Reply With Quote
boutons.....when keeping it "Salon" goes wrong.
US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.
“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures,
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05...rica+-+Blog%29
Benghazi? ZILCH
emails? ZERO
boutons.....when keeping it "Salon" goes wrong.
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,”---Hillary Clinton signed NDAUS Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.
“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures,
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05...rica+-+Blog%29
Benghazi? ZILCH
emails? ZERO
boutons fully on board with Bernie getting the nomination and having Hillary get ed until Bernie's now an afterthought for the nomination
What facts? Distorted facts, perhaps.
That guy whom the FBI gave immunity says he still refuses to testify even after being given immunity so he's no help.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clint...ongress-email/
Her aides being interviewed is nothing more than cooperation and will not lead to her immediate arrest. And as far as that hacker, are we taking him seriously now? He's nothing more than a criminal seating behind bars trying to get attention. But hey, let's play that game.
Where is the proof? Do ents, emails..the such that would incriminate her. Where is it?
Surely if you hack something it is with the purpose of getting information. Is this a kind hacker that is only curious and leaves everything untouch after?
You're kind of a gullible joke dude. When you call someone stupid, make time to look into the mirror first.
this is why, just for the political theater, i would love to see a trump/sanders ticket. i know it makes no sense and is literally impossible, but i would love to see the gymnastics people like booboo end up going throughboutons fully on board with Bernie getting the nomination and having Hillary get ed until Bernie's now an afterthought for the nomination
Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politi...ce-department/The guy who set up her home brew server was granted immunity
Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politi...-clinton-aide/her top aides are just starting to be interviewed
Fact: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...server-n568206an extradited hacker said he accessed her server
Fact: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0XV2RTa judge just said Hillary may have to testify under oath
When I call someone stupid I mean it, you are literally stupid.
Would actually be a great ticket.
i dont think any ticket with trump at the front is a great ticket. i'd just love it for the lulz
You just parroted everything I said with nothing new.
Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politi...ce-department/
Fact: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politi...-clinton-aide/
Fact: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...server-n568206
Fact: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0XV2RT
When I call someone stupid I mean it, you are literally stupid.
I posted fresh links not links from months ago. That guy that got immunity said he still refuses to testify AFTER the getting it.
So keep posting those pesky facts and then hold your breath until she gets arrested.
dont see why that'sworthy, just because there is a difference of opinion?
That's exactly my point though.
Guy calls me stupid because my opinion differs from his.
99% of the time we will dissagree because I'm a progressive and he seems to be a right winger who thinks he's right 100% of the time.
No. You said they were distorted facts. You were shown one by one each of them were simply facts. After having been given the facts you call facts the "pesky". You're a ing idiot.
You are the first I've seen to use an emoji to convey exactly your point.
I posted the same links with the same information. How are yours any more significant?
If youre a hardcore Hillary supporter, youre a duped got. That simple
Going back to my main OP..
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05...-listen/210266Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter
[...]
The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.
Forgot to post that link.
Setting aside the completely separate investigation into illegal contributions received through her foundation, lets look at the holes in this attempt at spin.You should have continued forgetting to post that link because the author of it is either lazy or purposely misleading. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you, intent means nothing in her case. I've posted the actual NDA she signed, read it for yourself and stop being so misinformed.
(18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) is very clear.
The law applies to “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any do ent, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,” which obviously includes Clinton. Classified information appeared throughout her emails recovered by investigators.
The law is broken if that person “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
The law could also be broken if the person “having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—”
Wall Street Donors Flocking to Clinton
Democratic frontrunner has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates have dropped out of the race.
A Wall Street Journal analysis published late Sunday found that the former secretary of state "has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone."
In fact, Clinton has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates—namely former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—dropped out of the race.
According to the newspaper's reporting on fundraising data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, "the former secretary of state received 53 percent of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32 percent last year and 33 percent in January through February, as the nominating contests began."
WSJ notes that "Trump, by contrast, hasn’t garnered more than 1 percent of Wall Street contributions in any month through March," although the New York billionaire is expected to be much more active in soliciting donations for the general election.
The report further cites an analysis by the nonpartisan crowdfunding resource Crowdpac, which found that "more than 500 donors, including many Wall Street executives, who gave more than $200 to a Republican who later dropped out, including Messrs. Bush and Rubio, have since given to Mrs. Clinton," WSJ wrote.
In total, Clinton has received a full third of all money that business interests have donated to presidential campaigns on both sides of the aisle.
The numbers represent a significant shift from the conventional wisdom that the GOP is beholden to big business while Democrats are supposed to represent the concerns of the people.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...ocking-clinton
BigFinance, BigCorp paying protection money to keep Clinton off their backs, not that a Repug Congress would ever send her a bill that was anti-BigFinance, anti-BigCorp. And her DoJ wouldn't block formation of monopolies, cartels, etc, etc.
Got to pay to play. Hillary will take care of them.
Hillz quit running ads, but must be a little scared by her polling, since she's started running ads again.
Go Bernie!
ALL politicians are corrupt, doing what their big donors want, groveling for $$$ non-stop, ignoring their voters post-election.
campaign talk only. Repugs will abort any "medicare for all"
When the Affordable Care Act was still a bill, rather than a law, one of its most notable provisions was a policy known as the “public option.” As regular readers probably recall, the idea was to create a public, non-profit health insurer that would compete with private insurance companies for consumers’ business, along the lines of the educational model in which public and private universities compete in the same space.
Then-Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) eventually killed the provision, but a few months ago, the public option made a comeback – when Hillary Clinton added the idea to her campaign platform.
Of course, one of the questions at the time was whether Clinton would stick to her support. It’s one thing to tout an idea popular with progressive voters in February, as the Democratic primaries and caucuses were just getting underway, but would Clinton follow through as she shifts her attention to the general election?
Apparently, yes. Bloomberg Politics reported yesterday:
At a campaign stop Monday in Northern Virginia, Hillary Clinton reiterated her support for a government-run health plan in the insurance market, possibly by letting let Americans buy into Medicare, to stem the rise of health-care costs.
“I’m also in favor of what’s called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age,” the Democratic presidential front-runner said during a roundtable with local residents at the Mug’N Muffin coffee shop. “Which will take a lot of pressure off the costs.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
"at a certain age", and you have to opt in? that's not universal.
why not automatic from birth until death?
paid with salary deductions, like medicare is now?
Hillz is bull ting, running not far enough in front of Bernie.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-13-2016 at 07:43 AM.
Neocons and Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill
Hillary Clinton wants the American voters to be very afraid of Donald Trump, but there is reason to fear as well what a neoconservative/neoliberal Clinton presidency would mean for the world
Wars and More Wars
On foreign policy, Clinton has consistently supported neoconservative wars, although she might shy from the neocon label per se, preferring its less noxious synonym “liberal interventionist.”
But as arch-neocon Robert Kagan, who has recast himself as a “liberal interventionist,” told The New York Times in 2014, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
Summing up the feeling of thinkers like Kagan, the Times reported that Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”
In February 2016, distraught over the rise of Trump, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush’s Iraq War, openly threw his support to Clinton, announcing his decision in a Washington Post op-ed.
And Kagan is not mistaken when he views Hillary Clinton as a fellow-traveler. She has often marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented their aggressive “regime change” schemes against governments and political movements that don’t toe Washington’s line or that deviate from Israel’s goals in the Middle East.
She has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results. [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon” and “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?”]
Seeking ‘Coercion’
A glimpse of what a Clinton-45 presidency might do could be seen in a recent Politicocommentary by Dennis Ross, a former special adviser to Secretary of State Clinton now working at the staunchly pro-Israel Washington Ins ute for Near East Policy.
In the article, Ross painted a surreal world in which the problems of the Middle East have been caused by President Obama’s hesitancy to engage militarily more aggressively across the region, not by the neocon-driven decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the similar schemes to overthrow secular governments in Libya and Syria in 2011, leaving those two countries in ruin.
Channeling the desires of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ross called for the United States to yoke itself to the regional interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in their rivalry against Shiite-led Iran.
To counter Obama’s hesitancy to apply military force, Ross calls for a reassertion of a muscular U.S. policy in the Middle East, much along the lines that the neocon establishment and Hillary Clinton also favor, including:
–Threatening Iran with “blunt, explicit language on employing force, not sanctions” if Iran deviates from the Obama-negotiated agreement to constrain its nuclear program (the bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran zombie lives!);
–“Contingency planning with GCC states and Israel … to generate specific options for countering Iran’s growing use of Shiite militias to undermine regimes in the region”;
–A readiness to arm Sunni tribes in Iraq if Iraq’s prime minister doesn’t;
–Establish “safe havens with no-fly zones” inside Syria if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down.
Employing the classic tough talk of the neocons, Ross concludes, “Putin and Middle Eastern leaders understand the logic of coercion. It is time for us to reapply it.”
But the significance of Ross’s prescription to “reapply” U.S. “coercion” across the region is that he is outlining what the world can expect from a Clinton-45 presidency.
Clinton made many of the same points in her speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and in debates with Bernie Sanders. If she stays on that track as president, there would be at least a partial U.S. military invasion of Syria, a very strong likelihood of war with Iran, and an escalation of tensions (and possible war) with nuclear-armed Russia.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...ead-ideas-kill
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions