For Hillary lovers

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Losing Ground Against Bernie Sanders Because She ‘Shouts’ Too Much, Pundits Say

Journalist Bob Woodward of Watergate fame argued Wednesday that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is struggling to overcome opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) because Clinton “shouts” too much.
The comment sparked a redux of the sexist media coverage (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/04/10/3645639/will-media-coverage-hillary-clinton-just-sexist-time-around/) of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, as MSNBC’s Morning Joe commentators launched into a lengthy discussion that touched on many of the common tropes about Clinton “screaming,” acting “unnatural,” and being “feisty.”
“There is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating,”

“She could make a case for herself if she would just kind of lower the temperature and…get off this screaming stuff,” Woodward argued.

Clinton has previously discussed her struggle with the sexism she faced from the media (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/04/10/3645639/will-media-coverage-hillary-clinton-just-sexist-time-around/) during her 2008 campaign, when she was accused of being “shrill” (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/shrillary.php?page=all) and “nagging.” (http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/01/04/fox-news-graphic-rudov-clintons-nagging-voice-i/142056)

Commentators openly argued (http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/03/11/marc-rudov-on-the-downside-of-a-woman-president/142850) that her menstrual cycle would impact her decision making. Morning Joe was a leader in those discussions (http://jezebel.com/5365144/mika-brzezinski-shrugs-off-morning-joe-co-hosts-rampant-sexism); Scarborough often referenced the “Clinton cackle” and another panelist cracked a joke that Clinton reminded everyone of their “first wife in probate court.”

The “screaming stuff” trope has followed Clinton throughout her political career. As Rebecca Traister notes, Clinton’s criticism of Sanders’ single-payer health care plan has been meme-ified as“Hillary’s Mean Scream,” (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/what-hillary-learned-about-running-while-female.html) echoing a common perception (http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/10/13/3711682/how-jennifer-lawrence-reacted-to-the-news-that-she-made-less-money-than-her-male-co-stars/) that women who sound assertive are angry. In a less subtle attack, the New York Post ran a cover (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/24/1489331/new-york-post-goes-after-hillary-clinton-with-blatantly-sexist-cover/) during the Benghazi hearings of Clinton looking angry with the headline “No Wonder Bill’s Afraid: Hillary explodes with rage at Benghazi hearing.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/03/3745884/morning-joe-sexist-hillary-discussion/

[spurraider21]

u'll be sucking her hairy balls after she gets the nomination

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton’s Hawkish Record

Surviving Iowa in a dead heat with Sen. Bernie Sanders, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now hopes her establishment-backed campaign will grind down her opposition and pave the way for her presidential nomination. But many Democrats remain leery of her hawkish foreign policy, writes Marjorie Cohn.

By Marjorie Cohn

Hillary Clinton likes to extol her foreign policy credentials, particularly her experience as Secretary of State. She attaches herself to Barack Obama’s coattails, pledging to continue his policies. But she is even more hawkish than the President.

Like Obama, Clinton touts American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States is better than any other country. In his State of the Union addresses, Obama has proclaimed America “exceptional” and said the U.S. must “lead the world.” Clinton wrote in her book Hard Choices that “America remains the ‘indispensable nation.’”


https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Hillary-Clinton-300x300.jpg?82332e (https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Hillary-Clinton.jpg?82332e)Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.


It is this view that animates U.S. invasions, interventions, bombings and occupations of other countries. Under the pretense of protecting our national interest, the United States maintains some 800 military bases in other countries, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars annually. Often referred to as “enduring bases,” they enable us to mount attacks whenever and wherever our leaders see fit, whether with drones or manned aircraft.

Obama, who continues to prosecute the war in Afghanistan 15 years after it began, is poised to send ground troops back to Iraq and begin bombing Libya. His aggressive pursuit of regime change in Syria was met with pushback by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to Seymour Hersh.

The President has bombed some seven countries with drones. But besides moving toward normalization of relations with Cuba, his signature foreign policy achievement is brokering the agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Although Clinton supports the nuclear deal, she talks tough about Iran. In September 2015, she provocatively declared, “I don’t believe Iran is our partner in this agreement. Iran is the subject of the agreement,” adding, “I will confront them across the board.” She said, “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton promised to “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Clinton was, in effect, pledging to commit genocide against the Iranian people.

In an August 2014 Atlantic interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton maintained, “There is no such thing as a right to enrich.” Apparently, she has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which gives countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Article IV of the treaty says, “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

One country that does possess nuclear weapons is Israel, which refuses to ratify the NPT. Clinton has consistently and uncritically supported the policies of the Israeli government. In the Atlantic interview, she placed the blame for Israel’s 2014 massacre in Gaza squarely with the Palestinians.

From July 8 to Aug. 27, 2014, Israel killed over 2,100 Palestinians, 80 percent of them civilians including more than 400 children. Sixty-six Israeli soldiers and seven Israeli civilians were killed.

When Goldberg asked Clinton whom she held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children, she demurred, saying, “[I]t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.” She blamed only the Palestinians, saying, “There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict.” Claiming “Israel has a right to defend itself,” she said, “I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets.”

But Israel did not act in self-defense. In the first 10 days of June 2014, Israeli forces abducted (https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/international-media-ignore-israels-abduction-palestinian-teens)17 Palestinian teenage boys in the occupied West Bank. On June 12, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the southern West Bank; Israel accused Hamas. After those three were found dead, a group of Israelis tortured and killed a Palestinian teenager in Jerusalem.

On July 7, Israel launched a large military operation in the Gaza Strip, dubbed Operation Protective Edge. The Israeli Defense Forces devastated Gaza. For 51 days, Israel bombarded Gaza with more than 6,000 airstrikes.

The United Nations Human Rights Council subsequently convened an independent, international commission of inquiry, which concluded that Israel, and to a lesser extent Palestinian armed groups, had likely committed violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, some constituting war crimes. “The scale of the devastation was unprecedented” in Gaza, according to the commission.

Yet Clinton was puzzled by what she calls “this enormous international reaction against Israel,” adding, “This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.” She attributed the “enormous international reaction” to “a number of factors” but only mentioned anti-Semitism, never citing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands or its periodic massacres in Gaza.
Indeed, in January 2016, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council it was an “indisputable truth” that “Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.” He noted that it was “human nature to react to occupation, which serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

Clinton didn’t ponder why so many people around the world are participating in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli occupation. Representatives of Palestinian civil society launched BDS in 2005, calling upon “international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel.”

In her November 2015 article titled “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu,” published in the Jewish newspaper Forward, Clinton vowed to continue to oppose BDS. “As secretary of state, I requested more assistance for Israel every year,” she boasted, adding that she opposed “the biased Goldstone report,” explained below.

After Israel’s 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead, in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians (82 percent of whom were civilians) and 13 Israelis were killed, a U.N. Human Rights Council report by a commission headed by Justice Richard Goldstone concluded that “Disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy .”

Israel responded to the report with threats and harassment against Goldstone, leading him to backtrack on one of the findings in the report that bears his name, namely, that Israel deliberately targeted civilians. But the other members of the commission stood fast on all of the report’s conclusions.

[B]Clinton’s vote in favor of President George W. Bush’s illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq cost her the 2008 election.

It also cost more than 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives. Yet Clinton cynically told corporate executives at a 2011 State Department roundtable on investment opportunities in Iraq, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.”

The same year, Clinton led the campaign for forcible regime change in Libya, despite opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Responding to the gruesome sodomizing of President Muammar Gaddafi with a bayonet, Clinton laughed and said, “We came, we saw, he died.”

Both the Iraq War and regime change in Libya paved the way for the rise of Islamic State and dangerous conflict in the Middle East.

Obama is about to escalate his military involvement in Libya. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.” The New York Times reports that the expanded campaign is “expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.”

The Obama administration is reportedly changing the rules of engagement to allow more civilian casualties in the “war” against Islamic State. A senior military official told The Daily Beast, “Now I think you’ll see a little more willingness to tolerate civilian casualties in the interest of making progress.” But the Geneva Conventions prohibit the disproportionate killing of civilians.

Clinton has promised to escalate the wars in Syria and Iraq, including a no-fly zone in Syria. Since Islamic State doesn’t have an air force, her no-fly zone is likely to capture Russian planes flying over Syria.

Talking tough on ABC’s “This Week,” Clinton declared, “We have to fight in the air, fight on the ground and fight them on the Internet.” She said nothing about diplomacy or an arms embargo to stop sending weapons that end up in the hands of Islamic State.

Although the corporate media fans the flames of fear about Islamic State, only 38 people in the United States have died in terror-related incidents since 9/11, according to Politifact.com. The “war on terror” has cost us more than $1.5 trillion, in addition to U.S. lives and those of untold numbers in other countries.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt that a President Hillary Clinton would continue our “perpetual war.” She would do everything in her power to ensure the robust survival of the American empire.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/02/hillary-clintons-hawkish-record/

Apart from personal unlikeability (but running for Pres isn't a likeability contest, for serious people), it's her love of war and killing that turns off many.

[ChumpDumper]

People think that Hillary still menstruates?

[TheSanityAnnex]

People think that Hillary still menstruates?

lol

[angrydude]

That first article is kinda right. She's extremely shrill and it hurts my ears.

[boutons_deux]

People think that Hillary still menstruates?

Repugs aren't real strong on female science, only on female regulations.

eg, The Repug Rape Caucus thinks a "legitimately" raped women can just wishfully "shut down" the semen from fertilizing her.

[ChumpDumper]

That first article is kinda right. She's extremely shrill and it hurts my ears.Palin is shrill. Clinton is condescending.

[spurraider21]

Repugs aren't real strong on female science, only on female regulations.

eg, The Repug Rape Caucus thinks a "legitimately" raped women can just wishfully "shut down" the semen from fertilizing her.
wasn't that just Todd Akin

[Wild Cobra]

u'll be sucking her hairy balls after she gets the nomination
What?

Hillary doesn't shave her balls?

[boutons_deux]

wasn't that just Todd Akin

he's the spokesman for the Repug Rape Caucus

[spurraider21]

he's the spokesman for the Repug Rape Caucus
They have a rape caucus?

[boutons_deux]

They have a rape caucus?

nothing formal, it's all those Repug/rightwing hate media who are solidly misogynist.

[spurraider21]

nothing formal, it's all those Repug/rightwing hate media who are solidly misogynist.
OH. So akin says something retarded and therefore he's their spokesperson for rape

[Will Hunting]

OH. So akin says something retarded and therefore he's their spokesperson for rape

Not just Akin, s:loln

https://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gop_rape_advisory_megachart.gif

[z0sa]

Not just Akin, s:loln

https://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gop_rape_advisory_megachart.gif

Damn

[Pelicans78]

Not just Akin, s:loln

https://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gop_rape_advisory_megachart.gif

I read the whole damn thing and it just got worse and worse.

Allowing the Bibletards to infiltrate their party was one of the worst things the Republicans ever did besides helping GW become president.

[pgardn]

Palin is shrill. Clinton is condescending.

Women are not allowed the luxury of being stupid and if they are smart, they better not yell.

Takehome lessons...

[boutons_deux]

Clinton stumbles on Wall Street question at CNN town hall
Clinton found herself on the defensive when presented with one of Sanders’ key talking points: that she shouldn’t have taken high amounts of speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

“Well, I don't know. That’s what they offered,” :lol

she said when asked whether she needed to be paid for three speeches amounting to $675,000, which Sanders often points to as evidence that she is beholden to Wall Street.

"Every secretary of state that I know has done that." :lol yep, Hillz is as conventional, establishment as they come. Move along, no revelation, no revolution here


Clinton again reminded Cooper that she represented New York — the home of Wall Street — and insisted that she didn’t regret taking money from big banks,

pointing to her plan to reform the financial services industry. :lol

she "wasn't committed" to running for president when she agreed to give the speeches in question. :lol

Bernie "I don’t know any progressive who has a super PAC that takes $15 million from Wall Street." :lol

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-progressive-attacks-218721

Hillz won't even propose to touch BigFinance, and we all know the Repugs will OBSTRUCT everything

[boutons_deux]

the vested-interest establishment midgets expose their sexism

Female senators urge Warren: Back Hillary Clinton


Female Democratic senators are privately urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren to formally endorse Hillary Clinton for president.
The lobbying campaign comes as the Democratic race between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is heating up going into the New Hampshire primary next week.

“I’m hopeful she’ll join us. I’m hopeful she’ll join the revolution that will allow us to come together to elect” the first female president, :lol said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), one of Clinton’s staunchest supporters.

Warren is the only female Democratic senator who has not endorsed Clinton.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/268161-female-senators-urge-warren-back-hillary

I've read that "some women" think that the WH occupied by a black has broken the white male dominance, so that electing a woman just because she's woman (aka sexism), no matter what her policies are, is not so important anymore.

[rmt]

Why should she endorse Hillary? Isn't she way out left like Sanders?

[Aztecfan03]

Why should she endorse Hillary? Isn't she way out left like Sanders?
Her integrity is a lot closer to Hillary's than Bernie's

[boutons_deux]

As Clinton seeks to break the glass ceiling, many young feminists shrug

It was not so long ago that Hillary Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/government/hillary-clinton-PEPLT007433-topic.html) was relishing her status as an icon among young feminists, who cheered her resilience to political attack, her use of her stardom to advance the cause of women worldwide, even her trademark pantsuits.

But now, when Clinton needs that support the most, much of her backing among women of the millennial generation has vanished.

Locked in an increasingly tense battle for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has aggressively reached out to young women with the promise of breaking a glass ceiling that the women’s movement has worked for decades to shatter. The newest generation of feminists is responding with a shrug.

The persona cultivated by Clinton’s campaign -- that of an exciting, trailblazing big sister with a “Girl Power” playlist of songs at the ready -- isn’t sticking. Young female voters seem more likely to see in Clinton an overcautious mother.

In Iowa this week, women 29 and younger voted for Clinton’s challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/government/bernie-sanders-PEPLT005768-topic.html), by a stunning margin of roughly 6 to 1, much as young men did, according to the poll of voters arriving at precinct caucuses conducted for the television networks and the Associated Press.

In advance of Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, polls have shown Sanders holding the support of a majority of young women here, as well – a sharp contrast to Clinton’s dominance among women closer to her own age.

The problem is not rejection of feminism – surveys suggest millennial women are the most staunchly feminist group of voters in America. They want to see a woman in the White House (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/government/white-house-PLCUL000110-topic.html). Just not necessarily this woman.

“I am excited for a future in which we will have a female president, but I don’t think Hillary is that person for this generation,” said Rachael Jennings, 28, a high school teacher in Dublin, N.H. The same sentiment was echoed over and over in interviews with younger female voters here and in Iowa.

These progressive voters instead see as their champion a man – a 74-year-old democratic socialist, at that. Sanders is all the rage for now.

“Young women cannot remember a time that Hillary was not a household name, and it confuses them what she stands for,” said Nichola Gutgold, a professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State (http://www.latimes.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/the-pennsylvania-state-university-OREDU000049-topic.html), who wrote a book, “Almost Madam President,” about Clinton’s 2008 quest for the nomination. “Rejecting her is a way of rejecting the establishment."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-millennial-women-20160203-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-millennial-women-20160203-story.html)

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Turns Stand-Up Comic: "I’m a Progressive Who Gets Things Done"


Promoting Fracking Worldwide is Not Progressive:

On behalf of Chevron and other US oil companies, Secretary Clinton and the State Department pushed fracking globally, as Mother Jones has documented: “How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron).”

Boosting Corporate-Friendly Trade Deals is Not Progressive:

Secretary Clinton repeatedly praised (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/) the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – as it was being negotiated by the US Trade Representative and her State Department (http://www.ibtimes.com/cables-show-hillary-clintons-state-department-deeply-involved-trans-pacific-2032948) – and she recruited countries into the deal. In October, with Bernie Sanders climbing in the polls, Clinton said she no longer supported the pact, and prevaricated about her earlier boosterism (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/).

Enabling Military Coups is Not Progressive:

When she headed the State Department, it enabled (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup) a military coup in Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, a progressive. Clinton wasbriefed (https://theintercept.com/2015/07/06/clinton-honduras-coup/) on the dishonesty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-honduras-state_b_789282.html) that allowed aid to illegally reach the coup government.

Pocketing Millions from Corporate Lectures Fees is Not Progressive:

When Wall Street, Big Pharma and other corporate interests paid a soon-to-be presidential candidate (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/the-clintons-paid-speech-bonanza/) an average of $230,000 for a speech, did Hillary Clinton think it was for her brilliant stand-up comedy? Or was it more akin to political bribery? Clinton now says these firms just wanted to hear the views of a former Secretary of State on our “complicated world (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/25/heres-bernie-sanders-best-closing-argument-against-hillary-clinton-in-iowa/)” – or about the Bin Laden raid. ButPolitico reported in 2013 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047) soon after one of her three speeches to Goldman Sachs: “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.” (Releasing the speech transcripts (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/23/clinton-goldman-sachs-laugh/) would help settle the matter.)

Escalating the Afghan War is Not Progressive:

As insider books on the Obama administration have revealed, Secretary Clinton was among the most hawkish of Obama’s advisors (http://www.thenation.com/article/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016/) in country after country – for example, vociferously urging the failed and pointless 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/hillary-clintons-afghanistan-problem-9574).

Chaotic Military Intervention in the Middle East and Libya is Not Progressive:

If not for Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Senate vote in support of Bush’s Iraq invasion, Obama would not have defeated her in 2008. As if having learned nothing from the post-invasion chaos in Iraq, Secretary Clinton was one of the strongest voices in 2011 urging Obama to militarily depose Qaddafi in Libya (http://www.thenation.com/article/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016/), a country now in total, deadly chaos.



On the campaign trail lately, Hillary Clinton is doing her best to sound much more progressive than her record in office, but she’s a rank amateur compared to her husband’s slickness on this score in the 1990s. President Bill Clinton did “get things done” – but some of his biggest initiatives were the opposite of progressive:

1993: Passage of the corporate-friendly trade deal NAFTA, which passed mostly with Republican support against the votes of most Democrats in Congress.

1996: Passage of the Telecommunications Act, the biggest change in media law since the 1930s, which helped big media companies grow even bigger. Bill Clinton got this done by working closely with Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as both major parties received large donations from media and telecommunications corporations (http://fair.org/article/hidden-culprit-in-campaign-finance-scandal/).

1996: Repeal of federally-guaranteed welfare in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a program enacted in 1935 during Franklyn Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Children’s Defense Fund – a group Hillary Clinton worked with and repeatedly invokes to shore up her “progressive” credentials –vehemently denounced repeal (http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/how-hillary-clinton-betrayed-the-childrens-defense-fund-for-political-gain).

1999-2000: Deregulation of Wall Street, working closely with right-wing Senator Phil Gramm. Among other things, President Clinton ended the 1933 Glass-Steagall legislation (http://www.alternet.org/story/148609/the_great_american_stick-up%3A_how_reagan_republicans_and_clinton_democrats _enriched_wall_street_while_mugging_main_street) which had separated Main Street banks from the more speculative Wall Street banks (a measure Hillary Clinton says she is opposed to reinstituting). Dereg led directly to the 2007/2008 economic meltdown.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/04/hillary-clinton-turns-stand-comic-im-progressive-who-gets-things-done

Trying to equal or out-progressive Bernie shows how scared Hillary and her camp are.

[hitmanyr2k]

She does have an annoying voice when she's trying to generate excitement to her crowd lol. Someone on her staff really needs to tell her to tone it down a bit. It comes across as forced like she's trying to be inspiring but she's anything but. It's really surprising after all these years she hasn't learned to be a better orator. At least she got rid of that stupid clap she used to do :lol

[boutons_deux]

Clinton blasts Wall Street, but still draws millions in contributions

Even as Hillary Clinton has stepped up her rhetorical assault on Wall Street, her campaign and allied super PACs have continued to rake in millions from the financial sector, a sign of her deep and lasting relationships with banking and investment titans.

Through the end of December, donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial-services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton’s 2016 presidential run — more than one of every 10 dollars of the $157.8 million contributed to back her bid, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by The Washington Post.

The contributions helped Clinton reach a fundraising milestone: By the end of 2015, she had brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns than her husband did during his quarter-century political career.

In all, donors from Wall Street and other financial-services firms have given $44.1 million to support Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and allied super PACs, compared with $39.7 million in backing that former president Bill Clinton received from the industry, according to campaign-finance records dating back to 1974 that have been compiled by The Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/).

Nearly half of the financial-sector donations made to support Hillary Clinton’s current presidential run have come from just two wealthy financiers: billionaire investor George Soros, who gave $7 million last year to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action; and hedge-fund manager S. Donald Sussman, who gave the group $2.5 million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blasts-wall-street-but-still-draws-millions-in-contributions/2016/02/04/05e1be00-c9c2-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.html

[boutons_deux]

Surely Hillary Clinton Knows Why Wall Street Pays Her

Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally skillful politician. Collectively, she and her husband Bill have parlayed their political experience into at least $125 million in speaking fees (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/in-race-defined-by-income-gap-hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties-incite-rivals.html) alone. According to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-21/clinton-earns-12-million-speaking-writing-after-service), Hillary was paid $12 million in the 16 months after leaving her role as US secretary of state. Knowing she'd likely run for president, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley (and other big Wall Street corporations) gladly paid her $2.9 million in speaking fees alone (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/). The same Wall Street corporations then gave her campaign super PACs millions more. Coincidence?

Clinton is surely aware that Wall Street won't give politicians millions without expecting something big in return. In a Des Moines Register interview (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/21/clinton-defends-wall-st-speaking-fees/79140248/), she justified her $250,000-per-event Wall Street speaking fees, saying, "What they were interested in were my views on what was going on in the world ... there's a lot of interest in getting advice and views about what you think is happening in the world." Does she honestly expect the American people to believe Wall Street pays her $250,000 for a one-hour talk because they want her views on the world? She most surely knows that Wall Street wants her political influence.

In that same interview (as if to say, "Bernie does it too"), Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for his 2000 vote for deregulating swaps and derivatives (the Commodity Futures Modernization Act), which was one of the main causes of the economic collapse in 2008.

Of course, she didn't mention that Sanders forcefully spoke out against the bill, and Sanders, like the rest of Congress, was essentially blackmailed into voting for it (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34497-the-most-disingenuous-attack-on-bernie-yet).

She didn't mention the bill was inserted at the last minute in omnibus legislation needed to keep the government going.

She didn't mention only four members of Congress dared to vote against it.

She didn't mention the bill came from a deal (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/19/hillary-blames-bernie-old-clintonite-hustle-and-thats-rotten-shame) between her husband and the Senate Banking Committee chairman, Phil Gramm.

Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, ensuring Hillary would collect millions from Wall Street for her Senate campaign (and she did).

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34700-hillary-clinton-s-deliberate-deceit

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton’s Mixed Record on Wall Street Belies Her Tough ‘Cut it Out’ Talk

As a U.S. senator during the crisis years, Clinton’s legislative proposals to reform banking and housing finance didn’t gain traction.

In examination of her remarks (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77081) to Wall Street in December 2007 and Clinton’s actions as a senator — a period when she had the best opportunity to translate her words into deeds — presents a more mixed picture of her record on the banking industry.Clinton steered a middle ground in a 28-minute address to business executives gathered at an office of the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York’s Times Square on Dec. 5, 2007. In the event, she presented a detailed analysis of the burgeoning dangers in the housing market and its threat to the economy. (ProPublica obtained a video of the speech (https://youtu.be/kXha_AJv_B0), which hasn’t previously been posted.)

Clinton gave a shout-out to her “wonderful donors” in the audience, and asked the bankers to voluntarily suspend foreclosures and freeze interest rates on adjustable subprime mortgages. She praised Wall Street for its role in creating the nation’s wealth, then added that “too many American families are not sharing” in that prosperity.

She said the brewing economic troubles weren’t mainly the fault of banks, “not by a long shot,” but added they needed to shoulder responsibility for their role. While there was plenty of blame to go around for the spate of reckless lending, and while Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, it “certainly had a hand in making it worse” and “needs to help us solve it.”

Finally, Clinton said, if the banks didn’t take the voluntary steps she proposed, “I will consider legislation to address the problem.”

The lenders did not adopt Clinton’s proposals. During 2007 and 2008, when the housing market collapsed and while she was also running for president, the Democrats controlled the Senate. Of the 140 bills Clinton introduced during that period, five were related to housing finance or foreclosures, according to congressional records. Only one of those five secured any co-sponsors. No Senate committee took action on any of them and they died without any further discussion.

When a broad housing bill finally became law in 2008, Clinton was not among the more than dozen senators credited by party leaders as playing a key role.

Clinton also introduced a bill in 2008 to curb compensation of corporate executives. It too died without any co-sponsors.

In dealing with Wall Street, Clinton faced the same challenge as any lawmaker representing New York, where the financial industry includes not only constituents but campaign donors. Wall Street executives were the largest donors to both her 2006 Senate re-election bid and her 2008 presidential race; employees of just eight banking firms gave $2.67 million to those campaigns, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit research group.

Clinton in 2007 publicly decried (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/14/us-privateequity-clinton-idUSN1339356720070714) a tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity executives — and continues to do so in her current campaign. But she didn’t sign on as a supporter of a Senate bill that would have curbed the break.

As a senator, Clinton also had a brush with the shadow-banking world that she now describes as a continuing threat to the financial system. When AIG, the giant insurance company and poster child for lightly regulated finance, began to implode in September 2008, Clinton reached out to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was involved in talks to rescue the firm with government funds. Her little-noticed overture came on behalf of some wealthy investors who stood to lose millions and had hired two longtime associates of the Clintons to represent them.

( as Cousin Vinnie would say, "Wait, there's more") ...

http://www.propublica.org/article/hillary-clinton-mixed-record-on-wall-street-tough-cut-it-out-talk?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=1454618923

[boutons_deux]

Lament of the Plutocrats


Why Wall Street is fed up with the White House—and Republicans too.

Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.

Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.

What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop.

And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).

Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”

Clinton’s remarks were hardly a sweeping absolution for the sins of Wall Street, whose leaders she courted assiduously for financial support over a decade, as a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. But they did register as

a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

And perhaps even more than that, Clinton’s presence offered a glimpse to a future in which Wall Street might repair its frayed political relationships.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton: “Name one time I changed due to Wall Street money.” Elizabeth Warren: OK, allow me.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a mixed reception for her performance during the debates. Some respected her aggressive debate tactics, whereas others pointed to her touting an endorsement from Henry Kissinger (http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/) as a sign that she is not, and never has been, a true progressive — a term which became the unlikely center of discussion and heated argument.

However, there was one moment in which Clinton made a challenge to her detractors. She rallied against her label of “establishment,” claiming that the title is misused on her, and further claimed that her ties to Wall Street are a non-issue, alleging that she has never changed a vote as a result of campaign contributions or other financial influence. “Name one time I changed due to Wall Street money,” she challenged.

Unfortunately for her, there is already a record of quite possibly the most well-respected progressive detailing exactly that scenario.
Back in 2004, Elizabeth Warren sat with Bill Moyers to discuss a bankruptcy regulation bill that was first championed, then opposed by Clinton after she spoke with lobbyists. (This video recaps Clinton’s debate remarks. To start with the Warren interview, skip to 1:04.)


Essentially, the credit companies wanted to restrict the ability of American citizens to claim bankruptcy, thereby allowing the credit companies to continue reaping profits from the financially destitute, many of whom would have had no recourse should the bill have passed.

Elizabeth Warren explains how as First Lady, Clinton sat with Warren and afterwards labored to have her husband, President Bill Clinton, veto the bill. President Clinton did so, and Hillary Clinton claimed credit for this action in her autobiography.

Then, a few years later when Hillary Clinton had just become a senator, the bankruptcy bill returned, causing Warren to opine that the bill was “like a vampire — it will not die.” This time, however, Hillary Clinton voted in favor of what was essentially the exact same bill she had lobbied against.

Warren contrasted Clinton’s time as First Lady with her newfound role as a senator, saying “As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different.”

Warren summed up the situation succinctly at the end: “She has taken money from [the credit companies], and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.”

Furthermore, judging from a new Quinnipiac poll that shows her national lead dropping to just 2% (http://usuncut.com/politics/new-national-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-surging/), it seems as though Clinton’s performance at the debate was not as rousing as she would have hoped.

Interestingly, Elizabeth Warren recently defended Bernie Sanders against accusations by Lloyd Blankfein (http://usuncut.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-bernie-goldman-sachs/), the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Warren’s own policies also match up with the Vermont senator’s, causing many to call for Warren to join Sanders as a Vice Presidential candidate if he wins the nomination.

Senator Warren has not yet officially endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary contest.

http://usuncut.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-tells-how-wall-street-changed-hillary-clinton/

[boutons_deux]

 Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote

From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.

 It is absolutely true that black communities back then were in a state of crisis, and that many black activists and politicians were desperate to get violent offenders off the streets. What is often missed, however, is that most of those black activists and politicians weren’t asking only for toughness.

They were also demanding investment in their schools, better housing, jobs programs for young people, economic-stimulus packages, drug treatment on demand, and better access to healthcare.

In the end, they wound up with police and prisons.

She is arguing that we ought not be seduced by Bernie’s rhetoric because we must be “pragmatic,” “face political realities,” and not get tempted to believe that we can fight for economic justice and win.

When politicians start telling you that it is “unrealistic” to support candidates who want to build a movement for greater equality, fair wages, universal healthcare, and an end to corporate control of our political system, it’s probably best to leave the room.

But recognizing that Bernie, like Hillary, has blurred vision when it comes to race is not the same thing as saying their views are equally problematic. Sanders opposed the 1996 welfare-reform law. He also opposed bank deregulation and the Iraq War, both of which Hillary supported, and both of which have proved disastrous. In short, there is such a thing as a lesser evil, and Hillary is not it.

Hillary believes that she can win this game in 2016 because this time she’s got us, the black vote, in her back pocket—her lucky card.
She may be surprised to discover that the younger generation no longer wants to play her game. Or maybe not. Maybe we’ll all continue to play along and pretend that we don’t know how it will turn out in the end.

Hopefully, one day, we’ll muster the courage to join together in a revolutionary movement with people of all colors who believe that basic human rights and economic, racial, and gender justice are not unreasonable, pie-in-the-sky goals.

After decades of getting played, the sleeping giant just might wake up, stretch its limbs, and tell both parties: Game over. Move aside. It’s time to reshuffle this deck.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

[boutons_deux]

The Clintons Have Lost the Working Class

http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/the-clintons-lose-the-working-class

[boutons_deux]

Here Comes Another Superdelegate Crisis

Your least favorite thing about the 2008 Democratic primary is back!


Sanders won 15 delegates with his 20-point victory Tuesday while Clinton won nine.

But Clinton came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.


Ah, yes, welcome back, Democratic superdelegates! Time to make some space for you and all your bad memories.

So, here's basically the back-of-the-cereal-box story of how the Democratic primary works.

To be the nominee in 2016, you have to amass a total of 2,382 delegates during the primary season. Most of this haul will come from successfully competing in the states' various primaries and caucuses. Some states -- like these early ones we've seen -- apportion the delegates according to the vote. In these instances, the losers take home some consolation delegates to add to their pile. In many of the later states, however, the delegates are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. So as the primary process proceeds, the stakes tend to accelerate.

(I'm really underplaying the complexity of the process here. If you want to get deeper into the weeds, head out to The Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/) and start undertaking your graduate-level study of this process.)

Now set all of the primary process aside and focus on another source from which the candidates can add to their delegate totals: the superdelegates.

Democratic Party superdelegates are basically elected officials, Democratic National Committee members and a posse of party swells that are now considered distinguished Democratic Party pooh-bahs, and they all get a vote in this process.

There are, right now, 712 of them. Many are, as of this moment, tentatively committed to a candidate. The Associated Press' reporting (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/things-to-know-about-delegates-at-stake-in-iowa-caucuses) calculates that

Clinton currently has 361 superdelegates committed to her as of Jan. 30, and Sanders has ... eight.

So, Clinton has a massive advantage here.

But this advantage comes with problems. Many superdelegates prefer to fly under the radar, properly recognizing that

it would be a really bad look if a bunch of affluent party elites became the means by which a primary was decided.

Some of these superdelegates, of course, are influential Democratic legislators whose endorsements are sought by the candidates. When Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), for example, backed Sanders (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/07/bernie-sanders-gets-first-congressional-endorsement-from-ral-grijalva/?_r=0), this was an important moment of the so-called "invisible primary," in which an influential liberal congressman signalled his choice to other liberals. Grijalva is a superdelegate as well, though, so count him among Sanders' eight in the tally.

But the ideal situation for many superdelegates is for them to merely use their vote as a ceremonial affirmation of the voters' consensus. That's why hundreds of them are currently biding their time, not picking anyone. Many superdelegates are in it for the perks -- a hotel room at the convention, a place amid the pageantry on the floor -- and would rather not see their potentially decisive power being used to decide a nominee.

This sentiment was well expressed by Missouri Democratic Sen. (and superdelegate) Claire McCaskill back in April of 2008 (http://www.politico.com/story/2008/04/obama-backer-predicts-victory-in-hill-war-009968):

"The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “They’re just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day.”


And back in the spring of 2008, the way the race had shaped up had placed a lot of undue attention (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/is-the-superdelegate-batt_n_99293.html) on the superdelegates and their role in the process. There came a moment in the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when Clinton's mathematical path to notching the nomination didn't make sense unless a lot of superdelegates started breaking her way.

And it wasn't just the raw arithmetic that mattered. She needed momentum as well, because she was locked in a situation where she had to start winning primaries by decisive margins that hadn't yet manifested themselves. Getting party elites to come out for her -- against the run of play -- was necessary to add a dose of energy to facilitate this outcome.

So Clinton got to the point where she had to start publicly and flamboyantly courting the superdelegates. (Obama, rest assured, was doing the same in a more publicly restrained way.) And many of those superdelegates properly recognized that their lives might get dicey if, after the voters demonstrated a clear desire to nominate their party's first black candidate, some affluent Beltway toff threw the election in a different direction. (Around the same time, the Clinton campaign was also seeking to have the full delegate slate from a pair of states fully credentialed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/27/mcauliffe-has-flip-floppe_n_98857.html) after the party punished them for various primary calendar shenanigans, a much better case for a nominal leader of the "party of the little guy" to be making.)

In short, there was a time where the word "superdelegate" connoted a deep, deep dysfunction within the Democratic Party and an intergalactic electoral controversy. Given the fact that the 2008 cycle exposed that the superdelegates could, in the wrong situation, prove to be an undemocratic passel of votes that could supersede the will of primary voters, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Democratic Partypondered doing away with them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/superdelegates-retained-b_n_669171.html) altogether. So in August of 2010, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee met to ponder the matter.
As Newsweek's Colin Woodard reported at the time, here's how that went (http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-keep-controversial-superdelegates-71649):

But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week.


The end result of all of this was that the influence of superdelegates in the process was slightly reduced, by limiting their overall proportion in the total number of delegates available to all candidates to 15 percent (down from 20 percent).

Why not more? Let's have a beneficiary of nepotism explain it to Newsweek,because that's almost too perfect (http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-keep-controversial-superdelegates-71649):

“People ask: isn’t it enough for folks to have floor privileges and a hotel room and not have an actual vote?” says rules-committee co-chair James Roosevelt Jr., a grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. “The answer is: what you’re doing is creating two classes of delegates, people with the vote and people without the vote. Clearly, the people at the grassroots level should be the predominant voice. But if you don’t give elected officials a real voice, they are basically second-class citizens.”


Sure. Wouldn't want a group of privileged elites to feel like they're second class to primary voters. That almost makes too much sense.

Now it's 2016, and the situation has changed considerably. This time, Clinton enjoys a substantial lead over Sanders in the race to win superdelegates. This is, on one important level, very understandable: Sanders is not a Democrat. He's an independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats, but he doesn't play a huge role in building the party and, in fact, his whole campaign is predicated on tearing out the existing party apparatus and replacing it with something new.

So, all things being equal, his claim on the superdelegates is very tenuous. But when you start blowing out Clinton in primaries, guess what? All things cease being equal in a hurry. NBC News' First Read Team does a fine job distilling the situation at hand (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-sanders-obama-have-complicated-relationship-n516456):

Overall, according to the AP's count, Clinton has endorsements from more than 360 Democratic superdelegates, versus eight for Sanders. According to our back-of-envelope math, that means that Sanders must win 54% of the remaining delegates to get to the magic number of 2,382 delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination, while Clinton needs to win just 46%. That is a HUGE advantage, especially when you consider that the 2008 Democratic delegate race between Barack Obama and Clinton was essentially a 52%-48% affair.


It is a "huge advantage" ... on paper. But if we think this through to the end, what happens if Sanders wins a majority of the remaining delegates that are at stake in contests where Democrats actually vote, and

misses the nomination because Clinton closed and surmounted the gap through the votes wrangled from party elites?

It probably leaves everyone involved in a crisis, with a sizable portion of the electorate left feeling disaffected by the primary process. In this hypothetical circumstance,

how does Clinton win those voters back to her side for the general election? :lol

It may not happen that way, of course. As previously mentioned, many superdelegates are happy to simply affirm the consensus and move on with their lives.

As the First Read Team notes (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-sanders-obama-have-complicated-relationship-n516456), "If Sanders does win a majority of the bound delegates, there will be ENORMOUS pressure on the supers to back him. And that pressure could likely lead to many elected supers -- perhaps worried about a future Dem primary -- to suddenly get cold feet on Clinton and simply promise to support the Dem who wins their district or state."

That is, indeed, the likely outcome. Still, this is a sleeping dog that Clinton ought to leave snoozing for the foreseeable future. But that's not what's happening. As ABC News' Rick Klein reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-democratic-fight-night-wisconsin/story?id=36859047), "Clinton campaign aides are touting" her currently substantial superdelegate lead "at least implicitly, in arguing to supporters and donors that the delegate math is overwhelmingly in her favor."

Klein continues:

That, though, makes a few dangerous assumptions.

First, it presumes that if superdelegates matter, they would openly deny the nomination to someone who won more delegates via actual voting. (Remember 2008, anyone?)

Second, and more urgently, it presumes that Sanders supporters won’t wake up to this possibility and use it as motivation.

A line about how the establishment is trying to subvert the judgment of the people could slip rather easily into a Sanders stump speech.


But the bigger problem for Clinton is simply the fact that this isn't how this primary was supposed to go! It was never, ever supposed to come down to knotty delegate math and enumerating the vote splits on a state-by-state spreadsheet -- let alone give rise to a situation where she'd be dependent on a superdelegate bailout. And yet, after two contests -- both of which offered Sanders some bank-shot advantages that don't exist elsewhere -- Clinton's team is revealing a deep concern for the road ahead.

Nevertheless, pointing to the way those Democratic Party elites who enjoy voting privileges favor her over Sanders is not a move her campaign advisers should even be countenancing at this point. The basic argument of her candidacy is that the institutions that govern our lives do not need to be torn down, root and branch.

Clinton's case is that competent management of existing institutions will help level the playing field.

For this reason, she shouldn't be telling voters that the system isn't really rigged against them while simultaneously telling her donors, "Don't worry, the Democratic primary is rigged in my favor." :lol

But for whatever reason, that's where we are right now, and once again, superdelegates are stuck in the spotlight. The Democrats should have just scuttled the superdelegates when they had the opportunity. Alas!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/return-of-the-superdelegates-2016-election_us_56bcea6ee4b0c3c550508660?

[spankadelphia]

It is a well documented phenomena that Hillary is intensely unlikable to the point that the more face time she gets on TV, the worse she does in the polls.

[hater]

It is a well documented phenomena that Hillary is intensely unlikable to the point that the more face time she gets on TV, the worse she does in the polls.

I agree with this.

[boutons_deux]

New York Times Post-Debate Coverage Goes Full-Infomercial for Clinton

Three glowing stories about Hillary's debate performance are perfectly aligned with the paper's editorial stance.

Let’s begin with the headlines of its top three debate stories:

Hillary Clinton Is Calm, Cool and Effective (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-debate.html)

In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton Paints Bernie Sanders’s Plans as Unrealistic (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/democratic-debate.html)

Who Won the Debate? Critics Say Hillary Clinton Shone (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/who-won-the-debate.html)

Headlines are in and of themselves important because, according to one 2014 survey (https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/rational-attentive-news-consumer/), 60% of Americans get their news from only headlines. A quick glance at the Times debate section and the consensus is clear: Clinton was the runaway victor.

Now let’s examine the text. Clinton-beat reporter Jonathan Martin’s piece led like a David Brock press release:

Facing off against Senator Bernie Sanders on Thursday night, Hillary Clinton did not comport herself like someone who had just suffered a landslide loss in New Hampshire. She did not raise her voice or express anger. She did not demonize Mr. Sanders or suggest he would be a dangerous choice for Democrats. She remained calm as he pungently sought to highlight their differences.
Instead, she behaved like someone heading into Nevada and South Carolina with every reason to be confident and little to fear but her own missteps.


Okay, that’s all very subjective. Punchy, good for a counter-narrative, but still just a guy’s opinion who happens to work for the New York Times.

The text of the second story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/democratic-debate.html) is pretty down-the-middle reporting, but the framing is entirely Clinton-centric, which isn’t a major journalistic crime, but is worth noting in the context of the Times' other coverage.

The third story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/who-won-the-debate.html) is by far the goofiest, settling on a “critics” consensus based on eight cherry-picked tweets.

In the aftermath, many commentators and critics felt that Mr. Sanders held his own on domestic affairs, but that Mrs. Clinton outshined him on foreign policy and scored some points by cornering him as a single-issue candidate.


“Many commentators”. “Many” is what’s known as a weasel word. Weasel words, according to Merriam-Webster, are used to “create an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated”

http://www.alternet.org/media/new-york-times-post-debate-coverage-goes-full-infomercial-clinton

so the establishment paper endorses, promotes, infomercials for the establishment candidate


S

[CosmicCowboy]

best sound bite of the night (from Bernie)

*Hillary* "When I'm in the White House blabbety blabbety blab"

Ms. Clinton, you aren't in the White House yet. :lol

[boutons_deux]

"When I'm President ..." is said by nearly all of them

[CosmicCowboy]

"When I'm President ..." is said by nearly all of them

C'mon admit it Boo...you are in to that Bernie Bukkake...

[rmt]

I liked, "'One of us ran against Barack Obama, I was not that candidate' when she claimed Bernie was calling Obama weak, etc.

[boutons_deux]

C'mon admit it Boo...you are in to that Bernie Bukkake...

Nothing to admit, parasite, I'm clearly a Bernie supporter.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports.

“If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons.

“Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report.

“The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million.

And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”

The article adds that “there is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton.”

Maybe it’s all a mere coincidence, and when UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton $1.5 million the relevant decision-maker wasn’t even aware of the vast sum his wife may have saved the bank or the power that she will potentially wield after the 2016 presidential election.

But even that wouldn’t make accepting the $1.5 million excusable.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pledged Thursday to ban the use of private prison companies if elected president, and in the meantime will stop accepting campaign contributions from those corporations and the lobbyists who work for them.

All previous donations will be given to charity, the former secretary of state's campaign said.

"Hillary Clinton has said we must end the era of mass incarceration, and as president, she will end private prisons and private immigrant detention centers," campaign spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement Thursday night. "She believes that we should not contract out this core responsibility of the federal government, and when we’re dealing with a mass incarceration crisis, we don’t need private industry incentives that may contribute -- or have the appearance of contributing -- to over-incarceration."

Hinojosa said the policy against accepting contributions tied to private prison companies "is only one of many ways that she believes we need to rebalance our criminal justice and immigration systems."

Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC,according to Vice (https://news.vice.com/article/how-private-prisons-are-profiting-from-locking-up-us-immigrants). Those companies operate a number of criminal and immigrant detention facilities (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/09/911-immigrant-detention-business-for-profit-prison_n_951639.html), some of which have been plagued by (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawyers-demand-civil-rights-investigation-into-family-detention_55bbd5f6e4b06363d5a240ab) allegations of abuse and poor treatment of detainees.

Her campaign and PAC are not the only ones to take money with private prison connections. VICE reported that (https://news.vice.com/article/how-private-prisons-are-profiting-from-locking-up-us-immigrants) the PAC and campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had received $133,450 from private prison companies and their lobbying groups, while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) and his PAC had received $21,700 from lobbying groups that work for GEO and CCA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-private-prisons_us_562a3e3ee4b0ec0a389418ec

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Says She's Unaware Of Receiving $150,000 In Oil & Gas Contributions

"Have I? OK, well, I'll check on that." :lol
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-fossil-fuel-donations_us_56733683e4b0b958f655fc87

yep, it's just so hard to keep track of the $10Ms from BigCrop, BigCarbon, BigFinance. there SO MUCH OF IT! :lol

and of course, they give in full expectation that they will receive in returns $100Bs more. The ROI on purchases of politicians can be in 100%s.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton’s Ties to Henry Kissinger Come Back to Haunt Her (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/hillary-clintons-ties-to-henry-kissinger-come-back-to-haunt-her/)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2016/02/12/us/12firstdraft-kissinger/12firstdraft-kissinger-tmagArticle.jpg

When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she relied on Henry A. Kissinger’s counsel. He would send her “astute observations about foreign leaders” and “written reports on his travels.” She would joke with him that smartphones would have made his covert Cold War trip to Beijing impossible.

The two diplomats had a cordial, warm and respectful relationship, based on writings about their interactions during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.

“Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in The Washington Post, in a positive review (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html)of his book “World Order.”

The friendship came back to haunt her in the Democratic presidential debate on Thursday night, when Senator Bernie Sanders pointedly questioned Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy judgment, saying President Richard M. Nixon’s secretary of state had enabled genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot.

“I’m proud to say Henry Kissinger is not my friend,” Mr. Sanders said.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/hillary-clintons-ties-to-henry-kissinger-come-back-to-haunt-her/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[boutons_deux]

Top 10 Most Inhuman Henry Kissinger Quotes

1. Soviet Jews: “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.” (link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us/politics/11nixon.html?_r=0))

2. Bombing Cambodia: “[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn't want to hear anything about it. It's an order, to be done. Anything that flies or anything that moves.” (link (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/))

3. Bombing Vietnam: "It's wave after wave of planes. You see, they can't see the B-52 and they dropped a million pounds of bombs ... I bet you we will have had more planes over there in one day than Johnson had in a month ... each plane can carry about 10 times the load of World War II plane could carry." (link (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB263/19720415-1130-Nixon.pdf))

4. Khmer Rouge: “How many people did (Khmer Rouge Foreign Minister Ieng Sary) kill? Tens of thousands? You should tell the Cambodians (i.e., Khmer Rouge) that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in the way. We are prepared to improve relations with them. Tell them the latter part, but don’t tell them what I said before.” (Nov. 26, 1975 meeting (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB193/HAK-11-26-75.pdf) with Thai foreign minister)

5. Dan Ellsberg: “Because that son-of-a-bitch—First of all, I would expect—I know him well—I am sure he has some more information---I would bet that he has more information that he’s saving for the trial. Examples of American war crimes that triggered him into it…It’s the way he’d operate….Because he is a despicable bastard.” (Oval Office tape, July 27, 1971)

6. Robert McNamara: “Boohoo, boohoo … He’s still beating his breast, right? Still feeling guilty. ” (Pretending (http://www.salon.com/2002/12/05/kissinger_3/) to cry, rubbing his eyes.)

7. Assassination: “It is an act of insanity and national humiliation to have a law prohibiting the President from ordering assassination.” (Statement (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger) at a National Security Council meeting, 1975)

8. Chile: “I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” (link (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryakis143264.html))

9. Illegality-Unconstitutionality: “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” (from March 10, 1975 meeting with Turkish foreign minister Melih Esenbel in Ankara, Turkey)

10. On His Own Character: “Americans like the cowboy … who rides all alone into the town, the village, with his horse and nothing else … This amazing, romantic character suits me precisely because to be alone has always been part of my style or, if you like, my technique.” (November 1972 interview with Oriana Fallaci)

http://www.alternet.org/world/top-10-most-inhuman-henry-kissinger-quotes

[boutons_deux]

Henry Kissinger’s War Crimes Are Central to the Divide Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/12/henry-kissingers-war-crimes-are-central-to-the-divide-between-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders/)

Kissinger is an amazing and appropriate lens through which to see what’s at stake in the choice between Clinton and Sanders. But that only works, of course, if you understand who Kissinger is — which surely many of today’s voters don’t.

But Kissinger is reviled by many left-leaning observers of foreign policy. They consider him an amoral egotist who enabled dictators, extended the Vietnam War, laid the path to the Khmer Rouge killing fields, stage-managed a genocide in East Timor, overthrew the democratically elected left-wing government in Chile, and encouraged Nixon to wiretap his political adversaries.

SANDERS: I find — I mean, it’s just a very different, you know, historical perspective here. Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That’s what he talked about, the great threat of China.
And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you’re right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he’s urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.

Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He

(1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years;

(2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos;

(3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists;

(4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh;

(5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House;

(6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan;

(7) began the U.S.’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran;

(8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead;

(9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and

(10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level. Read all about it inKissinger’s Shadow (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9781627794497)!
A full tally hasn’t been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger’s actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa.

Pull but one string from the current tangle of today’s multiple foreign policy crises, and odds are it will lead back to something Kissinger did between 1968 and 1977.

Over-reliance on Saudi oil? That’s Kissinger.

Blowback from the instrumental use of radical Islam to destabilize Soviet allies? Again, Kissinger.

An unstable arms race in the Middle East? Check, Kissinger.

Sunni-Shia rivalry? Yup, Kissinger.

The impasse in Israel-Palestine? Kissinger. Radicalization of Iran? “ An act of folly” was how veteran diplomat George Ball described Kissinger’s relationship to the Shah.

Militarization of the Persian Gulf? Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger.

The late essayist Christopher Hitchins examined Kissinger’s war crimes in his 2001 book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger.html?id=pBBBEH0OEoUC&source=kp_read&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false). He listed the key elements of his case:


1. The deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina.

2. Deliberate collusion in mass murder, and later in assassination, in Bangladesh.

3. The personal suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation — Chile — with which the United States was not at war.

4. Personal involvement in a plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation of Cyprus.

5. The incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor

6. Personal involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, D.C.


https://theintercept.com/2016/02/12/henry-kissingers-war-crimes-are-central-to-the-divide-between-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders/

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Is a High-Ranking Member of the DC Power Elite — and That's Why She Can't Comprehend Bernie’s Revolution

The American Dream is sliding off the cliff and Hillary is still talking about women’s empowerment — a cry that was fresh 40 years ago.

Last year, the Clintons couldn’t believe their good fortune. They were going to face a “democratic socialist” from the marginal state of Vermont and cruise to victory. It would be a romp, with Hillary winning the primaries and then going full mainstream against a reactionary, out of touch Republican opponent on the way to the White House.

As many commentators are saying now, a serious miscalculation was at the heart of Hillary’s plan. Clinton, Cruz, Bush, Rubio and others are all part of the wealthy elite. Although Trump is as well, he is channeling the anger of the working class American. Bernie Sanders also gets it. He knows what happened to the American dream.

Hillary Clinton thinks, in her gut, that America is a prosperous country, and that the policies that led to our prosperity should simply be continued, that they work. But this hasn’t been true since the 1970’s, back when America was the world’s economic powerhouse, with a manufacturing base that was the envy of the world, highly paid unionized workers and a booming housing market.

The American dream started coming off the rails with the election of Ronald Reagan who, as David Stockman noted in his book, The Triumph of Politics, was duped into giving away the store to the military industrial complex.

Defense spending soared into the stratosphere, and the “deep state” — which is what writer Mike Lofgren calls the alliance between the defense industry, politicians and Wall Street — began playing a larger and larger role in government.

9/11 sealed the deal, as the national security establishment — what Stockman calls “the war party” — consolidated its power and influence, setting the stage for the global surveillance state.

The deep state has another aspect: It bleeds the American taxpayer, taking money to be “the world’s policeman” and enriching contractors, politicians, Wall Street and the arms industry, while the people get little in return (unless they happen to be working for those same companies.) All of the candidates for president are clients of the deep state and deeply beholden to it — except for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Going hand in hand with the deep state, what Bill Clinton and George Bush enabled was the “financialization” of everything.

Regulations on banks came off, credit card interest rates were free to soar, and the American public was sold on investing in an ever-expanding housing market.

Private prisons multiplied, payday loan companies and fraudulent colleges like the University of Phoenix sprang up.

Vulture capitalism spread its wings.

This whole infrastructure of greed is deeply tied into the political establishment, which is why even today,

Hillary won’t attack the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, the prison industry, big oil, the pay day loan industry and the rest, head-on.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-high-ranking-member-dc-power-elite-and-thats-why-she-cant-comprehend-bernies

[boutons_deux]

Key Members of Hillary Clinton Team Lobbied Against Bills She Now Touts as National Accomplishments

As she campaigns for the presidency, Hillary Clinton is heralding the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, yet she has infused her staff with former lobbyists and consultants who did all they could to block the two reforms.

The Intercept has published a report saying that Clinton’s team of strategists and fundraisers includes a number of former consultants and lobbyists for businesses that worked against Obama’s proposal for health care reform.

According to the website, one of Clinton’s biggest fundraisers,

Heather Podesta, worked with several health insurance companies to spend $86 million in TV and radio ads opposing Obamacare.

The Intercept reports: (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/08/hrc-inner-circle-lobbyists/)


Consultants associated with the Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that has been retained by business interests to defeat a variety of progressive reforms, are playing a major role in the Clinton campaign.

Charles Baker III, the co-founder of Dewey, is a senior strategist and the campaign’s chief administrative officer.

Michael Whouley, another Dewey co-founder, played an early role in advising Clinton’s plan for the current campaign by convening some of the very first strategy sessions.

Senior Dewey officials Jill Alper and Minyon Moore are also close advisers and fundraisers for Clinton, while at least four other Clinton officials have worked at Dewey within the last four years. In addition, disclosures show that Clinton’s Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record have also paid Dewey Square Group for a variety of services in this election.

Dewey, for instance, worked on behalf of the health insurance industry during the health reform debate, specifically to block the changes to Medicare Advantage that were critical for financing the Affordable Care Act. Medicare Advantage, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to use plans administered by private insurers, had long served as a cash cow for the health insurance industry. By one estimate, insurance companies over-billed the government by nearly $70 billion in improper payments over just a five year period.

Dewey, which had been tapped by health insurers to block cuts from the program starting in 2007, continued during the Obama era to lobby to protect Medicare Advantage, even as such reforms became a major part of how Democrats and the Obama administration sought to finance the Affordable Care Act.

One of the more deceptive components of the Dewey lobbying strategy was uncovered when an editor at the Lawrence, Massachusetts, Eagle-Tribune realized that the firm had worked quietly to place letters to the editor against cuts to Medicare Advantage under the names of elderly Massachusetts residents without their knowledge or consent.


Dewey received $772,110 in 2009 from the National Restaurant Association, which has lobbied against raising the minimum wage.

Members of Clinton’s staff also lobbied against the Dodd-Frank Act, aimed at Wall Street corruption. That legislation was inspired by the financial crisis of 2008 that wiped out the savings of many Americans.

In December, in an op-ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?_r=0) for The New York Times, Clinton wrote: “People’s savings are being restored. And we have tough new rules on the books, including the Dodd-Frank Act, that protect consumers and curb recklessness on Wall Street.”

Yet The Intercept found that Clinton’s chief pollster and strategist, Joel Benenson of the Benenson Strategy Group, lobbied on behalf of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and worked for many years to weaken a wide variety of Dodd-Frank reforms.

Another campaign adviser, Steve Elmendorf, was at one time retained by Goldman Sachs and tapped by Citigroup to help push through a bill that would have allowed banks to avoid financial regulations by moving certain operations overseas.

And Jeff Berman, who is leading Clinton’s delegate strategy, previously worked for TransCanada as a lobbyist for the Keystone XL project. The oil pipeline’s extension was eventually blocked when Obama rejected it late last year.


Hillary Clinton’s embrace of Washington lobbyists offers a frightening picture of what her administration might look like if she is elected.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/key_members_of_hillary_clinton_team_lobbied_for_bi lls_she_now_touts_as_nati

[boutons_deux]

iow, Hillary's

"everything is great (I'm a millionaire of many$10Ms and a moderate Repug), just needs incremental changes"

means NOTHING will change.

Hillary and her staff will make Obama putting an investment banker as his chief of staff, and a corporate defense lawyer as head of DoJ look, like a hippy.

[DMX7]

iow, Hillary's

"everything is great (I'm a millionaire of many$10Ms and a moderate Repug), just needs incremental changes"

means NOTHING will change.

Hillary and her staff will make Obama putting an investment banker as his chief of staff, and a corporate defense lawyer as head of DoJ look, like a hippy.

It's why I think we will get more progressive change from Trump. She is horrible, just horrible. She pretends as if incremental change will be easier to achieve but the republicans aren't going to work with her on ANYTHING progressive. If there are large democrat majorities in congress, then you may as well push for actual large scale progressive change.

[boutons_deux]

"progressive change from Trump."

nobody will be able to make "progressive" change with red and slave states controlling Congress. They will continue to crapfiy govt and America.

[DMX7]

"progressive change from Trump."

nobody will be able to make "progressive" change with red and slave states controlling Congress. They will continue to crapfiy govt and America.

No, but Trump can trick them into doing it.

[boutons_deux]

No, but Trump can trick them into doing it.

:lol

[z0sa]

"progressive change from Trump."

nobody will be able to make "progressive" change with red and slave states controlling Congress. They will continue to crapfiy govt and America.

A strong president makes his case personally to the American people so necessary reform saturates the mindset of the entire nation instead of being bottlenecked at the top by rhetoric and obstructionism. Hence why Bernie is turning heads. Instead of tempering expectations, he says to Americans, "heres what we want - how do we get it?" That message resonates much more effectively than Hillary and establishment republican x's vague promises of maintaining the status quo.

[boutons_deux]

A strong president makes his case personally to the American people so necessary reform saturates the mindset of the entire nation instead of being bottlenecked at the top by rhetoric and obstructionism. Hence why Bernie is turning heads. Instead of tempering expectations, he says to Americans, "heres what we want - how do we get it?" That message resonates much more effectively than Hillary and establishment republican x's vague promises of maintaining the status quo.

red states, slave states, the Congresscritters don't give a shit about Bernie, The American People, and what any Dem Pres says.

The fucking Repugs don't even give a shit about their own base supporting same-sex marriage, strict background gun checks, etc, etc.

None of you naive people understand that gerrymandering, voter suppression, suckering Christian Taliban with "social issues" has locked a load extremist Repugs into Congress beyond the reach The Great American People.

[Aztecfan03]

699417010027917314

[HI-FI]

699417010027917314
:lmao
this bitch is losing her mind.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton and the Dogs of War

Former Secretary of State Clinton grudgingly admits her Iraq War vote was a “mistake,” but it was not a one-off misjudgment. Clinton has consistently stood for a war-like U.S. foreign policy that ignores international law and relies on brinkmanship and military force

her record as Secretary of State was very different from that of her successor, John Kerry, who has overseen groundbreaking diplomatic breakthroughs with Iran, Cuba and, in a more limited context, even with Russia and Syria.

In fact, Clinton’s use of the term “diplomacy” in talking about her own record is idiosyncratic in that it refers almost entirely to assembling “coalitions” to support U.S. threats, wars and sanctions against other countries, rather than to peacefully resolving international disputes without the threat or use of force, as normally understood by the word “diplomacy” and as required by the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html).

There is another term for what Clinton means when she says “diplomacy,” and that is “brinksmanship,” which means threatening war to back up demands on other governments. In the real world, brinksmanship frequently leads to war when neither side will back down, at which point its only value or purpose is to provide a political narrative to justify aggression.

The two main “diplomatic” achievements Clinton gives herself credit for are:

assembling the coalition of NATO and the Arab monarchies that bombed Libya into endless, intractable chaos; and

imposing painful sanctions on the people of Iran over what U.S. intelligence agencies (http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/20071203_release.pdf)concluded by 2007 was a peaceful civilian nuclear program.


That Clinton can peddle such deceptive rhetoric to national prime-time television audiences and yet still be considered trustworthy on foreign policy by many Americans is a sad indictment of the U.S. corporate media’s coverage of foreign policy, including a willful failure to distinguish between diplomacy and brinksmanship.

But Michael Crowley (http://www.politico.com/staff/michael-crowley), now the senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico, formerly with Time (http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/)and the New Republic (https://newrepublic.com/article/64828/hillarys-war), has analyzed Clinton’s foreign policy record over the course of her career, and his research has shed light on her Iraq War vote, her personal influences and her underlying views of U.S. foreign policy, all of which deserve serious scrutiny from American voters.

The results of Crowley’s research reveal that Clinton believes firmly in the post-Cold War ambition to establish the U.S. threat or use of force as the ultimate arbiter of international affairs.

She does not believe that the U.S. should be constrained by the UN Charter or other rules of international law from threatening or attacking other countries when it can make persuasive political arguments for doing so.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/19/hillary-clinton-and-the-dogs-of-war/

iow, Hillary is fully establishment in supporting, promoting the USA's military/corporate planetary empire and garrisoning, and of course, the corporate welfare (without drug testing!) and $Ts in wealth redistribution of the MIC.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton, With Little Notice, Vows to Embrace an Extremist Agenda on Israel (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/hillary-clinton-with-little-notice-vows-to-embrace-an-extremist-agenda-on-israel/)

Former President Bill Clinton on Monday met in secret (no press allowed) with roughly 100 leaders of South Florida’s Jewish community, and, as the Times of Israel reports (http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-tells-florida-jews-hillary-will-prioritize-israel-ties/), “He vowed that, if elected, Hillary Clinton would make it one of her top priorities to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance.” He also “stressed the close bond that he and his wife have with the State of Israel.”

It may be tempting to dismiss this as standard, vapid Clintonian politicking: adeptly telling everyone what they want to hear and making them believe it. After all, is it even physically possible to “strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance” beyond what it already entails: billions of dollars in American taxpayer money transferred every year, sophisticated weapons fed to Israel as it bombs its defenseless neighbors, blindly loyal diplomatic support and protection for everything it does?

But Bill Clinton’s vow of even greater support for Israel is completely consistent with what Hillary Clinton herself has been telling American Jewish audiences for months. In November, she published an op-ed in The Forward (http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/) in which she vowed to strengthen relations not only with Israel, but also with its extremist prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I have stood with Israel my entire career,” she proclaimed. Indeed, “as secretary of state, [she] requested more assistance for Israel every year.” Moreover, she added, “I defended Israel from isolation and attacks at the United Nations and other international settings, including opposing the biased Goldstone report [which documented widespread Israeli war crimes in Gaza].”

Clinton media operatives such as Jonathan Alter (https://twitter.com/jonathanalter/status/698183549510402048) have tried to undermine the Sanders campaign by claiming that only Sanders, but not Clinton, has committed the sin of criticizing Obama: “Hillary stopped criticizing Obama in 2008, when [Obama] was nominee; Sanders stopped in 2015, so he could run as Dem.”

Aside from being creepy — it’s actually healthy to criticize a president and pathological to refuse to do so — this framework is also blatantly false. Clinton, in her book (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-hard-choices-hillary-clinton-opens-up-about-world-leaders-and-what-she-got-right/2014/06/09/b4ecc0d2-efeb-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html) and in interviews (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/world/middleeast/attacking-obama-policy-hillary-clinton-exposes-different-worldviews.html?_r=0), has often criticized Obama for being insufficiently hawkish (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/08/11/is-hillary-clinton-right-to-criticize-obama-on-iraq-syria-and-israel): making clear that she wanted to be more militaristic than the Democratic president who has literally bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries (https://theintercept.com/2015/08/06/obama-summarizes-record/) (thus far).

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/hillary-clinton-with-little-notice-vows-to-embrace-an-extremist-agenda-on-israel/

[velik_m]

I can't wait for boutons to do a 180 when Hillary wins the primaries.

[boutons_deux]

I can't wait for boutons to do a 180 when Hillary wins the primaries.

Don't wait! right now, GFY

[boutons_deux]

...

[boutons_deux]

Clinton’s Campaign Just Got Busted Impersonating Union Nurses in Nevada

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is attempting to trick Bernie Sanders supporters in Nevada into voting for Clinton by disguising themselves as nurses affiliated with the National Nurses United union (NNU), which has thrown its support behind Sanders.

NNU executive director RoseAnn DeMoro caught Clinton staffers red-handed changing from blue Hillary Clinton campaign shirts into red shirts of the same shade as the red shirts NNU members are wearing, in an apparent attempt to confuse voters:

The shirts Hillary’s campaign workers are wearing are nearly identical to the shirts NNU nurses wear on the campaign trail with Bernie:

The t-shirt dupe was reported just after precincts opened for today’s Nevada caucus, which may very well shape the entire trajectory of the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses. The stakes for Bernie Sanders couldn’t be higher, as a win in a state like Nevada, with prominent Latino/Hispanic representation, would prove his viability with voters of color.

http://usuncut.com/politics/clintons-campaign-just-got-busted-impersonating-union-nurses-in-nevada/

[boutons_deux]

Cornel West: ‘Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics’

Philosopher and Bernie Sanders surrogate Cornel West told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that Hillary Clinton was like the disgraced band Milli Vanilli because she only gave “lip service” to social justice policies.

“Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics,” West charged. “She lip-syncs, she gives lip service. But when it comes to policy, who supported the crime bill? Who supported, not just the deregulating of banks, but also pulled the rug from under welfare?”
West also pointed out that “corporate media” have not taken Sanders’ campaign seriously.

“We know Donald Trump is a Frankenstein of corporate media,” he explained. “They cover every Twitter [message], they cover every speech, every word. If Bernie had that kind of coverage, people would know who he is.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/cornel-west-sister-hillary-clinton-is-the-milli-vanilli-of-american-politics/

"Sister" ?? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Hillary is the foolish idealist: Clinton derides Sanders as naive, but has no plan for battling GOP obstruction

Throughout this Democratic primary season, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly cast herself (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/04/nh-democratic-town-hall-clinton-defends-progressive-credentials-11.cnn) as “a progressive who likes to get things done,” and her opponent, Bernie Sanders, as a foolish idealist whose ideas (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/21/clinton-steps-up-criticism-sanders/79127384/) “sound good on paper but will never make it in the real world.”

“I want you to understand, I will not promise you something I cannot deliver,” she told (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/269357-clinton-i-wont-make-promises-i-cant-keep) a South Carolina crowd last Friday. “I will not make promises I know I cannot keep.”

But, contrary to these assurances of realism and pragmatism, Clinton has actually set forth a bold, sweeping agenda to transform America.

Her campaign website (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/) pledges that

“Hillary will overturn Citizens United;

end secret, unaccountable money in politics;

end the era of mass incarceration;

enact comprehensive immigration reform;

make high-quality education available to every child;

raise the minimum wage; [and]

tackle dangerous risks in the big banks.”

Such intrepid ideas have little chance of passage in a United States Congress controlled by Republican lawmakers who are still trying (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/house-obamacare-repeal-planned-parenthood/) to repeal President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, in an election year with narrow chances for a Democratic re-takeover of the Senate (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/senate-2016-election-democrats-119778), and even less for the House (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/09/why-the-republicans-house-majority-is-safe-in-2016/).

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/21/hillary_is_the_foolish_idealist_clinton_derides_sa nders_as_naive_but_has_no_plan_for_battling_gop_ob struction/

Hillary's "promises she can keep" are bulshit. So calling Bernie's programs as undeliverable is Hillary bullshit.

Neither one can do an progressive stuff because the Repugs are non-compromising, strict obstructionists.

The risk with Hillary, as it was with Bill, is that she will sign really nasty Repug shit, where Bernie wouldn't.

[spurraider21]

Mothers of Trayvon, Garner, and Bland all supporting Hillary, officially

just needs michael brown's mama to finish the picture

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trayvon-garner-bland-mothers-hillary-clinton-171144425.html

[boutons_deux]

Mothers of Trayvon, Garner, and Bland all supporting Hillary, officially

just needs michael brown's mama to finish the picture

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trayvon-garner-bland-mothers-hillary-clinton-171144425.html

Hillary wouldn't do shit for black people, and she supported Bill in all the damage he did with welfare reform and financial reform. Of course, Bill's financial reforms led the the Banksters' Great Depression which hurt black people severely, as always.

[spurraider21]

Hillary wouldn't do shit for black people.
they disagree

[baseline bum]

they disagree

She gonna buy their gas and pay their mortgage

[spurraider21]

She gonna buy their gas and pay their mortgage
clinton phone

[boutons_deux]

Did Obama start the free phones program?

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/president-obama-phone-no.jpg (http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/president-obama-phone-no.jpg)


That looks like a big fat NO to us.

The cell phone distribution program did begin in 2008, the year Obama was elected president, but that is a coincidence. Let’s look more closely at the facts.

Notice that earlier we said Link-Up helps fund “installation.” What installation does a cell phone have? None. So why is installation part of Link-Up, which is under the Lifeline program umbrella? Because, the whole thing began back in 1996 when the Federal Communications Commission authorized the programs for landline phones. At that time it provided discounts on landline phones only, for obvious reasons.

To this day the government provides discounts on landline phones for financially disadvantaged people in the United States and U.S. territories. The Link-Up portion helps with the installation and the Lifeline Assistance part helps with the monthly bills, to the tune of roughly ten dollars a month.

So, the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton, and has continued under Presidents Bush and Obama.

Over that time, the usage of cell phones rose and the costs came down. Assuming one believes in the Lifeline program in the first place, and remembering that the FCC has mandated the program, it only makes sense to expand the phone assistance program to include cell phones. So, in 2008 the first application of this program for mobile phones began when a company called Tracfone started their Safelink Wireless service in Tennessee.

Aha, some say, that’s the same year Obama was elected! Well, that’s true. But the service in Tennessee was launched three months prior to Obama being elected. And that means the discussion and approval of the extension of the program occurred under President Bush’s watch.

The Bush Phone, anyone?

How did the Obama Phone rumors start?

Just how did this “Obama Phone” rumor get started anyway? Back around early 2009, emails began circulating that called the free cell phone program the Obama Phone. And you know what happens when emails start getting passed around — few people verify them, and just simply forward them to everyone in their contact list. And the people who forward them believe that Barack Obama has socialist tendencies, so there was a willing audience. Here is just one sample email:


FW: Obamaphone… no joke!!

I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and “Change we can believe in.”



Variations of these emails persist to this day. Like President Obama or not, they are simply false.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

:lol You rightwingnut assholes fall for the emails EVERY FUCKING TIME! :lol

Benghazi!

Emails!

Christmas card list!

Whitewater!

Benghazi!

Obama born in Kenya!

[spurraider21]

clinton phone


the whole thing began back in 1996 when the Federal Communications Commission authorized the programs for landline phones.

So, the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton

:lmao shitting on yourself


:lol You rightwingnut assholes fall for the emails EVERY FUCKING TIME! :lol

:lmao calling me rightwingnut when i have declared on this site that i'm supporting sanders in this election

[boutons_deux]

i'm supporting sanders in this election

who said I was talking to you?

[spurraider21]

who said I was talking to you?
i said clinton phone

you immediately replied with an article about obamaphone (which responds directly to my comment). in your post you said "you rightwingnuts"... so a post responding to my post said "you rightwingnuts."


so it is YOU who said you were talking to me

[boutons_deux]

who said I was talking to you, other than you? :lol

[spurraider21]

this magical thing called context

i'm sorry you embarrassed yourself though

[Th'Pusher]

this magical thing called context

i'm sorry you embarrassed yourself though

While we're discussing context, why don't you share why it is you're supporting Sanders.

[baseline bum]

:lmao calling me rightwingnut when i have declared on this site that i'm supporting sanders in this election

Boo calls me a wingnut repug too :lol

[DarrinS]

I like when she wears that banana pantsuit.

[spurraider21]

While we're discussing context, why don't you share why it is you're supporting Sanders.
He's the best candidate

[Th'Pusher]

He's the best candidate
Do you agree with the majority of his policy proposals?

[spurraider21]

Do you agree with the majority of his policy proposals?
no. but i agree with more of his than any other candidate. and i also know a lot of his policies i'm not a particular fan of have no chance of getting through congress. i have been on record saying the pool of candidates sucks. from the current pool, he'll have my vote

look, i know in your head you already had me pegged as some right wing - cop loving guy, but i'm not here just to confirm your suspicions

[mingus]

The funniest & saddest thing about Bernie Sanders not being able to gain any traction with blacks is because of the liberal narrative in the media that completely alienates white men, and especially old white men, from black people. When the majority of your media coverage of race relations consists of showing white guys poppin' & tazin' black folk, you ain't gonna get black people to vote for Jesus himself. Fools like Boutons are crying in beds they made for themselves.

[spurraider21]

The funniest & saddest thing about Bernie Sanders not being able to gain any traction with blacks is because of the liberal narrative in the media that completely alienates white men, and especially old white men, from black people. When the majority of your media coverage of race relations consists of showing white guys poppin' & tazin' black folk, you ain't gonna get black people to vote for Jesus himself. Fools like Boutons are crying in beds they made for themselves.
inb4 "you lie" and "GFY"

[Th'Pusher]

no. but i agree with more of his than any other candidate. and i also know a lot of his policies i'm not a particular fan of have no chance of getting through congress. i have been on record saying the pool of candidates sucks. from the current pool, he'll have my vote

look, i know in your head you already had me pegged as some right wing - cop loving guy, but i'm not here just to confirm your suspicions

I just find it amusing that you cite your support of Sanders to rebut the rightwing designation when, in reality, you don't support Sanders' policy proposals. It was a disingenuous response.

[spurraider21]

I just find it amusing that you cite your support of Sanders to rebut the rightwing designation when, in reality, you don't support Sanders' policy proposals. It was a disingenuous response.
if i was a rightwingnut i would support a rightwingnut candidate. and in this election, there is ample opportunity for that

occam's razor

[Th'Pusher]

if i was a rightwingnut i would support a rightwingnut candidate. and in this election, there is ample opportunity for that

occam's razor

But you don't support Sanders' policies. You said you supported Sanders to appear more liberal than you are.

It's not a big deal. You give disingenuous responses on an internet message board. It was just an observation.

[spurraider21]

But you don't support Sanders' policies. You said you supported Sanders to appear more liberal than you are.

It's not a big deal. You give disingenuous responses on an internet message board. It was just an observation.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251487

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251487
What am I supposed to imply from the information in that link?

[spurraider21]

What am I supposed to imply from the information in that link?
i have never hidden where i stand politically. claiming "you said you supported sanders to appear more liberal than you are" is just tinfoil hat talk. i'm quite open regarding where i stand. i said i support bernie because in this election, he has my support. i dont pretend to be right wing/left wing/etc. i do consider myself pretty down the middle, which makes it incredibly difficult for me to ever get behind one of the parties.

its still ridiculous to call somebody a rightwingnut if they have voiced their support for sanders, all things considered. but i know you've already got me pigeonholed as a conservative, so we aren't really getting anywhere here

[Th'Pusher]

i have never hidden where i stand politically. claiming "you said you supported sanders to appear more liberal than you are" is just tinfoil hat talk. i'm quite open regarding where i stand. i said i support bernie because in this election, he has my support. i dont pretend to be right wing/left wing/etc. i do consider myself pretty down the middle, which makes it incredibly difficult for me to ever get behind one of the parties.

its still ridiculous to call somebody a rightwingnut if they have voiced their support for sanders, all things considered. but i know you've already got me pigeonholed as a conservative, so we aren't really getting anywhere here

according to your survey it looks like you agree with Rubio's policy proposals. Why don't you support him?

[spurraider21]

according to your survey it looks like you agree with Rubio's policy proposals. Why don't you support him?

firstly, in that thread i also specifically said


yeah i think their algorithm seems to disproportionally favor rubio

secondly, i dont base my opinion/vote on an internet quiz. i just thought the quiz was interesting, and it gave a decent representation of where i stood (particularly on the second chart posted there)



feel free to continue your witch hunt though, its making you look stupid(er) :lol

:madrun we disagreed on a police case, he must be a neocon :madrun

[Th'Pusher]

firstly, in that thread i also specifically said



secondly, i dont base my opinion/vote on an internet quiz. i just thought the quiz was interesting, and it gave a decent representation of where i stood (particularly on the second chart posted there)



feel free to continue your witch hunt though, its making you look stupid(er) :lol

:madrun we disagreed on a police case, he must be a neocon :madrun

No witch hunt or hissy fit. Just found it funny you referenced your "support" for Bernie without mentioning the fact that you only support him because none of his proposals would get through congress. Again, it was just an observation. No need to be so defensive :lol

We all know which side you play for Mr Prosecutor.

[vy65]

I can't think of a better display of passive-aggressive pseudo psychoanalysis than what this thread devolved to

[Th'Pusher]

I can't think of a better display of passive-aggressive pseudo psychoanalysis than what this thread devolved to

Kardashian brothers :lol

[vy65]

^super edgy exhibit B.

Too afraid to call someone a conservative.

[Th'Pusher]

^super edgy exhibit B.

Too afraid to call someone a conservative.

That was a reference to the fact that you and your brother spurraider are Armenian "Lawyers", always eager to come to each other's defense.

[vy65]

That was a reference to the fact that you and your brother spurraider are Armenian "Lawyers", always eager to come to each other's defense.

Thanks for letting everyone on here know your feelings on that!

[vy65]

:lol still scarred to call him a conservative

[Th'Pusher]

:lol still scarred to call him a conservative

Conservative is a relative term. If he doesn't identify as a conservative, it means nothing to me.

You seem incapable of following the argument, but I took issue with the fact that he invoked his support for Sanders as a retort when in reality he doesn't support his policies.

Is that ok with you bub?

[vy65]

Conservative is a relative term. If he doesn't identify as a conservative, it means nothing to me.

You seem incapable of following the argument, but I took issue with the fact that he invoked his support for Sanders as a retort when in reality he doesn't support his policies.

Is that ok with you bub?

I followed quite well. You intimated that he was a conservative, but pussyfooted around it. That you signed off with a passive aggressive "we know which side your own" proves my point, bub.

[Th'Pusher]

I followed quite well. You intimated that he was a conservative, but pussyfooted around it. That you signed off with a passive aggressive "we know which side your own" proves my point, bub.

My reference to knowing where he stood while calling him "mr prosecutor" was an allusion to a previous encounter with spurraider where I took the position that he didn't have the fundamental tools to be an effective defense attorney due to his inherent bias toward the law. It had zero to do with his politics.

Why don't you stop analyzing shit you're not equipped to analyze? Baby bother Kardashian can stand on his own. Go whine about the Turks or something.

[spurraider21]

bias towards the law/law enforcement has zero to do with my politics?

:lol

[vy65]

His inherent bias toward the law . . . had zero to do with his politics.

Huh? How?

Why don't you try to explain yourself for once and not make stupid snarky jokes that aren't funny.

[InRareForm]

What would be someones outline major points on why hillary is a better choice over bernie?

[Th'Pusher]

bias towards the law/law enforcement has zero to do with my politics?

:lol

Could you not be very liberal while still strongly supporting law enforcement?

[Th'Pusher]

Huh? How?

Why don't you try to explain yourself for once and not make stupid snarky jokes that aren't funny.

Let brother Kardashian handle this. It really doesn't involve you tbh.

[clambake]

What would be someones outline major points on why hillary is a better choice over bernie?

bernie ideas are pipe dreams.
hillary can pretend to like some of those ideas.
makes her more electable.
she's lucky that he's the only dem left.

[vy65]

Let brother Kardashian handle this. It really doesn't involve you tbh.

I'm asking you, how is his bias towards LE irrelevant to his politics. That was your assertion.

[spurraider21]

Could you not be very liberal while still strongly supporting law enforcement?
zero to do with politics :lol

[Aztecfan03]

:lmao shitting on yourself



:lmao calling me rightwingnut when i have declared on this site that i'm supporting sanders in this election

most here would probably call me a rightwingnut, but i'd support sanders if its him vs Trump in the end.

[boutons_deux]

Here's an oldie from neocon/MIC-lover Hillary, supporter of genocidal Israel, grovellng to AIPAC

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

[boutons_deux]

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-09/gates-says-israel-gave-in-on-saudi-arms-after-f-35-pledge), reportedly complaining (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/10/in-gates-book-details-of-israel-s-hard-bargaining-over-saudi-arms.html) to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm) about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/179777.htm) that the deal had been (http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/149749.htm) “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide (http://m.state.gov/md125231.htm) to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html) $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales (http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/historical_facts_book_-_30_september_2013.pdf) to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.

These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House.

The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[FkLA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBb1gvehI

[CosmicCowboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBb1gvehI

:lmao

[Pelicans78]

Hillary is clearly lying right now about how Obamacare has reduced cost of health care for most Americans. For the majority of people who already had insurance, their premiums increased.

[rmt]

Hillary is clearly lying right now about how Obamacare has reduced cost of health care for most Americans. For the majority of people who already had insurance, their premiums increased.

Hillary's response to this woman (at her town hall) whose premiums nearly tripled is that she is gonna try to get more non-profit organizations to offer health insurance - that those should be cheaper. This woman is a sucker for believing Obama when he said you can keep your plan, you doctor and get $2500 lower premium and worse for believing Hillary that she's gonna try to lower costs. Those premiums are only going to get higher. This is the last year the insurance companies are subsidized (risk corridors, etc.) - the true cost of this abomination is gonna be revealed just in time for the election (although I'm sure Obama will delay until after Nov. 8).

[DMX7]

Who really doesn't think she's going to take us into another war?

No democratic candidate has made me this nervous in my lifetime. The steaks are simply too high to vote for her.

[ChumpDumper]

Who really doesn't think she's going to take us into another war?

No democratic candidate has made me this nervous in my lifetime. The steaks are simply too high to vote for her.http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/56e16fce52bcd063018b55ca-480/donald-trump-anderson-cooper-steak-questions.png

[hater]

Who really doesn't think she's going to take us into another war?

No democratic candidate has made me this nervous in my lifetime. The steaks are simply too high to vote for her.

Technically she's not a democratic candidate. A neocon wearing blue would be more accurate.

[DMX7]

Technically she's not a democratic candidate. A neocon wearing blue would be more accurate.

Well... technically she is a democratic candidate but in reality she has many neoconservative positions especially when it comes to foreign policy.

[boutons_deux]

The Clintons' $93 Million Romance With Wall Street

Take a look at how much dough they've raked in — tough to believe they're going to hold the banks accountable.


http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_29804500.jpg


For 24 years Bill and Hillary Clinton have courted Wall Street money with notable success. During that time the New York banks contributed:



$11.17 million to Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992.
$28.37 million for his re-election in 1996.
$2.13 million to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign in 2002.
$6.02 million for her re-election in 2006.
$14.61 million to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008.
$21.42 million to her 2016 campaign.


The total here is $83.72 million for the six campaigns,i (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote1sym) ii (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote2sym) disbursed from 11 banks:

Goldman Sachs,
Citigroup,
UBS,
Bank of America/Merrill Lynch,
Wells Fargo,
Barclay's,
JP Morgan Chase,
CIBC,
Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank, and
Morgan Stanley.

Then there were the speeches. Sixteen days after leaving the White House in 2001, Mr. Clinton delivered a speech to Morgan Stanley, for which he was paid $125,000. That was the first of many speeches to the New York banks. Over the next 14 years, Mr. Clinton's Wall Street speaking engagements earned him a total of $5,910,000:v (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote5sym)



$1,550,000 from Goldman Sachs.
$1,690,000 from UBS.
$1,075,000 from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch.
$770,000 from Deutsche Bank.
$700,000 from Citigroup


After she resigned as Secretary of State in 2012, Hillary Clinton took to the lecture circuit as well. Some of her income has come to light during the current presidential campaign, like the $675,000 she was paid for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. That disclosure, however, belittles her financial achievement and the scope of her audiences. She also addressed the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Ameriprise, Apollo Management Holdings, CIBC, Fidelity Investments, and Golden Tree Asset Management, earning another $2,265,000.vi (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote6sym)No other political couple in modern history has enjoyed so much money flowing to them from Wall Street for such a long time—$92.57 million over a quarter century.

During a CNN forum on February 3, Anderson Cooper wondered if Goldman Sachs' $675,000 might impact her prospective presidential decisions. Defending her integrity with undisguised indignation, she described her independence from the banks:

Anybody who knows me, who thinks that they can influence me, name anything they've influenced me on. Just name one thing. I'm out here every day saying I'm going to shut them down, I'm going after them. I'm going to jail them if they should be jailed. I'm going to break them up.


http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-93-million-romance-wall-street

The banks and the Clintons knows why the banks give them money.

[rmt]

The Clintons' $93 Million Romance With Wall Street

Take a look at how much dough they've raked in — tough to believe they're going to hold the banks accountable.


http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_29804500.jpg


For 24 years Bill and Hillary Clinton have courted Wall Street money with notable success. During that time the New York banks contributed:



$11.17 million to Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992.
$28.37 million for his re-election in 1996.
$2.13 million to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign in 2002.
$6.02 million for her re-election in 2006.
$14.61 million to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008.
$21.42 million to her 2016 campaign.


The total here is $83.72 million for the six campaigns,i (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote1sym) ii (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote2sym) disbursed from 11 banks:

Goldman Sachs,
Citigroup,
UBS,
Bank of America/Merrill Lynch,
Wells Fargo,
Barclay's,
JP Morgan Chase,
CIBC,
Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank, and
Morgan Stanley.

Then there were the speeches. Sixteen days after leaving the White House in 2001, Mr. Clinton delivered a speech to Morgan Stanley, for which he was paid $125,000. That was the first of many speeches to the New York banks. Over the next 14 years, Mr. Clinton's Wall Street speaking engagements earned him a total of $5,910,000:v (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote5sym)



$1,550,000 from Goldman Sachs.
$1,690,000 from UBS.
$1,075,000 from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch.
$770,000 from Deutsche Bank.
$700,000 from Citigroup


After she resigned as Secretary of State in 2012, Hillary Clinton took to the lecture circuit as well. Some of her income has come to light during the current presidential campaign, like the $675,000 she was paid for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. That disclosure, however, belittles her financial achievement and the scope of her audiences. She also addressed the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Ameriprise, Apollo Management Holdings, CIBC, Fidelity Investments, and Golden Tree Asset Management, earning another $2,265,000.vi (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/#-2077643131_1335065318_sdendnote6sym)No other political couple in modern history has enjoyed so much money flowing to them from Wall Street for such a long time—$92.57 million over a quarter century.

During a CNN forum on February 3, Anderson Cooper wondered if Goldman Sachs' $675,000 might impact her prospective presidential decisions. Defending her integrity with undisguised indignation, she described her independence from the banks:

Anybody who knows me, who thinks that they can influence me, name anything they've influenced me on. Just name one thing. I'm out here every day saying I'm going to shut them down, I'm going after them. I'm going to jail them if they should be jailed. I'm going to break them up.


http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-93-million-romance-wall-street

The banks and the Clintons knows why the banks give them money.

And yet, you're gonna vote for her (in the general)?

[FkLA]

Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with (http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/)


“Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F— off,” she replied.

That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of “First Family Detail,” (http://www.amazon.com/First-Family-Detail-Service-Presidents/dp/080413961X/ref=sr_1_1?tag=nypost-20) a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America’s presidents and their families — and those whom they guard.

Kessler writes flatteringly and critically about people in both parties. Regarding the Clintons, Kessler presents Chelsea as a model protectee who respected and appreciated her agents. He describes Bill as a difficult chief executive but an easygoing ex-president. And Kessler exposes Hillary as an epically abusive Arctic monster.

“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler explains. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.”

He adds: “Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi.”

Kessler was an investigative reporter with the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post and has penned 19 other books. Among much more in “First Family Detail,” he reports:



 “Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military,” former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman recalls. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.”


“Hillary didn’t like the military aides wearing their uniforms around the White House,” one former agent remembers. “She asked if they would wear business suits instead. The uniform’s a sign of pride, and they’re proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was actually really offended by it.”



Former agent Jeff Crane says, “Hillary would cuss at Secret Service drivers for going over bumps.” Another former member of her detail recollects,

“Hillary never talked to us . . . Most all members of first families would talk to us and smile. She never did that.”
“We spent years with her,” yet another Secret Service agent notes. “She never said thank you.”

Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another,” says former FBI agent Coy Copeland. “In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”
One former Secret Service agent states, “If Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions.”



Hillary one day ran into a White House electrician who was changing a light bulb in the upstairs family quarters. She screamed at him, because she had demanded that all repairs be performed while the Clintons were outside the Executive Mansion.


“She caught the guy on a ladder doing the light bulb,” says Franette McCulloch, who served at that time as assistant White House pastry chef. “He was a basket case.”



White House usher Christopher B. Emery unwisely called back Barbara Bush after she phoned him for computer troubleshooting. Emery helped the former first lady twice. Consequently, Kessler reports, Hillary sacked him. The father of four stayed jobless for a year.




While running for US Senate, Hillary stopped at an upstate New York 4-H Club. As one Secret Service agent says, Hillary saw farmers and cows and then erupted. “She turned to a staffer and said, ‘What the f - - - did we come here for? There’s no money here.’ ”


Secret Service “agents consider being assigned to her detail a form of punishment,” Kessler concludes. “In fact, agents say being on Hillary Clinton’s detail is the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service.”

After studying the Secret Service and its relationships with dozens of presidents, vice presidents and their families, Ronald Kessler’s astonishment at Hillary Clinton’s inhumanity should reverberate in every American’s head.

As he told me: “No one would hire such a person to work at a McDonald’s, and yet she is being considered for president of the United States.”


http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

not surprised since you can see right through her fakeness, but still what a bitch :lol

[baseline bum]

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

not surprised since you can see right through her fakeness, but still what a bitch :lol

Written by some guy from Newsmax? Couldn't post something from Drudge?

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are Winning Votes, but Not Hearts

The victories were lopsided. The celebrations were effusive. The delegates were piling up by the hundreds.
But Donald J. Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/donald-trump-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) and Hillary Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/hillary-clinton-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per)’s resounding triumphs on Tuesday masked a profound, historic and unusual reality: Most Americans still don’t like him. Or her.

Both major parties must now confront the depth of skepticism, resistance and distaste for their front-runners, a sentiment that would profoundly shape a potential general election showdown between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.

Even as they watched the two candidates amass large margins on Tuesday, historians and strategists struggled to recall a time when more than half the country has held such stubbornly low opinions of the leading figures in the Democratic and Republican Parties.

“There is no analogous election in the modern era where the two top candidates for the nomination are as divisive and weak,” said Steve Schmidt, a top campaign adviser to George W. Bush in 2004 and John McCain in 2008. “There is no precedent for it.”

But Mr. Trump has unnerved many Americans with his inflammatory oratory and radical-sounding proposals. And Mrs. Clinton, while viewed as a more seasoned and serious political figure, has struggled in her campaign to win the trust of the American electorate. And it is all but impossible for the country to take a fresh look at them.

According to Gallup, 53 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton and 63 percent have such a view of Mr. Trump.

“You are talking about two universally known figures here,” said David Axelrod, the Democratic strategist and former adviser in the Obama White House. “The strong feeling that each generates is unusual.”

The negative perceptions will be difficult to overcome.

Fewer than half of Republican voters across five states on Tuesday said Mr. Trump was honest and trustworthy. Even in the states where he won, a majority of voters do not view him as truthful.

And while majorities of Democratic voters viewed Mrs. Clinton as honest and trustworthy, she finished second to Mr. Sanders among those who said honesty mattered most in their decision.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=1

[boutons_deux]

Fact checkers confirm Hillary Clinton is more honest than any of her 2016 opponents

The factual bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is the most honest candidate in the 2016 election.

Bernie Sanders is a close second, making them the two most comparatively “honest” politicians in the race.

In contrast, Donald Trump rates out as nearly a pathological liar, and

Cruz doesn’t do much better.

So much for the notion that Clinton is the one who can’t be trusted.

This false perception is largely a function of her longtime status as the clear frontrunner and expected winner, causing the other candidates to take the most shots at her honesty out of desperation.

But as the above numbers irrefutably spell out, when the others accuse Hillary of lying, it most often turns out they’re the ones who are lying.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

[Reck]

Fact checkers confirm Hillary Clinton is more honest than any of her 2016 opponents

The factual bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is the most honest candidate in the 2016 election.

Bernie Sanders is a close second, making them the two most comparatively “honest” politicians in the race.

In contrast, Donald Trump rates out as nearly a pathological liar, and

Cruz doesn’t do much better.

So much for the notion that Clinton is the one who can’t be trusted.

This false perception is largely a function of her longtime status as the clear frontrunner and expected winner, causing the other candidates to take the most shots at her honesty out of desperation.

But as the above numbers irrefutably spell out, when the others accuse Hillary of lying, it most often turns out they’re the ones who are lying.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/




I saw this a few days ago and I was surprise. Didn't post because most of you hate her so what the hell. LOL

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uTuQS7EEh8A/VvAb3eoJMvI/AAAAAAAAf3Y/fNNlVcgJTtsUXV9ieX7JMHD3Rrrhn6RpQ/s640/Screenshot%2B2016-03-21%2Bat%2B9.02.34%2BAM.png

What do you think about that FkLA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17213) and TheSanityAnnex (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=4389) :lol

hater (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7609), your idol is a pathological liar. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

I saw this a few days ago and I was surprise. Didn't post because most of you hate her so what the hell. LOL

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uTuQS7EEh8A/VvAb3eoJMvI/AAAAAAAAf3Y/fNNlVcgJTtsUXV9ieX7JMHD3Rrrhn6RpQ/s640/Screenshot%2B2016-03-21%2Bat%2B9.02.34%2BAM.png

What do you think about that FkLA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17213) and TheSanityAnnex (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=4389) :lol

hater (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7609), your idol is a pathological liar. :lol

My guy Kasich looks to grade out the same as Hillary. And the reason Hillary grades so high is because no one really grills her on the home server/deleted emails/classified emails and if they do ask her she just avoids the question and doesn't answer so they can't count that as a lie. She also has never been questioned about why her foundation is under federal investigation as well. Basically she only grades out honestly because no one has the balls to put the screws to her.

[spurraider21]

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are Winning Votes, but Not Hearts
votes win elections

[FkLA]

My guy Kasich looks to grade out the same as Hillary. And the reason Hillary grades so high is because no one really grills her on the home server/deleted emails/classified emails and if they do ask her she just avoids the question and doesn't answer so they can't count that as a lie. She also has never been questioned about why her foundation is under federal investigation as well. Basically she only grades out honestly because no one has the balls to put the screws to her.

Basically. Just a professional snake that knows how to slither her way around tough questions.

Reporter: 'Did you wipe the server?'
Shillary: 'Like with a cloth?' *fake Shillary laugh*

[Reck]

My guy Kasich looks to grade out the same as Hillary. And the reason Hillary grades so high is because no one really grills her on the home server/deleted emails/classified emails and if they do ask her she just avoids the question and doesn't answer so they can't count that as a lie. She also has never been questioned about why her foundation is under federal investigation as well. Basically she only grades out honestly because no one has the balls to put the screws to her.

?

But this is not about anyone's personal life, is it?

This is about political issues and what's being asked/talked about with each candidate at any given debate.

Now do you want to add some irrelevant questions about her 2012 stuff? Go right ahead but this is not about her personal shortcomings.

LOL, I'm always put in an awkward position of having to defend this woman when I'm not even a fan of hers. But you have to be objective and see it how it is.

[ChumpDumper]

My guy Kasich looks to grade out the same as Hillary. And the reason Hillary grades so high is because no one really grills her on the home server/deleted emails/classified emails and if they do ask her she just avoids the question and doesn't answer so they can't count that as a lie. She also has never been questioned about why her foundation is under federal investigation as well. Basically she only grades out honestly because no one has the balls to put the screws to her.What hasn't been asked of her about the servers that she hasn't answered? In the 11 hours of testimony alone, what was left out in your opinion?

[TheSanityAnnex]

?

But this is not about anyone's personal life, is it?

This is about political issues and what's being asked/talked about with each candidate at any given debate.

Now do you want to add some irrelevant questions about her 2012 stuff? Go right ahead but this is not about her personal shortcomings.

LOL, I'm always put in an awkward position of having to defend this woman when I'm not even a fan of hers. But you have to be objective and see it how it is.

While Secretary of State the setting up of an unsecured personal server, sending classified emails over it, and having aides remove classified markings is not a political issue? While Secretary of State and doing favors for large donations to her husband's foundation is not a political issue?

There is a reason Hillary is tied to four separate government investigations.

[TheSanityAnnex]

What hasn't been asked of her about the servers that she hasn't answered? In the 11 hours of testimony alone, what was left out in your opinion? These questions were not covered in the article Reck posted.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Basically. Just a professional snake that knows how to slither her way around tough questions.

Reporter: 'Did you wipe the server?'
Shillary: 'Like with a cloth?' *fake Shillary laugh*
Yup. She also just flat refuses to answer questions.

[rmt]

Does she normally speak in that sing songy cadence every time she has a rally? Really annoying especially in combination with her voice.

[ChumpDumper]

These questions were not covered in the article Reck posted.Why didn't they ask her? They had 11 hours.

[boutons_deux]

Why should she provide answers?

The witch hunters ask the questions, it's on the witch hunters to get the answers.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why didn't they ask her? They had 11 hours.
You are having trouble following, I'm referencing politic acts questions/chart. Go to politifact and click on Hilary's section. You can look at every question they rated true/false. Her questions from 11 hours of testimony are not on there.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why should she provide answers?

The witch hunters ask the questions, it on the witch hunters to get the answers.
Obama's DOJ and FBI are now witch hunters? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

You are having trouble following, I'm referencing politic acts questions/chart. Go to politifact and click on Hilary's section. You can look at every question they rated true/false. Her questions from 11 hours of testimony are not on there.You are having trouble following your own claim.

Your claim is no one asked her any tough questions about her emails. She was asked questions by Congress for 11 hours. Are you saying no tough questions about her emails were asked in that 11 hours?

Yes or no.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You are having trouble following your own claim.

Your claim is no one asked her any tough questions about her emails. She was asked questions by Congress for 11 hours. Are you saying no tough questions about her emails were asked in that 11 hours?

Yes or no.
Still not following and now creating claims out of thin air. I'll quote the article/chart I'm talking about. You are the only one talking about 11 hours.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I saw this a few days ago and I was surprise. Didn't post because most of you hate her so what the hell. LOL

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uTuQS7EEh8A/VvAb3eoJMvI/AAAAAAAAf3Y/fNNlVcgJTtsUXV9ieX7JMHD3Rrrhn6RpQ/s640/Screenshot%2B2016-03-21%2Bat%2B9.02.34%2BAM.png

What do you think about that FkLA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17213) and TheSanityAnnex (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=4389) :lol

hater (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7609), your idol is a pathological liar. :lol
4 Chump

with love,

TSA

[TheSanityAnnex]

There is a breakdown of all her graded questions. Tell me how many are from her 11 hours of testimony.

[ChumpDumper]

Yup. She also just flat refuses to answer questions.Which questions did she refuse to answer?

And yes, I am including the 11 hours of Congress questioning her.

If she lied or refused to answer something in that time, you are free to cite those as examples that are not included in the article you are oddly trying to limit yourself to.

[ChumpDumper]

There is a breakdown of all her graded questions. Tell me how many are from her 11 hours of testimony.I am asking you, TSA, what questions she refused to answer or lied in the course of answering during that questioning.

Just say if you can't do it.

I don't expect anything but impotent snark from you at this point.

[boutons_deux]

Obama's DOJ and FBI are now witch hunters? :lol

No, the Repugs are obviously putting enormous pressure, as dickhead did on the CIA/NSA to support his invasion of Iraq for oil.

Benghazi!

she murdered Vince Foster!

Whitewater!

emails!

Benghazi!

Christmas card lists!

Benghazi!

[TheSanityAnnex]

I am asking you, TSA, what questions she refused to answer or lied in the course of answering during that questioning.

Just say if you can't do it.

I don't expect anything but impotent snark from you at this point.
Her 11 hours of testimony was never being discussed. I haven't listened to 11 hours of her testimony, have you ?

Your question to the current discussion is irrelevant, but go ahead and ask it five more times.

[ChumpDumper]

Her 11 hours of testimony was never being discussed. I haven't listened to 11 hours of her testimony, have you ?

Your question to the current discussion is irrelevant, but go ahead and ask it five more times.I won't; we'll just agree your claim that she never answers any tough questions is more of your made up bullshit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, the Repugs are obviously putting enormous pressure, as dickhead did on the CIA/NSA to support his invasion of Iraq for oil.

Benghazi!

she murdered Vince Foster!

Whitewater!

emails!

Benghazi!

Christmas card lists!

Benghazi!
Yes yes...the republicans put sooooooo much pressure on Obama's DOJ and FBI that they caved and investigated. Lol you stupid fuck.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I won't; we'll just agree your claim that she never answers any tough questions is more of your made up bullshit.

In the context of the discussion never claimed that. Keep flailing.

[ChumpDumper]

In the context of the discussion never claimed that. Keep flailing.It's OK, man. You've made up shit before and got called on it. Keep flailing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

oops

“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 – because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”



(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained State Department documents (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-hillary-email-pre-march-18-00646/) from February 2009 containing emails that appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com email system until March 2009. The emails also contain more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure Blackberrys.

The documents were obtained in response to a court order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-judge-orders-state-department-to-release-documents-regarding-hillary-clintons-iphone-and-ipad-use/) in an April 28, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-department-00646/) (No. 1:15-cv-00646), filed after the Department of State failed to comply with a March 10, 2015, FOIA request seeking:

Any and all records of requests by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her staff to the State Department Office Security Technology seeking approval for the use of an iPad or iPhone for official government business; and
Any and all communications within or between the Office of the Secretary of State, the Executive Secretariat, and the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Security Technology concerning, regarding, or related to the use of unauthorized electronic devices for official government business.
On February 13, 2009 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hillary-email-pre-march-18-00646-pg-3/), Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s then-chief of staff) sent Clinton an email describing efforts by the National Security Agency to address demands for a secure Blackberry:

In meeting with the NSA person today ([Redacted] NSA’s rep to DOS) – she indicated they could address our BB so that BB could work in the sciff [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] and be secure based upon some modifications that could be done to each BB (more below).
Mills attaches an email from an unnamed NSA official that reports:

Debbie Plunkett, D/Chief of our Information Assurance Directorate, is personally assembling a knowledgeable team to work with you and other members of your staff to move forward on your Blackberry requirement. She will engage State’s CIO and DS/comms security folks to ensure everyone is aware of the art of the possible … I am confident we can get to YES on this! [Emphasis in original]
That same day, on February 13 at 12:33 pm Hillary Clinton, using her unsecured [email protected] account responds, “That’s good news.”
As Judicial Watch reported last week (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/), the National Security Agency personnel had denied Clinton’s requests, telling Clinton staff to “shut up and color.”
The new documents include another February 13, 2009 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hillary-email-pre-march-18-00646-pg-9-10/), email, written after the Mills-Clinton exchange, that shows that State and NSA security officials were shocked and surprised by Clinton’s Blackberry demands.
For instance, responding to details of the Clinton Blackberry requirements, an unnamed NSA employee simply writes “Amazing…” in a February, 13, 2009, email to Patrick Donovan, then-Director, Diplomatic Security Service and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and Greg Starr, then-Director of the Diplomatic Security Service. (The documents have many redactions under Exemption 7(c), which is for “information compiled for law enforcement purposes that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”)
The new emails show that despite prior concerns (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/) about security and cost, the NSA and State Department officials came up with a plan to modify six Blackberry devices for Clinton and her staff. A February 20, 2009 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hillary-email-pre-march-18-00646-pg-7/) State Department email states:

Pat Donovan [head of Bureau of Diplomatic Security] tasked us with a memo that he wanted by today and that we finished last night and that it outlines the vulnerabilities and risks of BB use inside and outside a SCIF (because they’re essentially the same) and concludes with our collaboration with NSA to seek an acceptable solution for their desired BB use.
Despite this warning about using Blackberry “outside a SCIF,” Mrs. Clinton and her staff continued to use unsecured Blackberrys. The documents suggest a continued push for secure Blackberrys in late March 2009 but the documents are heavily redacted.
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton-submits-email-information-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/) that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/):

On December 5, 2014 (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/03/HRC-staff-QA-pdf.pdf), 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department’s record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by “state.gov” accounts.
Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department’s record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.
The Associated Press previously reported (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f80adbe482e14366ad1cec38f597db86/officials-more-work-emails-clintons-private-account) that the State Department was provided by the Department of Defense with emails between Clinton and General David Petraeus that also predate March 2009. Those emails have not been released to the public.

“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 – because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-new-hillary-clinton-email-withheld-from-state-department/

[Mitch]

Hard to really talk with a Hillary person, tbh. They're bias to such an extent that they see all the other candidates as satan and will twist any piece of information to a hit piece on other candidates :lol

Tough choice between a Cruz cultist and a Hillary lapdog.

[Th'Pusher]

Hard to really talk with a Hillary person, tbh. They're bias to such an extent that they see all the other candidates as satan and will twist any piece of information to a hit piece on other candidates :lol

Tough choice between a Cruz cultist and a Hillary lapdog.

I've never mat a "Hillary person". They're less frequent than people who admit they support trump.

[Mitch]

I've never mat a "Hillary person". They're less frequent than people who admit they support trump.

They're a silent group of voters, tbh. They won't openly support their candidates unlike Bernie people, but they do vote and vote in droves. You can spot them easily, though - just look for a "progressive" voter who loves twisting facts.

[boutons_deux]

The Goal of the Neo-Liberal Consensus Is to Manage the Decline (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/gaius-publius-the-goal-of-the-neo-liberal-consensus-is-to-manage-the-decline.html)

If you think of the country as in decline, as most people do, and you think the cause is the predatory behavior of the big-money elites, as most people do, then you must know you have only two choices — acceptance and resistance.

Why do neo-liberal Democrats, like the Clinton campaign, not want you to have big ideas, like single-payer health care? Because having big ideas is resistance to the bipartisan consensus that runs the country, and they want to stave off that resistance.

But that’s a negative goal, and there’s more. They not only have to stave off your resistance. They have to manage your acceptance of their managed decline in the nation’s wealth and good fortune.

Again: The goal of the neo-liberal consensus is to manage the decline, and manage your acceptance of it.

I want to turn the keyboard over to one of my favorite left commenters, Avedon Carol, proprietor of Avedon’s Sideshow (http://avedoncarol.blogspot.com/), to explain. Her kickoff point is the identity-fight on the left, or as she calls it, an attempt to “actively divide us by making personal and tribal differences into the main show of the public political arena.” She offered her thoughts via email (emphasis hers):

Bernie Sanders wants to do these two important things:



Create enough abundance for everyone so that there is far less resentment and bitterness to divide us.
Empower us to be better able to fight for ourselves.


Clinton’s program for dealing with sexism and racism is … what?

As far as I can see, she’s offering, at best, a kind of paternalistic sympathy that does little to ameliorate the actual problems we face.

And yet, the Clinton campaign is attacking Sanders for some sort of weird and undefined insensitivity to issues of racism and sexism that is “proven” by an inadequacy of photo-ops and the fact that some of his supporters, just like some of her own supporters, say things that are sexist and insensitive.

And she is still talking like the DLC.

Corey Robin (http://coreyrobin.com/2016/03/01/notes-on-a-dismal-and-delightful-campaign/) says when Clinton tells the truth, believe her:

“Amid all the accusations that Hillary Clinton is not an honest or authentic politician, that she’s an endless shape-shifter who says whatever works to get her to the next primary, it’s important not to lose sight of the one truth she’s been telling, and will continue to tell, the voters: things will not get better.

Ever. At first, I thought this was just an electoral ploy against Sanders: don’t listen to the guy promising the moon. No such thing as a free lunch and all that. But it goes deeper.

The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now, how to accept (as Alex Gourevitch (https://www.facebook.com/alexgourevitch) reminded me tonight) low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal.

Clinton’s campaign message isn’t just for Bernie voters; it’s for everyone. Expect little, deserve less, ask for nothing.

When the leading candidate of the more left of the two parties is saying that – and getting the majority of its voters to embrace that message – the work of the American ruling class is done.”

In Germany after WWI, austerity imposed by outsiders created the conditions for fascism to grow. We knew this. We were even taught this in school. And we certainly know just how good that is for women and minorities.

But in America (and Britain), that austerity is being imposed by our own leaders, and most effectively by leaders of the Democratic Party (and Labour Party) — the supposed “left” party, the party that was understood to support working people.

Clinton, like all of the DLC, talks like this “new economy” of decline is something that just happened, like it’s a natural force.

They do not admit that it was a political decision to break the power of ordinary working people and put it back into the hands of the aristocracy. They pat us on the head and tell us they will try not to make it as bad as the Republicans will, but it will happen and there is nothing to be done about it.

And they actively divide us by making personal and tribal differences into the main show of the public political arena (only 7% of Americans claim never to have used birth control, so how is it a “Democrat” thing?) while behaving like the really big decisions that are wrecking our lives are none of our business.

(Bank bailouts that were opposed 200-1 in calls to the White House from the public! Stopping the prosecutions of fraudulent banksters! HAMP instead of real home-owner relief! Secret TPP talks, for godssakes!)

As a woman and person of funny-color, I know who is being callous and insensitive toward me, and it isn’t Bernie Sanders.


To emphasize one of Avedon’s last points — bank bailouts — Clinton accused Sanders of being against the auto bailout by voting against a bank bailout bill (http://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-who-voted-against-tarp-funds-say-it-wasnt-about-the-auto-bailouts/), which she supported. An excellent piece of misdirection — she puts him on defense, when she should be on defense herself. Deeply dishonest, of course, but well-manipulated. (Seems to have cost her though, in Michigan, whose voters weren’t buying it (https://twitter.com/noamscheiber/status/707409792957030401).)

Again, the main point is this one from Corey Robin (emphasis mine):

The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if
not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to
diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the
next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now,
how to accept (as Alex Gourevitch (https://www.facebook.com/alexgourevitch) reminded me tonight) low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal.


All you need to know. Both parties are giving away the store, cleaning out the cash register. Your lives will be very much worse unless you stop them. Yet both parties want you to get used to it, get used to being made poor. The Democrats want to soften the blow more than the Republicans — a kinder, gentler devastation if you will. A softer crash landing.

But either way, the goal of the neo-liberal consensus is to manage the decline, and manage your acceptance of it.

And that’s what this election is about — on both sides. Acceptance or resistance.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/gaius-publius-the-goal-of-the-neo-liberal-consensus-is-to-manage-the-decline.html

[boutons_deux]

Clinton Campaign: No More Debates Until Sanders Starts Being Nicer

"If he does that, then we'll talk about debates."


Joel Benenson, the campaign's chief strategist, said on CNN Monday morning that Sanders needs to watch his tone, or else the Clinton campaign will pack up its ball and head home. "The real question is, what kind of campaign is Sen. Sanders going to run going forward?," Benenson said when asked about Sanders' request for a New York debate.

"Let's see the tone," Benenson continued when pressed about why Clinton was reluctant to debate. "This is a man who said he'd never run a negative ad, he's now running them, they're planning to run more, let's see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions."

Benenson added, "Let's see if he goes back to the kind of tone he said he was going to set early on. If he does that, then we'll talk about debates."

The problem with Benenson's argument is that the 2016 Democratic primary has been one of the most remarkably friendly contests in recent memory.

While Republican Party leaders mount a #NeverTrump campaign as the front-runner mocks the appearance of his opponent's spouse,

the Democratic candidates have largely focused on minor policy differences, with Sanders waving away efforts to get him to attack Clinton for using a private email server.

Sanders regularly says he'll back Clinton if she's the nominee and encourages his supporters to do the same.

And Sanders has yet to call

Clinton's success "the biggest fairy tale (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/bill-clintons-8-digs-at-obama-080728)" or circulate (http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667) old photos of Clinton to question her religious beliefs—actions the Clinton camp took during the far nastier 2008 Democratic race.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-campaign-says-no-more-debates-until-bernie-starts-be-nicer

Really? The Clinton machine of nasty has hurt feelings? :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Second federal judge grants legal discovery into Clinton use of private email server

A second federal judge in Washington ruled Tuesday that a conservative legal watchdog group may question the State Department and potentially several top aides to Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton about her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
In a three-page order, U.S. District Senior Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted a request from Judicial Watch, which has sought public records of talking points used by Susan E. Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in television appearances after the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Appearing five days later on Sunday-morning talk shows, Rice, now President Obama’s national security adviser, said the assaults appeared to have stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video. U.S. investigators later concluded that the attacks were carried out by terrorist groups.
“Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] cases,” Lamberth wrote.
His decision came about five weeks after another federal judge in Washington, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, ruled that current and former top State Department and Clinton aides could be questioned under oath about her email arrangement in a separate Judicial Watch FOIA case. The group has questioned whether officials intentionally thwarted federal open-records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server during Clinton’s tenure at State from 2009 to 2013.


In both cases, the judges said sufficient doubt had been raised about whether department searches of public records were adequate.
The department faced dozens of FOIA lawsuits after disclosures that Clinton exclusively used a personal server for government business while at State and that several aides also used the server or personal email addresses. Clinton and others have since returned tens of thousands of pages that they or their attorneys have designated as work-related for government FOIA review and potential release.
However, Sullivan and Lamberth criticized what Lamberth called the “constantly shifting admissions by the government and former government officials” about the arrangement. Sullivan said the server arrangement allowed former federal employees to decide what government records to disclose, apparently without ensuring that State records were secured within the department’s own systems.


Calling Clinton’s personal server use “extraordinary,” Lamberth wrote, “An understanding of the facts and circumstances . . . is required before the Court can determine whether the search conducted here reasonably produced all responsive documents.”
Sullivan, in the earlier case, set an April 12 deadline for Judicial Watch and the government’s lawyers to lay out a plan for how they want to proceed, subject to court approval.
Lamberth said in his order that after Sullivan decides how to proceed in that case, Judicial Watch should submit a proposed discovery plan within 10 days to him in the Rice matter, and the government can respond in another 10 days.

The case before Sullivan concerns public records sought by Judicial Watch about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime confidante who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.
Judicial Watch has proposed questioning seven current and former officials, including Cheryl D. Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at State; Abedin, who now is vice chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.
Others designated for deposition are Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy; Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary at State from June 2009 to October 2012; Lewis A. Lukens, executive director of the executive secretariat from 2008 to 2011; and Donald R. Reid, senior coordinator for security infrastructure in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.


Judicial Watch said it intends to seek answers about department officials’ creation, maintenance, support or awareness of Clinton’s email system; any instructions given to department workers about communicating by email with Clinton and Abedin; and any inquiries into or discussions about disclosing Clinton’s use of the system.
Sullivan noted in his ruling that senior department officials appeared to know about Clinton’s set-up from her swearing-in at State in January 2009, citing an email chain among Kennedy, Lukens, Mills and others regarding setting up a computer in Clinton’s office so she could check her “off network” email.
Sullivan also noted email traffic among Abedin, Mull, Mills, Kennedy and others discussing communication problems, in which Mull suggested that Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry that would protect her identity but be subject to public-records requests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/second-federal-judge-grants-legal-discovery-into-clinton-use-of-private-email-server/2016/03/29/4ca38de8-f5c6-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

Let's not mince words: Clinton screwed up.

Instead of using the State Department's email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.

But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system.

Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated “top secret” — but they weren't classified when she sent or received them.

Second, did she “willfully communicate” classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it?

She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.

Third, did she remove classified information “with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location”?

“If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don't think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything,” a former top government lawyer told me.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it.

If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Y'all Hillary haters gonna take a big one up the poop shoot.

[spurraider21]

LA Times Op-Ed columnist knows more than the FBI who is conducting the investigation :lol

[boutons_deux]

LA Times Op-Ed columnist knows more than the FBI who is conducting the investigation :lol

the writer consulted with national security legal specialists.

Just like the PP witch hunt, the Benghazi witch hunt, the birther shit, the HRC email witch hunt will come up with nothing, but Repugs and you rightwingnuts will deny that truth like you deny AGW, Darwin, and all kinds of other FACTS.

[spurraider21]

when have i ever denied AGW or Darwin :lol

[boutons_deux]

Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess

U.S. officials are pushing a dubious new scheme to “unify” a shattered Libya, but the political risk at home is that voters will finally realize Hillary Clinton’s responsibility for the mess

Hillary Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State – the “regime change” in Libya – is now sliding from the tragic to the tragicomic as her successors in the Obama administration adopt increasingly desperate strategies for imposing some kind of order on the once-prosperous North African country torn by civil war since Clinton pushed for the overthrow and murder of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The problem that Clinton did much to create has grown more dangerous since Islamic State terrorists have gained a foothold in Sirte and begun their characteristic beheading of “infidels” as well as their plotting for terror attacks in nearby Europe.

There is also desperation among some Obama administration officials because the worsening Libyan fiasco threatens to undermine not only President Barack Obama’s legacy but Clinton’s drive for the Democratic presidential nomination and then the White House. So, the officials felt they had no choice but to throw caution to the wind or — to mix metaphors — some Hail Mary passes.

The latest daring move was a sea landing in Tripoli by the U.S./U.N-formulated “unity government,” which was cobbled together by Western officials in hotel rooms in Morocco and Tunisia. But instead of “unity,” the arrival by sea threatened to bring more disunity and war by seeking to muscle aside two rival governments.

The sea landing at a naval base in Tripoli became necessary because one of those rival governments refused to let the “unity” officials fly into Libya’s capital. So, instead, the “unity” leaders entered Libya by boat from Tunisia and are currently operating from the naval base where they landed.

With this unusual move, the Obama administration is reminding longtime national security analysts of other fiascos in which Washington sought to decide the futures of other countries by shaping a government externally, as with the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and the Iraqi National Congress in 2003, and then imposing those chosen leaders on the locals.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/01/cleaning-hillarys-libyan-mess

[DMX7]

The Nation: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Someone finally went there. I just now saw this.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256863&p=8420354&viewfull=1#post8420354

[boutons_deux]

Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton

Many of Clinton's bundlers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas, and the Keystone pipeline.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12512784_1020664514655219_747987701756392686_n.png ?oh=b478ad00ccabfbf846905bc600cd7b59&oe=578E7C75

[spankadelphia]

Bernie is a communist Jew who had his honeymoon in the USSR in the 1960's and said "you know what, this is great! we need more of this in the United States!". I would rather have Hillary. At least she's a good ole' fashioned shitlordista from Arkansas.

[russellgoat]

I tough you were a Hillary lover.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie is a communist Jew who had his honeymoon in the USSR in the 1960's and said "you know what, this is great! we need more of this in the United States!". I would rather have Hillary. At least she's a good ole' fashioned shitlordista from Arkansas.

He went to Russia as mayor/representative of his town, and coupled it with his honeymoon.

[rmt]

He went to Russia as mayor/representative of his town, and coupled it with his honeymoon.

Does that mean he got the government to pay for his honeymoon?

[boutons_deux]

Does that mean he got the government to pay for his honeymoon?

his city govt paid for his official trip, which might have included taking his wife.

[spurraider21]

his city govt paid for his official trip, which might have included taking his wife.
Taxpayer dollars to go on a honeymoon :lmao
City of Burlington, Vermont sending a representative to the USSR :rollin

[boutons_deux]

Taxpayer dollars to go on a honeymoon :lmao
City of Burlington, Vermont sending a representative to the USSR :rollin

read this, and GFY

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/12/george-will/george-will-reminds-readers-about-bernie-sanders-u/

[spurraider21]

read this, and GFY

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/12/george-will/george-will-reminds-readers-about-bernie-sanders-u/
None of that disputes he used a government trip (and taxpayer dollars) as a honeymoon

[boutons_deux]

None of that disputes he used a government trip (and taxpayer dollars) as a honeymoon

sure, lots people on official travel take their partners. In the case of a diplomatic mission, where there will be socializing, it's expected.

[CosmicCowboy]

sure, lots people on official travel take their partners. In the case of a diplomatic mission, where there will be socializing, it's expected.

Burlington Vermont needed to send a diplomatic mission to the USSR?

Seriously Boo. You are gonna defend this?

[spurraider21]

sure, lots people on official travel take their partners. In the case of a diplomatic mission, where there will be socializing, it's expected.
conveniently right after his wedding :lol... that excuse they gave

[boutons_deux]

Burlington Vermont needed to send a diplomatic mission to the USSR?

Seriously Boo. You are gonna defend this?

google the cultural exchange arrangements called "sister cities" "twin cities"

[boutons_deux]

conveniently right after his wedding :lol... that excuse they gave

Benghazi! Trey "spurraider" Gowdy on the case

[spurraider21]

Benghazi! Trey "spurraider" Gowdy on the case
relax, i'm voting for bernie... but you don't have to semen shield all the time and pretend he's flawless :lol

[spankadelphia]

Keep in mind this was the 1960's, during the height of the Cold War. It's fucking indefensible. He's a commie, through and through.

[DMX7]

lol this thread can't even stay on the first page without a pity bump.

[Reck]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-probe/index.html

Welp

[Nbadan]

Hillary coat-tails....

Wisconsin Exit Poll Results: One in Three GOP Voters Would Abandon Party if Cruz or Trump is Nominee
Source: NBC News


Amid fierce clashes between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, one out of three Republicans voting in Wisconsin said they would abandon the party if either candidate is the ultimate nominee, according to early results from the NBC News Exit Poll.

When asked what they would do if Cruz were the GOP nominee in November, only 65 percent of Wisconsin Republicans said they'd vote for him. The remainder instead would vote for a third-party candidate (18 percent), vote for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton (7 percent) or not vote at all (6 percent).

The numbers got slightly worse for the Republican Party when voters were asked to consider Trump as the GOP nominee. Just 61 percent said they'd vote for the brash businessman, with the rest defecting to a third party (16 percent) or to Clinton (10 percent)—or simply staying home (9 percent).

Wisconsin has long been a swing state in the nation's presidential elections, but these numbers suggest the party may have substantial difficulty staying competitive with the Democrats in the Badger State this November.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wisconsin-exit-poll-results-one-three-gop-voters-would-abandon-n551326

[boutons_deux]

How ‘Citizens United’ is helping Hillary Clinton win the White House

Reforms wait as Democrat's allies target GOP with super PACs, ‘dark money’
https://static-00-www.publicintegrity.org/files/styles/32col/public/img/HillaryZyglis2.jpg?itok=rYgx2uvV





Hillary Clinton (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/12/17107/12-things-know-about-hillary-clinton) fashions herself as the ultimate general in a war against big-money politics.

“You're not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance
reform than me,” Clinton said following the New Hampshire primary.

But the Democratic presidential front-runner stands poised to bludgeon her general election opponent with Republicans’ favorite political superweapon: the Supreme Court’s Citizens United (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters) decision, which earlier this decade launched a new era of unbridled fundraising.

Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/) upon winning the White House.

Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/) investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform.

While Clinton rails against “unaccountable money" that is “corrupting our political system,” corporations, unions and nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political organizations.

That’s on top of the tens of millions an elite club of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, have contributed.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house

[boutons_deux]

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/

[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

[TheSanityAnnex]

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/

I've been telling you all of this over and over for months and you've brushed it off and made excuse after excuse...but now it's legit because :lol Salon :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

You know damn well she never thought they would recover the 31,000 emails she deleted.

No telling WHAT was in those that the FBI has now.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256863&p=8503336&viewfull=1#post8503336

[Reck]

You know damn well she never thought they would recover the 31,000 emails she deleted.

No telling WHAT was in those that the FBI has now.

If that's the case, then what's the problem?

If the FBI couldn't recover those lost emails, who would?

[TheSanityAnnex]

If that's the case, then what's the problem?

If the FBI couldn't recover those lost emails, who would?
They did recover them. That is the problem for her. I don't think she'll go down for having, sending, and unmarking classified information on her server, I think what they've found she's done with her foundation is what'll bury her.

[Reck]

They did recover them. That is the problem for her. I don't think she'll go down for having, sending, and unmarking classified information on her server, I think what they've found she's done with her foundation is what'll bury her.

Define "bury."

Bury as an end her presidential campaign or bury as an yeah you fucked up but we'll give you a pass, continue on.

If the FBI has enough on her then I dont understand the hold up. The dude in charge even said there was no rush and even came to her defense in some ways saying the GOP is full of shit on the Benghazi emails cover up bullshit.

Also Hillary is saying stuff like this..


"I know that they live in that world of fantasy and hope because they've got a mess on their hands on the Republican side. That is not going to happen," she said.


"There is not even the remotest chance that is going to happen. But look, they've been after me, as I say, for 25 years. And they have said things about me repeatedly that have been proven to be not only false but kind of ridiculous," she said.



http://www.today.com/news/will-email-scandal-leave-hillary-handcuffs-clinton-responds-gop-criticism-t85231

She's either that stupid or she got balls of steels to plainly say she's not going to be indicted or arrested or whatever. You would think the FBI would feel compel to drop the mic on that bitch for comments like these.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Define "bury."

Bury as an end her presidential campaign or bury as an yeah you fucked up but we'll give you a pass, continue on.

If the FBI has enough on her then I dont understand the hold up. The dude in charge even said there was no rush and even came to her defense in some ways saying the GOP is full of shit on the Benghazi emails cover up bullshit.

Also Hillary is saying stuff like this..



http://www.today.com/news/will-email-scandal-leave-hillary-handcuffs-clinton-responds-gop-criticism-t85231

She's either that stupid or she got balls of steels to plainly say she's not going to be indicted or arrested or whatever. You would think the FBI would feel compel to drop the mic on that bitch for comments like these.
FBI needs an airtight case going against someone of her status, no need to rush.

[The Reckoning]

FBI extradited the Romanian hacker to cut a deal with him. Who knows what information he has and if he has copies of all the original data (and who it was being sent to).


This might end it for Clinton.

[The Reckoning]

Keep in mind this was the 1960's, during the height of the Cold War. It's fucking indefensible. He's a commie, through and through.


it was in 1988 during the height of glasnost.


i'm sure Pop would be okay with the visit, tbh

[boutons_deux]

AP-Gfk Poll: Americans Have 55 Percent Negative Opinion of Hillary Clinton, Poll Says


The poll found 55 percent of American had either a "somewhat" or "very" unfavorable impression of the Democratic presidential candidate.

Donald Trump drew a 69 percent unfavorable rating.

[tlongII]

They did recover them. That is the problem for her. I don't think she'll go down for having, sending, and unmarking classified information on her server, I think what they've found she's done with her foundation is what'll bury her.

Bingo. I said that a long time ago.

[boutons_deux]

 The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.

Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.

The Clinton camp really doesn’t like talking about fossil-fuel money. Last week, when a young Greenpeace campaigner challenged Hillary Clinton about taking money from fossil-fuel companies, the candidate accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of “lying” and declared herself “so sick” of it. As the exchange went viral, a succession of high-powered Clinton supporters pronounced that there was nothing to see here and that everyone should move along.

First, some facts. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including her Super PAC, has received a lot of money from the employees and registered lobbyists of fossil-fuel companies. There’s the much-cited $4.5 million that Greenpeace calculated (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/), which includes bundling by lobbyists.

But that’s not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clinton’s most prominent and active financial backers is Warren Buffett. While he owns a large mix of assets, Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country.

Then there’s all the cash that fossil-fuel companies have directly pumped into the Clinton Foundation. In recent years, Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron have all contributed to the foundation. An investigation (http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832) in theInternational Business Times just revealed that at least two of these oil companies were part of an effort to lobby Clinton’s State Department about the Alberta tar sands, a massive deposit of extra-dirty oil. Leading climate scientists like James Hansen (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/19/tar-sands-exploitation-climate-scientist) have explained that if we don’t keep the vast majority of that carbon in the ground, we will unleash catastrophic levels of warming.

During this period, the investigation found, Clinton’s State Department approved the Alberta Clipper, a controversial pipeline carrying large amounts of tar-sands bitumen from Alberta to Wisconsin. “According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT,” write David Sirota and Ned Resnikoff, “Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of ‘oil sands’ in the immediate months prior to the department’s approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.”

there is no proof that the money her campaign took from gas lobbyists and fracking financiers (http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2016/03/01/fracking-fund-billionaire-marc-lasry-is-a-top-clinton-advisor-and-fundraiser) has shaped Clinton’s current (and dangerous) view that fracking can be made safe.

 It’s important to recognize that Clinton’s campaign platform includes some very good climate policies that surely do not please these donors—which is why the fossil-fuel sector gives so much more to climate change–denying Republicans.

While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.

 The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place.

In Clinton World it’s always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: The Clintons grow ever more powerful.

At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed (http://harpers.org/blog/2016/02/nor-a-lender-be/) “the land of money,” all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.

Sanders and his supporters understand something critical: It won’t all be win-win. For any of this to happen, fossil-fuel companies, which have made obscene profits for many decades, will have to start losing.

And losing more than just the tax breaks and subsidies that Clinton is promising to cut. They will also have to lose the new drilling and mining leases they want; they’ll have to be denied permits for the pipelines and export terminals they very much want to build. They will have to leave trillions of dollars’ worth of proven fossil-fuel reserves in the ground.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

[Spurtacular]

Not just Akin, s:loln]....

Republicans are whack. That's no excuse to vote for Hillary.

[Spurtacular]

FBI needs an airtight case going against someone of her status, no need to rush.

Sh**'s tight. The fix is in, though.

[Reck]

Sh**'s tight. The fix is in, though.

So you are saying she's the only person on earth above the law? That's a stretch.

Guilty is guilty and everyone pays.

[Spurtacular]

So you are saying she's the only person on earth above the law? That's a stretch.

Guilty is guilty and everyone pays.

She would have already been convicted if the system wasn't working for her. The fact that the interview hadn't interviewed her and said it wasn't a "criminal investigation" should tell you what you need to know. The fact that she had a secret meeting with the FBI head should reinforce that reality.

I'm not defending the bitch. I'm telling you shit's fuck up.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/ratio--3-2--830x553/public/gettyimages-465178962.jpg?itok=7MV3AI0c

Benghazi panel to issue election-year report

Last week, the House Republicans’ Benghazi committee passed the 700-day mark (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-committee-just-keeps-going-and-going) – the panel has gone on longer than the investigations into 9/11, Watergate, the JFK assassination – and no one can say with confidence when the partisan endeavor will wrap up.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who’s led the partisan probe, told Fox News last year that he hoped to finish the work “before 2016,” and as far as he was concerned, the committee’s report wouldn’t “come out in the middle of 2016.” And yet, here we are.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank noted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trey-gowdys-benghazi-surprise/2016/04/13/dd861754-01ab-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html) today that the trajectory of this story is “about to change.”

Gowdy, after blowing through several previous deadlines he set, has said to expect a final report “before summer,” and Republicans say they are drafting it now. In another indication that the rollout is approaching, Gowdy last month stopped giving Democrats transcripts of witness interviews. This move, ostensibly to prevent leaks, diminishes the minority’s ability respond to allegations contained in the majority report.

Depending on how long the declassification review takes, the Benghazi report is on track to drop by mid-July, just before Congress recesses for the conventions and at a time when Republicans will be in need of a distraction from the Trump-Cruz standoff. If the review takes longer (they typically last from a few weeks to a several months), it could come out in September, in the campaign’s homestretch.


In case it’s not obvious, let’s note for the record that the Republican report is likely to take aim at one person in particular – and she just so happens to be favored to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

The challenge for the GOP is trying to convince anyone – aside from conspiracy theorists, conservative media outlets, and Hillary Clinton’s Republican critics – that their report, once it’s available, deserves to be seen as a credible assessment of a deadly terrorist attack.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-panel-issue-election-year-report?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Confederate ASSHOLE Gowdy will obviously try to trash Hillary out of the running.

That was certainly the Repug strategy before the Repugs totally lost control of their own party.

Now, no matter who the Repugs nominate, the Dems will win, no matter who the Dems nominate.

That's why the billionaires have abandoned the Repug Pres race to move their $Bs down ticket to corrupt the Congressional, state, and local elections.

[FkLA]

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

I have no idea how anybody can stand behind this snake :vomit:

[DMX7]

She is so bad it has me rethinking Bill's legacy. Was Bill largely just a beneficiary of the economic times?

[pgardn]

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

I have no idea how anybody can stand behind this snake :vomit:

Poor old Burn.

He stands there gasping for air trying to call for help and the lifeguard never budged.

Damn, Hillary just bleeds cynicism and deceit. How about a Bernie/Kasich ticket... I mean if you have to actually stomach the people you vote for... I swear to God, I win a contest to have dinner with Cruz, Trump, Hillary... I could not make it through the meal.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDWU2SR27g4

Feel like Kramer in the above.

[boutons_deux]

How Hillary Helped Ruin Haiti

Much of the blame for Haiti’s chaotic political scene can be pinned on Hillary Clinton’s State Department, whose handpicked president has only made things worse.

At the time, Martelly proclaimed that the Caracol project would deliver more than 100,000 jobs, while the Clinton Foundation vowed that it would bring 60,000 in five years. As of mid-2015, the actual number (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368_Page4.html#.Vw0bniMrLJw) was closer to 5,000.

Throughout his five-year term, Martelly gave free rein to NGOs and foreign business interests. Amidst Haiti’s ongoing turmoil, a simple question thus arises: Why, exactly, did Hillary Clinton’s State Department support Sweet Micky instead of Dr. Mirlande Manigat?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/how-hillary-helped-ruin-haiti.html

[boutons_deux]

High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti

In their post-2000 lives as global citizens, Hillary Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/hillary-clinton-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) and former President Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) have been tied to no country more closely than Haiti. As a United Nations special envoy, Mr. Clinton helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the country after its devastating 2010 earthquake (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/americas/13haiti.html). Mrs. Clinton traveled there four times as secretary of state and shepherded billions of dollars in American aid.
They often speak fondly of Haiti, one of the first places they visited as newlyweds in 1975.

But as she seeks the world’s most powerful job and Haiti plunges into another political abyss, a loud segment of Haitians and Haitian-Americans is speaking of the Clintons with the same contempt they reserve for some of their past leaders.

In widely read blogs, ..., the Clintons have become prime targets of blame for the country’s woes.

Among the litany of complaints being laid at their feet: Fewer than half the jobs promised at the industrial park, built after 366 farmers were evicted from their lands, have materialized. Many millions of dollars earmarked for relief efforts have yet to be spent.

Mrs. Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham has turned up in business ventures (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/us/politics/tony-rodhams-ties-invite-scrutiny-forhillary-and-bill-clinton.html) on the island, setting off speculation about insider deals.

Tony Jeanthenor, 55, a member of the Miami-based Haitian human rights group Veye-Yo as well as Lavalas Family, a Haitian political party, said he was voting for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont because of the senator’s distaste for involvement in other countries’ affairs.

“Nothing good for Haiti can come out of Hillary because of her past behavior,” Mr. Jeanthenor said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Honduras and Haiti

Clinton is on record saying deporting children would send a “responsible message (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264210-dhs-deportation-plan-gives-clintons-rivals-an-opening)” to families to deter them from coming into the United States. But when it comes to Honduras, Sanders as well as the moderators missed a key opportunity to bring up Clinton’s record in Central America and the Caribbean, and specifically how her State Department’s role in undemocratic regime changes has contributed to violence and political instability in Honduras and Haiti today.

Instead of condemning the figures behind the uprising, suspending support to the illegitimate government of Zelaya’s successor, Roberto Micheletti, and demanding a restoration of the democratically elected Zelaya, Secretary Clinton decided to move on.

Clinton’s camp has said (http://latinousa.org/2016/03/09/clinton-campaign-says-charges-of-honduran-coup-support/) that allegations about her role in the 2009 coup are “nonsense.”

What about Clinton’s record in Haiti?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-needs-to-answer-for-her-actions-in-honduras-and-haiti/

With "experiences" like Hillary's, Bernie must be happy to be without :lol

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton's Favorability Rating Among Democrats Hit a New Low

According to the HuffPost Pollster average, 55 percent of the electorate now views Clinton unfavorably—and 40.2 percent of people view her favorably,

http://manywww.alternet.org/files/nmpjy9z6uuo11n9p_sg7ia.png

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-clintons-favorability-rating-among-democrats-hit-new-low

[boutons_deux]

Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President

Nor even that of the many (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/the-new-york-times-just-perfectly-explained-why-hillary-clintons-answers-on-her-paid-speeches-dont-work/) neutral observers (http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/) in the (http://www.salon.com/2016/02/27/hillarys_goldman_sachs_debacle_isnt_going_away_5_r easons_she_needs_to_release_her_transcripts_now_pa rtner/) media (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/08/hillary_clinton_won_t_release_transcripts_of_her_p aid_goldman_sachs_speeches.html) who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/clintons-absymal-record-on-open-government-b99696012z1-374014501.html).

The real experts on this topic are the friends and acquaintances of Hillary’s who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches. And it’s only that candor that helps explain the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?

Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers:

(a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or

(b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.

Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).

Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches:

1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)

“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”

[link (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0)]

2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

[link (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969)]

3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)

“In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”

[link (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969)]

4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”

[link (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-wall-street-talks-were-highly-paid-friendly-1455239512)]

5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal

“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”

[link (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-wall-street-talks-were-highly-paid-friendly-1455239512)]

6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)

“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”

[link (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047?paginate=false)]

7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico

“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”

[link (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047?paginate=false)]

Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”?

Would middle-class voters considering voting for Hillary Clinton in New York on Tuesday take kindly to the idea that the Great Recession was equally their own and Goldman Sachs’ fault? How would that play in the Bronx?

Lest anyone suspect that Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts because she’s not permitted to do so under a non-disclosure agreement, think again:

Buzzfeed has confirmed (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969) that Clinton owns the rights to the transcripts, and notes, moreover, that according to industry insiders even if there were speeches to which Clinton did nothold the rights, no institution on Wall Street would allow themselves to be caught trying to block their release.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html

The speeches would seem to be Hillary's "47%"

And remember that Bishop Gekko REFUSED to release his tax returns for earlier than the 3 preceding years. Earlier than that probably included tax evasion/IRS amnesty.

[spurraider21]

Booboo needs to tone down his Hillary shit talk since he's gna be pimping her during the generals

[Nbadan]

Booboo needs to tone down his Hillary shit talk since he's gna be pimping her during the generals

On the other hand it's good that this shit comes out now rather than in the Generals, although, the GOP always has the emails, the IRS and Bengazi.....I wonder if they'll pull out some widows....that would be low....

[Nbadan]

Well, not so fast......seen this?


The equation for a Hillary defeat is adding up: Her FBI probe plus Bernie’s huge gains in national polls should wake up Sanders skeptics
Bernie Sanders is almost tied nationally and ahead of Clinton in three Democratic primary polls
H. A. GOODMAN

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/the_equation_for_a_hillary_defeat_is_adding_up_her _fbi_probe_plus_bernies_huge_gains_in_national_pol ls_should_wake_up_sanders_skepti

[spurraider21]

:lol tables have turned... For months liberals were whining about hillary's emails being just a partisan Republican witch-hunt, but now you have a substantial portion of the liberal base wanting to see her indicted

[boutons_deux]

Booboo needs to tone down his Hillary shit talk since he's gna be pimping her during the generals

You Lie

G F Y

[boutons_deux]

:lol tables have turned... For months liberals were whining about hillary's emails being just a partisan Republican witch-hunt, but now you have a substantial portion of the liberal base wanting to see her indicted

you're full of bullshit. Repugs witch hunting the Clintons for 25 years with transparentlhy trumped up charges, slander, anything they can imagine, is not the same as the Clintons fucking up on their own.

[Reck]

Boutons is a chamaleon. :lol

[spurraider21]

you're full of bullshit. Repugs witch hunting the Clintons for 25 years with transparentlhy trumped up charges, slander, anything they can imagine, is not the same as the Clintons fucking up on their own.
you went from...

:lol emails!
:lol banghazi!

to actually talking about her getting indicted over emails :lmao

[Will Hunting]

you went from...

:lol emails!
:lol banghazi!

to actually talking about her getting indicted over emails :lmao

The key difference being that the Benghazi thing was bullshit and had no foundation from the get-go. I'm still waiting to hear about what she (or anyone else) did wrong. The emails might be insignificant but she's already lied about them multiple times and there's actually a possibility of wrongdoing.

[Will Hunting]

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

I have no idea how anybody can stand behind this snake :vomit:
Her best argument is that Bernie Sanders hasn't released his tax return :lmao:lmao:lmao

There's a reason that hasn't happened yet, it's because no one's fucking asked or given enough of a shit to ask for his tax returns.

[pgardn]

You Lie

G F Y

This response indicates Boots is wounded.

[boutons_deux]

Her best argument is that Bernie Sanders hasn't released his tax return :lmao:lmao:lmao

There's a reason that hasn't happened yet, it's because no one's fucking asked or given enough of a shit to ask for his tax returns.

He has released 2014

[Reck]

Her best argument is that Bernie Sanders hasn't released his tax return :lmao:lmao:lmao

There's a reason that hasn't happened yet, it's because no one's fucking asked or given enough of a shit to ask for his tax returns.

Releasing ones tax return is fucking pointless. I dont know why they have to even do that.

But that said, he has been asking her to release her speeches for months while not bothering to release his tax returns like the rest have done. It's a double standard.

You're calling out someone for not doing exactly what you're doing. I dont care if it's something as meaningless as tax returns.

[FkLA]

Releasing ones tax return is fucking pointless. I dont know why they have to even do that.

But that said, he has been asking her to release her speeches for months while not bothering to release his tax returns like the rest have done. It's a double standard.

You're calling out someone for not doing exactly what you're doing. I dont care if it's something as meaningless as tax returns.

:lol No it's not comparable at all. He's known for having one of the lowest net worths among public officials. We all know damn well there won't anything noteworthy. It was just a poor attempt by Shillary to deflect. That's why she hadn't brought it up until now.

Additionally, he said he will release all of them. He's probably just milking this. Would be smart to release some on Monday before the primary and to keep releasing them througgout these elections to drive home the point that she has shit to hide and he doesn't. Shillary OTOH responded like a snake when pressed about releasing the transcripts.

[Will Hunting]

Releasing ones tax return is fucking pointless. I dont know why they have to even do that.

But that said, he has been asking her to release her speeches for months while not bothering to release his tax returns like the rest have done. It's a double standard.

You're calling out someone for not doing exactly what you're doing. I dont care if it's something as meaningless as tax returns.
The minute she called him out for not releasing his 2014 return, he released it immediately.

Now that Sanders has released his return, what's Shillary's excuse for not releasing her goldman sachs transcripts?

You're seriously retarded if you think Shillary really cared about Sanders' tax return and wasn't just deflecting from having to reveal how much she was regularly kissing wall street's ass before she started pretending to be a socialist.

[Will Hunting]

:lol No it's not comparable at all. He's known for having one of the lowest net worths among public officials. We all know damn well there won't anything noteworthy. It was just a poor attempt by Shillary to deflect. That's why she hadn't brought it up until now.

Additionally, he said he will release all of them. He's probably just milking this. Would be smart to release some on Monday before the primary and to keep releasing them througgout these elections to drive home the point that she has shit to hide and he doesn't. Shillary OTOH responded like a snake when pressed about releasing the transcripts.
He released his 2014 return on Friday and it showed like $200k of total income between him and his wife :lmao. He has his salary as a senator and not much else, it's the tax return of a boring upper middle class couple.

Shillary probably makes more just from a 1 hour speech she gives at the Goldman Sachs headquarters about how Wall Street deserves no blame for the financial crisis.

[Reck]

The minute she called him out for not releasing his 2014 return, he released it immediately.

Now that Sanders has released his return, what's Shillary's excuse for not releasing her goldman sachs transcripts?

You're seriously retarded if you think Shillary really cared about Sanders' tax return and wasn't just deflecting from having to reveal how much she was regularly kissing wall street's ass before she started pretending to be a socialist.

Tbh..that speech is probably the run of the mill kiss ass they would want to hear from a politician. I dont think there is some dark secret in there other than her saying what they wanted to hear.

She probably doesn't want to release them because it will contradict what she's been saying that she has gone against them or whatever. It would have serve her well to have release them long ago but now its too late because she's lied too much about it. The minute she releases them and the scripts are all rosy cheeks she's going to look real bad.

[MultiTroll]

Her best argument is that Bernie Sanders hasn't released his tax return :lmao:lmao:lmao

There's a reason that hasn't happened yet, it's because no one's fucking asked or given enough of a shit to ask for his tax returns.
Can she be any more obvious she has something to hide regarding transcript revealing.

What a twunt answer. Kudos to that moderator for not letting her weasel.

[boutons_deux]

Can she be any more obvious she has something to hide regarding transcript revealing.


Just as obvious as tax evader Bishop Gekko and Queen Anne not releasing but their 3 most recent years.

[Will Hunting]

Can she be any more obvious she has something to hide regarding transcript revealing.

What a twunt answer. Kudos to that moderator for not letting her weasel.

Yeah I'm pretty surprised that a moderator with the Clinton News Network didn't let her off the hook.

[z0sa]

Tbh..that speech is probably the run of the mill kiss ass they would want to hear from a politician. I dont think there is some dark secret in there other than her saying what they wanted to hear.

And there's nothing wrong with that? :lol constantly semen shielding

[Will Hunting]

And there's nothing wrong with that? :lol constantly semen shielding

I have a hard time believing it was just run of the mill "we need companies like (insert any bank here) because they create jobs and stimulate the economy!" horseshit you typically hear from mainstream politicians (on either side). She wouldn't be trying to hide it if it was only that. I think she took at a step further and made a few "47%" type comments about distressed homeowners or went off about how this country has too many "takers".

Neither this nor the email thing would be that big a deal except the way Shillary handled both demonstrates how superior she feels to the rest of the country. She truly thinks as a presidential candidate that she isn't obligated to explain why her emails were on a private server or what she's saying behind closed doors to people who don't reflect middle class Americans at all.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary saying "we're all in this together" is pure bullshit, because BigFinance, regulated and unregulated/private, was saying they had been cheated by borrowers and it was all the borrower's fault. They blamed CRA for "forcing" them to write bad loans.

Predatory lenders, violating Federal rules by writing "liar's loans", etc, helped by fraudulent MERS stole Ms of homes, esp from first-time borrowers lied into believing they could afford their first home.

Attendees said Hillary was placing 50% of the blame on the borrowers, which is a huge lie, telegraphing to BigFinance that she was their non-punising, regulatory friend.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton’s Disastrous California Poll


http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/views-article/field-poll-table-1.jpg?itok=2r7m2i_3

On the surface, the new California Field Poll (http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2531.pdf) really wasn’t bad for Hillary Clinton.

Yes, her one-time 63 point lead had shrunken to six, but it was still a lead, and at this point the Clinton campaign reckons that it won enough delegates in the South on Super Tuesday to hold on even if Sanders were to continue his winning streak – so long as their campaign manages not to implode.

And while such an implosion must still be regarded as a long shot, the Field Poll numbers suggest that there are grounds for one:

Only 48 percent of voters polled in the nation’s most populous state viewed Clinton favorably, compared to 49 percent who looked upon her unfavorably.

Which once again raises the question of why Democratic Party leaders seem resigned to allowing such an unpopular candidate to carry their banner in November, particularly given that this a not a one-state anomaly, but a nationwide phenomenon.

In contrast to Clinton, Sanders enjoyed a twenty point (55-35%) favorable cushion.

He did better than Clinton both among Democrats and Republicans, but his real edge came among independents who liked him by a 63-27% margin and disliked Clinton by 50-44%.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/16/hillary-clintons-disastrous-california-poll

[Reck]

And there's nothing wrong with that? :lol constantly semen shielding

Everything is semen shielding to you. Get a new schtick and dont get so mad about something neither of us have any say or control.

[Shastafarian]

Revenue from speeches was one of the delicate errors. Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton all gave speeches in 2010, 2011, and 2012. The money was reported as charitable contributions in the original filings. Actually, of course, the speech fees were payments for services. The Foundation notes that correction in its press statements. It is curious, since it would seem to be something the Foundation was aware of when it made the original incorrect filings. After all, the Foundation did not send any donor acknowledgement letters to these speech hosts, and that suggests they were purely fees-for-services and not donations from the start.

I hope Hillary goes to her own foundation and tells them to "cut it out"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/11/21/clinton-foundation-admits-speech-fees-are-not-donations-will-hillary-amend-her-own-taxes-too/#112e2849321b

[z0sa]

Everything is semen shielding to you. Get a new schtick and dont get so mad about something neither of us have any say or control.

:lol in denial

[Reck]

:lol in denial

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

[TheSanityAnnex]

Everything is semen shielding to you. Get a new schtick and dont get so mad about something neither of us have any say or control.
You're a Shillary shill, just own it.

[Reck]

You're a Shillary shill, just own it.

That's highly unlikely.

If she gets the nomination and Trump does too, it is the only way I will be voting. Same if Bernie.

The problem you people have is if someone even attempts to have a fair discussion, its automatically semen shielding because I dont agree with what you say. That's not how discussions work. I have defended both sides.

I'll admit I have been arguing for Hillary a while but that's because the Bernie suckage here is terribly one sided and most of her critisism is not even warranted. Just because you dont like the lady doesn't mean you can make shit up.

Me siding with her has nothing to do with me liking her as much as it has to do with the loser Bernie supporters talking so much trash like he's God. Both are full of shit. Period.

[spurraider21]

Reck is one of the "i'm not a trump fan, but" people except for shillary :lol

[Reck]

Reck is one of the "i'm not a trump fan, but" people except for shillary :lol

:claw

I'm a democrat. Fuck republicans.

I like all my democrat liberal fellows.

[Reck]

But it's funny you should say that because a few months back Mitch and I were posting a lot here about Trump and Marco.

I supposed because I felt Marco was the least douchey of the republican candidates and felt kind of bad for him that it would also made me a Marco semen shield according to Soza, you and sanityannex. :rolleyes

[Mitch]

But it's funny you should say that because a few months back Mitch (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=36270) and I were posting a lot here about Trump and Marco.

I supposed because I felt Marco was the least douchey of the republican candidates and felt kind of bad for him that it would also made me a Marco semen shield according to Soza, you and sanityannex. :rolleyes


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERY4MahvGtI