Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna said in an interview on Keeler in the Morning, a radio show in upstate New York. The third-term congressman paused for a moment, perhaps recognizing the importance of what he was about to say, before going on to agree with McCarthy’s original statement.

“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said.

He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

Reading this I can't tell if he's criticizing the committee for being political or for not doing a good enough job in taking down Hillary. I think between this, McCarthy and Podliska there's enough now to have completely destroyed the effect of whatever credible testimony or effect any new revelations would be produced (and I think something will be). People who don't want to hear it or who feel the thing is purely political will ignore it and can rest on these three recent stories in doing that, and I am sure there will be a couple more to come out soon. It's probably an overall exemplar of the whole process in Washington these days. It will probably also ramp up pressure on the committee to produce a Gotcha moment and for Hillary to go soapbox on how she is being persecuted or go full smirk in response to questioning (TBD).

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

If you don't think Russia got intelligence in exchange for taking in Snowden, you're blind. He's a traitor even if what he exposed was necessarily brought to light.

 

[timschochet]

If you don't think Russia got intelligence in exchange for taking in Snowden, you're blind. He's a traitor even if what he exposed was necessarily brought to light.

If I give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, which I do, then Edward Snowdrn deserves it as well. I disagreed with Hillary's comments about him. One can suspect him of being a traitor but you'd better show proof before you call him one. As to your specific point, it's just as likely Russia took him in because it embarrasses the USA. It's happened before.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If you don't think Russia got intelligence in exchange for taking in Snowden, you're blind. He's a traitor even if what he exposed was necessarily brought to light.

If I give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, which I do, then Edward Snowdrn deserves it as well. I disagreed with Hillary's comments about him. One can suspect him of being a traitor but you'd better show proof before you call him one.As to your specific point, it's just as likely Russia took him in because it embarrasses the USA. It's happened before.

We don't know that Snowden was working for the Russians before but he is now. It's simply a question of whether he's telling the truth about dumping his files after giving a copy to the Guardian.

I think Hillary's statement requires follow up and also that bit she said about Snowden having access to whistleblower status in the US gov was completely made-up bs.

 

[timschochet]

I think we can now dispense with this whole "we need more debates!" argument. 6 will be more than enough. Actually only a couple more will suffice. Really only Hillary and Bernie should be up there; the rest of them are just wasting space.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They haven't had one yet. The platform down to the podiums was totally arranged for Hillary, truly a DNC sham.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't see why O'Malley should stay over Webb if they keep three. Chafee basically disqualified himself.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I don't see why O'Malley should stay over Webb if they keep three. Chafee basically disqualified himself.

O'Malley put up some semblance of a fight at the first debate.

Really the next debate will be all about Sanders v. Clinton v. Biden

 

[timschochet]

They haven't had one yet. The platform down to the podiums was totally arranged for Hillary, truly a DNC sham.

Whining doesn't become you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They haven't had one yet. The platform down to the podiums was totally arranged for Hillary, truly a DNC sham.

Whining doesn't become you.

Check my prior post pre-debate, it was pretty much a presentation debate, not a back and forth debate. It was tailor made for Hillary, I don't think there was any surprise there. Webb and Chafee (deservedly) got ignored after the first hour, they cut out the third hour, they put Hillary in the middle, Sanders rallied the crowd to her side and changed the momentum against himself, it was all pretty much the Hillary Show.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary was in the middle because she was the frontrunner. She certainly got some very tough questions. You seem to be implying the whole thing was rigged for her to be the winner. I dispute that. She won that debate but not because anyone helped her.

As far as Bernie's comments about the emails, he didn't say it to help her; he said it because he believes it, because most Dems believe it, and because its true. The email scandal is a distraction from real issues, it's been way overblown by partisans out to get Hillary, and most Democrats are sick of hearing about it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They haven't had one yet. The platform down to the podiums was totally arranged for Hillary, truly a DNC sham.

Whining doesn't become you.

Check my prior post pre-debate, it was pretty much a presentation debate, not a back and for the debate. It was tailor made for Hillary, I don't think there was any surprise there. Webb and Chafee (deservedly) got ignored after the first hour, they cut out the third hour, they put Hillary in the middle, Sanders rallied the crowd to her side and changed the momentum against himself, it was all pretty much the Hillary Show.

Hillary was in the middle because she was the frontrunner. She certainly got some very tough questions. You seem to be implying the whole thing was rigged for her to be the winner. I dispute that. She won that debate but not because anyone helped her.

As far as Bernie's comments about the emails, he didn't say it to help her; he said it because he believes it, because most Dems believe it, and because its true. The email scandal is a distraction from real issues, it's been way overblown by partisans out to get Hillary, and most Democrats are sick of hearing about it.

I realize Bernie said it because he believed it, he has said it before, but he also refrained from criticizing her on other issues as well. He did nothing, absolutely nothing, to criticize her. Now I realize that perhaps that plays to a strength of his, which I like, that he is a positive guy who does not get in the mud and people are sick of that generally. However politically it didn't help him IMO and the email issue as played by him was definitely a momentum shifter for Hillary. I only say all this to buttress the point that I think Hillary won and to help explain why I think that.

I said before the debate that this kind of platform would help Hillary and I stand by that, OTOH if Sanders was going to give Hillary a pass, if O'Malley and Chafee would be so ineffective, and if Webb was going to be ignored and couldn't get his message out concisely anyway, perhaps what difference does it make, to borrow a phrase I heard once.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now I will say, and it has been explained to me perhaps persuasively, that Bernie shouting 'I'm sick and tired of the bs' is something that will resonate with the American people generally, I could see that, and maybe he will come out ahead from all this. SF has posted about the focus groups coming out largely in favor of Bernie vs the establishment media being largely pro-Hillary post-debate (my impression was she won too) and he might be right on that point, and maybe Sanders' strategy was a winner. I will be happy if that's the case for sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

 

[Trey]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

I'm sure there will be absolutely no selective leaking done by any committee members by tomorrow afternoon.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

I'm sure there will be absolutely no selective leaking done by any committee members by tomorrow afternoon.

Ha, no, we will hear nothing of the goings on. ( )

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

The Republicans are idiots for not shutting down the Benghazi committee immediately. Regardless if you accept there are legitimate issues to get to the bottom of, politically the GOP has shot themselves in the foot and if the committee's main goal was bringing down Hillary, at this point continuing on with things only serves to help her. They should fold up shop, let the FBI's criminal investigation and the FOIA lawsuits run their course, where those things end up and the public's reaction to their results will determine Hillary's fate.

 

[timschochet]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

The Republicans are idiots for not shutting down the Benghazi committee immediately. Regardless if you accept there are legitimate issues to get to the bottom of, politically the GOP has shot themselves in the foot and if the committee's main goal was bringing down Hillary, at this point continuing on with things only serves to help her. They should fold up shop, let the FBI's criminal investigation and the FOIA lawsuits run their course, where those things end up and the public's reaction to their results will determine Hillary's fate.

They can't. They can't ever officially admit this has all been a charade. They have to go through with this now.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

The Republicans are idiots for not shutting down the Benghazi committee immediately. Regardless if you accept there are legitimate issues to get to the bottom of, politically the GOP has shot themselves in the foot and if the committee's main goal was bringing down Hillary, at this point continuing on with things only serves to help her. They should fold up shop, let the FBI's criminal investigation and the FOIA lawsuits run their course, where those things end up and the public's reaction to their results will determine Hillary's fate.

Agreed. The GOP can't get out of its own way right now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

The Republicans are idiots for not shutting down the Benghazi committee immediately. Regardless if you accept there are legitimate issues to get to the bottom of, politically the GOP has shot themselves in the foot and if the committee's main goal was bringing down Hillary, at this point continuing on with things only serves to help her. They should fold up shop, let the FBI's criminal investigation and the FOIA lawsuits run their course, where those things end up and the public's reaction to their results will determine Hillary's fate.

Agreed. The GOP can't get out of its own way right now.

Politically this may prove to be true. Could be a trainwreck.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think Bernie probably gets a pretty significant bump in the polls as a result of last night. I thought he was excellent at times although overall I was disappointed in his performance. ...

Maybe, but while Hillary might not have closed the door she certainly closed a few "windows of opportunity" for a Biden candidacy. And no bump for Sanders based on Tuesday night, to my chagrin would likely match Hillary securing most of the Biden support.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Oh Hillary.

The TPP.

It calls for thee.

Once she is in the WH she'll do what she likes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8pcUKboeA8

Q: So you're evolving on...

A: I'm against it now, but we'll see if there are any kind of significant changes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Castro is endorsing her tomorrow, then it's reported she's looking at him as VP.

Pretty much done deal. Cynical and he's unqualified but a done deal.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Castro is endorsing her tomorrow, then it's reported she's looking at him as VP.

Pretty much done deal. Cynical and he's unqualified but a done deal.

Why do you say he's unqualified? (I don't know much about him).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Castro is endorsing her tomorrow, then it's reported she's looking at him as VP.

Pretty much done deal. Cynical and he's unqualified but a done deal.

Why do you say he's unqualified? (I don't know much about him).

Resume:

- Mayor of San Antonio. - Did he finish his second term even? At least it's not a small town in Alaska.

- Proxy head of HUD - uhm, yeah, I'm guessing his day consists of Big League VP nominee training courses.

 

[shadrap]

he is talking about Fidel.

 

[Sand]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Nothing like identity politics out of the "party of inclusiveness."

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Castro is endorsing her tomorrow, then it's reported she's looking at him as VP.

Pretty much done deal. Cynical and he's unqualified but a done deal.

Why do you say he's unqualified? (I don't know much about him).

I think you'd recognize him as the guy who gave a keynote speech at the 2012 DNC.http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/abc_dnc_castro_120904_wg.jpg

 

[timschochet]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Castro is endorsing her tomorrow, then it's reported she's looking at him as VP.

Pretty much done deal. Cynical and he's unqualified but a done deal.

Why do you say he's unqualified? (I don't know much about him).

I think you'd recognize him as the guy who gave a keynote speech at the 2012 DNC.http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/abc_dnc_castro_120904_wg.jpg

That I remember. Very impressive. Almost as good as Obama in 2004.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Nothing like identity politics out of the "party of inclusiveness."

They wouldn't be able to get away with it except that the Republicans have set things up that way. The GOP knew the risks of attacking Latinos, and they've done it anyhow.

 

[Sand]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Nothing like identity politics out of the "party of inclusiveness."

They wouldn't be able to get away with it except that the Republicans have set things up that way. The GOP knew the risks of attacking Latinos, and they've done it anyhow.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Nothing like identity politics out of the "party of inclusiveness."

They wouldn't be able to get away with it except that the Republicans have set things up that way. The GOP knew the risks of attacking Latinos, and they've done it anyhow.

Not sure what's funny about it.

 

[Sand]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Nothing like identity politics out of the "party of inclusiveness."

They wouldn't be able to get away with it except that the Republicans have set things up that way. The GOP knew the risks of attacking Latinos, and they've done it anyhow.

Not sure what's funny about it.

That you think it's a result of Republicans. Seriously - that's the whole strategy of Democrats in general and Hillary in particular - "African American? Vote for Hillary!" "Latinos for Hillary!" "###### Solidarity - Vote for the Hill!"

So damn predictable. Balkanize, sew seeds of fear and envy, and ask for votes.

 

[timschochet]

Read what I wrote again. Sure, they'd do it no matter what. But the reason it's going to work is because the GOP frontrunner came out and said that Mexico is sending us its rapists, and the other candidates failed to take him on for it. The Democrats can try and play identity politics all day long, but it doesn't work unless Republicans help them along. Which they most certainly are.

 

[The Commish]

I think we can now dispense with this whole "we need more debates!" argument. 6 will be more than enough. Actually only a couple more will suffice. Really only Hillary and Bernie should be up there; the rest of them are just wasting space.

If there is a single actual debate, I'll be happy. That's all that's necessary.

 

[The Commish]

Huma Abedin to appear before Benghazi Committee Friday

The Republicans are idiots for not shutting down the Benghazi committee immediately. Regardless if you accept there are legitimate issues to get to the bottom of, politically the GOP has shot themselves in the foot and if the committee's main goal was bringing down Hillary, at this point continuing on with things only serves to help her. They should fold up shop, let the FBI's criminal investigation and the FOIA lawsuits run their course, where those things end up and the public's reaction to their results will determine Hillary's fate.

Agreed. The GOP can't get out of its own way right now.

Politically this may prove to be true. Could be a trainwreck.

It became a trainwreck when the FOIA requests came in focusing on email content, completely missing the larger, more important point.

 

[The Commish]

Read what I wrote again. Sure, they'd do it no matter what. But the reason it's going to work is because the GOP frontrunner came out and said that Mexico is sending us its rapists, and the other candidates failed to take him on for it. The Democrats can try and play identity politics all day long, but it doesn't work unless Republicans help them along. Which they most certainly are.

History begs to differ with you. It's been their go to for decades and it works regardless of what the GOP is doing.

 

[timschochet]

Read what I wrote again. Sure, they'd do it no matter what. But the reason it's going to work is because the GOP frontrunner came out and said that Mexico is sending us its rapists, and the other candidates failed to take him on for it. The Democrats can try and play identity politics all day long, but it doesn't work unless Republicans help them along. Which they most certainly are.

History begs to differ with you. It's been their go to for decades and it works regardless of what the GOP is doing.

no history agrees with me. The Dems have especially tried to play identity politics with Latinos since 1994 (that was the year Pete Wilson of California pushed for Prop 187). But in 2000, George W Bush got 40% of the Latino vote because he was regarded as friendly to Latino interests. So the attempt failed then. In 2012 it worked because Romney told illegals to self-deport. This coming year it's going to work hugely because of Trump.

It all depends on what the Republicans do. You can't create identity politics in a vacuum. You have to take advantage of grievances which already exist.

 

[The Commish]

Read what I wrote again. Sure, they'd do it no matter what. But the reason it's going to work is because the GOP frontrunner came out and said that Mexico is sending us its rapists, and the other candidates failed to take him on for it. The Democrats can try and play identity politics all day long, but it doesn't work unless Republicans help them along. Which they most certainly are.

History begs to differ with you. It's been their go to for decades and it works regardless of what the GOP is doing.

no history agrees with me.The Dems have especially tried to play identity politics with Latinos since 1994 (that was the year Pete Wilson of California pushed for Prop 187). But in 2000, George W Bush got 40% of the Latino vote because he was regarded as friendly to Latino interests. So the attempt failed then. In 2012 it worked because Romney told illegals to self-deport. This coming year it's going to work hugely because of Trump.

It all depends on what the Republicans do. You can't create identity politics in a vacuum. You have to take advantage of grievances which already exist.

There's a difference between "history" and "parts of history" When you're bringing up the exception rather than the rule, it sorta proves the point.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Hillary is launching "Latinos For Hillary":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255622-clinton-launches-latinos-for-hillary

She is speaking right now in San Antonio. Julian Castro is by her side.

Nothing like identity politics out of the "party of inclusiveness."

They wouldn't be able to get away with it except that the Republicans have set things up that way. The GOP knew the risks of attacking Latinos, and they've done it anyhow.

Not sure what's funny about it.

That you think it's a result of Republicans. Seriously - that's the whole strategy of Democrats in general and Hillary in particular - "African American? Vote for Hillary!" "Latinos for Hillary!" "###### Solidarity - Vote for the Hill!"

So damn predictable. Balkanize, sew seeds of fear and envy, and ask for votes.

This is extremely rich coming from a current GOP supporter.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gotta agree with tim on this one. Democrats run the "identity politics" play all the time, but the degree to which it works depends heavily on how much the Republicans choose to contribute to it.

Consider the "war on women" thing. Pro-life candidates have no problem getting elected, despite having this his argument used against them, because most pro-life politicians aren't anti-women, and most normal people understand that. But then a guy like Todd Akin comes along and gets pulverized because he decides to walk right into the teeth of that critique. That's just one example, of course, but it's not that hard to find others.

 

[The Commish]

Gotta agree with tim on this one. Democrats run the "identity politics" play all the time, but the degree to which it works depends heavily on how much the Republicans choose to contribute to it.

Consider the "war on women" thing. Pro-life candidates have no problem getting elected, despite having this his argument used against them, because most pro-life politicians aren't anti-women, and most normal people understand that. But then a guy like Todd Akin comes along and gets pulverized because he decides to walk right into the teeth of that critique. That's just one example, of course, but it's not that hard to find others.

You're talking about degrees of working, Tim wasn't. It was a black and white statement that it doesn't work (full stop) unless the GOP is contributing. There's a difference IMO.

 

[The_Man]

I can't believe this guy meant for these comments to be on the record.

Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a president who will be tough on Wall Street. But the leader of one powerful bank lobby isn’t buying it.

Camden Fine, the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, said Clinton’s stance on regulating large Wall Street banks is pure politicking.

“She’s doing that because of Bernie. If Hillary is elected president of the United States, it’s gonna be $500 billion, and that’s fine,” Fine said in an interview with Morning Consult, referring to a policy proposed by Senate Republicans to loosen Dodd-Frank regulations. “She’s gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected. So it’s all Bernie theatrics right now. She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake. What do you expect?”

Fine hits on a point that Clinton fought Tuesday night at the first Democratic presidential debate: that she is too close to Wall Street.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Clinton was being “kind of naïve” when she told bad actors on Wall Street to “cut it out.”

“In my view, Secretary Clinton, you do not — Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress,” Sanders said, a line that garnered big applause.

The comments from Fine, who is one of the most powerful bank lobbyists in Washington, are more evidence of the challenge Clinton faces in convincing voters that she will stick to her campaign platform regarding Wall Street if elected president.

Clinton’s plan for regulating Wall Street, released last week, didn’t embrace the far left’s favorite proposal: to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, which would break up big banks. But it did make clear that Clinton would adhere to regulations outlined in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, particularly the increased scrutiny of large financial institutions.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I can't believe this guy meant for these comments to be on the record.

Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a president who will be tough on Wall Street. But the leader of one powerful bank lobby isn’t buying it.

Camden Fine, the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, said Clinton’s stance on regulating large Wall Street banks is pure politicking.

“She’s doing that because of Bernie. If Hillary is elected president of the United States, it’s gonna be $500 billion, and that’s fine,” Fine said in an interview with Morning Consult, referring to a policy proposed by Senate Republicans to loosen Dodd-Frank regulations. “She’s gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected. So it’s all Bernie theatrics right now. She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake. What do you expect?”

Fine hits on a point that Clinton fought Tuesday night at the first Democratic presidential debate: that she is too close to Wall Street.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Clinton was being “kind of naïve” when she told bad actors on Wall Street to “cut it out.”

“In my view, Secretary Clinton, you do not — Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress,” Sanders said, a line that garnered big applause.

The comments from Fine, who is one of the most powerful bank lobbyists in Washington, are more evidence of the challenge Clinton faces in convincing voters that she will stick to her campaign platform regarding Wall Street if elected president.

Clinton’s plan for regulating Wall Street, released last week, didn’t embrace the far left’s favorite proposal: to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, which would break up big banks. But it did make clear that Clinton would adhere to regulations outlined in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, particularly the increased scrutiny of large financial institutions.

You have to give Hillary some credit, she has a giant pair of balls and is shameless. The whole "Cut it out" story was pretty funny but she really shined when she talked about Snowden having important info that fell into the wrong hands. An amazing statement to make for someone under FBI investigation for potentially mishandling classified information. I don't think it is a stretch to think that she may be a sociopath.

 

[The Commish]

I can't believe this guy meant for these comments to be on the record.

Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a president who will be tough on Wall Street. But the leader of one powerful bank lobby isn’t buying it.

Camden Fine, the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, said Clinton’s stance on regulating large Wall Street banks is pure politicking.

“She’s doing that because of Bernie. If Hillary is elected president of the United States, it’s gonna be $500 billion, and that’s fine,” Fine said in an interview with Morning Consult, referring to a policy proposed by Senate Republicans to loosen Dodd-Frank regulations. “She’s gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected. So it’s all Bernie theatrics right now. She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake. What do you expect?”

Fine hits on a point that Clinton fought Tuesday night at the first Democratic presidential debate: that she is too close to Wall Street.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Clinton was being “kind of naïve” when she told bad actors on Wall Street to “cut it out.”

“In my view, Secretary Clinton, you do not — Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress,” Sanders said, a line that garnered big applause.

The comments from Fine, who is one of the most powerful bank lobbyists in Washington, are more evidence of the challenge Clinton faces in convincing voters that she will stick to her campaign platform regarding Wall Street if elected president.

Clinton’s plan for regulating Wall Street, released last week, didn’t embrace the far left’s favorite proposal: to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, which would break up big banks. But it did make clear that Clinton would adhere to regulations outlined in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, particularly the increased scrutiny of large financial institutions.

Why?

 

[Todd Andrews]

I can't believe this guy meant for these comments to be on the record.

Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a president who will be tough on Wall Street. But the leader of one powerful bank lobby isn’t buying it.

Camden Fine, the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, said Clinton’s stance on regulating large Wall Street banks is pure politicking.

“She’s doing that because of Bernie. If Hillary is elected president of the United States, it’s gonna be $500 billion, and that’s fine,” Fine said in an interview with Morning Consult, referring to a policy proposed by Senate Republicans to loosen Dodd-Frank regulations. “She’s gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected. So it’s all Bernie theatrics right now. She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake. What do you expect?”

Fine hits on a point that Clinton fought Tuesday night at the first Democratic presidential debate: that she is too close to Wall Street.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Clinton was being “kind of naïve” when she told bad actors on Wall Street to “cut it out.”

“In my view, Secretary Clinton, you do not — Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress,” Sanders said, a line that garnered big applause.

The comments from Fine, who is one of the most powerful bank lobbyists in Washington, are more evidence of the challenge Clinton faces in convincing voters that she will stick to her campaign platform regarding Wall Street if elected president.

Clinton’s plan for regulating Wall Street, released last week, didn’t embrace the far left’s favorite proposal: to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, which would break up big banks. But it did make clear that Clinton would adhere to regulations outlined in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, particularly the increased scrutiny of large financial institutions.

Why?

Because they are true but damage Wall Street's favorite candidate: Hillary.

 

[The Commish]

I can't believe this guy meant for these comments to be on the record.

Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a president who will be tough on Wall Street. But the leader of one powerful bank lobby isn’t buying it.

Camden Fine, the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, said Clinton’s stance on regulating large Wall Street banks is pure politicking.

“She’s doing that because of Bernie. If Hillary is elected president of the United States, it’s gonna be $500 billion, and that’s fine,” Fine said in an interview with Morning Consult, referring to a policy proposed by Senate Republicans to loosen Dodd-Frank regulations. “She’s gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected. So it’s all Bernie theatrics right now. She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake. What do you expect?”

Fine hits on a point that Clinton fought Tuesday night at the first Democratic presidential debate: that she is too close to Wall Street.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Clinton was being “kind of naïve” when she told bad actors on Wall Street to “cut it out.”

“In my view, Secretary Clinton, you do not — Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress,” Sanders said, a line that garnered big applause.

The comments from Fine, who is one of the most powerful bank lobbyists in Washington, are more evidence of the challenge Clinton faces in convincing voters that she will stick to her campaign platform regarding Wall Street if elected president.

Clinton’s plan for regulating Wall Street, released last week, didn’t embrace the far left’s favorite proposal: to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, which would break up big banks. But it did make clear that Clinton would adhere to regulations outlined in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, particularly the increased scrutiny of large financial institutions.

Why?

Because they are true but damage Wall Street's favorite candidate: Hillary.

Truth doesn't matter if people aren't paying attention and the fact that she's the leader of the Dem race right now proves that people aren't paying attention. He might as well be shouting into a black hole.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275919/Investigation-Hillary-s-email-server-focuses-Espionage-Act-10-years-jail-FBI-agent-says-prosecuted-just-failing-tell-Obama.html

Investigation into Hillary's email server focuses on Espionage Act and could get her 10 years in jail as FBI agent says she could be prosecuted just for failing to tell Obama.

 

[timschochet]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?ref=opinion&referer=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Paul Krugman disputing some myths that have been pretty prevalent around here. Hillary is NOT owned by Wall Street; Wall Street would like nothing more than to defeat her, and that's because Hillary's positions on this subject are actually far more complex and preferable to

Sanders' plan to return to Glass-Steagall, which Krugman calls simplistic.