For Hillary lovers

[boutons_deux]

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

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

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

[DMX7]

Donna! Summer! Donna! Summer!

[CosmicCowboy]

Donna! Summer! Donna! Summer!

LOL

"She works HARD for the money..."

https://amp.twimg.com/v/9f171615-9be...4-60c81ec1e1ef

[boutons_deux]

How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk


In prior articles, we noted how the Times helped Clinton walk away with most of the African-American vote — and therefore victory in many states — by essentially hiding Sanders’s comparably far more impressive record on civil rights.

We also noted how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were minimized.

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

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

What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement — more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether.WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars and their dubious basis.

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

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

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

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/...+capitalism%29

[boutons_deux]

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

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

iow, America is ed and remains un able. Thanks, Repugs (and rigged nominating scams)

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

Why Hillary Clinton May be Doomed to Repeat the Obama Presidency

Republicans may despise Hillary Clinton even more than they do Obama.

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

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

http://prospect.org/article/why-hill...ama-presidency

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

[DMX7]

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

[boutons_deux]

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

Strict obstructionists will block any Dem president.

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

[DMX7]

Strict obstructionists will block any Dem president.

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

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

[boutons_deux]

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

your is weak as every, typical for Trump sucker

[DMX7]

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

https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/prod...ancardblogpost

[boutons_deux]

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

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

[tlongII]

LOL politicususa.

[baseline bum]

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

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

[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 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:

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.

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 about yoga?

According to ABC News, 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.

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:

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. 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/

emails!
benghazi!
typical leftwingnuts

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi!

[spurraider21]

emails!
boutons

[Reck]

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

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

Poor sanityannex must be having a bad night.

[spurraider21]

Hillary forces target Bush donors

Their message to moderate Republicans: She represents your values better than Trump.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz47qhBLPSD

[TheSanityAnnex]

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

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

Poor sanityannex must be having a bad night.

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

[TheSanityAnnex]

emails!
boutons

Been entertaining watching him get so caught up in spamming that he contradicts himself daily now.

[Reck]

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

Why the mini meltdown?

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

[boutons_deux]

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

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

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus 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

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why the mini meltdown?

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

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

[TheSanityAnnex]

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

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

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus 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

Intention means nothing stupid , she signed an NDA.
(18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) is very clear.
The law applies to “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any 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—”

[spurraider21]

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

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

“The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus 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

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