the prison, or putting the patients in charge of the psych ward. Its not a good idea. And you cant help but draw the comparison, a suspected criminal delegate endorsing a suspected criminal politician.