Reply With Quote
read this, and GFYTaxpayer dollars to go on a honeymoon
City of Burlington, Vermont sending a representative to the USSR
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...nie-sanders-u/
Taxpayer dollars to go on a honeymoon
City of Burlington, Vermont sending a representative to the USSR
read this, and GFYTaxpayer dollars to go on a honeymoon
City of Burlington, Vermont sending a representative to the USSR
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...nie-sanders-u/
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.
Burlington Vermont needed to send a diplomatic mission to the USSR?
Seriously Boo. You are gonna defend this?
conveniently right after his wedding... that excuse they gave
google the cultural exchange arrangements called "sister cities" "twin cities"
Benghazi! Trey "spurraider" Gowdy on the caseconveniently right after his wedding
relax, i'm voting for bernie... but you don't have to semen shield all the time and pretend he's flawless
Keep in mind this was the 1960's, during the height of the Cold War. It's ing indefensible. He's a commie, through and through.
lol this thread can't even stay on the first page without a pity bump.
Hillary coat-tails....
Wisconsin Exit Poll Results: One in Three GOP Voters Would Abandon Party if Cruz or Trump is Nominee
Source: NBC News
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...bandon-n551326Amid 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 compe ive with the Democrats in the Badger State this November.
How ‘Citizens United’ is helping Hillary Clinton win the White House
Reforms wait as Democrat's allies target GOP with super PACs, ‘dark money’
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 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 upon winning the White House.
Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity 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...in-white-house
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 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 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 and former intelligence officials 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 in ten national polls. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders, just raised more money in February 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 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. 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 cir vent 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 cir venting 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 led “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government”explains the possible political motive regarding Clinton’s unconventional email practices:
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.”
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 do ents 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.
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 about yoga?
According to ABC News, Clinton’s staff had an amusing way of deciphering how to delete over 30,000 emails:
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.
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.’”
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.
4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?
An article in Madison.com led “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:
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.
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…
5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano?
Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity. 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 on a private server?
This is a simple question with no logical answer cir venting 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 do ents?
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 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 and hackers 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. Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon.
With issues revolving around trustworthiness before the FBI interviews, Clinton won’t be able to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this..._house_dreams/
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
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?
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 ed 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 on the Benghazi emails cover up bull .
Also Hillary is saying stuff like this..
http://www.today.com/news/will-email...iticism-t85231"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.
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 for comments like these.
FBI needs an airtight case going against someone of her status, no need to rush.
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.
it was in 1988 during the height of glasnost.
i'm sure Pop would be okay with the visit, tbh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
