Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

[Slapdash]

My impression is that there are about 5 conservatives or libertarians for every progressive in this forum.

What a stupid remark.

 

[RCon]

Not wanting to get into an argument about semantics again - however most progressives who are Democrats use the term progressive and liberal interchangeably (people such as NCC notwithstanding). I call myself a progressive but I am not close to being a libertarian, as I am not in favor of phasing out or ending Social Security and abolishing Medicare, etc.

That was kind of my point. Progressives aren't really libertarians, and conservatives aren't really libertarians either. Lumping conservatives in with libertarians is just as silly. For example, libertarians are, generally, in favor of gay marriage, in favor of legalizing drugs, etc.

 

[timschochet]

My impression is that there are about 5 conservatives or libertarians for every progressive in this forum.

What a stupid remark.

Stupid or not, that's my impression. Another impression I have is that you seem unable to disagree with me without continually throwing around insulting adjectives. That makes you very unpleasant to have any discourse with, which is really too bad, since at times you seem capable of offering thoughtful commentary.

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

My impression is that there are about 5 conservatives or libertarians for every progressive in this forum.

What a stupid remark.

Stupid or not, that's my impression.Another impression I have is that you seem unable to disagree with me without continually throwing around insulting adjectives. That makes you very unpleasant to have any discourse with, which is really too bad, since at times you seem capable of offering thoughtful commentary.

why so thin-skinned?

 

[Slapdash]

My impression is that there are about 5 conservatives or libertarians for every progressive in this forum.

What a stupid remark.

Stupid or not, that's my impression.Another impression I have is that you seem unable to disagree with me without continually throwing around insulting adjectives. That makes you very unpleasant to have any discourse with, which is really too bad, since at times you seem capable of offering thoughtful commentary.

You must not read any of the threads you post in if that is your impression. Quit saying stupid things and I'll quit calling them stupid.

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

My impression is that there are about 5 conservatives or libertarians for every progressive in this forum.

What a stupid remark.

Stupid or not, that's my impression.Another impression I have is that you seem unable to disagree with me without continually throwing around insulting adjectives. That makes you very unpleasant to have any discourse with, which is really too bad, since at times you seem capable of offering thoughtful commentary.

You must not read any of the threads you post in if that is your impression. Quit saying stupid things and I'll quit calling them stupid.

The funny part is Tim calls everyone a racist/bigot/sexist if he disagrees with them, so he is being a hypocrite here.

 

[jon_mx]

My impression is that there are about 5 conservatives or libertarians for every progressive in this forum. Furthermore, most of the progressives in this forum tend to be VERY progressive and thus not inclined to favor a moderate like Hillary if there is any other more progressive alternative. Furthermore, the vast majority of politically interested people in this forum, both left and right, share a deep aversion to "establishment" political figures, preferring any independent alternative.

Is it any wonder that those of us who support Hillary Clinton are in a very small minority around here? Thankfully for us this forum is not at all representative of the public at large.

The lack of support for Hillary is not an indication of political views. She lies worse than any candidate bar none. She is more paranoid than even Nixon. Most people can see her public persona is just a put on. She may not be as boring as say a Bob Dole, but she seriously lacks charisma. Hillary has a tough time showing empathy to people and is not convincing when she tries. She comes across as being entitled to power and above the law. Her temperament does not seem suitable for the presidency. It is not that there are not people on this forum who do not support her policies. She is just truly an unlikable personality.

 

[squistion]

Ellen DeGeneres ‏@TheEllenShow

I had a few emails with @HillaryClinton that I noticed she didnt share. I thought I should share them now. http://ellen.tv/1OimFTe

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Most people I know who are willing to actually identify as "republican" want Hillary as the nom. They believe they have a chance against her

That is true from those I have spoken to personally.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ellen DeGeneres ‏@TheEllenShow

I had a few emails with @HillaryClinton that I noticed she didnt share. I thought I should share them now. http://ellen.tv/1OimFTe

Funny stuff. I realize the point is to defuse the email situation by a stated powerful media friend of Hillary's but the line about Obama-self was funny. Unfortunately we know it's fictional because that could have never, ever come from Hillary. Good stuff though. Ellen and her brother are from the NO area by the way. Vance was known on the music scene here an eon ago.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My impression is that there are about 5 conservatives or libertarians for every progressive in this forum. Furthermore, most of the progressives in this forum tend to be VERY progressive and thus not inclined to favor a moderate like Hillary if there is any other more progressive alternative. Furthermore, the vast majority of politically interested people in this forum, both left and right, share a deep aversion to "establishment" political figures, preferring any independent alternative.

Is it any wonder that those of us who support Hillary Clinton are in a very small minority around here? Thankfully for us this forum is not at all representative of the public at large.

Tim, this and the other post (IIRC) that you have like this in the last page or so is just a typical supposition interposed to deflect from the idea that liberals, progressives, moderates, independents, libertarians, and whoever else, have serious, substantive concerns about Hillary. You wish to shrug it off as being something inherently flawed about the posters/readers here instead of recognizing that the problem is the inherent flaws in Hillary herself. I think part of the problem is that a person speaking falsely, in this case Hillary, rings hollow to anyone of any viewpoint even in those cases where her stated position is in agreement with their own.

 

[Mister CIA]

Ellen DeGeneres ‏@TheEllenShow

I had a few emails with @HillaryClinton that I noticed she didnt share. I thought I should share them now. http://ellen.tv/1OimFTe

Video won't play for me. Was it related to this?

 

[jon_mx]

Hillary goes off deep end.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

 

[The Commish]

Hillary goes off deep end.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

Why the gun firms and not the gun owners? Never made sense to me why we don't hold the purchasers/owners of the guns more responsible than we do. I purchase a gun and somehow my kid/spouse/friend/whomever goes and shoots someone, I'm on the hook with them. Security would pick up I'd imagine.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Hillary goes off deep end.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

@MurrinJames: #HillaryClinton Tears Up While Unveiling Gun Control Plan - @ABC News #Boston #NYC #DC #Atlanta http://t.co/zAokxNyFmWGod...she is so fake.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Some Clinton allies see lost cause in New Hampshire

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton is losing in New Hampshire, and at least one small contingent of family allies thinks it’s nearly time to cut bait.

The group — veterans of the family’s old campaigns and people close to Clinton’s fundraising — see little reason to support a strategy that continues to pour resources into the state where Bernie Sanders’ already surprising lead shows no signs of shrinking.
Story Continued Below

Despite confidence emanating from the campaign’s paid leadership team that Clinton is well positioned with more than four months to go before the primary, this circle of informal advisers is whispering about more aggressively looking beyond New Hampshire after a summer that saw her polling advantage evaporate. These confidantes are not only granting the possibility that Sanders could win here: they see it as a near-certainty, and in some cases wonder about the usefulness of flooding the state with precious resources.

Its very telling that anyone in the Clinton camp would tuck tail so soon, and also says a lot about their campaign funds, if they are worried about spending in New Hampshire.

I don't think she has a chance in New Hampshire, but it would be a big political blow if she is perceived to quit the New Hampshire primary just becasue she was losing.

 

[The Commish]

Some Clinton allies see lost cause in New Hampshire

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton is losing in New Hampshire, and at least one small contingent of family allies thinks it’s nearly time to cut bait.

The group — veterans of the family’s old campaigns and people close to Clinton’s fundraising — see little reason to support a strategy that continues to pour resources into the state where Bernie Sanders’ already surprising lead shows no signs of shrinking.

Story Continued Below

Despite confidence emanating from the campaign’s paid leadership team that Clinton is well positioned with more than four months to go before the primary, this circle of informal advisers is whispering about more aggressively looking beyond New Hampshire after a summer that saw her polling advantage evaporate. These confidantes are not only granting the possibility that Sanders could win here: they see it as a near-certainty, and in some cases wonder about the usefulness of flooding the state with precious resources.

Its very telling that anyone in the Clinton camp would tuck tail so soon, and also says a lot about their campaign funds, if they are worried about spending in New Hampshire.

I don't think she has a chance in New Hampshire, but it would be a big political blow if she is perceived to quit the New Hampshire primary just becasue she was losing.

What is she spending the funds on exactly? It's not like she has a bunch of negative campaign ads to battle.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Ellen DeGeneres ‏@TheEllenShow

I had a few emails with @HillaryClinton that I noticed she didnt share. I thought I should share them now. http://ellen.tv/1OimFTe

Funny stuff. I realize the point is to defuse the email situation by a stated powerful media friend of Hillary's but the line about Obama-self was funny. Unfortunately we know it's fictional because that could have never, ever come from Hillary. Good stuff though. Ellen and her brother are from the NO area by the way. Vance was known on the music scene here an eon ago.

The Cold.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Some Clinton allies see lost cause in New Hampshire

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton is losing in New Hampshire, and at least one small contingent of family allies thinks it’s nearly time to cut bait.

The group — veterans of the family’s old campaigns and people close to Clinton’s fundraising — see little reason to support a strategy that continues to pour resources into the state where Bernie Sanders’ already surprising lead shows no signs of shrinking.

Story Continued Below

Despite confidence emanating from the campaign’s paid leadership team that Clinton is well positioned with more than four months to go before the primary, this circle of informal advisers is whispering about more aggressively looking beyond New Hampshire after a summer that saw her polling advantage evaporate. These confidantes are not only granting the possibility that Sanders could win here: they see it as a near-certainty, and in some cases wonder about the usefulness of flooding the state with precious resources.

Its very telling that anyone in the Clinton camp would tuck tail so soon, and also says a lot about their campaign funds, if they are worried about spending in New Hampshire.

I don't think she has a chance in New Hampshire, but it would be a big political blow if she is perceived to quit the New Hampshire primary just becasue she was losing.

What is she spending the funds on exactly? It's not like she has a bunch of negative campaign ads to battle.

She spent several million on TV ads in New Hampshire and Iowa.

She also has a large infrastructure to support - double edged sword: it eats up a lot of campaign funds to have large operations in multiple states, but it also helps her campaign in states where Sanders is not as strong.

Obviously she cannot give up in New Hampshire - as she is not really campaigning to win New Hampshire, she is campaigning in New Hampshire to woo national voters. But, it would be a smart political move to start shifting resources to Super Tuesday states. She has lost the aura of invincibility in Iowa and New Hampshire - if she loses that aura in the South, its over. She should be doubling down in those states to keep Sanders from getting any traction.

She also needs to be honing her debating skills - she has to hold her own or "win" the debate to keep from sinking further in the national polls.

 

[timschochet]

I still think she will narrowly win both Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I still think she will narrowly win both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Unless Sanders does something egregious - she has no shot at New Hampshire. Best case for her to spin it will be that New Hampshire is just a minor protest vote.

I don't think she will win Iowa either - but her ground game, and familiarity with the caucuses may help her eke out a narrow win. Sanders voters will be energized and motivated, I am just not sure if they will be organized enough.

If Biden gets in, Sanders wins both states by a fairly comfortable margin - with one caveat, if Biden announces he is running with Warren, that would throw everything into chaos - but ultimately, I think a Biden-Warren ticket would comfortably get the nomination.

 

[timschochet]

Sinn Fein, Hillary was way down in New Hampshire to Obama in 2008 with only a few days to go, yet she ended up winning.

My logic is this: Hillary is going to do very well in the debates. By December or January, the Bernie fad will begin to die down. Hillary's organization will win her the Iowa caucus. Once that happens she will surge in NH.

 

[timschochet]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility. He's only doing well now because of the sympathy factor and because he's not in the race. I doubt he'll enter but even if he does his numbers will plummet the moment he does.

As for Warren I don't think she will get involved in this election in any way other than to eventually endorse Hillary.

 

[dhockster]

Sinn Fein, Hillary was way down in New Hampshire to Obama in 2008 with only a few days to go, yet she ended up winning.

My logic is this: Hillary is going to do very well in the debates. By December or January, the Bernie fad will begin to die down. Hillary's organization will win her the Iowa caucus. Once that happens she will surge in NH.

Just a quick question, Tim. Does everything you predict here line up with what you want to happen? Just curious.

 

[jon_mx]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility. He's only doing well now because of the sympathy factor and because he's not in the race. I doubt he'll enter but even if he does his numbers will plummet the moment he does.

As for Warren I don't think she will get involved in this election in any way other than to eventually endorse Hillary.

Biden sounding more like a candidate to friendsCNN‎ - 11 hours ago

Biden reportedly shared details on dying son's wish he run for presidentFox News‎ - 1 hour ago
ETA: IIMHO, Biden's numbers will jump when he enters. Most people do not view him as an actual candidate now and are not even considering him as a choice.

 

[psychobillies]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility. He's only doing well now because of the sympathy factor and because he's not in the race. I doubt he'll enter but even if he does his numbers will plummet the moment he does.

As for Warren I don't think she will get involved in this election in any way other than to eventually endorse Hillary.

He's doing well because he represents a continuation of the Obama administration, and because Hillary is just awful.

 

[jon_mx]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility. He's only doing well now because of the sympathy factor and because he's not in the race. I doubt he'll enter but even if he does his numbers will plummet the moment he does.

As for Warren I don't think she will get involved in this election in any way other than to eventually endorse Hillary.

He's doing well because he represents a continuation of the Obama administration, and because Hillary is just awful.

I am not sure who supports a candidate due to pity. Just awful analysis.

 

[Sweet J]

I was always under the impression that Biden was a little afraid of Hillary, like all the other Dems. Maybe I'm wrong on both parts.

 

[timschochet]

Sinn Fein, Hillary was way down in New Hampshire to Obama in 2008 with only a few days to go, yet she ended up winning.

My logic is this: Hillary is going to do very well in the debates. By December or January, the Bernie fad will begin to die down. Hillary's organization will win her the Iowa caucus. Once that happens she will surge in NH.

Just a quick question, Tim. Does everything you predict here line up with what you want to happen? Just curious.

lol You don't read me very often do you? When it comes to politics my predictions are usually the opposite of what I want to have happen.

 

[dhockster]

Sinn Fein, Hillary was way down in New Hampshire to Obama in 2008 with only a few days to go, yet she ended up winning.

My logic is this: Hillary is going to do very well in the debates. By December or January, the Bernie fad will begin to die down. Hillary's organization will win her the Iowa caucus. Once that happens she will surge in NH.

Just a quick question, Tim. Does everything you predict here line up with what you want to happen? Just curious.

lol You don't read me very often do you? When it comes to politics my predictions are usually the opposite of what I want to have happen.

Except in this thread in regards to Hillary.

 

[The Commish]

Sinn Fein, Hillary was way down in New Hampshire to Obama in 2008 with only a few days to go, yet she ended up winning.

My logic is this: Hillary is going to do very well in the debates. By December or January, the Bernie fad will begin to die down. Hillary's organization will win her the Iowa caucus. Once that happens she will surge in NH.

I guess there's a first time for everything. She's not going up against Obama this time around, so there's that. But I'm not sure it's going to be any easier going up against someone who actually has and believes in an actual platform. Typical "debate tactics" are will be spot lighted if she goes that route. It's going to be a can't miss event for certain.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I was always under the impression that Biden was a little afraid of Hillary, like all the other Dems. Maybe I'm wrong on both parts.

I think with Biden, there may be a little bit of being afraid of Clinton - but just as much worried that Biden getting in the race will split establishment votes, and allow Sanders to win the nomination.

I think if Biden gets in, its because he has Obama's backing, and he thinks he can defeat Hillary as the establishment candidate and hold off Sanders from the left. That is what he is gauging now - can he siphon off enough Clinton voters and, more importantly, donors?

Clintons bring a powerful political machine to the table - they are fundraising maniacs, not just for their own campaign, but that is how they buy support from others - no different than any other special interest group. They support the democratic party, and individual members with campaign contributions from Clinton supporters. If Biden gets in, with Obama's support, base-donors are going to be divided in their loyalty.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How Hillary Clinton kept her wealthy friends close while at State DepartmentThe note to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton from liberal financier George Soros demanded “urgent attention from the highest levels of the U.S. government.” Clinton swiftly alerted a top aide to what she described as a “very forceful message which is good — and needed.”

The e-mail exchange, in which Soros warned of growing unrest in Albania, illustrates how Clinton interacted with major donors to her family’s causes during her tenure at the State Department, staying in touch with her political network before her 2016 run for the Democratic presidential nomination. And they show how these donors, some of them with interests before the U.S. government, gained high-level access to press their policy concerns inside the Clinton-led State Department.

Soros, a top contributor to the Clinton Foundation, was one of several major donors whose messages were disclosed by the State Department last week as part of the ongoing release of the former secretary’s e-mails. Other exchanges included references to entertainment mogul Haim Saban, who has said he would pay “whatever it takes” to propel Clinton to the White House in 2016, as well as other major Clinton Foundation donors such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, fashion industry executive Susie Tompkins Buell and Ukrainian steel magnate Viktor Pinchuk.

The e-mails that mention donors — numbering a few dozen out of the thousands of pages of messages released so far — do not show that financial supporters were able to alter policy decisions. But the dynamic points to one of the unusual aspects of Clinton’s record at the State Department. Because she and her family have raised so much money over the years from wealthy individuals and major corporations — for political campaigns as well as the sprawling global charity founded by her husband, former president Bill Clinton — her public business as secretary inevitably brought her in contact with private interests that helped boost her family’s philanthropy and income.

Republicans have accused Hillary Clinton of potential conflicts of interest in mixing her public and private work.

Clinton aides declined to comment for this article but have waved away such suggestions in the past. They have said that interactions with prominent players in the world of finance and politics are to be expected of a secretary of state and that there is no indication of any impropriety.

The e-mails show that, in some cases, donors were granted face-to-face contact with top officials.

Soros secured a meeting with Clinton in 2010 to discuss U.S. government funding for the American University of Central Asia, an educational institution that Soros helped support in the former Soviet Union.

Pinchuk, who has pledged more than $10 million to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, met with a top Clinton aide to speak on behalf of Ukraine’s strongman president and to try to soothe tensions with Washington over that country’s human rights record and its growing closeness with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin while resisting Europe.

“I wanted to tell you that I met with Pinchuk who was asked by [then-Ukrainian President Viktor] Yanukovych to convey his strong continuing interest in integrating with Europe,” Melanne Verveer, the Clinton aide, wrote on Sept. 26, 2011, in an e-mail to Clinton.

The message acknowledged that the Ukrainian leader had “antagonized all sides in the last few weeks,” partly because of an upcoming trial of an opposition political leader. Verveer wrote after her conversation with Pinchuk that the Ukrainians are “looking for a way to get beyond” the human rights fallout from the trial.

It is not clear from the e-mails whether Clinton replied to Verveer. But the State Department pressed Yanukovych for changes until 2014, when he fled Kiev after uniformed marksmen fired on hundreds of demonstrators protesting his coziness with Putin and his refusal to join the European Union.

A spokesman for Pinchuk said the e-mail simply showed how the Ukrainian industrialist “tried to keep Ukraine’s European integration hopes alive during difficult times by talking to a wide range of Western diplomats, including Melanne Verveer,” whom he had known for some time.

Verveer was one of several close deputies who helped then-Secretary Clinton keep tabs on supporters. She had been Clinton’s chief of staff when she was first lady and was named by Secretary Clinton to be ambassador at large for global women’s issues.

Verveer told Clinton in 2010 about upcoming meetings with Gates, who along with his wife, Melinda Gates, is one of the biggest overall donors to the Clinton Foundation, providing more than $25 million.

In a November 2010 e-mail to Clinton, Verveer relayed details of an event held by designer Diane von Furstenberg, who along with her husband, Barry Diller, have provided about $80,000 to Clinton causes, according to a review of campaign and foundation records.

Verveer suggested that Clinton accept an award and speaking invitation offered from the couple’s foundation.

“I have no doubt you would be very warmly embraced and DVF and Barry are so fond of you,” Verveer wrote. The following year, Clinton received a “lifetime leadership award” from von Furstenberg’s foundation.

Other Verveer e-mails described support that Wal-Mart provided for a women’s entrepreneurship initiative that the Clinton-led State Department promoted. The Walton family, which founded the retail giant, is famously conservative. But it has always had a soft spot for Bill and Hillary Clinton, who served as governor and first lady when the Arkansas-based firm took off as an international retail power. Hillary Clinton was named to the Wal-Mart board in the 1980s, and the family and the company have supported Clinton campaigns and projects over the years.

Randy Hargrove, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said that the women’s empowerment forum was a “signature, priority initiative” for the company and that executives’ contacts with the Obama administration have extended well beyond Clinton.

Verveer wrote to Clinton in June 2011 to tell her that Buell, who has contributed more than $10 million to Clinton causes, had donated $200,000 to support a future international trade meeting in San Francisco.

“She’s thrilled it’s in SF and that you’re keynoting,” Verveer wrote. “She wants it to be wonderful for you (as we all do). I will go out in a few weeks and plan with her, but wanted you to know.”

The e-mails show that some communication with donors occurred through Thomas Nides, a senior aide who was deputy secretary for management and resources at the State Department.

“In my attempt to reach out,” Nides wrote in a September 2011 note to Clinton, he had “spoken to many of your friends.”

Nides’s message focused on Saban, the billionaire entertainment mogul and fierce pro-Israel advocate who has provided more than $2 million to Clinton campaigns through the years and more than $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

“One person in particular wanted to know if you ask for me to call, Haim Saban,” Nides wrote. “I said of coarse [sic].”

An e-mail from Saban’s wife, Cheryl, with the subject line “Oh my GOD,” was forwarded in May 2011 to Clinton by aide Huma Abedin. The e-mail, originally addressed to an aide to former president Clinton and copied to Abedin, was entirely redacted in the copy released to the public last week, except for the words “We got back from Africa Thursday night.” Hillary Clinton responded with a one-word e-mail to Abedin: “nice.”

On Oct. 15, 2011, Abedin wrote an e-mail to Hillary Clinton about a call from “Haim,” apparently seeking her help in connecting him with Bill Clinton. “WJC wasn’t answering so I tried you,” Abedin wrote.

Nides declined to comment for this article. Neither Verveer nor Saban responded to requests for comment.

On Oct. 15, 2011, Nides passed along an e-mail from Andrew Tisch, an heir to the Loews fortune, who applauded a recent speech Clinton had made to the New York Economic Club and for which Tisch gave the introduction. “I heard nothing but praise for your remarks,” he wrote, telling Clinton that he and his family “became huge fans of yours at . . . Lynn de Rothschild’s parties.”

Over time, the Tisch and de Rothschild families provided six-figure contributions to Clinton causes, according to a review of Federal Election Commission and Clinton Foundation donor reports.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-hillary-clinton-kept-her-wealthy-friends-close-while-at-state-department/2015/10/05/5cfbe884-6930-11e5-9223-70cb36460919_story.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The reason Hillary created her private email system and the reason she destroyed her emails are one in the same: she blended private financial interests with her public office.

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQmzTU1UcAA37eu.jpglols

 

[HellToupee]

There is hatred on the ground here in MA for Hillary. I'n not aware of one person in my family & social circle who is voting for her. The Bernie snowball is rolling along

 

[urbanhack]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility. He's only doing well now because of the sympathy factor and because he's not in the race. I doubt he'll enter but even if he does his numbers will plummet the moment he does.

As for Warren I don't think she will get involved in this election in any way other than to eventually endorse Hillary.

He's doing well because he represents a continuation of what the Obama administration was running on and not what they've executed, and because Hillary is just awful.

I am not sure who supports a candidate due to pity. Just awful analysis.

fixed

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility....

So you read the Vox article?

 

[timschochet]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility....

So you read the Vox article?

Good article. The hatred by some toward Hillary Clinton, the double standard by which she gets treated differently than any other politician, has always been inexplicable to me. I'd hate to think sexism is at the root of it, but it's hard to come up with rational alternatives.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As for Biden, with every day he waits he loses more credibility....

So you read the Vox article?

Good article.The hatred by some toward Hillary Clinton, the double standard by which she gets treated differently than any other politician, has always been inexplicable to me. I'd hate to think sexism is at the root of it, but it's hard to come up with rational alternatives.

According to multiple sources...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459

And the final scene in this particular kabuki is Hillary's campaign or supporters realizing that there is finally absolutely nothing they can do to stop Biden from running they out him and cut him down at the knees...

...for what the Weekly Standard (read conservative)'s Bill Kristol suggested back in August.

Conclusion: Biden is running and Hillary find him to be a serious threat.

Hence the saltiness here and elsewhere in Hillaryland.

Let's await the announcement, shall we?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Meanwhile, back at the Hillary CPU...

Mills shared now-classified info with Clinton FoundationHillary Clinton’s No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.

According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills — Clinton's former chief of state at State — forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons' philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit.

...The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.

Mills’ lawyer Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison did not respond to requests for comment. Previously, Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them.

Meanwhile, the FBI is currently investigating whether classified information was ever mishandled via Hillary Clinton's private email server.

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/cheryl-mills-hillary-clinton-emails-classified-foundation-214469#ixzz3npfh7WYg

 

[fourd]

http://news.yahoo.com/state-department-seeks-more-related-emails-clinton-191302551--politics.html

Come on guys, she siad she gave them to you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://news.yahoo.com/state-department-seeks-more-related-emails-clinton-191302551--politics.html

Come on guys, she siad she gave them to you.

Kennedy urged Kendall to contact "any Internet service and email providers" who might have copies of additional emails not yet provided by Clinton.

Oh yeah.

In a separate letter released Tuesday, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., raised the possibility that many of Clinton's emails, including some of those she withheld as private, may have been inadvertently kept by Datto, a Connecticut-based provider of email back-up devices and cloud storage.

Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wrote that Clinton purchased a Datto system in 2013 to provide on-site backup of her emails in case her home server failed. Though Clinton specifically instructed that copies of her emails not leave the devices under her control, Johnson's letter says his committee's investigation has determined that Datto's system may have automatically sent copies of Clinton's emails to cloud storage controlled by the company as recently as August 2015.

- Well now.

...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I still think she will narrowly win both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Sanders will win NH, Hillary will likely (but not definitely) win Iowa, and then Nevada will be up for grabs and Biden will have a good running shot at South Carolina and the South.

Oh yeah Hillary needs to win Iowa by a lot to get momentum in my view, a squeaker like she had in NH in 2008 will have the same effect as 08, which is raising doubts and pouring water on her "inevitability" and "best candidate suited to win the general" claims.

 

[squistion]

Meanwhile, back at the Hillary CPU...

Mills shared now-classified info with Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clintons No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.

According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills Clinton's former chief of state at State forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons' philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit.

...The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.

Mills lawyer Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison did not respond to requests for comment. Previously, Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them.

Meanwhile, the FBI is currently investigating whether classified information was ever mishandled via Hillary Clinton's private email server.

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/cheryl-mills-hillary-clinton-emails-classified-foundation-214469#ixzz3npfh7WYg

"later deemed classified" means it wasn't classified at the time of recept. And it is noted above that "Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them" How can you hold Hillary responsible for emails that were retroactively marked classified three years after she received them?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Meanwhile, back at the Hillary CPU...

Mills shared now-classified info with Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clintons No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.

According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills Clinton's former chief of state at State forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons' philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit.

...The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.

Mills lawyer Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison did not respond to requests for comment. Previously, Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them.

Meanwhile, the FBI is currently investigating whether classified information was ever mishandled via Hillary Clinton's private email server.

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/cheryl-mills-hillary-clinton-emails-classified-foundation-214469#ixzz3npfh7WYg

"later deemed classified" means it wasn't classified at the time of recept. And it is noted above that "Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them" How can you hold Hillary responsible for emails that were retroactively marked classified three years after she received them?

that is the risk you take when you play fast and loose with the rules.

But, you're right. The Clinton Foundation is more important than national security - I mean, thats why Clinton took the SOS job, right? To benefit the foundation....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Meanwhile, back at the Hillary CPU...

Mills shared now-classified info with Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clintons No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.

According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills Clinton's former chief of state at State forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons' philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit.

...The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.

Mills lawyer Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison did not respond to requests for comment. Previously, Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them.

Meanwhile, the FBI is currently investigating whether classified information was ever mishandled via Hillary Clinton's private email server.

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/cheryl-mills-hillary-clinton-emails-classified-foundation-214469#ixzz3npfh7WYg

"later deemed classified" means it wasn't classified at the time of recept. And it is noted above that "Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them" How can you hold Hillary responsible for emails that were retroactively marked classified three years after she received them?

Because the substance of the communication controls the classification, not the marking.

 

[fourd]

"later deemed classified" means it wasn't classified at the time of recept. And it is noted above that "Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them" How can you hold Hillary responsible for emails that were retroactively marked classified three years after she received them?

Wrong, they were classified by virtue of the information. If the staff had taken the training they would have known that. Good try, though.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Meanwhile, back at the Hillary CPU...

Mills shared now-classified info with Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clintons No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.

According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills Clinton's former chief of state at State forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons' philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit.

...The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.

Mills lawyer Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison did not respond to requests for comment. Previously, Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them.

Meanwhile, the FBI is currently investigating whether classified information was ever mishandled via Hillary Clinton's private email server.

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/cheryl-mills-hillary-clinton-emails-classified-foundation-214469#ixzz3npfh7WYg

"later deemed classified" means it wasn't classified at the time of recept. And it is noted above that "Mills' legal team has argued that she did nothing wrong because the messages were not marked classified when she had originally sent them" How can you hold Hillary responsible for emails that were retroactively marked classified three years after she received them?

Because Saints (eta: and others) argues that the quoted opinions of "security experts" who by nature believe everything must be classified trumps the real world diplomatic mission of the State Department where information must be shared. In this case anything that mention a foreign government should have always been assumed top secret because that is what the ex security administration guy thinks. Of course this is so secret that it was given to a conservative activist group via a FOIA request.

Oh, and per the standard established in this thread for "mishandling classified documents" Citizen's United will be raided soon and everyone there will be heading off to prison. This stuff is substantive!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's like taking the sign "Bank" off the front of the bank, then robbing the bank, then getting caught, then using teh defense, "Aha! But it wasn't a bank, there was no "Bank" sign on it at the time."