Hillary Clinton

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

It seems even entities who would normally go out of their way to be loyal to her are turning against the hag.

The very liberal NY Daily News just jumped off the band wagon. The article includes a discription of a panel of lefty media types on MSNBC who are turning against her.

Hillary Clinton should remove herself from contention from the Democratic nomination. Had the American public known a year ago what we know now, it's possible that Clinton would have never made it this far. That she refused to be interviewed for the investigation and that she refuses to release the transcripts from her speeches to Goldman Sachs suggests that she is prepared to win by any means necessary. Even if it means denying the voters in her own party the information they truly need to make an informed decision.

When respected members of the press are utterly flabbergasted by the lies that were told, sometimes directly to their faces, this has crossed over into something else - something far more nefarious.

"...respected members of the press..."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-clinton-quit-presidential-race-email-scandal-article-1.2652342

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The very liberal NY Daily News just jumped off the band wagon. The article includes a discription of a panel of lefty media types on MSNBC who are turning against her.



"...respected members of the press..."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-clinton-quit-presidential-race-email-scandal-article-1.2652342

Do you think they are doing this thinking she will eventually become unelectable and want her to drop out and hand the keys to Bernie?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Do you think they are doing this thinking she will eventually become unelectable and want her to drop out and hand the keys to Bernie?

I think that they are getting very worried that Trump could beat her. Some of those people, like Chuck Todd, know enough about politics to know that Bernie hasn't got much of a chance against Trump. And unlike the fan boys here and elsewhere on the web, they know that the Inspector General report on her emails was really bad news for her. It was yuge!

I'd guess they are hoping she would quit before the convention and they could draft Biden. Crazy Uncle Joe has a better chance of beating Trump than any other Dem on the horizon.

[Tom]

Huff and Puff Post posted, then pulled down a story - factually based, that RICO charges may be pending for Hillary and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. Apparently, many deleted emails have been recovered and direct links between arms deals made by the SOS SOS and contributions to the CF.

The author is asking why it was pulled and says he can back up every claim made in it.

Huff and Puff, obviosly a biased left-leaning rag is trying to cover this up.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tom

Huff and Puff Post posted, then pulled down a story - factually based, that RICO charges may be pending for Hillary and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. Apparently, many deleted emails have been recovered and direct links between arms deals made by the SOS SOS and contributions to the CF.

The author is asking why it was pulled and says he can back up every claim made in it.

Huff and Puff, obviosly a biased left-leaning rag is trying to cover this up.

I was reading an article about all the lies she told about her e-mail set-up and how she was uncooperative with investigators. I was going to post a link but now I can't find it. She is obviously a chronic liar, even worse than most politicians.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

I was reading an article about all the lies she told about her e-mail set-up and how she was uncooperative with investigators. I was going to post a link but now I can't find it. She is obviously a chronic liar, even worse than most politicians.

Most people know when they are stretching the truth or telling an out-and-out lie.
Hillary doesn't. That is a frightening ingrained trait for a President to have.

[Clocker]

Another lefty source checks out of the Hotel Clinton.

Remember libs, you are stuck with the baggage. You can check out, but you can never leave.

The lead article at Politico Magazine is "Why does the left hate Hillary?"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...essives-213916

[barahona44]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Another lefty source checks out of the Hotel Clinton.

Remember libs, you are stuck with the baggage. You can check out, but you can never leave.

The lead article at Politico Magazine is "Why does the left hate Hillary?"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...essives-213916

Plenty of conservative magazines/newspapers/media outlets have been dismissive of Trump, all it shows is the weakening influence of the media on the voting public.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Another lefty source checks out of the Hotel Clinton.

Remember libs, you are stuck with the baggage. You can check out, but you can never leave.

The lead article at Politico Magazine is "Why does the left hate Hillary?"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...essives-213916

Dopey article. It seems the title question is rhetorical since the author is really eager to explain it in the most simplistic way possible and basically tell "the left" that they've taken her too far out of context to not love her. Your misgivings are just a big misunderstanding because she did try to care once.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Dopey article.

I think it was poorly written and the author may not have understood the real issues. Hillary's historic base has moved left, and she is not keeping up with it. She is trying but she is essentially running on entitlement. She put her time and effort in and she deserves to win. Everything else is a distraction and a conspiracy to deny her what she is due.

[woodtoo]

Give her what she deserves.....5 to ten.

[bks]

Originally Posted by mostpost

This reasonable person does not see it that way. The question is what were the laws and the rules at the time Clinton had the private server set up. As far as I can determine, the use of private email was not specifically prohibited by law until Nov. 14, 2014-more than a year after Clinton left office. State Department regulations discouraged the use of private email, but did not specifically forbid it. In fact, they acknowledged that it was sometimes necessary.

The same applies to the classified material. We don't know that it was classified at the time the emails were exchanged. We also don't know which of the classified material was sent by Clinton and which was sent by others and only received by her.

These are the things the FBI is investigating. Since there are over 50,000 pages of emails and probably hundreds of people to interview, it is going to take some time.

Mostie: instead of muddying the waters with what "we don't know," let's focus on what we do, and can reasonably speculate on that basis:

1. Hillary Clinton didn’t have permission to set up her email this way, while suggesting for years that she did. Neither the NSA nor the State Dept. signed off on it;

2. She ignored federal regulations regarding FOIA and the collection of records for the State Department both in setting up the server itself, and in not supplying any documents not in government possession upon leaving office.
There is only one reason for doing this: she didn’t want any public oversight of her "personal communications," no matter what organization regulations or even the law required.

We can offer reasonable speculation as to why: her family's first and primary business is selling Clinton Foundation clients access to government and other powerful figures. She and her family are influence peddlers. Here is one report on this activity from a liberal publication:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-arms-deals

3. Because she did handle classified material on that email server put herself in legal jeopardy, irrespective of intent and whether the server was breached by hackers or not. People who work in the security field understand this very well, and you can be sure that those inside govt understand it very, very well and aren't happy.

None of this means she goes to jail. It just means she looks every bit the crooked liar people already believed her to be, and THERE IS NO WAY OUT from here. Even if the FBI doesn't prosecute, it looks like the fix was in for her and she gets tarred with the preferential treatment brush. She can't come away from this looking clean.

That's why her nomination is far from a sure thing, and her candidacy will remain fraught right up until election day.

Sanders is miles the better candidate for the Democrats, but the DNC vampires would rather eat their children than give him the keys to the party.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The very liberal NY Daily News just jumped off the band wagon. The article includes a discription of a panel of lefty media types on MSNBC who are turning against her.



"...respected members of the press..."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-clinton-quit-presidential-race-email-scandal-article-1.2652342

Even "Liberal" publications have conservative columnists working for them. Shaun King, may not exactly be a conservative, but he recently wrote a column titled, "Why I am leaving the Democratic Party and why you should too." He clearly has issues with the Clintons.

[bks]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Even "Liberal" publications have conservative columnists working for them. Shaun King, may not exactly be a conservative, but he recently wrote a column titled, "Why I am leaving the Democratic Party and why you should too." He clearly has issues with the Clintons.

But he's not a conservative, mostie. He's to her left.

Almost all of Sanders' supporters are to her left as well. Many identify as Democrats, but recognize the Party has drifted perceptibly rightward. Many others are kids who don't strongly identify with the Democratic Party, and won't become lifelong Democrats as in generations past.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by bks

Mostie: instead of muddying the waters with what "we don't know," let's focus on what we do, and can reasonably speculate on that basis:

1. Hillary Clinton didn’t have permission to set up her email this way, while suggesting for years that she did. Neither the NSA nor the State Dept. signed off on it;
And yet, I have seen several stories in which it was stated that the State Department did not have any specific prohibition against using private email at the time Clinton was Secretary of State. It was discouraged. But why do you trust the State Department and NSA officials who said the did not or would not have given her permission? How do you know they are not just covering their own a$$e$.

2. She ignored federal regulations regarding FOIA and the collection of records for the State Department both in setting up the server itself, and in not supplying any documents not in government possession upon leaving office.
I think Clinton's explanation for this is very reasonable. All the communications she sent to State Department officials were sent to State Department computers. Any communications she received from State Department officials were sent from State Department computers. Therefore there should already be a record of anything sent or received. Similarly, Clinton would not have to supply any documents not in government possession since-in her view-those documents were already in government possession.
There is only one reason for doing this: she didn’t want any public oversight of her "personal communications," no matter what organization regulations or even the law required.
If this is true, she picked the worst way to do it. It would have made much more sense to carry the two devices-they aren't that big-and there would have been no question of what she was doing. So, while I think Clinton picked a poor way to accomplish her goal, I don't think she had any nefarious motives.

We can offer reasonable speculation as to why: her family's first and primary business is selling Clinton Foundation clients access to government and other powerful figures. She and her family are influence peddlers. Here is one report on this activity from a liberal publication:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-arms-deals
Even liberal publications get things wrong sometimes. In fact you usually think they get them wrong all the time.

Here again, why do it this way? Money that is donated to the Clinton Foundation does not go to Hillary Clinton; it goes to the Foundation. According to various watchdog groups, the Clinton Foundation uses 89% of money donated to do the work of the foundation. The other 11% is for administrative expenses. It does not make sense to launder the money this way when none of it goes to the Clintons.

I know that there have been stories-most of them posted by you guys here-that there are flaws in the foundations bookkeeping. Yet, independent auditors who have examined those books found them to be OK.


3. Because she did handle classified material on that email server put herself in legal jeopardy, irrespective of intent and whether the server was breached by hackers or not. People who work in the security field understand this very well, and you can be sure that those inside govt understand it very, very well and aren't happy.
I still have not found a verifiable story that Clinton ever sent or received material that was classified at the time it was sent or received. (See US Constitution regarding Ex Post Facto laws.)

None of this means she goes to jail. It just means she looks every bit the crooked liar people already believed her to be, and THERE IS NO WAY OUT from here. Even if the FBI doesn't prosecute, it looks like the fix was in for her and she gets tarred with the preferential treatment brush. She can't come away from this looking clean.
Which is the whole problem. If Clinton were completely innocent-she is certainly guilty of bad judgement in a number of areas-they can still accuse her of receiving preferential treatment. That would be much more difficult to refute than the actual charges.

That's why her nomination is far from a sure thing, and her candidacy will remain fraught right up until election day.

Sanders is miles the better candidate for the Democrats, but the DNC vampires would rather eat their children than give him the keys to the party.

That may be, but Clinton would be miles the better President. And she would be light years the better President than Donald Trump.

As for the DNC vampires:
Clinton is well ahead in delegate count if you include the Super Delegates. What if we just take a way the Super Delegates? Well, if you do that, you also have to take away the total number of delegates at the convention. Which means the number required to get the nomination would be correspondingly reduced. Hillary Clinton is well ahead in the number of delegates chosen at the primaries and caucuses and the remaining primaries offer little hope of Sanders closing the gap.