For Hillary lovers

[z0sa]

About?

What exactly is it you think you're doing? You're guzzling Bernie cum by the gallon. :lol

Poor you. By Tuesday night you'll have run out of tears when he gets tear a new asshole. :lmao

Down 48 pts a month ago, latest poll has him 3 pts down outside the margin of error. He may not win but a valiant effort was made and like i always said, anything but a hige win is an L for Hillary.

[boutons_deux]

Less Opportunity, More Support

Trump and Clinton have performed best in counties considered to have less economic mobility and opportunity

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/trump-clinton-less-opportunity-more-support/

low-wage, low-info

[spurraider21]

Less Opportunity, More Support

Trump and Clinton have performed best in counties considered to have less economic mobility and opportunity

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/trump-clinton-less-opportunity-more-support/

low-wage, low-info
sounds like your people

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://i.imgur.com/BzkT4X1.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Firms That Paid For Clinton Speeches Have US Government Interests

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that

almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.
Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities.

Clinton's 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/firms-with-government-interests-paid-clinton-speeches?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Yes, Bernie, Hillary is not qualified, she's corrupted.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Firms That Paid For Clinton Speeches Have US Government Interests

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that

almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.
Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities.

Clinton's 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/firms-with-government-interests-paid-clinton-speeches?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Yes, Bernie, Hillary is not qualified, she's corrupted.





Do you think she did the same with her foundation contributions?

[boutons_deux]

Do you think she did the same with her foundation contributions?

Probably

One well known way to buy influence is contribute to politicians spouses org, or hire family members

You think hrc is unique, alone in her corruption? :lol

The entire political, judicial class is corrupt

[spurraider21]

Firms That Paid For Clinton Speeches Have US Government Interests

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that

almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.
Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities.

Clinton's 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/firms-with-government-interests-paid-clinton-speeches?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Yes, Bernie, Hillary is not qualified, she's corrupted.




not surprising at all that the democrat party is so in love with her, tbh

[TheSanityAnnex]

Probably

One well known way to buy influence is contribute to politicians spouses org, or hire family members

You think hrc is unique, alone in her corruption? :lol

The entire political, judicial class is corrupt

Is this you finally admitting that the FBI's investigation into her private server and emails regarding her foundation and it's contributors is legit?

[boutons_deux]

Is this you finally admitting that the FBI's investigation into her private server and emails regarding her foundation and it's contributors is legit?

No

[TheSanityAnnex]

No
So you think she funnelled money through her foundation from donors illegally while Secretary of State, and that is what the FBI is investigating, yet their investigation is not legitimate. Did I get it correct this time?

[boutons_deux]

So you think she funnelled money through her foundation from donors illegally while Secretary of State, and that is what the FBI is investigating, yet their investigation is not legitimate. Did I get it correct this time?

I have no way of knowing, so I'll leave the biased speculatinf and cheering on the witch hunters to You People.

[boutons_deux]

Oath Keepers Predict Civil War if Hillary Clinton Wins

"The level of hatred among conservatives for that woman is so stratospheric I cannot see any other outcome," claims Oath Keepers website

If Hillary Clinton is chosen by the establishment to take Obama’s place, the result would probably be outright civil war in the U.S.

The level of hatred among conservatives for that woman is so stratospheric I cannot see any other outcome.

It might not happen immediately, but a solid bet would be conflagration within her first term.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/22/oath-keepers-predict-civil-war-clinton-wins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

dickless gun fellators with their macho man paranoid fantasies, where they murder people (but never get murdered)

[Reck]

Oath Keepers? What kind of homo name is that?

[TheSanityAnnex]

HuffPo/Salon writer going after Hillary.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/yes-bernie-sanders-will-become-president_b_9726650.html

Reck deploying shield in 3..2..1..

[Reck]

HuffPo/Salon writer going after Hillary.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/yes-bernie-sanders-will-become-president_b_9726650.html

Reck deploying shield in 3..2..1..

How do you figure? Whether she gets indicted or not what do I care?

And maybe if you could get a legit and independent article where they're not Sanders teabaggers I'd take that article seriously. I mean your post is bouton-es like. Salon and Huffpost. :lmao

[Mitch]

How do you figure? Whether she gets indicted or not what do I care?

And maybe if you could get a legit and independent article where they're not Sanders teabaggers I'd take that article seriously. I mean your post is bouton-es like. Salon and Huffpost. :lmao

Huffpost is perhaps the most unbias and fair media outlet of all...
http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/9e6a05c/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fd0%2F90%2F f40f50c7434aa51f6e859fac91ab%2F160209-huffington-post-hp-1160.jpg

[Reck]

Case and point..


I've read the same article. I believe the author is a college student. More truthful and impressive than 99.99% of the 'professional' reporters out there.

The comments are a treasure trove, imo. LOL

[Reck]

Huffpost is perhaps the most unbias and fair media outlet of all...
http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/9e6a05c/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fd0%2F90%2F f40f50c7434aa51f6e859fac91ab%2F160209-huffington-post-hp-1160.jpg

I always see the young turds using them as a source of information where they get all their Sanders the great takes.

[Reck]

Hey Mitch check this guy's unbiased articles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/

The huff is just as bad as the Washington post when it comes to who do they back tbh.

[Mitch]

I always see the young turds using them as a source of information where they get all their Sanders the great takes.

It's one of botoxdeuce's go-to sources, along with Salon, Fox, Onion and Buzzfeed

[Mitch]

Hey Mitch (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=36270) check this guy's unbiased articles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/

The huff is just as bad as the Washington post when it comes to who do they back tbh.

The term for him is a bernout. I'm a Bern guy, but I've accepted he's done unless Hillary gets indicted.

[rmt]

I thought Huffington Post was only gonna cover Trump in the entertainment section.

[TheSanityAnnex]

How do you figure? Whether she gets indicted or not what do I care?

And maybe if you could get a legit and independent article where they're not Sanders teabaggers I'd take that article seriously. I mean your post is bouton-es like. Salon and Huffpost. :lmao
The fact the you recognized it was bouton-es/Salon/Huffpo and still didn't get the point further solidifies my thoughts on just how fucking stupid you are.

[Reck]

The fact the you recognized it was bouton-es/Salon/Huffpo and still didn't get the point further solidifies my thoughts on just how fucking stupid you are.

Anyone that doesn't agree with your stupid and far fetch theory is stupid to you. OK.

Keep hunting that elusive duck and keep posting walls of text no one cares about but yourself. I ain't stoping you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Anyone that doesn't agree with your stupid and far fetch theory is stupid to you. OK.

Keep hunting that elusive duck and keep posting walls of text no one cares about but yourself. I ain't stoping you.

For fucks sake you even said it yourself.


I mean your post is bouton-es like. Salon and Huffpost.

think a bit more

[Reck]

For fucks sake you even said it yourself.



think a bit more

Except for the fact you jumped to personal insults instead of explaining what I supposely missed.

You called me out initially to get a response. You got it and immediately went on the attack. :nope

[Mitch]

Watyta think about this name, Reck?

KKKlinton


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4wo9nqWrwE

[Reck]

Watyta think about this name, Reck (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412)?

KKKlinton


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4wo9nqWrwE

White Power!

Not surprising that someone born pre 60s was a racist and was involved in these kind of activities.

Being a racist doesn't mean you're a terrible human being though. Dont condone this shit but people born in those times are likely to have racist friends today.

[spurraider21]

Shillary is the guy and Reck is the dog, tbh

http://i.imgur.com/VKCrLAF.gif

[Reck]

Shillary is the guy and Reck is the dog, tbh

http://i.imgur.com/VKCrLAF.gif

Does that mean I make more than you in a week than you make in an entire year? :lmao

[spurraider21]

I don't think dogs earn income

[boutons_deux]

Is Hillary Clinton ‘Honest’?

So, when one considers Hillary Clinton’s “honesty” more should be in play than simply whether she accurately describes her policy positions half the time.

Honesty, as most people would perceive it, relates to a person’s fundamental integrity, strength of character, readiness to acknowledge mistakes and ability to learn from them.

On that measure, the American people seem to have sized up Hillary Clinton pretty well.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/24/is-hillary-clinton-honest/

[DMX7]

Is Hillary Clinton ‘Honest’?

So, when one considers Hillary Clinton’s “honesty” more should be in play than simply whether she accurately describes her policy positions half the time.

Honesty, as most people would perceive it, relates to a person’s fundamental integrity, strength of character, readiness to acknowledge mistakes and ability to learn from them.

On that measure, the American people seem to have sized up Hillary Clinton pretty well.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/24/is-hillary-clinton-honest/

Well said...

For example, in the NY debate when she was asked if she supports the "fight for $15" as a matter of federal policy, she ignored the question and said she supported certain localities that had essentially already passed such legislation at a local level. She tried to blur the difference between her real policy (i.e. a $12 per hour federal minimum wage -- which she tried to avoid stating clearly) and her rah-rah rhetoric towards workers (i.e., that she won't rollback the $15 minimum wage legislation that they already achieved without her help). How courageous! There's something wrong with a candidate that relies on confusing voters to win.

[DMX7]

724313224305360896

LOL, Hillary having to publicly reject a possible Koch brother endorsement. What an embarrassment. :lol

[boutons_deux]

But Hillz loves the rigged, disenfranchising, anti-insurgent system of Dem superdelegates, and pockets many $Ms from BigCarbon.

[spurraider21]

But Hillz loves the rigged, disenfranchising, anti-insurgent system of Dem superdelegates, and pockets many $Ms from BigCarbon.
and you'll be voting for her in november

[boutons_deux]

and you'll be voting for her in november

Anyone but a Repug

[spurraider21]

Anyone but a Repug
after all your ranting you will be voting for a pro-disenfranchisement, BigFinance shill :lmao

[Mitch]

That newest national poll gives Hill just a +3 advantage, might be a sign of change if we get another poll showing the same tbh

[DMX7]

and you'll be voting for her in november

I won't.

[boutons_deux]

after all your ranting you will be voting for a pro-disenfranchisement, BigFinance shill :lmao

Anyone but a Repug

[DMX7]

I will proudly be supporting Mr. Donald J. Trump.

[rmt]

I will proudly be supporting Mr. Donald J. Trump.

Things looking good for Trump - even if he doesn't make the 1237, he'll probably be able to pick up enough unbound delegates to push him over the top.

[DMX7]

Things looking good for Trump - even if he doesn't make the 1237, he'll probably be able to pick up enough unbound delegates to push him over the top.

I think so too. The Cruz-Trump Pact is desperate and will likely fail.

[Reck]

That newest national poll gives Hill just a +3 advantage, might be a sign of change if we get another poll showing the same tbh

I asked this question a while back but didn't get an answer...

What does that mean exactly? If eithe of them are ahead in the national poll. What difference does that make when it comes to selecting a nominee?

[Mitch]

I asked this question a while back but didn't get an answer...

What does that mean exactly? If eithe of them are ahead in the national poll. What difference does that make when it comes to selecting a nominee?

Polling tends to predict trends well, it helps make a case at conventions when two people have good shots at becoming the nominee. If Trump is fairly close to Hilary, then it would mean Cruz can't pull out his "I am the only one who can beat hilary because of polls" card.

[Reck]

Polling tends to predict trends well, it helps make a case at conventions when two people have good shots at becoming the nominee. If Trump is fairly close to Hilary, then it would mean Cruz can't pull out his "I am the only one who can beat hilary because of polls" card.

Oh you're talking about Hillary vs Trump? OK

I meant between Sanders and herself.

You keep hearing about how they're neck and neck nationally. I just want to know what that does for the nomination in the democratic party. I dont see the point of pitting them head to head nationally when only one can be in the general elections.

[Mitch]

Oh you're talking about Hillary vs Trump? OK

I meant between Sanders and herself.

You keep hearing about how they're neck and neck nationally. I just want to know what that does for the nomination in the democratic party. I dont see the point of pitting them head to head nationally when only one can be in the general elections.

You mean polls where you have the Democrat candidates or Republican candidates together? That one is supposed to show how united each candidate has the party and they often poll leaners and toss that into the numbers to show crossover unity. Personally I don't see too much value in that kind of polling except in special cases like with Trump and the notion that republicans wouldn't vote for him.

[boutons_deux]

Bombshell Poll: Nearly 20% Of Republicans Will Vote For Hillary Clinton If Trump Wins
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/25/bombshell-poll-20-republicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Those 20% would still be voting for a center right, neoliberal (deregulate everything), neocon (bomb every in the eternal GWOT) Repug.

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-9/13062031_1033626453359025_1287375168127696380_n.pn g?oh=ed2e4079b647c56454c222e91f8ebd3f&oe=57A055BD

"point of pitting them head to head nationally when only one can be in the general elections."

wannabe-candidates always run against themselves before as candidate they run against the other party's candidate.

What the Dem establishment fears is that Bernie's For The People campaign will hurt Hillary, but that's Hillary's problem. She's got a long neoliberal, neocon, pro-WallSt record as would be her policies in office, as would be her signing of Repug shit bills. That's not a reason for Bernie to quit attacking Hillary.

[DMX7]

Donna! Summer! Donna! Summer!

[CosmicCowboy]

Donna! Summer! Donna! Summer!

LOL

"She works HARD for the money..."

https://amp.twimg.com/v/9f171615-9be1-4d4f-9ea4-60c81ec1e1ef

[boutons_deux]

How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/how-the-new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide-the-hawk.html)


In prior articles, we noted how the Times helped Clinton walk away with most of the African-American vote — and therefore victory in many states — by essentially hiding Sanders’ (http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/03/how-clinton-media-machine-blocked-sanders-civil-rights-play/)s (http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/03/how-clinton-media-machine-blocked-sanders-civil-rights-play/) comparably far more impressive record on civil rights (http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/03/how-clinton-media-machine-blocked-sanders-civil-rights-play/).

We also noted (http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/06/how-new-york-times-stacks-deck-against-sanders-trump/) how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were minimized (http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/05/newsflash-sanderss-strength-character-hurt-campaign/).

These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the “conventional wisdom,” which in turn so often determines outcomes.

But there is more — and it is even more disturbing. Clinton’s principal reason to claim she is so qualified to be president — aside from being First Lady and senator — is her four years as Secretary of State.

What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement — more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether.WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars (http://whowhatwhy.org/2011/08/31/now-that-were-celebrating-qaddafis-end-can-we-get-a-little-truth/) and their dubious (http://whowhatwhy.org/2012/12/21/connecting-the-dots-on-syria-fooling-enough-of-the-people-enough-of-the-time/)basis (http://whowhatwhy.org/2012/12/21/connecting-the-dots-on-syria-fooling-enough-of-the-people-enough-of-the-time/).

Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for others who have been friendly to her and her campaign.

Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with New York voters, a traditionally liberal group with a strong antipathy toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring up this issue, and doesn’t seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight.

And why did The New York Times wait until two days after the New York primary to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that key contest? (It appeared first on its website and later in its Sunday magazine.)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/how-the-new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide-the-hawk.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

[boutons_deux]

As I've been saying, neither Bernie nor Hillary will be able to accomplish much, if anything, with rightwingnut, strict obstructionist, asshole Repugs controlling (enough of) both chambers.

Hillary will sign a bunch of Repug shit laws that Bernie wouldn't. not-ever-President Donnie would sign them all, and all of them would fuck Donnie's conned, deluded supporters even more.

iow, America is fucked and remains unfuckable. Thanks, Repugs (and rigged nominating scams)

and not "may be", but "will be" :

Why Hillary Clinton May be Doomed to Repeat the Obama PresidencyRepublicans may despise Hillary Clinton even more than they do Obama.

So whatever she can accomplish will be only over their most fevered and absolute opposition.

Getting anything through Congress won't be easy — and she'll have precious little time to do it.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-clinton-may-be-doomed-repeat-obama-presidency

and whatever she pushes won't be progressive, liberal, or any unfucking America. It will be "incremental" shit, aka, inconsequential shit with more damaging Repug shit attached.

[DMX7]

Republicans seem to have a little bit of respect for Bernie but none for Hillary.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans seem to have a little bit of respect for Bernie but none for Hillary.

Strict obstructionists will block any Dem president.

Repugs no respect for anything, not the Presidency, not SCOTUS/judiciary, not democracy, not solving problems, not the budget/spending, not the Constitution. Their only objective is to enrich/protect/enable the oligarchy while enriching themselves (aka, "the conservative ideology" con job).

[DMX7]

Strict obstructionists will block any Dem president.

Repugs no respect for anything, not the Presidency, not SCOTUS/judiciary, not democracy, not solving problems, not the budget/spending, not the Constitution. Their only objective is to enrich/protect/enable the oligarchy while enriching themselves (aka, "the conservative ideology" con job).

Yes, of course, I'm just saying that. But good to see that your screed writing abilities are still sharp.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, of course, I'm just saying that. But good to see that your screed writing abilities are still sharp.

your shit is weak as every, typical for Trump sucker

[DMX7]

Hillary Clinton is literally selling a "woman's card" -- this is so tacky!

https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/products/the-woman-card?utm_medium=redirect&utm_source=directory&utm_campaign=20160501womancardblogpost

[boutons_deux]

Republicans seem to have a little bit of respect for Bernie but none for Hillary.

Repugs deny even the legitimacy of non-Repugs to govern.

[tlongII]

LOL politicususa. :lol

[baseline bum]

Republicans seem to have a little bit of respect for Bernie but none for Hillary.

Because they'd love to run against Sanders and slime him as a dangerous Marxist who went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon, and it would work since the media wouldn't call them out on their bullshit.

[spurraider21]

This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams

These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders

The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html)will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public.

Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets.

They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth.

The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.

Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/) on your computer?

Would you be able to claim negligence?

Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general (http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158)and former intelligence officials (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-michael-flynn-email-fbi-investigation/) saying that indictment is justified.

Ultimately, every question asked of Hillary Clinton by James Comey will benefit the Sanders campaign. In a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, one candidate is being investigated by the FBI and has negative favorability ratings (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating)in ten national polls. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders, just raised more money in February (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fundraising_us_56ef3ddce4b084c67220a4da)than Clinton, without the help of Wall Street or oil and gas lobbyists. If Clinton gets indicted, the Democratic establishment and superdelegates will have no choice but to rally around Bernie Sanders.

I explain three possible scenarios in my latest YouTube segment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0YtRtScUcs)regarding how the Clinton campaign would react to the reality of indictment. No doubt, certain supporters would still vote for Clinton, even with the possibility of criminal behavior.

In reality, Bernie Sanders is the true front-runner, since he’s free of perpetual scandal and performs better against Trump in general election (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html). Vermont’s Senator also isn’t linked to an FBI investigation, which used to mean automatic front-runner status in American politics.

Therefore, below are ten questions the FBI should ask Clinton and her top aides. These questions, if answered honestly, will most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Remember, the issue of convenience or negligence won’t be enough to circumvent repercussions from owning a private server as Secretary of State. FBI director James Comey and his agents aren’t Democratic superdelegates or beholden in any way to a political machine. They’ll demand answers to tough questions and below could be some of the topics discussed in Clinton’s FBI interview.

1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?

There was a political motive in circumventing U.S. government servers and networks. Clinton didn’t go to the trouble of owning a private server (something her predecessors never did) for work and private use, without thinking of the political ramifications.

An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/clintons-absymal-record-on-open-government-b99696012z1-374014501.html) titled “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government”explains the possible political motive regarding Clinton’s unconventional email practices:


The issue immediately at hand — and under investigation by the FBI — is Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department communications. Clinton may have violated national security laws by making top secret documents vulnerable to hackers and available to people without proper security clearance…

In addition, regardless of Clinton’s excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences…

And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.


As stated in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws.”

We can’t even see Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, do you think Clinton wanted the public to know information about her foundation?

2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638)about yoga?

According to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638), Clinton’s staff had an amusing way of deciphering how to delete over 30,000 emails:

A Time magazine cover story about the email scandal released last week reported: “This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”


There was no government oversight, therefore the FBI has every right to ask why Clinton’s staff was allowed to pick and choose (through keyword searches) private emails from others that could have contained classified intelligence.

3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/).

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

An article in Madison.com (http://host.madison.com/news/nation/government-and-politics/emails-clinton-sought-secure-smartphone-rebuffed-by-nsa/article_db18b490-f67d-5808-97a4-f2297bb24a15.html) titled “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

“We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure ‘BlackBerry-like’ communications,” wrote Donald R. Reid, the department’s assistant director for security infrastructure.

“The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive.”

Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information…


Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecured Blackberry use could easily lead to an indictment.

5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano?

Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html). He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/) on a private server?

This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.

7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents?

The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.

8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?

President Obama’s White House communicated (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-classified-release-215359) with Clinton via her private server. If anyone in the White House said anything about Clinton’s server, this could lead to new controversy.

9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?

The server was located in their home, so it’s a valid question.

10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?

Foreign nations (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546) and hackers (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9160a25f39e14507ab90c977d300dc8b/6000-more-pages-clinton-emails-be-published-wednesday)already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.

These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International (http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1571174). Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon.

With issues revolving around trustworthiness before the FBI interviews, Clinton won’t be able to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_how_the_fbi_destroys_hillary_the_10_questi ons_that_could_end_her_white_house_dreams/


:lol emails!
:lol benghazi!
:lol typical leftwingnuts

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi! :lol

[spurraider21]

:lol emails!
:lol boutons

[Reck]

Looks like this shit is coming to an end and they still haven't found anything.

12 FBI investigators and you still cant find shit? She's either a genius or this was a witch hunt from the get go.

Poor sanityannex must be having a bad night. :lol

[spurraider21]

:lmao

Hillary forces target Bush donorsTheir message to moderate Republicans: She represents your values better than Trump.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872#ixzz47qhBLPSD

[TheSanityAnnex]

Looks like this shit is coming to an end and they still haven't found anything.

12 FBI investigators and you still cant find shit? She's either a genius or this was a witch hunt from the get go.

Poor sanityannex must be having a bad night. :lol
Your stupidity is relentless.
The guy who set up her home brew server was granted immunity, her top aides are just starting to be interviewed, an extradited hacker said he accessed her server, a judge just said Hillary may have to testify under oath....coming to an end? :lmao
You are either one masterful troll or an absolute fucking idiot.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol emails!
:lol boutons
Been entertaining watching him get so caught up in spamming that he contradicts himself daily now.

[Reck]

Your stupidity is relentless.
The guy who set up her home brew server was granted immunity, her top aides are just starting to be interviewed, an extradited hacker said he accessed her server, a judge just said Hillary may have to testify under oath....coming to an end? :lmao
You are either one masterful troll or an absolute fucking idiot.

Why the mini meltdown?

In a few weeks you'll either be right or I will.

[boutons_deux]

US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297) of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-law-will-right-wing-media-listen/210266?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

Benghazi? ZILCH

emails? ZERO

:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why the mini meltdown?

In a few weeks you'll either be right or I will.
Pointing out the facts is a meltdown? Like I said your stupidity is relentless.

[TheSanityAnnex]

US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297) of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-law-will-right-wing-media-listen/210266?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

Benghazi? ZILCH

emails? ZERO

:lol



Intention means nothing stupid fuck, she signed an NDA.
(18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) is very clear.
The law applies to “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,” which obviously includes Clinton. Classified information appeared throughout her emails recovered by investigators.
The law is broken if that person “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
The law could also be broken if the person “having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—”

[spurraider21]

US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297) of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-law-will-right-wing-media-listen/210266?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

Benghazi? ZILCH

emails? ZERO

:lol



so why were u spamming articles here about her email scandal?

[TheSanityAnnex]

US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297) of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-law-will-right-wing-media-listen/210266?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

Benghazi? ZILCH

emails? ZERO

:lol



:lol


This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams



These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders

The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html)will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public.

Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets.

They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth.

The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.

Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/) on your computer?

Would you be able to claim negligence?

Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general (http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158)and former intelligence officials (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-michael-flynn-email-fbi-investigation/) saying that indictment is justified.

Ultimately, every question asked of Hillary Clinton by James Comey will benefit the Sanders campaign. In a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, one candidate is being investigated by the FBI and has negative favorability ratings (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating)in ten national polls. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders, just raised more money in February (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fundraising_us_56ef3ddce4b084c67220a4da)than Clinton, without the help of Wall Street or oil and gas lobbyists. If Clinton gets indicted, the Democratic establishment and superdelegates will have no choice but to rally around Bernie Sanders.

I explain three possible scenarios in my latest YouTube segment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0YtRtScUcs)regarding how the Clinton campaign would react to the reality of indictment. No doubt, certain supporters would still vote for Clinton, even with the possibility of criminal behavior.

In reality, Bernie Sanders is the true front-runner, since he’s free of perpetual scandal and performs better against Trump in general election (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html). Vermont’s Senator also isn’t linked to an FBI investigation, which used to mean automatic front-runner status in American politics.

Therefore, below are ten questions the FBI should ask Clinton and her top aides. These questions, if answered honestly, will most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Remember, the issue of convenience or negligence won’t be enough to circumvent repercussions from owning a private server as Secretary of State. FBI director James Comey and his agents aren’t Democratic superdelegates or beholden in any way to a political machine. They’ll demand answers to tough questions and below could be some of the topics discussed in Clinton’s FBI interview.

1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?

There was a political motive in circumventing U.S. government servers and networks. Clinton didn’t go to the trouble of owning a private server (something her predecessors never did) for work and private use, without thinking of the political ramifications.

An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/clintons-absymal-record-on-open-government-b99696012z1-374014501.html) titled “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government”explains the possible political motive regarding Clinton’s unconventional email practices:

The issue immediately at hand — and under investigation by the FBI — is Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department communications. Clinton may have violated national security laws by making top secret documents vulnerable to hackers and available to people without proper security clearance…

In addition, regardless of Clinton’s excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences…

And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.

As stated in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws.”

We can’t even see Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, do you think Clinton wanted the public to know information about her foundation?

2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638)about yoga?

According to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638), Clinton’s staff had an amusing way of deciphering how to delete over 30,000 emails:
A Time magazine cover story about the email scandal released last week reported: “This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”

There was no government oversight, therefore the FBI has every right to ask why Clinton’s staff was allowed to pick and choose (through keyword searches) private emails from others that could have contained classified intelligence.

3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/).

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

An article in Madison.com (http://host.madison.com/news/nation/government-and-politics/emails-clinton-sought-secure-smartphone-rebuffed-by-nsa/article_db18b490-f67d-5808-97a4-f2297bb24a15.html) titled “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

“We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure ‘BlackBerry-like’ communications,” wrote Donald R. Reid, the department’s assistant director for security infrastructure.

“The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive.”

Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information…

Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecured Blackberry use could easily lead to an indictment.

5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano?

Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html). He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/) on a private server?

This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.

7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents?

The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.

8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?

President Obama’s White House communicated (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-classified-release-215359) with Clinton via her private server. If anyone in the White House said anything about Clinton’s server, this could lead to new controversy.

9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?

The server was located in their home, so it’s a valid question.

10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?

Foreign nations (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546) and hackers (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9160a25f39e14507ab90c977d300dc8b/6000-more-pages-clinton-emails-be-published-wednesday)already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.

These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International (http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1571174). Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon.

With issues revolving around trustworthiness before the FBI interviews, Clinton won’t be able to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this..._house_dreams/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_how_the_fbi_destroys_hillary_the_10_questi ons_that_could_end_her_white_house_dreams/)

[TheSanityAnnex]

boutons.....when keeping it "Salon" goes wrong.

[TheSanityAnnex]

US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297) of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-law-will-right-wing-media-listen/210266?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

Benghazi? ZILCH

emails? ZERO

:lol




“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,”---Hillary Clinton signed NDA :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

boutons fully on board with Bernie getting the nomination and having Hillary get fucked until Bernie's now an afterthought for the nomination :lol

[Reck]

Pointing out the facts is a meltdown? Like I said your stupidity is relentless.

What facts? Distorted facts, perhaps.

That guy whom the FBI gave immunity says he still refuses to testify even after being given immunity so he's no help.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-computer-staffer-testify-congress-email/

Her aides being interviewed is nothing more than cooperation and will not lead to her immediate arrest. And as far as that hacker, are we taking him seriously now? He's nothing more than a criminal seating behind bars trying to get attention. But hey, let's play that game.

Where is the proof? Documents, emails..the such that would incriminate her. Where is it?

Surely if you hack something it is with the purpose of getting information. Is this a kind hacker that is only curious and leaves everything untouch after?

You're kind of a gullible joke dude. When you call someone stupid, make time to look into the mirror first.

[spurraider21]

boutons fully on board with Bernie getting the nomination and having Hillary get fucked until Bernie's now an afterthought for the nomination :lol
this is why, just for the political theater, i would love to see a trump/sanders ticket. i know it makes no sense and is literally impossible, but i would love to see the gymnastics people like booboo end up going through

[TheSanityAnnex]

What facts? Distorted facts, perhaps.

:lol I see you woke up still stupid today, I distorted nothing.


The guy who set up her home brew server was granted immunity Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/


her top aides are just starting to be interviewed Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/


an extradited hacker said he accessed her server Fact: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hacker-guccifer-i-got-inside-hillary-clinton-s-server-n568206


a judge just said Hillary may have to testify under oath Fact: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email-idUSKCN0XV2RT







You're kind of a gullible joke dude. When you call someone stupid, make time to look into the mirror first.

When I call someone stupid I mean it, you are literally stupid.

[TheSanityAnnex]

this is why, just for the political theater, i would love to see a trump/sanders ticket. i know it makes no sense and is literally impossible, but i would love to see the gymnastics people like booboo end up going through

Would actually be a great ticket.

[spurraider21]

Would actually be a great ticket.
i dont think any ticket with trump at the front is a great ticket. i'd just love it for the lulz

[Reck]

:lol I see you woke up still stupid today, I distorted nothing.

Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/

Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/

Fact: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hacker-guccifer-i-got-inside-hillary-clinton-s-server-n568206

Fact: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email-idUSKCN0XV2RT








When I call someone stupid I mean it, you are literally stupid.

You just parroted everything I said with nothing new.

I posted fresh links not links from months ago. That guy that got immunity said he still refuses to testify AFTER the getting it.

So keep posting those pesky facts and then hold your breath until she gets arrested.

[Reck]

Would actually be a great ticket.


i dont think any ticket with trump at the front is a great ticket. i'd just love it for the
lulz

SanityAnnex :lmao

[spurraider21]

dont see why that's :lmao worthy, just because there is a difference of opinion?

[Reck]

difference of opinion?

That's exactly my point though.

Guy calls me stupid because my opinion differs from his.

99% of the time we will dissagree because I'm a progressive and he seems to be a right winger who thinks he's right 100% of the time.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You just parroted everything I said with nothing new.

I posted fresh links not links from months ago. That guy that got immunity said he still refuses to testify AFTER the getting it.

So keep posting those pesky facts and then hold your breath until she gets arrested.
No. You said they were distorted facts. You were shown one by one each of them were simply facts. After having been given the facts you call facts the "pesky". You're a fucking idiot.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That's exactly my point though.

Guy calls me stupid because my opinion differs from his.

99% of the time we will dissagree because I'm a progressive and he seems to be a right winger who thinks he's right 100% of the time.
You are the first I've seen to use an emoji to convey exactly your point.

[Reck]

No. You said they were distorted facts. You were shown one by one each of them were simply facts. After having been given the facts you call facts the "pesky". You're a fucking idiot.

I posted the same links with the same information. How are yours any more significant?

[z0sa]

If youre a hardcore Hillary supporter, youre a duped faggot. That simple

[Reck]

Going back to my main OP..


Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter

[...]

The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-law-will-right-wing-media-listen/210266

Forgot to post that link.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Setting aside the completely separate investigation into illegal contributions received through her foundation, lets look at the holes in this shit attempt at spin.
Going back to my main OP..



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05/us-officials-report-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-law-will-right-wing-media-listen/210266

Forgot to post that link.
You should have continued forgetting to post that link because the author of it is either lazy or purposely misleading. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you, intent means nothing in her case. I've posted the actual NDA she signed, read it for yourself and stop being so misinformed.



(18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) is very clear.
The law applies to “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,” which obviously includes Clinton. Classified information appeared throughout her emails recovered by investigators.
The law is broken if that person “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
The law could also be broken if the person “having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—”

[boutons_deux]

Wall Street Donors Flocking to Clinton

Democratic frontrunner has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates have dropped out of the race.

A Wall Street Journal analysis (http://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-sector-gives-hillary-clinton-a-boost-1462750725) published late Sunday found that the former secretary of state "has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone."

In fact, Clinton has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates—namely former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—dropped out of the race.

According to the newspaper's reporting on fundraising data (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019) provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, "the former secretary of state received 53 percent of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32 percent last year and 33 percent in January through February, as the nominating contests began."

WSJ notes that "Trump, by contrast, hasn’t garnered more than 1 percent of Wall Street contributions in any month through March," although the New York billionaire is expected to be much more active in soliciting donations for the general election.

The report further cites an analysis (https://www.crowdpac.com/money-race?s=3) by the nonpartisan crowdfunding resource Crowdpac, which found that "more than 500 donors, including many Wall Street executives, who gave more than $200 to a Republican who later dropped out, including Messrs. Bush and Rubio, have since given to Mrs. Clinton," WSJ wrote.

In total, Clinton has received a full third of all money that business interests have donated to presidential campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

The numbers represent a significant shift from the conventional wisdom that the GOP is beholden to big business while Democrats are supposed to represent the concerns of the people.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/09/wall-street-donors-flocking-clinton

BigFinance, BigCorp paying protection money to keep Clinton off their backs, not that a Repug Congress would ever send her a bill that was anti-BigFinance, anti-BigCorp. And her DoJ wouldn't block formation of monopolies, cartels, etc, etc.

[CosmicCowboy]

Got to pay to play. Hillary will take care of them.

[boutons_deux]

Hillz quit running ads, but must be a little scared by her polling, since she's started running ads again.

Go Bernie!

[boutons_deux]

Got to pay to play. Hillary will take care of them.

ALL politicians are corrupt, doing what their big donors want, groveling for $$$ non-stop, ignoring their voters post-election.

[boutons_deux]

campaign talk only. Repugs will abort any "medicare for all"

When the Affordable Care Act was still a bill, rather than a law, one of its most notable provisions was a policy known as the “public option.” As regular readers probably recall (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/public-option-makes-comeback-clintons-endorsement), the idea was to create a public, non-profit health insurer that would compete with private insurance companies for consumers’ business, along the lines of the educational model in which public and private universities compete in the same space.

Then-Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) eventually killed the provision, but a few months ago, the public option made a comeback – when Hillary Clinton added the idea (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/public-option-makes-comeback-clintons-endorsement) to her campaign platform.

Of course, one of the questions at the time was whether Clinton would stick to her support. It’s one thing to tout an idea popular with progressive voters in February, as the Democratic primaries and caucuses were just getting underway, but would Clinton follow through as she shifts her attention to the general election?

Apparently, yes. Bloomberg Politics reported (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-05-09/in-virginia-clinton-calls-for-health-care-public-option-medicare-buy-in) yesterday:


At a campaign stop Monday in Northern Virginia, Hillary Clinton reiterated her support for a government-run health plan in the insurance market, possibly by letting let Americans buy into Medicare, to stem the rise of health-care costs.

“I’m also in favor of what’s called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age,” the Democratic presidential front-runner said during a roundtable with local residents at the Mug’N Muffin coffee shop. “Which will take a lot of pressure off the costs.”




http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/hillary-clinton-keeps-the-fight-public-option-alive?cid=sm_fb_maddow

"at a certain age", and you have to opt in? that's not universal.

why not automatic from birth until death?

paid with salary deductions, like medicare is now?

Hillz is bullshitting, running not far enough in front of Bernie.

[boutons_deux]

Neocons and Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

Hillary Clinton wants the American voters to be very afraid of Donald Trump, but there is reason to fear as well what a neoconservative/neoliberal Clinton presidency would mean for the world

Wars and More Wars

On foreign policy, Clinton has consistently supported neoconservative wars, although she might shy from the neocon label per se, preferring its less noxious synonym “liberal interventionist.”

But as arch-neocon Robert Kagan, who has recast himself as a “liberal interventionist,” told The New York Times in 2014, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Summing up the feeling of thinkers like Kagan, the Times reported that Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

In February 2016, distraught over the rise of Trump, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush’s Iraq War, openly threw his support to Clinton, announcing his decision in a Washington Post op-ed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html).

And Kagan is not mistaken when he views Hillary Clinton as a fellow-traveler. She has often marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented their aggressive “regime change” schemes against governments and political movements that don’t toe Washington’s line or that deviate from Israel’s goals in the Middle East.

She has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results. [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/16/yes-hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/)” and “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars? (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/10/would-a-clinton-win-mean-more-wars/)”]

Seeking ‘Coercion’

A glimpse of what a Clinton-45 presidency might do could be seen in a recent Politicocommentary (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/putin-obama-middle-east-leaders-213867) by Dennis Ross, a former special adviser to Secretary of State Clinton now working at the staunchly pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In the article, Ross painted a surreal world in which the problems of the Middle East have been caused by President Obama’s hesitancy to engage militarily more aggressively across the region, not by the neocon-driven decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the similar schemes to overthrow secular governments in Libya and Syria in 2011, leaving those two countries in ruin.

Channeling the desires of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ross called for the United States to yoke itself to the regional interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in their rivalry against Shiite-led Iran.

To counter Obama’s hesitancy to apply military force, Ross calls for a reassertion of a muscular U.S. policy in the Middle East, much along the lines that the neocon establishment and Hillary Clinton also favor, including:

–Threatening Iran with “blunt, explicit language on employing force, not sanctions” if Iran deviates from the Obama-negotiated agreement to constrain its nuclear program (the bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran zombie lives!);

–“Contingency planning with GCC states and Israel … to generate specific options for countering Iran’s growing use of Shiite militias to undermine regimes in the region”;

–A readiness to arm Sunni tribes in Iraq if Iraq’s prime minister doesn’t;

–Establish “safe havens with no-fly zones” inside Syria if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down.

Employing the classic tough talk of the neocons, Ross concludes, “Putin and Middle Eastern leaders understand the logic of coercion. It is time for us to reapply it.”

But the significance of Ross’s prescription to “reapply” U.S. “coercion” across the region is that he is outlining what the world can expect from a Clinton-45 presidency.

Clinton made many of the same points in her speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and in debates with Bernie Sanders. If she stays on that track as president, there would be at least a partial U.S. military invasion of Syria, a very strong likelihood of war with Iran, and an escalation of tensions (and possible war) with nuclear-armed Russia.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/12/neocons-and-neolibs-how-dead-ideas-kill

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton, you know, she did, for example,

a massive corporate shakedown tour after leaving the State Department and before formally announcing for president in 2015, where she did 90 talks, largely to corporations, for at least $100,000 a pop, that all went into her private bank account.

She made $21 million in personal profit while she's planning her run for president unofficially.

And no one else has ever done this before. It's extraordinary.

It's not just three Goldman Sachs talks. It's 90 talks to the largest corporations in the country, and it's many in Canada. And this is totally uninvestigated. This is known fact. This has been reported once or twice, it'll show up periodically, but then it drops to the bottom of the ocean.

And good journalists shouldn't let it drop to the bottom of the ocean. So I think there's legitimate concerns that they've not really pursued the issues they could have, and I think he's right to make that point.
And this also touches on another issue.

You know, the Hillary campaign has -- and the corporate media -- belabored the point that Bernie's been so hard on Hillary.

Oh, he's just so mean to her. He's being unfair to her, and he's weakening her for Donald Trump in the fall. In fact, he hasn't even touched any of these issues to speak of. He only mentions her briefly in his speeches, and never in a derogatory sense, as de rigueur for Donald Trump to talk about his opponents.

If Hillary Clinton thinks Bernie Sanders is tough on her, wait until she sees what's coming around the corner.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36110-donald-trump-vows-to-sue-new-york-times-in-latest-show-of-disregard-for-freedom-of-press

[rmt]

So, boutons, aren't you looking forward to what Trump's gonna bring against Hillary? Bernie should never have taken the emails off the table.

[boutons_deux]

So, boutons, aren't you looking forward to what Trump's gonna bring against Hillary? Bernie should never have taken the emails off the table.

Trump,such loyal, devoted family values man, will throw Slick Willie at Hillary. It will be as nasty as shit, and will get much nastier when Donny is in the polls in the last weeks before the election.

Thanks, Repugs! :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Trump,such loyal, devoted family values man, will throw Slick Willie at Hillary. It will be as nasty as shit, and will get much nastier when Donny is in the polls in the last weeks before the election.

Thanks, Repugs! :lol

The issue won't be Bills cheating, it will be Hillary enabling him and then trashing the women to defend the Clinton brand.

[boutons_deux]

Bill Clinton's Five Major Achievements Were Longstanding GOP Objectives

Clinton never had a really great relationship with workers' organizations, but the worst thing Clinton he did to them was NAFTA. There were many trade agreements, of course, but NAFTA was the one that mattered, both because it was the first one and because labor put everything into stopping it.

Bank deregulation was a persistent policy of his from the very beginning -- he signed the Riegle-Neal Act in 1994, for example, and the Mexican bailout (a big favor to Wall Street) came shortly thereafter.

Along the way, he helped bail out a too-big-to-fail hedge fund, he twice appointed Alan Greenspan to run the Federal Reserve and he ensured that certain derivative securities would not have any kind of federal supervision at all.

"Fulfilling so much of the GOP agenda": That is a point worth reiterating.

Clinton had five major achievements as president:

NAFTA,

the Crime Bill of 1994,

welfare reform,

the deregulation of banks and telecoms, and

the balanced budget.

All of them -- every single one -- were longstanding Republican objectives.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36035-thomas-frank-bill-clinton-s-five-major-achievements-were-longstanding-gop-objectives

As I've been saying, I expect Hillary to sign every single pro-Corporate-American, anti-Human-American shit bill passed by a Repug Congress, while throwing some comparatively "progressive" crumbs to con progressives into thinking she's Democrat.

[CosmicCowboy]

Bill Clinton's Five Major Achievements Were Longstanding GOP Objectives

Clinton never had a really great relationship with workers' organizations, but the worst thing Clinton he did to them was NAFTA. There were many trade agreements, of course, but NAFTA was the one that mattered, both because it was the first one and because labor put everything into stopping it.

Bank deregulation was a persistent policy of his from the very beginning -- he signed the Riegle-Neal Act in 1994, for example, and the Mexican bailout (a big favor to Wall Street) came shortly thereafter.

Along the way, he helped bail out a too-big-to-fail hedge fund, he twice appointed Alan Greenspan to run the Federal Reserve and he ensured that certain derivative securities would not have any kind of federal supervision at all.

"Fulfilling so much of the GOP agenda": That is a point worth reiterating.

Clinton had five major achievements as president:

NAFTA,

the Crime Bill of 1994,

welfare reform,

the deregulation of banks and telecoms, and

the balanced budget.

All of them -- every single one -- were longstanding Republican objectives.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36035-thomas-frank-bill-clinton-s-five-major-achievements-were-longstanding-gop-objectives

As I've been saying, I expect Hillary to sign every single pro-Corporate-American, anti-Human-American shit bill passed by a Repug Congress, while throwing some comparatively "progressive" crumbs to con progressives into thinking she's Democrat.



Yep. Thats Hillary's new Economic Czar.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary enabling him and then trashing the women to defend the Clinton brand.

proof? other than Fox, Breitbart, etc?

[TheSanityAnnex]

As I've been saying, I expect Hillary to sign every single pro-Corporate-American, anti-Human-American shit bill passed by a Repug Congress, while throwing some comparatively "progressive" crumbs to con progressives into thinking she's Democrat.

And yet you'll still vote for her.

[CosmicCowboy]

proof? other than Fox, Breitbart, etc?

Seriously Boo? How about the New York Times? Do you claim they are conservative?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Just Received a Massive Donation from America’s Most Hated Oligarch

Newly revealed campaign finance records show that a wealthy Walmart heiress gave a donation exceeding a third of a million dollars to Hillary Clinton’s “Victory Fund.”

Alice Walton, who ranks #12 in the Forbes 400 (http://www.forbes.com/profile/alice-walton/) with more than $32 billion in personal assets, gave $353,400 (http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00586537/1047317/sa/ALL/2) to the Hillary Victory Fund — one of the funds backing her 2016 presidential campaign. While the donation was made in December of 2015, the record of her contribution wasn’t made public until this week. Alice is one of the most controversial Walton heirs. In 2011, she was arrested for drunk driving (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048804/Wal-mart-heiress-Alice-Walton-arrested-DUI-charge.html) but ultimately

got off scot-free despite having a blood alcohol level of 0.16 (http://gawker.com/5849500/billionaire-walmart-heiress-arrested-for-dwi). Walton famously told her arresting officers, “I’m Alice Walton, bitch!”

http://usuncut.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/waltonmug.jpg


This donation comes at a time when the former First Lady and Secretary of State is trying to distance herself from her past, like referring to black youth as “super-predators,” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/why-hillary-clintons-super-predator-apology-is-such-a-big-moment-for-political-protest/) proudly identifying as a “Goldwater girl” (http://www.snopes.com/goldwater-girl/) in her first foray into politics, and sitting on the board of Walmart for 6 years between 1986 and 1992 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/clinton-remained-silent-wal-mart-fought-unions/story?id=4218509).

This astonishing six-figure donation from one of the owners of a company widely-known for its oppressive labor practices comes in stark contrast to her campaign’s portrayal of the former New York senator as a champion of workers.

Clinton’s campaign has been endorsed by the central leadership of multiple labor unions (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanders-slams-clintons-union-endorsements/article/2578643), like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the National Education Association (NEA).

As ABC News reported (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/clinton-remained-silent-wal-mart-fought-unions/story?id=4218509), Hillary Clinton was silent as a member of Walmart’s board when the company ramped up its anti-union practices.

Some of the most notable examples include circulating a manual on how to beat back Teamster organizing at Walmart warehouses as early as 1991 (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/how-walmart-convinces-its-employees-not-to-unionize/395051/), and

forcing employees to attend mandatory captive audience meetings (http://www.thenation.com/article/worker-group-alleges-walmart-told-store-level-management-threaten-workers-about-strikes/) in which workers are discouraged by management from joining unions, among other practices.

“I’m always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else,” Clinton said at a 1990 shareholders’ meeting.

http://usuncut.com/politics/alice-walton-hillary-clinton/

[Reck]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds-n580131

No shit?

Isnt this like a school teacher telling it's students that phones aren't allowed while in class? Common knowledge imo.

[CosmicCowboy]

And Guccifer got his plea deal with the FBI and Justice Department. The hits just keep on coming.


The Romanian hacker who claimed he easily breached Hillary Clinton’s personal email server is finalizing a plea deal with the FBI and U.S. attorney, Fox News has learned.

Marcel Lehel Lazar, the 44-year-old hacker also known as “Guccifer,” first gave indications he wanted to cooperate with the U.S. government in mid-April, during an interview with Fox News. Lazar, in a subsequent discussion, said he was working on a plea deal – he then suspended media contact earlier this month.

On Monday, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia confirmed that a change of plea hearing is now scheduled for Lazar on Wednesday morning. He originally had pleaded not guilty to the nine-count indictment when he was extradited to the U.S.

He is now expected to plead guilty to some charges.

It is not publicly known whether the deal being worked out has a provision for cooperating with federal authorities – and whether that has anything to do with the investigation into Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server for government business while secretary of state.

But an intelligence source familiar with the FBI probe said if Guccifer pleads guilty to compromising Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL account – which is one of the nine charges – it will show that Clinton’s use of a personal server put sensitive information outside secure government channels and made it accessible to foreign hackers.

“[Clinton’s] gross negligence allowed this material to get out to an adversary,” the source said. “Through her communications with Blumenthal, [Clinton] contributed exposure and risk.”

[Reck]

And Guccifer got his plea deal with the FBI and Justice Department. The hits just keep on coming.


The Romanian hacker who claimed he easily breached Hillary Clinton’s personal email server is finalizing a plea deal with the FBI and U.S. attorney, Fox News has learned.

Marcel Lehel Lazar, the 44-year-old hacker also known as “Guccifer,” first gave indications he wanted to cooperate with the U.S. government in mid-April, during an interview with Fox News. Lazar, in a subsequent discussion, said he was working on a plea deal – he then suspended media contact earlier this month.

On Monday, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia confirmed that a change of plea hearing is now scheduled for Lazar on Wednesday morning. He originally had pleaded not guilty to the nine-count indictment when he was extradited to the U.S.

He is now expected to plead guilty to some charges.

It is not publicly known whether the deal being worked out has a provision for cooperating with federal authorities – and whether that has anything to do with the investigation into Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server for government business while secretary of state.

But an intelligence source familiar with the FBI probe said if Guccifer pleads guilty to compromising Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL account – which is one of the nine charges – it will show that Clinton’s use of a personal server put sensitive information outside secure government channels and made it accessible to foreign hackers.

“[Clinton’s] gross negligence allowed this material to get out to an adversary,” the source said. “Through her communications with Blumenthal, [Clinton] contributed exposure and risk.”

You have now entered conspiracy land. :lmao

Right Leaning tin foil hatters want her in chains so bad. Too bad it's a pipe dream.

[CosmicCowboy]

You have now entered conspiracy land. :lmao

Right Leaning tin foil hatters want her in chains so bad. Too bad it's a pipe dream.

I didn't write it.

Can't blame Republicans either.

The FBI and Justice Department work for Obama.

[Reck]

I didn't write it.

Can't blame Republicans either.

The FBI and Justice Department work for Obama.

The whole guccifer shit and stupid misstatements like Hillary grossly negligence talk is unsustaintiated. Purely republican cannon fodder. Nothing is actually proven. They just say shit and hope their audience doesn't look the actual facts online.

As a matter of fact, did you read the link I posted? The state department itself is taking part of the blame saying that even pietrus and Powell kept information after they left their post. In fact, the articles even has a quote from the state department saying Powell hasn't even returned some emails from the time he left.

[CosmicCowboy]

I read the article.

You are using the "well, they did it wrong so it's OK for Hillary to do it wrong" excuse.

Right

[Reck]

I read the article.

You are using the "well, they did it wrong so it's OK for Hillary to do it wrong" excuse.

Right

Thats not remotely what I said but hey, nice deflection.

That is coming from someone who did the audit. Is in quotes.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The whole guccifer shit and stupid misstatements like Hillary grossly negligence talk is unsustaintiated. Purely republican cannon fodder. Nothing is actually proven. They just say shit and hope their audience doesn't look the actual facts online.

The only one here ignoring facts is you.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

[Th'Pusher]

I didn't write it.
Who did? For someone who claims to want to verify new stories across multiple sources, you'd think you at least have the decency to link your source.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who did? For someone who claims to want to verify new stories across multiple sources, you'd think you at least have the decency to link your source.

decency? :lmao

what a faggot

The source was named in the body of text.

Guess you can't read.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Who did? For someone who claims to want to verify new stories across multiple sources, you'd think you at least have the decency to link your source.

I've gone out of my way to provide Reck with reputable sources and he just scurries away and doesn't respond.

[Th'Pusher]

decency? :lmao

what a faggot

What? You wanna whine about sources and hit pieces like you did in the Texas GOP platform thread then source your own shit.

[CosmicCowboy]

What? You wanna whine about sources and hit pieces like you did in the Texas GOP platform thread then source your own shit.

The source was named in the body of text faggot.

[Th'Pusher]

The source was named in the body of text faggot.
I asked you who wrote the fucking piece. Answer the question or shut the fuck up you intellectually dishonest piece of garbage.

[CosmicCowboy]

I asked you who wrote the fucking piece. Answer the question or shut the fuck up you intellectually dishonest piece of garbage.

:lmao

learn how to read, faggot.

[Reck]

I've gone out of my way to provide Reck (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412) with reputable sources and he just scurries away and doesn't respond.

I've responded accordingly.

But when you take speculative articles as facts, then I dont waste my time trying to respond.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I've responded accordingly.

But when you take speculative articles as facts, then I dont waste my time trying to respond.
Please... :lol tell me what is speculative in this article and not fact.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."



:lol and then explain how the ACTUAL NDA I posted that she signed is "speculative"

[Reck]

Please... :lol tell me what is speculative in this article and not fact.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."



:lol and then explain how the ACTUAL NDA I posted that she signed is "speculative"

I'm talking about when you go on a tangent about some rogue german hacker that did this or that, or take some fake judge from fox news saying how Hillary is fucked.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm talking about when you go on a tangent about some rogue german hacker that did this or that, or take some fake judge from fox news saying how Hillary is fucked.
And I'm talking about this specific article I posted. Are you finally admitting she did in fact send/receive classified, at the time, material through her homebrew server.

[Reck]

And I'm talking about this specific article I posted. Are you finally admitting she did in fact send/receive classified, at the time, material through her homebrew server.

It appears that she did, yes.

Did she know this herself? That's what needs to be proven and what the FBI is having a hard time trying to prove.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It appears that she did, yes.

Did she know this herself? That's what needs to be proven and what the FBI is having a hard time trying to prove.
It doesn't "appear she did", she did. And of course she knew, she signed an NDA specifically stating she knew this. I've already posted the NDA, and already posted the the law stating gross negligence is no excuse.

If she is not indicted our justice system is a complete farce.

[Reck]

If she is not indicted our justice system is a complete farce.

No, if she doesn't get indicted it was because there wasn't enough evidence to throw her in jail for it.

The people that are investigating this have even come out and say there is barely anything there that could stick as far as criminal charges go. You cant throw someone in jail without 100%, without a shadow of proof. Just because you dont like her doesn't mean she gets the shitty end of the stick. Due process is due process.

Even if she did, which I know you are of that thinking, if the FBI cant prove it, its too bad for them. She would have out smarted them.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, if she doesn't get indicted it was because there wasn't enough evidence to throw her in jail for it.

The people that are investigating this have even come out and say there is barely anything there that could stick as far as criminal charges go. You cant throw someone in jail without 100%, without a shadow of proof. Just because you dont like her doesn't mean she gets the shitty end of the stick. Due process is due process.

Even if she did, which I know you are of that thinking, if the FBI cant prove it, its too bad for them. She would have out smarted them.

The FBI is the one investigating her.

Please post your link where the FBI said "there is barely anything there that could stick as far as criminal charges go".

[boutons_deux]

The FBI is the one investigating her.

Please post your link where the FBI said "there is barely anything there that could stick as far as criminal charges go".

... but not investigating, criminalizing Colin Powell and other top officials who used private email?

[CosmicCowboy]

... but not investigating, criminalizing Colin Powell and other top officials who used private email?

Name another one that intentionally set up a private server in their house for all their official business.

[boutons_deux]

Name another one that intentionally set up a private server in their house for all their official business.

So YOUR objection is that Hillary setup her own mail server, but all the other top govt officials who used mail servers on Internet for govt business get a pass? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

So YOUR objection is that Hillary setup her own mail server, but all the other top govt officials who used mail servers on Internet for govt business get a pass? :lol

No dumbass. i asked Reck for his link where the FBI said Hillary didn't do anything wrong.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, if she doesn't get indicted it was because there wasn't enough evidence to throw her in jail for it.

The people that are investigating this have even come out and say there is barely anything there that could stick as far as criminal charges go. You cant throw someone in jail without 100%, without a shadow of proof. Just because you dont like her doesn't mean she gets the shitty end of the stick. Due process is due process.

Even if she did, which I know you are of that thinking, if the FBI cant prove it, its too bad for them. She would have out smarted them.ANY evidence is ENOUGH evidence. You are having trouble grasping this.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hillary Clinton aide moves to block release of deposition video

Hillary Clinton's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday about Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Mills' attorneys filed a motion (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000154-e9f7-d75c-a77c-ebffc6e30002) Wednesday afternoon saying they fear that the group that sought Mills' deposition in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Judicial Watch, will use any recording to distort Mills' testimony and advance the group's anti-Clinton agenda.
"We are concerned that snippets or soundbites of the deposition may be publicized in a way that exploits Ms. Mills’ image and voice in an unfair and misleading manner," attorneys Beth Wilkinson and Alexandra Walsh wrote in the motion submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. "Ms. Mills is not a party to this action. She is a private citizen appearing voluntarily to assist in providing the limited discovery the Court has permitted. ... Judicial Watch should not be allowed to manipulate Ms. Mills’ testimony, and invade her personal privacy, to advance a partisan agenda that should have nothing to do with this litigation."

The motion says Mills has no objection to releasing the transcript of her testimony, although the State Department has said it may object if the testimony strays into areas that are supposed to be off-limits according to the judge's order permitting the deposition.
Mills' filing asserts that audio or video clips would be more easily taken out of context than a transcript but does not make entirely clear why written quotes could not be similarly distorted.
Sullivan issued an order shortly after the motion was filed giving the conservative group until noon Thursday to offer a formal response to the motion.
A spokeswoman for Judicial Watch said the group is evaluating the motion and will respond by the judge's deadline.
In addition to Mills, former Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and computer technician Bryan Pagliano are scheduled to give depositions in the coming weeks. It's unclear whether any limits put on videos of Mills' testimony would be applied to their appearances, but if the judge agrees to Mills' request it seems likely the others would ask for similar treatment.
One current State Department official gave a deposition last week, and several others are expected to do so over the next month or so in accordance with an order Sullivan issued earlier this month.
Sullivan has left open the possibility (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-deposition-plan-222801) of calling Clinton for a deposition in the case. Judicial Watch has already formally asked a judge handling a parallel case to order Clinton to give testimony, but there's been no ruling on that request.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/05/hillary-clinton-cheryl-mills-deposition-223583#ixzz49mCQr2rI
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

[Reck]

The FBI is the one investigating her.

Please post your link where the FBI said "there is barely anything there that could stick as far as criminal charges go".

I meant the people doing the audit. My bad.

But I already went over this with TSA a few pages back.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256863&page=12&p=8570353&viewfull=1#post8570353

Go read that post with the quote.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I meant the people doing the audit. My bad.

But I already went over this with TSA a few pages back.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256863&page=12&p=8570353&viewfull=1#post8570353

Go read that post with the quote.
Your post with the quote said they found evidence lol

[rmt]

Haven't seen any mention of the IG report (watch the 2nd video - sorry I don't know how to embed it here):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/26/morning_joe_panel_declares_state_dept_report_a_fle sh_wound_for_hillary.html

[Reck]

Your post with the quote said they found evidence lol

You still dont know what scant means. lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

You still dont know what scant means. lol

finding scant evidence = finding evidence
Although I would hardly call the State Department's revelation "scant"

22 Hillary Clinton emails declared 'top secret' by State Dept.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/22-hillary-clinton-emails-declared-top-secret-218420#ixzz49nl2mP00
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

I still think you are just pulling an excellent troll job as I don't believe anyone is really this naïve, but I'm willing to play along.

[Reck]

finding scant evidence = finding evidence
Although I would hardly call the State Department's revelation "scant"

22 Hillary Clinton emails declared 'top secret' by State Dept.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/22-hillary-clinton-emails-declared-top-secret-218420#ixzz49nl2mP00
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

I still think you are just pulling an excellent troll job as I don't believe anyone is really this naïve, but I'm willing to play along.

As scathing as this report was, it was nothing more than her breaking the rules. It doesn't say she did something illegal or they would have said it, no?

Whose to say the scant evidence the FBI said they found so far is what the State Dept. just declared they found?

If that's all there is then they have nothing to charge her with. But we shall see.

[TheSanityAnnex]

As scathing as this report was, it was nothing more than her breaking the rules. It doesn't say she did something illegal or they would have said it, no?

Whose to say the scant evidence the FBI said they found so far is what the State Dept. just declared they found?

If that's all there is then they have nothing to charge her with. But we shall see.What she did was illegal, gross negligence is not an excuse, clearly stated below.


18 Us Code Section 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

[Reck]

What she did was illegal, gross negligence is not an excuse, clearly stated below.


18 Us Code Section 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

Let us wait until this plays out then.

[spankadelphia]

https://i.sli.mg/SPOK2J.jpg

All the tats in the world can't hide twinkie's 12 year old boy arms. BUT I'M MAN ENOUGH - LOOK AT MY FULL SLEEVE AND BEARD (please look)

http://i.imgur.com/BafPvRV.jpg

I'M ALSO THE FACE OF SYPHILIS IN OREGON!

[CosmicCowboy]

These Lumberfaggots crack me up with their trendy little beards.

[boutons_deux]

These Lumberfaggots crack me up with their trendy little beards.

Duck Dynasty cretins and frauds were real trend setters.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Doubles Down on Email Scandal, Saying 'It Was Allowed'

Democratic presidential candidate (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/elections/democratic-presidential-candidates.htm) Hillary Clinton (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/whitehouse/hillary-clinton.htm) doubled down on defending her email practices as Secretary of State, arguing that the use of a personal account was “allowed,” and rules have since been “clarified.”

“This report makes clear that personal email use was the practice for other secretaries of state,” Clinton told ABC News in an interview in Las Vegas, Nevada. “It was allowed. And the rules have been clarified since I left.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-doubles-email-scandal-allowed/story?id=39400634

She's right. She's the victim of Repug-pressured "selective enforcement", selected because she's

a) a woman (Repug/rightwingnut misogyny)

b) Dem (Repug ideology denies legitimacy of any opposition. It's in the Constitution they love and defend)

c) probably destroyer of any Repug nominee, esp Trash.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hillary Clinton Doubles Down on Email Scandal, Saying 'It Was Allowed'

Democratic presidential candidate (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/elections/democratic-presidential-candidates.htm) Hillary Clinton (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/whitehouse/hillary-clinton.htm) doubled down on defending her email practices as Secretary of State, arguing that the use of a personal account was “allowed,” and rules have since been “clarified.”

“This report makes clear that personal email use was the practice for other secretaries of state,” Clinton told ABC News in an interview in Las Vegas, Nevada. “It was allowed. And the rules have been clarified since I left.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-doubles-email-scandal-allowed/story?id=39400634

She's right. She's the victim of Repug-pressured "selective enforcement", selected because she's

a) a woman (Repug/rightwingnut misogyny)

b) Dem (Repug ideology denies legitimacy of any opposition. It's in the Constitution they love and defend)

c) probably destroyer of any Repug nominee, esp Trash.






Seriously Bookaki? You have flipped to an email defender now that Bernie is cooked? You are flailing, dude.

[boutons_deux]

email defender

You Fucking Lie. (in the genetics of rightwingnuts)

I'm saying that the Repugs are pressuring DoJ to go after Hillary, while not pressuring DoJ to go after Repugs who did exactly the same as Hillary.

And if you get your wet dream of Repugs taking down Hillary, then your boy Trash will get slaughtered by my boy Bernie.

[CosmicCowboy]

You Fucking Lie. (in the genetics of rightwingnuts)

I'm saying that the Repugs are pressuring DoJ to go after Hillary, while not pressuring DoJ to go after Repugs who did exactly the same as Hillary.

And if you get your wet dream of Repugs taking down Hillary, then your boy Trash will get slaughtered by my boy Bernie.

:lmao

Even if Hillary gets charged and drops out there is NO WAY the Democratic establishment gives it to Bernie. NONE. He isn't a Democrat. They will kick him to the curb and draft Biden.

[tlongII]

These Lumberfaggots crack me up with their trendy little beards.

Those are hipsters, not lumberjacks. You wouldn't find a lumberjack with noodle arms like that. Unfortunately we're the hipster capital of the world.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

Even if Hillary gets charged and drops out there is NO WAY the Democratic establishment gives it to Bernie. NONE. He isn't a Democrat. They will kick him to the curb and draft Biden.

drafting Biden would really piss off Bernie's supporters, the same way Trash was threatening violence by his supporters if he didn't get the nomination.

Bernie has always caused with the Dems, ran as a Dem, so that's not the obstacle you dream it would be.

[rmt]

You Fucking Lie. (in the genetics of rightwingnuts)

I'm saying that the Repugs are pressuring DoJ to go after Hillary, while not pressuring DoJ to go after Repugs who did exactly the same as Hillary.

And if you get your wet dream of Repugs taking down Hillary, then your boy Trash will get slaughtered by my boy Bernie.

The report is from the IG - her own State Department. She's trying to spin this so much.

1. Clinton's email setup was never approved by State security agencies
Even though department policy mandated throughout Clinton's tenure at Foggy Bottom that day-to-day operations should be conducted via authorized means, the IG report found no evidence that the secretary of state "requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server."
According to interviews with officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Information Resource Management, Clinton would have had to "discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs."
But those officials said they approved no such setup because of department rules and the inherent security risks.
The report said those departments "did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business."

2. Clinton never sought assistance to set up her email system to transmit certain sensitive information
The department's policy also mandated that employees use approved and secure devices to transmit information known as SBU — "sensitive but unclassified" — outside State's OpenNet network, and that if they did so on a regular basis to non-department addresses, they should reach out to the Bureau of Information Resource Management.
"However, OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU," the report states.

3. The arrangement made staffers nervous — and management told them to keep quiet
The IG report noted that two Information Resources Management staffers had communicated their concerns with their departmental boss in late 2010.
"In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements," the report noted.
The staff member recalled that the director said Clinton's personal system had already been reviewed and approved by legal staff "and that the matter was not to be discussed any further," according to the report's language.
"As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system," the next line of the report reads.
The other staff member who raised concerns said the director stated that the department's mission is to "support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again."

4. Clinton's chief of staff suggested setting up a separate computer
Speaking with senior officials in the Office of the Secretary and its Executive Secretariat, as well as with Patrick F. Kennedy, the department's undersecretary for management, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills in January 2009 suggested that a separate stand-alone computer might be set up for the secretary of state "to enable her to check her emails from her desk."
That discussion came as Clinton expressed her desire to take her BlackBerry into secure areas. Kennedy called it a "great idea" and "the best solution," although the IG report found that no such arrangement was ever made.

5. Clinton worried about 'the personal being accessible'
The report's next bullet point recalls a November 2010 conversation between Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff for operations. According to the report, the email discussion centered around emails from Clinton's account not being able to be received by State employees. Abedin suggested, "we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.”
Clinton responded: “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
The former secretary of state declined the OIG's request for an interview, while Abedin did not respond, according to the report.

6. Abedin rejected the idea for Clinton to use two devices
State Department officials in August 2011 discussed providing Clinton with an agency-issued BlackBerry to replace her "malfunctioning" personal BlackBerry because "her personal email server is down." Then-Executive Secretary Stephen D. Mull suggested that he would provide Clinton two devices — “one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and another which would just have phone and internet capability.”
Abedin shot down the proposal because it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” The IG did not find any evidence that Clinton received a new device or address after the discussion.

7. Clinton's email system needed troubleshooting
According to emails the OIG said it reviewed from between "2010 through at least October 2012," messages between State Department staff and two individuals who provided technical support for Clinton's email server showed operational issues. "For example, in December 2010, the Senior Advisor worked with S/ES-IRM and IRM staff to resolve issues affecting the ability of emails transmitted through the clintonemail.com domain used by Secretary Clinton to reach Department email addresses using the state.gov domain," the report states.
Staffers with the office handling information technology for the Office of the Secretary met with a Clinton top technology staffer to resolve the situation. "The issue was ultimately resolved and, on December 21, 2010, S/ES-IRM staff sent senior S/ES staffers an email describing the issue and summarizing the activities undertaken to resolve it," the report stated.
The unnamed Clinton technology staffer also met with staffers in Cyber Threat Analysis Division on another occasion, the report said. The third interaction occurred in late October 2012 when Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on the New York City area. An email exchange between Abedin and another member of Clinton's staff "revealed that the server located in Secretary Clinton’s New York residence was down."
The Clinton technology staffer then met with Office of Information Resources Management staffers to see whether State could provide support. According to the report, S/ES-IRM staff said they told the Clinton aide they could not because the server was private.

8. The server was briefly shut down over hacking concerns
The report noted that on Jan. 9, 2011, a non-State technical adviser retained by former President Bill Clinton informed Abedin that he had shut down the server because he thought "someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to."
The same person wrote Abedin later the same day, stating, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.”
"On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary 'anything sensitive' and stated that she could 'explain more in person,'" the report stated, with Abedin being the person who sent the email.

9. Clinton and her staffers worried about being hacked but didn't report to security personnel
On May 13, 2011, the IG report states that "two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an email with a suspicious link."
Hours after that discussion, an email from William Burns, then-undersecretary of state for political affairs, appeared in Clinton's inbox carrying a link to a suspect URL and nothing else in the message.
“Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Clinton responded hours later.
The IG report referenced pre-existing department policy requiring employees to report suspicious incidents to Information Resources Management officials when it comes to their attention, including that it is also "required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information."
"However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department," the report states.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-emails-state-report-223574#ixzz49rzVvpKZ

[boutons_deux]

Where are the IG's reports on Colin Powell's, etc use of private email?

Where is the IG's report on dubya's WH destroying MILLIONS of emails?

btw, MI Repug governor's documents are exempted from FOIA.

And then there TX Repugs using private email for official business:

================

Officials' Personal Email Addresses Open to Public, Court Says

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/08/officials-personal-emails-addresses-open-public-co/

================

As I've said repeatedly, Repugs have been pressuring, SELECTIVELY, DoJ, etc into a political witch hunt of Clinton, YET AGAIN.


Congressional Repugs have YET to say anything, certainly not censure, their longest serving Repug Speaker for pedophilia and financial crime.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You Fucking Lie. (in the genetics of rightwingnuts)

I'm saying that the Repugs are pressuring DoJ to go after Hillary, while not pressuring DoJ to go after Repugs who did exactly the same as Hillary.
Which Repugs set up a private server in their own home?

[CosmicCowboy]

drafting Biden would really piss off Bernie's supporters, the same way Trash was threatening violence by his supporters if he didn't get the nomination.

Bernie has always caused with the Dems, ran as a Dem, so that's not the obstacle you dream it would be.

:lmao

Proving again you are totally disconnected from reality.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Game Over: EmailGate Just Crippled the Clinton ExpressThis isn't a right-wing conspiracy—the FBI will unravel it all By John R. Schindler (http://observer.com/author/john-r-schindler/) • 05/26/16 10:40am

https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/gettyimages-534338706.jpg?quality=80&w=635&h=421<img class="size-full wp-image-651540" src="https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/gettyimages-534338706.jpg?quality=80&w=635&h=421" alt="Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. " width="635" height="421" title="Game Over: EmailGate Just Crippled the Clinton Express" />
Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Running for president this year, after her abortive 2008 effort against Barack Obama, has not worked out quite as planned for Hillary Clinton. This was supposed to be her year, at long last. After enduring a quarter-century on the national stage—including tough years by the side of her gifted but scandal-prone husband—2016 finally lined up as Ms. Clinton’s best shot at moving back into the White House, this time with her in the Oval Office.
That outcome is looking less likely by the day. First, Hillary can’t manage to finish off Senator Bernie Sanders (http://observer.com/2016/05/bernie-or-bust-movement-grows-as-clinton-polls-tank/), despite his far-left politics that until recently resided quietly on the fringe of the Democratic party. They are fringe no more, and Bernie’s sincerity and authenticity offer an appealing contrast to the often awkward and stilted Ms. Clinton. This summer’s Democratic convention in Philadelphia, where Mr. Sanders will show up with legions of adoring fans who display a passion altogether lacking in the ranks of Team Clinton, promises to be quite a show—maybe even a madhouse.
Then there’s the troubling matter of EmailGate (http://observer.com/2016/01/why-hillarys-emailgate-matters/), the long-running scandal that this column has covered in great detail (https://20committee.com/2016/03/07/the-xx-committee-hillary-emailgate-reader/). That Ms. Clinton and her senior staff misused email during her tenure as secretary of state has long been crystal-clear. Refusing to use government email for government work was a violation of policy, while Team Clinton’s routing of said emails through a private server, then putting classified information on it—including above top secret information from the Intelligence Community—looks like a violation of several federal laws.
Early denials from the Clinton camp tried to make the entire matter go away, insisting there was no “there” there. Once that folded in the face of massive evidence that something indeed had gone very awry with Secretary Clinton’s emails at Foggy Bottom, the excuses shifted to ones familiar to those who experienced the 1990s. Everybody does it. It’s not really a big deal. Above all, this is politically motivated. These false accusations are the machinations of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Such dodges held water for months among Hillary fans, aided by parts of the mainstream media which, long accustomed to running interference for the Clintons, continued to do so (http://observer.com/2016/03/ny-times-report-debunks-severity-of-emailgate-with-classic-clintonian-wordsmithing/), attempting to muddy waters that to those familiar with laws and regulations on the handling of classified materials are actually decidedly clear.

That all fell apart yesterday with the release of the long-anticipated State Department Inspector General’s special report (http://observer.com/2016/05/hillary-has-lost-the-war-on-honesty/) on how Foggy Bottom handles email records and cybersecurity. A shoe has dropped for Team Clinton—a very big shoe—and there will be no going back now.
It can charitably be termed scathing, and it leaves no doubt that Team Clinton has lied flagrantly to the public about EmailGate for more than a year.

The Office of the Inspector General at State, as in all federal departments, exists to ferret out internal fraud, waste and illegalities. However, State had no real IG boss from 2009 to 2013, with an acting director heading up the office. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were in any hurry to find a permanent director for State’s IG shop. Now we know why.
The State IG report, weighing in at over 80 pages, is crammed full of bureaucratese yet paints an indelible and detailed portrait of things going very wrong at Foggy Bottom—especially under Hillary Clinton. It can charitably be termed scathing, and it leaves no doubt that Team Clinton has lied flagrantly to the public about EmailGate for more than a year.

That the State Department’s IT systems were a mess for years was hardly a secret, and the IG report makes painfully clear that State has had a difficult time transitioning into the electronic age. Several recent secretaries of state used email in a manner that would be judged inadequate, and perhaps improper, by today’s standards, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who served under President George W. Bush.
That said, only Hillary Clinton simply refused to use government email for government work—she repeatedly denied requests from State security and IT to use state.gov email—and she systematically dodged federal regulations on electronic communications and records preservation by setting up her private email server of bathroom infamy. Damningly, while several former secretaries of state cooperated with the IG in this important investigation, Ms. Clinton refused to.
As secretary of state, Ms. Clinton attempted a novel experiment of trying to avoid using any information systems that create records that can be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The IG report includes painful details, including how she flatly refused to use state.gov email for anything, ever, citing privacy grounds (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-personal-email-worry-223559). State IT was concerned because Ms. Clinton’s work emails—all being sent via her clintonmail.com address—were winding up in the spam folders of State officials. Important information was not getting where it needed to go. She needed to use official email for official business. Except she refused.
What was so important, so sensitive that Hillary had to dodge FOIA altogether? Clearly protecting her private life—whatever that might be—was valued more highly by Ms. Clinton than actually heading the Department of State.
Then we have the repeating warnings from State officials about the incredibly vulnerable nature of her ramshackle private email system from any cybersecurity perspective. These, too, were blown off by Ms. Clinton and her staff, despite several hacking efforts that staffers were aware of. Guccifer, the Romanian hacker who illegally accessed Ms. Clinton’s email during her tour at Foggy Bottom, has just pleaded guilty (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/25/hacker-who-claims-breached-clinton-server-pleads-guilty-strikes-deal-with-feds.html), and there can be little doubt that hackers more adept than he penetrated Hillary’s communications.
The FBI is investigating this case as political corruption—not just for mishandling of classified information.
Any foreign intelligence service worth its salt would have had no trouble accessing Ms. Clinton’s emails, particularly when they were unencrypted, as this column has explained in detail (http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/). Yet Hillary was more worried about the American public finding out about what she was up to via FOIA than what foreign spy services and hackers might see in her email.
What she was seeking to hide so ardently remains one of the big unanswered questions in EmailGate. Hints may be found in the recent announcement that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime Clinton intimate, is under FBI investigation (http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-and-their-associates/) for financial misdeeds, specifically dirty money coming from China. In fact, Mr. McAulliffe invited one of his Beijing benefactors over to Ms. Clinton’s house in 2013. Not long after, Chinese investors donated $2 million (http://time.com/4348675/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-china-investigation/) to the Clinton Foundation.
That an illegal pay-for-play-scheme, with donations to the Clinton Foundation being rewarded by political favors from Hillary Clinton—who when she was secretary of state had an enormous ability to grant favors to foreign bidders—existed at the heart of EmailGate has been widely suspected, and we know the FBI is investigating this case as political corruption, not just for mishandling of classified information. That certainly would be something Ms. Clinton would not have wanted the public to find out about via FOIA.
As is their wont, Hillary’s loyal defenders are denouncing the State IG report as yet another “nothingburger,” adding (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-emails) with customary conspiratorial flair: “there are some real questions about the impartiality of the IG.” In this take, we are supposed to believe that the head of State’s IG office, appointed by President Obama, is a clandestine GOP operative.
Such escapism masquerading as hot takes won’t work anymore. Even The Washington Post, hardly a member of the VRWC, has conceded (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/?postshare=3851464219403629&tid=ss_tw) that EmailGate is a certifiably big deal, and “badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server.” Its editors went further, issuing a blistering statement (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?postshare=4911464261423948&tid=ss_tw) castigating Ms. Clinton’s “inexcusable, willful disregard of the rules.” They minced no words: “Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.”
Although Post editors were at pains to state that Ms. Clinton had not broken any laws with her gross negligence at Foggy Bottom, the issue remains open. The FBI is investigating that complex matter now. As this column has previously reported, Hillary’s “unclassified” emails included above top secret information about undercover CIA operatives (http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/) serving overseas as well as extremely sensitive NSA reports about Sudan (http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/)—all information from special access programs that’s supposed to be tightly guarded.
Several U.S. counterterrorism operations went awry thanks to Hillary’s slipshod communications security.
What sort of impact those compromises will have on the investigation into EmailGate remains to be seen. We won’t know until the FBI submits its findings to the Department of Justice, probably this summer, with a recommendation to prosecute (or not). The key figure in this whole matter is Patrick Kennedy, a longtime Clinton protégé and State’s undersecretary for management (hence his nickname, “M”), who oversaw the department’s IT and security offices. Mr. Kennedy is widely believed to have enabled Hillary’s irregularities—and apparent illegalities—with email and ran internal interference for her when questions became loud and frequent. The FBI will want to unravel this all.
Hints are now emerging that Ms. Clinton’s neglect of basic security may have damaged more than her political reputation. A new report (http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-terrorism-philippines-thailand-bill-johnson-state-463605) suggests several U.S. counterterrorism operations went awry thanks to Hillary’s slipshod communications security. This serious accusation is unsubstantiated yet plausible, given how easy it would have been for foreign spies to access Ms. Clinton’s email—as well as how much classified information she and her staff routinely put in “unclassified” emails. Counterintelligence officers will be investigating EmailGate for years, searching for clues about clandestine operations that went wrong, possibly due to Hillary’s IT misdeeds at Foggy Bottom.
For now, Team Clinton has plenty of problems to deal with. Their proffered excuses—that everybody does it, it’s no big deal, it’s just a fake scandal ginned up by the VRWC—have been blown apart by the State Department itself. If Hillary wants to be our next president, she needs to come up with better answers to what she was doing with her email—and why.
So far, Bernie Sanders has treated EmailGate with kid gloves, refusing to go after Ms. Clinton with gusto on the issue. Donald Trump will show no such reticence. What the State IG has revealed plays directly into Mr. Trump’s #CrookedHillary narrative. Large swathes of the public have never liked the Clintonian view that rules are for little people—not Bill and Hillary or their friends. Ms. Clinton’s misconduct as our nation’s top diplomat, including compromising our national security in order to hide her private deals, raises serious questions about her fitness as commander-in-chief. We can be sure The Donald will ask them.




http://observer.com/2016/05/game-over-emailgate-just-crippled-the-clinton-express/

[TheSanityAnnex]

And the hits just keep on coming. The best part is this is all coming from the State IG report, nothing from the FBI has even come out yet.

Senate sleuths focus on ex-State Department aide in Clinton email ‘cover-up’

As Hillary Clinton seeks to rebound from a highly critical report from the State Department’s inspector general, Senate investigators and a conservative group are zeroing in on newly revealed evidence about the activities of a now retired State Department computer specialist in orchestrating what they charge was a “cover-up” of the former secretary of state’s email practices.
The role of John Bentel, whose identity as a key figure in the email probes was first reported by Yahoo News (https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-department-email-probe-slams-000000312.html) on Wednesday, is expected to be one focus of questioning today when Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, is deposed in a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch over the State Department’s handling of Freedom of Information Act requests relating to Clinton’s emails, according to a source close to the case.
Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is also signaling that he intends to pursue Bentel’s role, saying that statements in the inspector general’s report show he “muzzled” staffers who warned that Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email system might be in violation of federal record-keeping laws.
Bentel served as the chief of “Information Resource Management” — essentially, the top official in charge of internal communications, security issues and record-keeping — inside the State Department’s Executive Secretariat, the professional support staff for the secretary of state. In late 2010, according to the inspector general’s report, two staffers inside his office, in separate meetings, raised concerns that Clinton’s private emails could contain government records that needed to be preserved — a standard requirement under a 1950 law known as the Federal Records Act.
One of the staffers told the inspector general that Bentel responded that Clinton’s private email account had been “reviewed and approved by Department legal staff” and “that the matter was not to be discussed any further.” In fact, according to the inspector general’s report, State Department lawyers had never approved Clinton’s use of a private email server for government communications, nor were they ever consulted about it.
The second staffer who raised concerns told the inspector general that Bentel responded that the mission of the office “is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”
“If what these two witnesses said is true, it is an outrage, and it raises a lot of serious questions,” Grassley said in a floor statement about the inspector general’s report on Thursday. “Good and honest employees just trying to do their job were told to shut up and sit down. Concerns about the secretary’s email system being out of compliance with federal record-keeping laws were swept under the rug.”
In an interview with Yahoo News, Douglas Cox, a City University of New York law professor who specializes in the preservation of federal records, said: “That was the most shocking part of the report,” adding, “it shows there was dissent within the State Department precisely by the people responsible for insuring compliance with record-keeping and cyber-security issues — and they were told something that appears not to be true.”
Bentel, who retired from the State Department in December 2012, was questioned in late June 2015 by the House Benghazi Committee and told investigators that he had “no memory or knowledge” of Clinton’s private email server and only learned about it from the newspapers, according to an email that his lawyer, Randy Turk, sent to Judiciary Committee staffers last January. Asked about the passage involving Bentel in the inspector general’s report, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, emailed Friday: “We were not aware of that exchange cited in the report and those remarks did not reflect any instructions from the Secretary’s office.”
At the time of that interview with the Benghazi committee, the panel had no knowledge of the internal concerns raised by the two staffers in his office (whose identities are not revealed in the report), and the committee staffers were unable to confront him about the apparent contradictions.
Bentel declined to be interviewed by the inspector general (as did Clinton and her four top aides). He also, through Turk, rebuffed Judiciary Committee staffers’ efforts to question him. Turk did not respond to requests for comment from Yahoo News.
But on Thursday, Grassley pointed to another passage in the inspector general’s report that could raise questions about Bentel’s account. In August 2011, chief of staff Mills, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and two other State Department officials exchanged emails about providing Clinton with a State Department BlackBerry to replace her personal one, which was malfunctioning, apparently because “her personal email server is down.”
One idea was to provide Clinton with two devices — one with a State Department email account and another that would only have phone and Internet capacity. In one email, Bentel wrote, “you should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] searches.” Abedin rejected the proposal for two devices, arguing that “it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
In testimony in the Judicial Watch lawsuit that was released late Thursday, Bentel’s boss, Lewis Lukens, the director of the Executive Secretariat, was asked directly if he had ever communicated with Bentel about Clinton’s email. Lukens replied: “Not that I remember, no.”
Now, investigators and lawyers for Judicial Watch want to know — if the account of the two staffers was accurate — whether Bentel may have been taking instructions from elsewhere in Clinton’s office. The answer, according to Cox, the law professor, could be significant, not only in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit, but also potentially to the FBI, which is conducting its own investigation, believed to be focusing on whether Clinton or her aides may have mishandled classified information. “This really is crucial new information,” he said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-sleuths-focus-ex-state-000000777.html

[TheSanityAnnex]

full OIG report here

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842723-State-IG-Report-Clinton-Server.html

[boutons_deux]

Clinton Clinches Democratic Nomination

If you can trust one thing in this unpredictable election cycle, it’s that nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, could possibly happen in the next two months that would keep Hillary Clinton from being the Democratic nominee.

No indictment — of her or anyone close to her — would stop that from happening;

no undisclosed medical condition;

no cratering poll numbers against her prospective Republican opponent;

no historically bad (and worsening) unfavorables;

no polling showing that fully 50 percent of her primary opponent’s supporters won’t support her in the general;

no sudden disclosure of all her Wall Street transcripts, revealing that much of her campaign platform with respect to Wall Street was a lie;

no string of defeats on June 7th, producing a scenario in which Mrs. Clinton would have lost 18 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses, the worst second-half performance of any major-party candidate in a primary election season in U.S. history;

no surprise entry into the race by Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren as a unity ticket;

no sudden and unexpected news event that changes dramatically the viability of one or many of Clinton’s campaign promises or policy positions;

no — and take it from people who sit behind desks in D.C. and New York City — there is nothing anyone could possibly do or that could possibly happen over the next two months that would cause any change whatsoever in how the super-delegates will vote on July 25th.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination_b_10159432.html?yptr=yahoo

[boutons_deux]

Why Hillary Clinton Is the Worst Kind of Leader


http://www.ianwelsh.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Hilary-Clinton-Secretary-of-State-Portrait.jpg

Hillary Clinton doesn’t just make mistakes, she makes big mistakes, the kind that cost a lot of other people their lives and leave ruin and chaos in her wake. She doubles down on them and persists in them long after virtually everyone else has come to realize that they were mistakes. And then she repeats them.

Clinton voted for the Iraq War. During the next 12 years, her principal criticism of the war was not that it was a mistake but that she could do it better.

This is another defining characteristic of the Clinton way of doing things.

She doesn’t recognize that mistakes are to be avoided. Her argument, and it is a really strange one, is that she, because of her RECORD and EXPERIENCE, can do these mistakes BETTER.

Just contemplate for a moment the sheer cluelessness of someone who thinks it is a plus to argue that they make better mistakes.

And it wasn’t just that.

During those 12 years, she angrily attacked, derided, and arrogantly dismissed those who did not agree with the war, you know, the people who got it right.

Finally, in June 2014, 12 years (OK, 11 years and 8 months) after her vote for the Iraq AUMF in October 2002, she revised her position on the war in typically legalistic Clintonesque fashion. She did so in a in a well controlled venue, a book with the wildly inappropriate title Hard Choices (since the hard choice was opposing the war) where she couldn’t be cross-examined and for which she got a multi-million dollar advance. With the Clintons, it is always about the benjamins.

Anyway, here is her non-explanatory explanation and non-apology apology:

I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.


This is like an engineer designing a plane that keeps crashing killing all on board.

After years of denying that there was any problem, she comes out and says that her calculations were correct but the numbers she was given were wrong. Oh, and lots of other people made the same mistake.

You can find similar examples with Libya, Syria, the TPP, and the Keystone pipeline, to name a few.

Beyond these, there is Hillary Clinton and the abuse of power with her email server.

There is the corrupt Hillary Clinton with her speeches to Wall Street and the Clinton Global Initiative.

There is the blatantly lying in your face Hillary Clinton paid for by Wall Street who tells the rubes she’s going to fight for them, that she is going to create jobs for them.

There is the “I’m so experienced” Hillary Clinton who’s solution to the economy is to turn it over to her grifter husband Bill.

http://www.ianwelsh.net/why-hillary-clinton-is-the-worst-kind-of-leader/

Oligarchs propose, elect: Trash vs Hillary,

plus Repug MISgovernance/Christian Sharia/political corruption at all levels:

America, 99% Americans are fucked and unfuckable.

[Nbadan]

Staggering over the Finish Line: Latest NBC Poll Shows Massive Clinton Nosedive in California


After leading by double digits in poll after poll, Clinton's lead has totally evaporated to Bernie Sanders in the Golden state. If Secretary Clinton happens to lose this extremely diverse state by double digits, it will be seen as a embarrassment of epic proportions.

California Democratic Presidential Primary NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 49, Sanders 47

The Latest..

Many are insisting that HRC will clinch the nomination before the polls close in California. They assume she will have a majority of pledged delegates in NJ and will be able to call it at that point. That's false. She will not clinch the nomination until the convention. This is why:

Of the remaining states (California excluded), there are 218 delegates up for grabs.
Hillary Clinton still needs 257 delegates to get the 2026 majority.
California is the last state to close polls on that day making it the deciding state, not New Jersey.
Even if she won EVERY delegate leading up to California, she still wouldn't have the majority.

Also, she still needs 614 to get the 2383 majority. That is also impossible even after California votes. She would have to get 71% of all the remaining delegates for that to happen.

After California polls close, we will know if she clinched the majority of pledged. However, even if she did, it all depends on how close Bernie Sanders gets before we even consider super delegates. If he is very close, which is a real possibility, he will have a strong argument at the convention to take a second look and reconsider who they should nominate for the nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Nbadan]

Pagliano pleads the 5th...


The man believed to have set up and maintained Hillary Clinton’s private email server will assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions as part of an open records lawsuit against the State Department.

Bryan Pagliano will decline to answer questions from Judicial Watch, the conservative legal watchdog group, during a deposition scheduled for Monday, his lawyers wrote in a court filing on Wednesday afternoon.

Developing...

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281925-clinton-it-aide-to-plead-fifth-in-email-case

[Nbadan]

Intel source: IG report ups pressure on DOJ to seek criminal charges against Clinton


The recently released State Department inspector general report, which found Hillary Clinton broke government rules with her personal email use, increases "the likelihood and pressure" for the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges, an intelligence source familiar with the FBI investigation told Fox News.

"It is very harmful to her and increases the likelihood and pressure on DOJ to indict," said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record. " is not evidence in itself, but it clears up confusion Department of State rules and makes the IG a witness, and the people they interviewed, to her computer antics being done without permission."

The ongoing FBI criminal probe -- investigating Clinton's emails practices as secretary of state -- is focused on whether the more than 2,100 classified emails discovered on her server constitute a violation of federal code, including the Espionage Act’s 18 USC 793, known as the "gross negligence" statute. FBI Director James Comey plans to make a recommendation based on the evidence, and if the findings merit criminal charges, the decision to prosecute ultimately rests with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The 83-page inspector general's report, released last week, concluded that Clinton and her team consistently broke government rules for email and record-keeping. The decision to use a personal, unsecured server exclusively for government business had the effect of moving classified information outside secure government channels.

Fox News first reported in November 2015 that another statute, 18 USC 1001, also known as the "false statements statute," was under FBI consideration. This section pertains to "materially false" statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party to a federal officer. Each felony violation is subject to five years in prison.

"(The) report will be useful as rebuttal, potential evidence in 18 USC 1001 charges and establishing aspects of 18 USC 793," the source said...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/01/intel-source-ig-report-ups-pressure-on-doj-to-seek-criminal-charges-against-clinton.html#

[Nbadan]

Demopocalypse: Jon Stewart Comes Out of Retirement

http://www.downvids.net/demopocalypse-jon-stewart-comes-out-of-retirement-813527.html

Let this dig in...

[Nbadan]

Many people might not remember the news that the State Department sent the subpoenas to the Clinton Foundation. Here is the story from back in Feb 2016:


Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

Just like Hillary's IT guy, Bryan Pagliano, Hillary had Huma working for both her own private interests and for the State Department.

[Nbadan]

According to USC 18 section 201-209:


No employee of the U.S. government may receive anything of value “for or because of” any official act performed or to be performed by that employee or officer;12 no employee may receive or share in compensation for private “representational services” rendered to parties in any matter before a federal agency;13 federal employees may not represent private parties in any matter in which the United States is a party or is interested, before an agency of the government or a court, whether for compensation or not;14 federal employees must disqualify themselves from working on any government matter in which they have a personal financial interest, or in which a firm or entity for whom they serve as an officer or employee has a financial interest;15 and no executive branch employee may be compensated by a private source for his or her government work, that is, one may not receive salary supplementation from outside private sources for services performed within the scope of one’s federal employment.16
Furthermore, no federal government officer or employee may receive any compensation (“emoluments”) from a foreign government or other official foreign entity, without the consent of Congress,17 nor may any federal employee act as an “agent” of a “foreign principal.”18 Employees of the federal government who earn over a particular amount are restricted by tax consequences from “self-dealings” with private foundations, which may include limitations on the receipt of compensation and expenses from such entities.19


Plain and simple, Abedin and Pagliano were double paid for the services they rendered for Hillary, and that is illegal. The minimum punishment is 1 year in prison with a 5 year maximum. Pagliano knew this, as did Hillary, and is one of the reasons he plead the 5th and likely received a plea deal. Just before the story broke on the Clinton Foundation Subpoenas it was reported that the FBI had expanded it's investigation of the private server to the Clinton Foundation: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265402-report-fbi-expanding-clinton-investigation-to-look-into-public-corruption

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://assets.newsinc.com/thehill_75x27.png?t=1464872040Judge orders Obama administration to release new Clinton emails
Judge orders Obama administration to release new Clinton emails
TheHill.com










A federal judge has ordered the Obama administration to release new emails connected to Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton)http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_100/public/hillary_clinton.jpg?itok=hZ3BnaiHHillary Rodham Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton)NRA attacks Clinton over gun control (http://thehill.com/regulation/282139-nra-attacks-clinton-over-gun-control)Ryan: Trump's comments about judge 'out of left field' (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282138-ryan-trumps-comments-about-judge-out-of-left-field)Hispanic leaders frustrated by silence from Trump campaign (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/282134-hispanic-leaders-frustrated-by-silence-from-trump-campaign)MORE (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) before Democratic National Convention in July.
In an order late on Wednesday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to hand over to the Republican National Committee (RNC) whatever records it could as part of an RNC’s open-records lawsuit on July 11.
After that, USAID will need to consult with the State Department about hundreds of other pages of documents, which could be released at some point in the future.

The RNC sued the aid agency in March, seeking two sets of communications: those between USAID officials and former aides at the State Department, as well as those between USAID and private domain names associated with Clinton, former President Bill Cl and others including the Clinton Foundation. The effort appeared to be related to allegations that the former secretary of State’s family foundation had undue influence on USAID.

The RNC lawsuit was one of several it has filed seeking records connected to Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, in a preview of a battle sure to last through the general election.
Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, USAID has claimed that it has discovered approximately 3,300 pages of records that it might be able to hand over to the Republican Party organization. But roughly 2,600 of those reportedly need to be cleared with the State Department before they can be released.
In her order on Wednesday, Jackson said USAID should release to the RNC what it can by July 11 and determine a schedule for releasing the rest.


The time frame would put the release of the first batch of emails just one week before the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 18 and two weeks before the Democratic convention begins on July 25.
Critics of Clinton, however, will likely be wary of the State Department, which is notoriously slow at responding to Freedom of Information Act requests and has been buried underneath a barrage of demands related to Clinton’s email history in recent months.
Separately late on Wednesday, the Obama administration filed a motion trying to kill (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281959-feds-try-to-squash-rnc-lawsuit-over-clinton-messages) a different RNC open-records lawsuit targeting the State Department. That suit is seeking email messages from a slew of Clinton’s former top aides.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281973-new-clinton-emails-due-out-in-days-before-convention

[TheSanityAnnex]

uh oh boutons...your favorite shit rag is taking it's turn on the Clintons

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/the_clintons_arrogance_might_be_their_undoing_hill ary_has_a_serious_image_problem_and_blood_thirsty_ republicans_arent_to_blame/

[boutons_deux]

uh oh boutons...your favorite shit rag is taking it's turn on the Clintons

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/the_clintons_arrogance_might_be_their_undoing_hill ary_has_a_serious_image_problem_and_blood_thirsty_ republicans_arent_to_blame/

The Clinton's game has been known for a long time.

Hillary is still better the your lover boy Trash.

[HarlemHeat37]

cu41CPQw0hg

:lol any Black man or woman that votes for Hillary, tbh..smh..

[spurraider21]

:lol any man or woman that votes for Hillary, tbh..smh..
fify

[boutons_deux]

cu41CPQw0hg

:lol any Black man or woman that votes for Hillary, tbh..smh..

blacks vote for Hillary this election at the very least as a vote against bigoted, racist Trash.

[z0sa]

blacks vote for Hillary this election at the very least as a vote against bigoted, racist Trash.

Doesnt fly, not with Bernie on the ballot.

Most blacks voted for someone whose actions in the past have undeniably been racist against minorities. Especially her support of Bill's Tough On Crime "reach across the aisle."

[Reck]

Doesnt fly, not with Bernie on the ballot.

Most blacks voted for someone whose actions in the past have undeniably been racist against minorities. Especially her support of Bill's Tough On Crime "reach across the aisle."

Weren't people asking for a crime bill that massively reduced every day violence? They got it and people complain 20 years later? Also Bernie voted for it as well.

As with any bill that is pass that is also not perfect, it will have consequences. To put the blame solely on the Clintons for this hatchet bill is a little irresponsible imo.

[TheSanityAnnex]

blacks vote for Hillary this election at the very least as a vote against bigoted, racist Trash.
How does anything Trump has said/done negatively I mpact blacks as much as the policies the Clinton's have implemented?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Weren't people asking for a crime bill that massively reduced every day violence? They got it and people complain 20 years later? Also Bernie voted for it as well.

As with any bill that is pass that is also not perfect, it will have consequences. To put the blame solely on the Clintons for this hatchet bill is a little irresponsible imo.
:lol time to deep clean the semen shield yours is caked

[Reck]

:lol time to deep clean the semen shield yours is caked

Oh wee looks like I touched another nerve on your thin skin.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oh wee looks like I touched another nerve on your thin skin.
Pointing out your stupidity for defending the Clintons is not touching a nerve. Do you know how many minorities were imprisoned under the Clintons policies?

[Reck]

Pointing out your stupidity for defending the Clintons is not touching a nerve. Do you know how many minorities were imprisoned under the Clintons policies?

When you try to point out other people's "stupidity" try not to make yourself look like one in the process. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

When you try to point out other people's "stupidity" try not to make yourself look like one in the process. :lol
You don't make sense and you dodged the question, try again.

[Reck]

You don't make sense and you dodged the question, try again.

I made plenty of sense on my post to Soza, but I know how you love to move the goal post so here we are.

And it's not like you haven't dodged questions from me before..like for example when I asked what Obama had to do with Trump not being eloquent enough with his words. Your immediate reaction was how I was Obama's defender when in fact I haven't said a word defending him ever. :lol

Like I said, you deflect and move the goal post like no one's business.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I made plenty of sense on my post to Soza, but I know how you love to move the goal post so here we are.you made no sense responding to me, which I clearly quoted. More stupidity on display well done.


And it's not like you haven't dodged questions from me before..like for example when I asked what Obama had to do with Trump not being eloquent enough with his words. Your immediate reaction was how I was Obama's defender when in fact I haven't said a word defending him ever. :lol

Like I said, you deflect and move the goal post like no one's business.
Since you dodged the question again I'll give you a hint.

The number of prisoners grew nearly 60 percent between the end of 1992 and the end of 2000, the duration of Bill Clinton’s presidency, according to figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-criminal-justice-plan-reverse-bills-policies-117488#ixzz4Aek1EsiJ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Walmart is for hillary? I love Walmart. Maybe i'll go for her. Who cares. I don't care who wins, they're both eh. Hillary is just obama 2.0. Who cares. Bernie is too radical and Trump is a dick. Who cares. I'm not voting this year

[Fabbs]

Pointing out your stupidity for defending the Clintons is not touching a nerve. Do you know how many minorities were imprisoned under the Clintons policies?
Weren't poor black communities that were being ravaged all for the new policies at the time?

B. What was there to stop Bush the chimp and 8 years from writing new policies? Along with Repug controlled Senate and House, the current sit on their ass and complain about Barry crowd, what is to stop them from writing new policies? Demons too for that matter.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Weren't poor black communities that were being ravaged all for the new policies at the time?

B. What was there to stop Bush the chimp and 8 years from writing new policies? Along with Repug controlled Senate and House, the current sit on their ass and complain about Barry crowd, what is to stop them from writing new policies? Demons too for that matter.

Barry's veto


If trump wins he instantly becomes their yes man to everything. Even if it's a bill with a federal law requiring all U.S. public and private schools to teach Christianity half the school day. Or to enforce mandatory Sunday school attendance or be fined and jailed. And any woman who has an abortion should receive the death penalty for first-degree murder of a child. Lawsuits against business establishments may be made illegal, recycling and solar power illegal because it's "inefficient", and by God if that American flag touches the ground you're lucky if you're executed quickly.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Just keeps getting better

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-exchanged-cia-officers-names-private-server/

[Reck]

that is because this mongoloid piece of shit has no core to his "beliefs." He is the very definition of a low low low Iq voter that absolutely needs to have his thoughts and opinions given to him because he is too fucking stupid to think for himself.

The reason the goal posts are constantly moved is because he can't think for himself. He is so fucking worthless and stupid that he is literally unable to come up with a single thought on his own. He needs the pieces of shit like hannity to tell him to fucking breathe.

You think he could possibly answer a simple question? You're wasting your time, the fucking genetic Petrie dishes that spawned him gave up long ago, he really needs to kill himself.

I dont want to sound insensitive but you're kind of right. Suicide should be a viable option for TSA at this point.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I dont want to sound insensitive but you're kind of right. Suicide should be a viable option for TSA at this point.
:lol wishing death on someone for political differences, you'd fit right in with the current criminal protesters :tu

[Reck]

:lol wishing death on someone for political differences, you'd fit right in with the current criminal protesters :tu

Not really. More to do with your gung-ho attitude about other people's opinion. If they're not close to your own you resort to name calling. You lash out when people have a different view point than you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not really. More to do with your gung-ho attitude about other people's opinion. If they're not close to your own you resort to name calling. You lash out when people have a different view point than you.
There are many opinions I disagree with here, and if you've noticed it's generally only yours I call just stupid. You ooze stupid. I've had to hold your hand through the whole Hillary thing. It's been tiresome yet entertaining, and all worth it because you are finally seeing the light/indictment. Instead of wishing me dead you should be thanking me for opening your eyes.

[Reck]

There are many opinions I disagree with here, and if you've noticed it's generally only yours I call just stupid. You ooze stupid. I've had to hold your hand through the whole Hillary thing. It's been tiresome yet entertaining, and all worth it because you are finally seeing the light/indictment. Instead of wishing me dead you should be thanking me for opening your eyes.

That's stupidly false.

You attack anyone that has a difering opinion of Hillary. Doesn't matter who. In fact you yourself admitted the other day you only talk bad about Hillary because you are anti Hillary or some shit like that. Beside that being childish, it makes you look petty and any credibility you have is gone because you admit to being biased toward anything anything remotely negative to the lady. You have no perspective in the least.

I try to keep my mind open to all and any outcome. You're just stuck in one gear.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That's stupidly false.

You attack anyone that has a difering opinion of Hillary. Doesn't matter who. In fact you yourself admitted the other day you only talk bad about Hillary because you are anti Hillary or some shit like that. Beside that being childish, it makes you look petty and any credibility you have is gone because you admit to being biased toward anything anything remotely negative to the lady. You have no perspective in the least.

I try to keep my mind open to all and any outcome. You're just stuck in one gear.
I don't attack your opinion I attack your false claims.
:cry stop correcting me when I'm wrong :cry

[TheSanityAnnex]

Anyone catch the removed HuffPo article by Frank Hugenard saying FBI would recommend indictment?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://i.imgur.com/jZVqlZ5.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Bill Clinton’s Legacy of Denial

Does Bill Clinton still not grasp that the current economic crisis is in large measure his legacy? Obviously that’s the case, or he wouldn’t have had the temerity to write a 14-point memo for Newsweek on how to fix the economy that never once refers to the home mortgage collapse and other manifestations of Wall Street greed that he enabled as president.
Endorsing the Republican agenda of financial industry deregulation, reversing New Deal safeguards,

President Clinton pursued policies that in the long run created more damage to the American economy than any other president since Herbert Hoover

, whose tenure is linked to the Great Depression. Now, in his Newsweek piece, Clinton has the effrontery to once again revive his 1992 campaign mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid,” as the article’s title without any sense of irony, let alone accountability. But that has always been the man’s special gift—to rise above, and indeed benefit from, the messes he created.

a crisis in which, as was reported Tuesday, the housing meltdown continues unabated as the toxic mortgages sold and packaged by the leading banks and investment houses clog the real estate market, destroying consumer confidence and hobbling job creation.

Conceding that the bailed-out banks are sitting on $2 trillion that they won’t lend, Clinton offers not a word about mortgage relief for swindled homeowners.

With an all-time high of 44 million Americans living below the poverty line, Clinton once again brags of his success in ending the federal welfare program.

“The real thing that has killed us in the last 10 years is that too much of our dealmaking creativity has been devoted to expanding the financial sector in ways that don’t create new businesses and more jobs and to persuading people to take on excessive debt loads to make up for the fact that their incomes are stagnant.”

Now that’s a clear description of the consequence of President Clinton’s policy of radical deregulation of the financial industry, but he writes as if that outcome has nothing to do with him.

Clinton signed off on the reversal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the legislative jewel of the Franklin Roosevelt administration designed to prevent financial institutions from getting too big to fail. In signing the Financial Services Modernization Act, which broke down the barrier between high-rolling Wall Street investment firms and consumer banks carrying the deposits of ordinary folk, Clinton gushed in 1999, “Over the [past] seven years we have tried to modernize the economy. … And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority.”

The first beneficiary of that legislation was Citigroup, a corporation that resulted from a merger that would have been banned by Glass-Steagall. Upon signing the law, Clinton handed one of the pens he used to a beaming Sandy Weill, Citigroup CEO and a close friend and financial supporter of the president.

Clinton’s treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, then went off to be a $15-million-a-year exec at Citigroup and was in a key position there when the bank made those toxic derivative packages that would have forced it into bankruptcy had U.S. taxpayers not bailed the bank out.
So much for the “modernizing” that Clinton had bragged about.

A year later a variation of that same word appeared in the title of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which

Clinton signed and which exempted from government regulation all of the collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps that would later prove so toxic.

That legislation led to the explosion of the market in unregulated mortgage-based securities, the key source of the financial-sector “dealmaking” that Clinton now bemoans.

In his memoir Clinton pays tribute to Rubin as “the best and most important treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton.”

He wrote that line in 2004, when Rubin, who had come to Clinton from a top job at Goldman Sachs and later left for Citigroup, was already clearly defined as someone who profited mightily from the very bills that he had pushed through while working for Clinton.

As with so much in the Clinton record, the former president remains in deep denial over having any culpability for his misdeeds.

In his thousand-page memoir there is no reference to the above-mentioned radical deregulation of the economy that he presided over.

As evidenced by his Newsweek article, the man has long been convinced that there is no problem or contradiction of his that cannot be simply plastered over with blather. Sadly, he may be right.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bill_clintons_legacy_of_denial_20160605

We can be sure that Hillary, as a whore of her Wall St johns, will do as much damage to the 99% as Slick Willie did.

Trash will, too.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Stephanopoulos Grills Hillary Clinton: Will You Accept Report Saying Your Email Server Broke Rules?

Hillary Clinton brushes off ABC's George Stephanopoulos (who was coincidentally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos#Clinton_Administration), her husband's 1992 campaign communications director) when he asks if she accepts the findings of the Obama administration's state department inspector general's report which said that the practice of using a private server in her house to store all of her official government communications broke multiple rules. The report found that such actions not only violated Obama administration transparency rules regarding the preservation of official government communications, but was also not allowed under State Dept. rules.

At least some of the emails have been deleted permanently, making it impossible for people to search for potential conflicts of interest (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/05/bernie_sanders_clinton_foundation_is_a_problem_too k_money_from_dictatorships.html) between Hillary's activities at the state department and Bill's activities at the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton does not explicitly deny anything, or make any solid claims to defend her actions, but after asking three separate times if she will accept the report's conculsions, Stephanopoulos surrenders: "So I'll take it that you don't accept their conclusion."

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Madam Secretary, on the e-mail issue, as you know, the State Department inspector general report was quite tough on your practices and it concluded -- and I want to show it right here -- that Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal e-mail account to conduct official business with their offices and, according to these officials, diplomatic security and the information resource management offices did not and would not approve your exclusive reliance on a personal e-mail account to conduct department business because of the restrictions in the foreign affairs manual and the security risks in doing so.

Do you now accept their conclusion that your exclusive use of a personal account was not allowed, that you broke State Department rules?

HILLARY CLINTON: Look George, I thought that the report actually made it clear that the practice I used was used by other Secretaries [of state], other high-ranking State Dept. officials...

If I had to do it over again, I certainly wouldn't, be I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left, because it had been the practice of others... What I did was inkeeping with others' practices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, you were the only one who had exclusive use a personal account... they were very very clear---

Go ahead.

CLINTON: Well, George, I have to tell you that -- that, you know, I -- I will say it was a mistake. I would not do it again. But I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left and the first secretary of State to use a government email account was John Kerry, some months into his tenure. Those are the facts.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the -- the reports -- so you don't accept the conclusions of the report, because they say you were unmindful of the rules.

CLINTON: Everybody in the department knew that I was e-mailing from a personal address. Hundreds of people knew it. People around the government knew it. And, uh, you know, that was what the practice had been and that's what I did, as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So I'll take it that you don't accept their conclusion.

Just one other question on this.

Has there -- have you had any contact yet with the FBI, you or your agents, over this matter?

CLINTON: I -- I have not been asked to come in for an interview. I've said I am more than willing since last August and I would like to do that sooner instead of later and get this matter wrapped up and behind us.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/05/stephanopoulos_grills_hillary_clinton_will_you_acc ept_report_saying_your_email_server_broke_rules.ht ml

[boutons_deux]

breaking the rules, stupidity are indictable, and only Hillary is indictable? not any Repugs who also used non-govt email for govt business, like in Texas? dubya's WH destroyed Ms of emails, no problem for you rightwingnutjobs?

[TheSanityAnnex]

breaking the rules, stupidity are indictable, and only Hillary is indictable? not any Repugs who also used non-govt email for govt business, like in Texas? dubya's WH destroyed Ms of emails, no problem for you rightwingnutjobs?

Did they have private servers at their residence? No? GFY

[TheSanityAnnex]

Perfect timing on the release of the Secret Service book. Boutons I've got one in the cart, want me to add another for you?

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Character-Discloses-Firsthand-Experience/dp/1455568872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465237299&sr=8-1&keywords=crisis+of+character

[Mitch]

Perfect timing on the release of the Secret Service book. Boutons I've got one in the cart, want me to add another for you?

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Character-Discloses-Firsthand-Experience/dp/1455568872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465237299&sr=8-1&keywords=crisis+of+character

Some more perfect timing

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/roger-clinton-dui-california-primary/

[Reck]

Some more perfect timing

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/roger-clinton-dui-california-primary/


There goes all her votes.

[Mitch]

Sadly not tbh


There goes all her votes.

[Reck]

Media already saying she's the presumptive nominee.

Apparently she's crossed the threshhold tonight by one delegate.

http://i67.tinypic.com/33n7tie.jpg

[spurraider21]

i mean yeah she's been the presumptive nominee all along assuming the supers stayed put

[boutons_deux]

Obama Administration Bars Release of Clinton's TPP Emails Until Post-Election

Response for FOIA request was 'abruptly' changed from spring 2016 to late November 2016

After initially saying (https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/clinton-ustr-20030/#comm-253356) that the requested materials would be made available in April, a U.S. State Department representative "abruptly" told Sirota last week, "Our office was recently informed that the search process has been completed and that the information located from that search is currently being prepared for the review process.

The new estimated completion date for your request is November 31, 2016."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/06/obama-administration-bars-release-clintons-tpp-emails-until-post-election

The political establishment is totally corrupt.

Still waiting for ANYBODY here to show us how to unfuck the America of the 99%, how Take Our Country Back from BigCorp, BigFinance, the MIC, the 1%.

[Fabbs]

Obama Administration Bars Release of Clinton's TPP Emails Until Post-Election
Where is that article that said the mainstream lamestream media would coordinate and headline "Shillary Clinches" the morning of heated California race? Thereby trying to discourage the Bernies from voting.
Spot on.

[boutons_deux]

Where is that article that said the mainstream lamestream media would coordinate and headline "Shillary Clinches" the morning of heated California race? Thereby trying to discourage the Bernies from voting.
Spot on.

yep, AP's "look at us first-movers, scoopers" giving the nomination to Hillary the eve of super Tue is obviously "queen making" by the media, anti-democratic, and screws Bernie by discouraging his voters from going to the polls.

American "democracy" is a long-dead, a con game for suckers, like all the myths about America.

BigFinance pulls all the strings for both parties.

Wall St bought Hillary and Wall St will damn sure take delivery.

[Fabbs]

yep, AP's "look at us first-movers, scoopers" giving the nomination to Hillary the eve of super Tue
Where is the link that predicted it? I know someone posted it. Cannot find on Google now. Did mainstream erase it? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Where is the link that predicted it? I know someone posted it. Cannot find on Google now. Did mainstream erase it? :lol

link? it was all over cable news last night, ALL channels, non-stop.

[Fabbs]

link? it was all over cable news last night, ALL channels, non-stop.
Notice my question was were is the article that PREDICTED it? Not the lamestream b.s. that appeared last night and thuout today.
Days ago, a week ago maybe. Somebody on ST posted it.

The point being the lamestream networks planned in advance they were going to collude to announce it last night. What a coinkydink, on the eve of Berns potentially taking Calif and closing the gap on the real delegates, not the paid off *Super* frauds.

[boutons_deux]

People have been predicting Hillary as guaranteed since she romped in NY.

[Fabbs]

Apparently it is an article you are unaware of.
These aren't general "people".
It was an article on a plan by lamestream media to launch the news.
Obviously backed by both establishment Repugs-Trump and Shillary as neither of them want to Bernie Boat to launch.
Which it could with a win in Calif and some other states today.

[Th'Pusher]

She's won the nomination by pretty much any metric at this point.

Ironic. I think Obama getting behind her is ultimately going to push her old ass over the finish line vs trump.

watching Barry plow the Republican Party for a 3rd time will be amusing.

[angrydude]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkV8McuUkAA3m_A.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"push her old ass over the finish line vs trump"

Obama's endorsement is meaningless compared to Trash's self-destruction, even before Hillary's oppo research ads trash Trash.

Trash alienated, insulted so many groups he has even less of a chance than the typical Repug.

Dishonest, self-enriching strategy of the media is to "normalize" Trash up as legit and demonize Hillary down, to create a totally false "competitive" campaign to keep their ad $Bs flowing.

This election is over. Trash will lose by historic %age, in the 60 - 40 range.

[DMX7]

She has had the nomination effectively locked up for a while now. The question is do we Bernie supporters hold our nose, try not to vomit and actually vote for her or do we go with our hearts and vote for Trump.

[TheSanityAnnex]

FBI offers second secret filing in Clinton email suit

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/06/fbi-offers-second-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-suit-223973#ixzz4B0QQTRPZ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

The FBI is offering a federal judge a second secret glimpse into the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.
The Justice Department asked (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000155-284d-de77-a7f7-785f851e0000) a federal judge Monday to accept "additional details" under seal about how the FBI conducted its search for records a Vice News journalist requested under the Freedom of Information Act from the law enforcement agency about the probe it is conducting into Clinton's email set-up and how classified information came to reside in the Democratic presidential candidate's account.
"These details supplement defendant’s showing that it conducted a reasonable search, but cannot be disclosed on the public record without compromising information that the FBI seeks to protect," Justice Department lawyers wrote, citing FOIA exemption for ongoing government investigations and enforcement actions.
It's the second time the Justice Department has sought to give U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss a secret update on the high-profile, Clinton-related inquiry.
In March, government lawyers submitted a classified filing in the lawsuit brought by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold seeking various details about the case, including the contents of Clinton's server which was turned over to the FBI last August.


Leopold's lawyers objected (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/04/protest-lodged-over-secrecy-in-clinton-email-case-222207) to the secret filing and asked that an edited version of the submission be put on the public record.
The government declined, saying it had explained the situation as fully as possible in other public filings and could not add to those without undermining the interests protected by the FOIA exemption at issue.
In an order last month (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000155-284c-d270-ab57-fa4c903f0001), Moss essentially accepted the first secret submission, but said he'll attempt to resolve the case based on the public pleadings and "will only rely on the ex parte filing to the extent necessary to do so."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/06/fbi-offers-second-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-suit-223973#ixzz4B0QYAqFX
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

[TheSanityAnnex]

Clinton tech aide asks court to withhold details of FBI immunity deal

The State Department aide who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private email server asked a federal court to withhold details about his immunity deal with the FBI on Tuesday afternoon.
A federal judge had ordered Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s personal IT aide, to turn over information about an immunity deal he reached with the FBI in connection to the investigation of Clinton’s private email server.
Pagliano filed a motion to seal the document on Tuesday afternoon, which could keep details of the agreement shielded from the public if approved by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan.
Pagliano filed the motion in response to an ongoing lawsuit against the State Department by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Judge Sullivan recently ruled that Judicial Watch’s attorneys could depose Pagliano in the case, but the former IT aide indicated he would exercise his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during the questioning. Pagliano’s attorneys are also fighting to prevent the deposition from being videotaped.
Sullivan asked Pagliano’s attorneys last week to submit a legal memo explaining the basis for his Fifth Amendment plea, “including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano’s reported immunity agreement with the Government.”
The Clinton aide’s lawyers turned over the information and motion to seal hours before the Tuesday evening deadline. The motion must still be approved by Judge Sullivan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/08/clinton-tech-aide-asks-court-to-withhold-details-fbi-immunity-deal.html

[djohn2oo8]

She has had the nomination effectively locked up for a while now. The question is do we Bernie supporters hold our nose, try not to vomit and actually vote for her or do we go with our hearts and vote for Trump.
It's actually a simple answer if you aren't trying to be retarded.

[DMX7]

yep, AP's "look at us first-movers, scoopers" giving the nomination to Hillary the eve of super Tue is obviously "queen making" by the media, anti-democratic, and screws Bernie by discouraging his voters from going to the polls.

American "democracy" is a long-dead, a con game for suckers, like all the myths about America.

BigFinance pulls all the strings for both parties.

Wall St bought Hillary and Wall St will damn sure take delivery.

Amen... but let's not pretend that this primary was democracy. Just look at the superdelegate count when there shouldn't even be superdelegates. And you will never lay eyes on those wall street speech transcripts until maybe her presidential library reveals them as trophies 5 or 10 years from now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims Google involved in Hillary Clinton campaign

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims that Google has been working closely with US presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton's campaign in efforts to promote the candidate in the race to the White House. Speaking from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, via video conference as part of a two-day media event named "New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream", he said: "Google is directly engaged with Hillary Clinton's campaign," the Sputnik reported.
Pointing out that Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt is now heading the Pentagon's innovation branch, Assange said: "Google is heavily integrated with Washington power, at personal level and at business level... Google which has increasing control over the distribution channels... is intensely allying itself with the US exceptionalism."


Commenting on Clinton's nomination prospects (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-election-hillary-clinton-launches-withering-attack-fraud-donald-trump-1563248), Assange said: "What we have with Clinton is someone who is a hawk but who has the tools of legal interventionism, a rhetorical cover to start the wars, and someone who seemingly wants to start them... From WikiLeaks' perspective Hillary Clinton is a problem in terms of war and peace."
According to a report by RT (https://www.rt.com/usa/345749-assange-us-google-clinton/), Assange is not the only one to have identified a connection between Clinton's campaign and Google. Behavioural psychologist Dr Robert Epstein said in an interview that Schmidt has set up a little-heard-of start-up called Groundword, the sole purpose of which is "to put Clinton in office".


"It's a very secretive organisation, super high-tech stuff, and [it's] very likely they're using these techniques that we've been studying in our research to make sure that votes are shifted to Clinton in November," he added.
"There is a merger between the corporate organisations and state... 80% of the National Security Agency budget is privatised. The NSA is the core of the US deep state... There has been a smoothing out between the government and the corporations," said Assange, indicating that there may be quid pro quo deals between the US government and private tech giants like Google.
"[Google] shows the will to use that at different levels. It will inevitably influence its audience," Assange added.


Assange has been staying in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since 2012 in efforts to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual assault allegations, which Assange has denied. The whistleblower fears that if extradited to Sweden, he could then be extradited to the US where he is wanted for charges relating to espionage, conspiracy, theft of government property and computer fraud for his involvement in the WikiLeaks revelations.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in February declared that Assange was being unlawfully detained (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/julian-assange-un-human-rights-expert-calls-uk-sweden-free-wikileaks-founder-1544160) and that the British and Swedish authorities should end his detention and grant him freedom. However, British authorities have maintained that Assange faces arrest and possible extradition if he chooses to step out of the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-claims-google-involved-hilary-clinton-campaign-1564220?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahoo

[Nbadan]

Media already saying she's the presumptive nominee.

Apparently she's crossed the threshhold tonight by one delegate.

http://i67.tinypic.com/33n7tie.jpg

From AP


The former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady reached the 2,383 delegates needed to become the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday with a decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates

Oh good. Now California won't matter anyway.....

[Nbadan]

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36350-how-the-associated-press-screwed-sanders-and-other-tales-from-tuesday-night


Thanks to The Associated Press, I was awake well past midnight on Wednesday morning watching a series of non-events come to a grateful conclusion. I wanted to see the speeches, especially Bernie's, which came after 1:00 am; they were the one thing the "news" media couldn't screw up. How did Tuesday's primaries become non-events? Because The Associated Press on Monday night, straight out of the blue, declared Secretary Clinton to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

Wait, what? Yeah, they did that. They polled a bunch of Democratic Party elites -- "superdelegates" -- and decided Clinton had enough delegates to call it a day. The margin? One delegate. Five primaries and a caucus that would have decided the race fair and square 24 hours later got tossed into the dustbin because the AP wanted the hot take, the big scoop, and in doing so broke a cardinal rule of journalism: They became the story instead of reporting the story.

The "news" media's reaction to that declaration was like tossing a live hand grenade into a hedge filled with chickadees: lots of squawking and flapping and smoke and a ringing in the ears from the explosion. All the AP had to do was wait a day. They didn't, and it was a mess. Beyond the impact on the presidential side, there are the down-ticket races to consider. The AP's little wingding certainly depressed voter turnout across the board -- exactly 354 people voted in the North Dakota Democratic caucus on Tuesday -- and that depressed turnout affected down-ticket races all over the country.

Sanders supporters by and large have been reading the writing on the wall for a while. All they wanted was the opportunity to die on their feet, to take it to the end and let the chips fall. Now? They're pissed and feeling cheated. We're deciding nominees through polls of party elites? It was as undemocratic an act as I have ever witnessed after Bush v. Gore and the shenanigans in Ohio in 2004, and there will be consequences down the line, especially for Clinton. Good luck bringing Bernie's folks into the fold for the big push to November after that crud. It was disgraceful.

[Reck]

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36350-how-the-associated-press-screwed-sanders-and-other-tales-from-tuesday-night

Doesn't matter now bro. The goose is cooked after last night. Bernie got dismantle badly.

[rmt]

ABC: Newly Released Emails Show Unqualified Clinton Foundation Donor Appointed to Sensitive Intelligence Board

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/10/abcs_brian_ross_do_newly_released_clinton_emails_s how_quid_pro_quo.html

[boutons_deux]

Another Neocon Endorses Clinton, Calling Her '2016's Real Conservative' and 'the Candidate of the Status Quo'

Neocon James Kirchick joins a slew of right-wing pundits who support war hawk Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

Kirchick is a hawkish pundit and fellow at Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative think tank where leading neocons Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan sit on the board of directors.

Kagan, who served as foreign policy adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign and has been described (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2008-06-01/present-re-creation) as “the neoconservative movement’s chief foreign policy theorist,” has also strongly come out in support of Clinton.

In his defense of Clinton, Kagan told (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html) The New York Times he is “comfortable with her on foreign policy,” noting it is “something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Kirchick and Kagan have joined numerous right-wing confrères (http://www.salon.com/2016/04/26/a_progressive_in_name_only_charles_koch_joins_a_lo ng_list_of_right_wingers_who_have_lauded_hillary_c linton/) in endorsing Clinton for president.

Max Boot (http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hard_line_right_wing_war_hawk_max_boot_applauds_hi llary_clinton_in_op_ed/), a hard-line war hawk and self-declared “American imperialist,” lauded Clinton in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in May.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/another-neocon-endorses-clinton

Kagan's wife is Victoria Nuland, who orchestrated the Ukraine nazis overthrowing the Putin puppet.

Kagan + Nuland = the Poison Couple.

==================
F*** the EU: Senior US diplomat Victoria Nuland makes her position clear in bugged conversation with Ukraine envoyhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/f-the-eu-bugged-us-diplomat-makes-her-position-clear-9113380.html

[boutons_deux]

Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

For nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton

Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.

But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires.

She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force.

Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/09/democrats-are-now-aggressive-war-party

We can be reasonably certain that Chelsea and her hubby won't be enlisting to fight Hillary's bullshit wars.

[rmt]

Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

For nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton

Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.

But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires.

She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force.

Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/09/democrats-are-now-aggressive-war-party

We can be reasonably certain that Chelsea and her hubby won't be enlisting to fight Hillary's bullshit wars.




I wonder if she'd be telling Chelsea the day before she delivered that sure, it's okay to have an abortion - that thing in there is not a person.

[z0sa]

Neoliberals and neoconservatives occupy an identical slice of the political spectrum, their similar policies and actions overshadowed by their seemingly dissimilar rhetoric.

[spurraider21]

Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

And yet she can run for President? :lol

[z0sa]

Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

And yet she can run for President? :lol

:lmao

[pgardn]

Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

And yet she can run for President? :lol

Yeah, she will need to take that back.

[rmt]

Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

And yet she can run for President? :lol

so funny

[Reck]

Way to link terrorism with emails. Makes sense.

[spurraider21]

http://www.whiteknightfunerals.com/images/copy_of_img_2370__small_.jpg

[TheSanityAnnex]

Way to link terrorism with emails. Makes sense.
Is she being investigated by the FBI for federal crimes yes or no?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

And yet she can run for President? :lol

:rollin

[TheSanityAnnex]

And since I'm here....Russia set to release what they intercepted (huge grain of salt)

[Reck]

Is she being investigated by the FBI for federal crimes yes or no?

There are various forms of investigations. Some are benign white collar crimes and some are domestic crimes. There is a clear distinction.

[TheSanityAnnex]

There are various forms of investigations. Some are benign white collar crimes and some are domestic crimes. There is a clear distinction.
Is she being investigated by the FBI for federal crimes yes or no?

[z0sa]

Way to link terrorism with emails. Makes sense.

Priceless.

[Clipper Nation]

Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

And yet she can run for President? :lol

http://i.imgur.com/fZ0yEVs.gif

[boutons_deux]

Julian Assange: Next Leak of Hillary Clinton Emails Will Be Enough to Indict Her, but ...

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his organization’s upcoming leak of more Hillary Clinton emails should be enough to indict her—but doubts the FBI will do so.

“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,” he said. “We’ve accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton. We could proceed to an indictment.”

Assange said, however, that in his opinion, the FBI would choose not to indict her in hopes of gaining favor with a Clinton administration. “The FBI could push for concessions from the new Clinton government,” he said. But, he added, “there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation).”

As The Guardian notes (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-publish-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange), Assange has long been a critic of Clinton’s politics. He once said that “she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk,” and last week he even accused Google (https://www.rt.com/usa/345749-assange-us-google-clinton/) of manipulating search suggestions to help her campaign.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/julian_assange_next_leak_of_hillary_clinton_emails _will_be_enough_to_indict?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

[TheSanityAnnex]

Julian Assange: Next Leak of Hillary Clinton Emails Will Be Enough to Indict Her, but ...

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his organization’s upcoming leak of more Hillary Clinton emails should be enough to indict her—but doubts the FBI will do so.

“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,” he said. “We’ve accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton. We could proceed to an indictment.”

Assange said, however, that in his opinion, the FBI would choose not to indict her in hopes of gaining favor with a Clinton administration. “The FBI could push for concessions from the new Clinton government,” he said. But, he added, “there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation).”

As The Guardian notes (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-publish-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange), Assange has long been a critic of Clinton’s politics. He once said that “she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk,” and last week he even accused Google (https://www.rt.com/usa/345749-assange-us-google-clinton/) of manipulating search suggestions to help her campaign.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/julian_assange_next_leak_of_hillary_clinton_emails _will_be_enough_to_indict?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines


https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/

[boutons_deux]

Law enforcement can't use evidence obtained illegally, some judges have ruled.

Anyway, how does "Hillary is corrupt" disqualify her from WH? ALL politicians are corrupt.

"quid pro quo"

"scratch my butt, I'll scratch yours"

Entire political class is corrupted, until proven innocent.

Rightwingnutjob activist SCOTUS is also corrupt, nothing but tools of VRWC/BigCorp, eg: Citizens-United, "money is speech", class actions against BigCorp crippled, etc, etc.

America (of the 99%) is fucked into decline and unfuckable, and You People have absolutely no suggestions how to unfuck it.