Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)

[squistion]

Anyone post the Warren video talking about Hillary in 2004?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

I'm sure her opinion just evolved when she got more facts. She's so principled.

I think it'll be used against her in the general. You can't portray yourself as a woman of the people when you screwed them the second it because politically expedient to do so. This is my problem with Hillary. She's bought and paid for like the rest of them are. A Hillary administration will be business as usual for the richest and tough times for the rest of us no matter how much she tries to portray herself as a champion for the little guy.

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

 

[psychobillies]

Anyone post the Warren video talking about Hillary in 2004?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

I'm sure her opinion just evolved when she got more facts. She's so principled.

I think it'll be used against her in the general. You can't portray yourself as a woman of the people when you screwed them the second it because politically expedient to do so. This is my problem with Hillary. She's bought and paid for like the rest of them are. A Hillary administration will be business as usual for the richest and tough times for the rest of us no matter how much she tries to portray herself as a champion for the little guy.

I agree. She's a complete phony, and it blows my mind that she's a favorite to win this thing. It's just that as far as back tracking and flip flopping go, this probably doesn't make her top ten. I'd like to see Warren stick to her "principles" and use this to help Bernie, but I'm guessing that won't happen either.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Anyone post the Warren video talking about Hillary in 2004?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

I'm sure her opinion just evolved when she got more facts. She's so principled.

I think it'll be used against her in the general. You can't portray yourself as a woman of the people when you screwed them the second it because politically expedient to do so. This is my problem with Hillary. She's bought and paid for like the rest of them are. A Hillary administration will be business as usual for the richest and tough times for the rest of us no matter how much she tries to portray herself as a champion for the little guy.

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

I did?

 

[The Commish]

Anyone post the Warren video talking about Hillary in 2004?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

Nothing to see here. I've been assured that this leppard has indeed changed her spots and that THIS TIME it's going to be different.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Anyone post the Warren video talking about Hillary in 2004?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

Nothing to see here. I've been assured that this leppard has indeed changed her spots and that THIS TIME it's going to be different.

I understand why she did it I just don't like that she did, especially while now basically stealing the Sanders/Warren shtick and presenting herself as a hero for the working class.

 

[squistion]

Anyone post the Warren video talking about Hillary in 2004?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

I'm sure her opinion just evolved when she got more facts. She's so principled.

I think it'll be used against her in the general. You can't portray yourself as a woman of the people when you screwed them the second it because politically expedient to do so. This is my problem with Hillary. She's bought and paid for like the rest of them are. A Hillary administration will be business as usual for the richest and tough times for the rest of us no matter how much she tries to portray herself as a champion for the little guy.

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

I did?

With the (alleged) alias you are using you probably can't keep track of everything you said in 2012, but IIRC in the official politics thread by Otis (or whatever it is called) you supposedly were an independent (yeah right) mulling over who to vote for and then decided on Romney (perhaps having something to do with all the Romney yards sign you said you saw there in Tulsa or wherever you claimed to be in OK).

 

[Willie Neslon]

With the (alleged) alias you are using you probably can't keep track of everything you said in 2012, but IIRC in the official politics thread by Otis (or whatever it is called) you supposedly were an independent (yeah right) mulling over who to vote for and then decided on Romney (perhaps having something to do with all the Romney yards sign you said you saw there in Tulsa or wherever you claimed to be in OK).

First of all i don't believe Romney ever said he was a man of the people the way Hillary has. His platform was for lower taxes for business and the wealthy, that somehow those lower corporate taxes would trickle down to everyone else. Hillary is campaigning as a champion for the middle class while she voted, at times, directly against their interests as senator. Romney made no secret what his economic platform was. Romney may have been a fraud on some things but the point is so is Hillary as evidenced by that Warren video. She may be the better choice in the general but that does not mean she's a good choice.

 

[Sand]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

 

[squistion]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M

 

[lod01]

It will be interesting to see if Hillary comes out in favor of the budget deal. I suspect Bernie will be against it.

Total toss up. She will do her research and find out which way to answer the question in order to garner the most votes.

 

[Sand]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M

That video has nothing to do with anything. The point is that an R in office would constrain the huge influx of labor supply on the low end and increase payscales there. Ds just see immigration as voter registration and don't care that this crushes salaries on the low end. This is plainly obvious. I doubt either side would do much about ZIRP (or they would be unable to do much there).

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

 

[ffldrew]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Yea - the guy who made a fortune going in and destroying companies in M&A by stealing pensions and whacking jobs all to enrich his buddies and a handful of executives and lawyers - is looking out for the middle and lower class.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Some just take point blank what Hillary and her team say sometimes.

Clinton's testimony includes new inconsistenciesState Dept. won't confirm her claim that 90-95 percent of emails were in its possession before scandal.


Hillary Clinton rarely stumbled during Thursday's marathon House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing, but as the session wore on, some of the Democratic presidential candidate's comments about her private email setup mangled the facts and fueled lingering questions about how her team decided which messages to turn over to her former agency.

One of Clinton's assertions fell into doubt Friday as the State Department said it was unaware of any basis for her claim that the agency "had between 90 and 95 percent of all [her] work-related emails" even before she turned over 54,000 pages of records last December.


"I'm not aware that we have given that figure," State spokesman Mark Toner told reporters on Friday. "We've not been able to confirm that. I not sure where that information comes from."

Pressed by House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy on the issue late in the 11-hour hearing, Clinton said her former agency made the assessment that nearly all her emails were already on file.

"We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the emails that were already on the system. We were trying to help them close some gaps that they had," she said.

Baron also said it is doubtful State had the ability to reach the conclusion Clinton claimed about how much of her work-related email the agency was storing.

"I do not believe State is in the position to give a precise percentage like that because they honestly wouldn't know how many of the secretary's emails did, in fact, make their way into an official record-keeping system," he said.

During her testimony Friday, Clinton also sowed confusion by providing differing descriptions of her involvement in the process of reviewing her private emails in response to an official State Department request last October to turn over all official government records in her possession.

At one point , she stressed her detachment from the decisions about what to turn over, while at another juncture, she suggested she was effectively sorting her emails during her tenure by forwarding work-related ones to aides and not forwarding others. GOP lawmakers have said informal Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal provided 15 email exchanges to the committee that Clinton did not turn over to the State Department.

Clinton told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that her lawyers made the decision on what to deem work-related and what was considered private. "They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did," she said.

However, minutes later, Clinton appeared to tell Gowdy that any differences in what was turned over were due to her effectively sorting the emails on the fly during her time as secretary.

"He had some that I didn't have, and I had some that he didn't have," the former secretary said of Blumenthal. "I was under no obligation to make any of his emails available unless I decided they were work-related. And the ones that I decided that were work-related, I forwarded to the state.gov accounts of the people with whom I worked."

When Gowdy asserted there was "no ambiguity" that the messages Blumenthal's attorney turned over related to work, Clinton suggested there was.

"They were from a personal friend ... not any government official," she said. "I determined on the basis of looking at them, what I thought was work-related and what wasn't. And some, I didn't even have time to read, Mr. Chairman."

Baron said the significance of Clinton's over-production was open to interpretation.

"The fact ... might indicate that the secretary and her staff were being conscientious in turning over more than they had to — but it also raises a question as to whether the individuals making the decisions on what to turn over were aware of and were adhering to NARA’s regulations on what emails were official and what were personal in nature," he said. "Regrettably, there are still some legitimate issues here caused by the secretary’s initial decision to adopt a highly unusual and unorthodox arrangement for recordkeeping."

"One consequence of that is when she was finally asked to return a large volume of official records in her custody, she and her lawyers had to make decisions on what were official records and what were personal records to be deleted. We just don’t know how those decisions were actually implemented, and the remarks the secretary made yesterday unfortunately muddy the waters a little bit," Baron added.

Another indication that the email issue is certain to linger for Clinton came at a court hearing Friday in one of dozens of lawsuits in which news organizations and conservative groups are seeking copies of emails and other records sent or received by Clinton and her top aides.

A Justice Department lawyer provided figures indicating the State Department might take more than the next year to complete disclosure of tens of thousands of pages of emails between former Clinton communications aide Philippe Reines and several dozen news organizations.

Justice Department attorney Stephen Elliott said about 81,000 electronic files are being prepared for release along with about 16,000 pages of emails that Reines turned over from his private email account at State's request.

While State has only released 71 pages of the messages up to this point, Eliiott told U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Jackson that the agency will ramp up disclosure to 4,800 pages per month beginning in November. The plan appears to call for the releases to continue for well over a year and perhaps for several years.

It's "very difficult to say how long this will take," Elliott told the judge. "The 4,800 pages is definitely an upper limit of what the State Department is capable of."

"This sounds like it could take years," said Brad Moss, an attorney representing media outlet Gawker in the Freedom of Information Act case. "We have no idea when this is going to end."Moss quipped that while the information might be of interest to voters in the 2016 presidential race, the disclosures might end up impacting the 2020 election as well. "We could be into a second term, if Hillary Clinton is elected and reelected, before this gets done," he said.

In August, State told the court in a written report that only about 18,000 of the 81,000 files the agency found were likely responsive to Gawker's request for all emails between Reines and 37 news organizations. It is unclear why the government is now indicating that the larger number is now in the pipeline for release.

The State Department initially said it had no records responsive to Gawker's request. However, after the controversy over Clinton's emails erupted, State said it had located some of Reines' state.gov emails and requested that he turn over work-related messages exchanged on his personal account. Reines sent 20 boxes of printed emails to the department in July and later turned them over in electronic form. Officials said most of the bulk was due to daily news clippings sent to his personal and official accounts.

There has been no explanation from State about why the first search for records came up with nothing. Elliott said the current process has been complicated by the fact that journalists often used their personal accounts to exchange emails with Reines, so the names of the news organizations often don't appear in the records. and the reporters' affiliations have to be determined from other sources.

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/clinton-benghazi-testimony-inconsistencies-215120#ixzz3pzf3adoF

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think quite a few of us sickos who tuned in to the hearing did so at the beginning and quickly tuned out, but there was apparently some delving into the emails question towards the end.

 

[The Commish]

No way I could make it to the end.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

JORDAN: ..In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I'm having a hard time figuring this out, because this story's been all over the place.

CLINTON: No.

JORDAN: OK.

CLINTON: There was a -- there was a server...

JORDAN: Just one?

CLINTON: ...that was already being used by my husband's team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband's office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that's when they contracted with the company in Colorado.

JORDAN: And so there's only one server? Is that what you're telling me? And it's the one server that the FBI has?

CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.

JORDAN: OK. In your statement, you said, "which is protected by the Secret Service." Why did you mention the Secret Service?

CLINTON: Well, because...

JORDAN: And -- here's what -- could a Secret Service agent standing at the back door of your house protect someone in Russia or China from hacking into your system? Why did you mention the Secret Service agent?

CLINTON: Out of just an abundance of being transparent.

JORDAN: Transparent. I -- how -- what's the relevance to protecting from (ph) classified information?

CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received. And I want to respond...

JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used "marked". That's the one -- that's what you -- you used the revised statement there.

CLINTON: ...well -- but that's -- well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because many -- many Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department... ......where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials....and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.

JORDAN: All right. All I -- all I know is that's different than what you said in March.

I got one last question. The FBI's got your server, they're doing a forensic review of your server. They may -- they may -- recover e-mails that you deleted from your system.

So, I didn't say this, you said it. And you just said it a little bit ago, too, transparency. You said you were the -- more transparent than anybody else ever. So I'm going to ask you just one simple question.

If the FBI finds some of these e-mails that might be deleted, as they're reviewing your server, will you agree to allow a neutral third party -- like a retired federal judge -- to review any e-mails deleted to determine if any of them are relevant to our investigation?

CLINTON: Congressman, as you point out, there is a security inquiry being conducted by the Department of Justice and I trust that they will do whatever is appropriate to reach their conclusions.

JORDAN: But you would, as the most transparent person ever, would you commit to saying whatever they find, I want a retired federal judge to evaluate that and look and see if we need some of that information to get to the truth?

CLINTON: I have been releasing my e-mails to the public. That is transparency. And as I stand by my statement, so far as I know in the modern era, I am the only government official who's ever done that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/#third

There you have it. Hillary Clinton claimed she is the ONLY public official in US history to release emails. She is completely deluded.

Another inaccuracy: the server they keep discussing was not her husband's server, it was the Clinton campaign's server.

And she still doesn't understand that a secret service agent can't protect her emails.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

WESTMORELAND: ...But I want to talk to you just a little bit about your e-mails. And that is that I think you said it was October that you received a letter that asked you and former secretary of states (sic) to present all their e-mails. Is that correct?

CLINTON: That's my memory, yes.

WESTMORELAND: OK. Now, in August, the State Department met with your attorneys to talk about the lack of the e-mails that they had. Did you know that?

CLINTON: I didn't at the time, no.

WESTMORELAND: You didn't know that they were meeting -- that the State Department was meeting with your attorneys?

CLINTON: Not -- not at that time. And as you also recall, the State Department was beginning to turn over to this committee my e-mails because they had between 90 and 95 percent of all my work- related e-mails in the State Department system.

WESTMORELAND: But ma'am, they met with your attorney, and your attorney that they met with happened to be Cheryl Mills, which was your chief of staff.

CLINTON: That's correct. That's correct.

WESTMORELAND: Now, is that weird, that your attorney was your chief of staff, so that attorney/client (ph) privilege may have kicked in there somewhere?

CLINTON: She was -- she was my counsel before she was my Chief of Staff. She became my counsel again after she was my Chief of Staff.

WESTMORELAND: Well, I know that when the e-mail went out that night, it called everybody under Secretary, Director, Spokesman, and it said Ms. Mills was counselor. It didn't say Chief of Staff. And that was the night of the attack.

But let me just go a little bit further. You said, that you found out in October, but your attorneys met with the State Department -- I believe it was in August.

Now, from that time you said you turned over everything and that your lawyers went through this, and I believe it was in November after finding out in October that they had reviewed all these e-mails. Now, the State Department hadn't been able to give us all those e-mails in two years. But your attorneys -- how many -- you must have some of the fastest-reading attorneys in the world to go through that.

I know you've got a group of them there sitting behind you, but how many attorneys does it take to go through 65,000 e-mails in two months?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, the process to provide information to the Congress with respect to Benghazi started before I left the State Department. There was a concerted effort to gather up any information that might be responsive...

WESTMORELAND: Did you tell him you had a private server at that time?

CLINTON: You know, I don't -- I know that...

WESTMORELAND: If they were gathering e-mails, you had to tell them that you had a private server when you were there.

CLINTON: Well, the -- the server is not the point, it's the account. And I made it a practice to send e-mails that were work- related to people on their government accounts. In fact, you know, Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a government account. So...

WESTMORELAND: I'm not talking about the account, I'm talking about the server. But -- one -- one last point. Let me just -- I'll close with this and then the Chairman can give you time to answer.

Let me tell you what I thought. I think that your attorneys sat down with the State Department and they said, we got a problem. And so, we got to come up with something that this is not just the Secretary having these e-mails in a private server.

So I tell you what let's do. Let's go back and ask Madeleine Albright, who was Secretary of State in 1997, that never even had an e-mail account. Or let's go back and ask, you know, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and me to find -- to find all this information. I'm just telling you, it smells -- it doesn't smell right, and so I yield back.

CLINTON: Well, if I could respond, I think in the course of trying to answer and archive information, the State Department determined that they did have gaps in their recordkeeping, and it was much more than about me.

...We conducted the investigation. The survey that I have described to you, and turned over more than 30,000 work-related e-mails, 55,000 pages to the State Department. 90 to 95 percent were already there.

We sent so many that some were going to be returned because they were clearly not work related. We did our best. I did my best to make sure that if there were gaps in recordkeeping, at least my materials would be there to help fill any gaps above and beyond the 90 to 95 percent of e-mails that were already in the system.

WESTMORELAND: I'm not an attorney but I think Ms. Mills is a good attorney...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/#third

Yah see State had gaps... from what Hillary didn't personally, while SOS and all the stuff she was doing as part of her work, you know take the time to forward to someone in the US government. By definition if she didn't want anyone to know about it, she didn't forward it, and then when caught if she still didn't want anyone to know about it her attorneys deleted it.

Hillary's attorneys met with State and Hillary claims she had noooo idea her attorneys were negotiating handing over public documents which she was improperly retaining at home on her personal server.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

GOWDY: ...My point is this. The ARB, nor the previous congressional investigations, had access to your e-mails. Did they?

CLINTON: I don't know what they had access to. I know that, during the time I was at the State Department, there was certainly a great effort to respond to your predecessor, Congressman Issa's inquiries.

And many thousands of pages of information was conveyed to the Congress. And I know that the State Department has worked diligently and persistently to try to respond to the many requests that it has received.

And I think that given the pressure and stress of business they have been under, they have performed as well as they could. So, you will be getting, and in fact, the entire world will be getting, all of my emails, because they are all going to be public. And you will be able to read them along with everybody else.

GOWDY: Madam Secretary, that actually was not my question. My question was, whether or not the previous congressional committees and ARB had access to your emails. That was of my question.

CLINTON: Ninety to 95 percent of my work related emails were in the State's system, if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.

GOWDY: You know what, that is maybe the tenth time you have cited that figure today.

CLINTON: It is.

GOWDY: And I have not heard anyone other than you ever cite that figure. Who told you that 90 to 95 percent of your emails were in the State Department system? Who told you that?

CLINTON: We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the emails that were already on the system. We were trying to help them close some gaps that they had. But they already...

GOWDY: Can you provide me with a name? Because when I asked the State Department about 10 days ago what is the source of that figure, they shrugged their shoulders.

CLINTON: Well, you can look for the state.gov addresses and they certainly pop up. And it's where...

GOWDY: Right. In the inspector general report, Madam Secretary, the inspector general report, which you can't argue by perfect analogy, but you can certainly extrapolate, the inspector general report found that less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of State Department emails, record emails were captured.

So they give a number of less than 1 percent and you give a number of 90 percent.

CLINTON: Well, I don't know what you are referring to. I can only speak about my emails, my work related emails and...

GOWDY: Well, let's talk about your work related emails. We asked for them last year and the State Department gave us eight. If they had 90 percent of yours, why did we only get eight?

CLINTON: Well, I don't know initially what you asked for, but I know that they tried to be responsive. Ninety to 95 percent of them were on state.gov. I understand that the committee broadened the scope of their request.

And I think that in response, the State Department has been trying to provide what you have requested. In the meantime, they're going through the process of making all of my emails public.

GOWDY: You think our first request, there were only eight emails responsive to our first request?

CLINTON: I can't speak to it. I believe your first request was for Benghazi. And I believe that the State Department did a diligent search. Then I believe you expanded it to Libya and weapons and maybe a few other terms. And I believe they conducted a diligent...

GOWDY: Well, our jurisdiction hasn't grown, Madam Secretary. Our jurisdiction is the same thing it was.

Let me ask you this. You say that you turned over everything. I don't get a chance to watch you a lot on television, but when I see you are interviewed, you make a point of saying, I turned over everything.

CLINTON: All my work related emails, yes.

GOWDY: How do you know that?

CLINTON: I know that because there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys, and that is exactly the outcome. We turned over every work related email, in fact, as somebody referred to earlier, we turned over too many.

The State Department and the National Archives said there are 1,246 out of the 30,000-plus that they have already determined did not need to be turned over.

GOWDY: And you have a really...

SANCHEZ: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

GOWDY: ... good group of attorneys, which makes me wonder...

SANCHEZ: Chairman, regular order.

GOWDY: ... how they missed 15 of them.

CLINTON: Well if you are talking about Mr. Blumenthal, which I assume you are, he had some that I didn't have, and I had some that he didn't have. And he -- I was under no obligation to make any of his emails available unless I decided they were work related.

And the ones that I decided that were work related I forwarded to the state.gov accounts of the people with whom I worked.

GOWDY: Madam Secretary, is there any question that the 15 that James Cole turned over to us were work related? There's no ambiguity about that. They were work related.

CLINTON: No. They were from a personal friend, not any official government -- not any government official. And they were, I determined on the basis of looking at them, what I thought was work related and what wasn't. And some I didn't even have time to read, Mr. Chairman.

GOWDY: So are you telling me the 15...

SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman, regular order.

GOWDY: Are you saying that the 15... The 15 -- my question to you, on the 15, did your lawyers find them and decide that they were not work related or did they not find them?

CLINTON: Well, I don't know why he had emails I didn't. And I don't know why, apparently, I had emails he didn't. And all I can tell you is that I turned over every work related email in my possession.

GOWDY: All right. I'm going to make two more observations and then we are going to call it a night.

The first observation that I would make is that when you speak to the public, you say, I turned over everything. That's for the most part a direct quote. When you talk to the public, you say, I turned over everything.

When you talk to the court, you say, while I do not know what information may be responsive for purposes of this lawsuit, I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com (ph) in my custody that were -- or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State and on information and belief that was done.

Why the different explanation depending on who you're talking to?

CLINTON: Well, one is a shorthand, Mr. Chairman.

GOWDY: Well, why not just tell the court, I turned over everything?

CLINTON: Well, you know how lawyers are, they use more words perhaps than they need.

GOWDY: Trust me, I know that.

CLINTON: I thought you might.

GOWDY: And they charge you for every one of them.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: Yes, I'm well aware of that, Mr. Chairman. And the clock is ticking.

(LAUGHTER)

GOWDY: Well, one more, one more and I will pay Mr. Kendall's fee for the last question. How's that?

CLINTON: Oh, I don't think you want to do that, Mr. Chairman.

(LAUGHTER)

GOWDY: I probably can't do it.

You see my point, though, you are very definitive when you're talking to the American people, that you turned over everything.

CLINTON: That's right.

GOWDY: But those kind of lawyerly fudge words when you are talking to court on information and belief, and the reality is even tonight, you cannot tell us that you turned over everything, because you didn't think you missed the 15.

CLINTON: Well, I didn't have them, I turned over everything I had. Everything I had has been turned over to the State Department.

GOWDY: Which means the system you had somehow missed those 15.

CLINTON: Well...

GOWDY: Last question on your system. Mr. Cummings said that your email arrangement was inappropriate. I think the president may have said it was a mistake. You have said that it was a mistake.

My question to you, Madam Secretary, is, was it a mistake -- for the four years that you had that email arrangement, was it a mistake for the almost two years that you kept the public record to yourself, or has it manifested itself as a mistake in just the last six months?

CLINTON: Well, since I believed that all of my work related emails to dot-gov accounts were being captured and preserved, it wasn't until I was asked to help the State Department to fill in what they saw as some record-keeping gaps, not just with me, but with others, I did the best I could during those four years and thought that everything that I was emailing that was work related was being preserved.

GOWDY: If you can find a source for the 90 to 95 percent, I would be grateful for it and we would probably have fewer questions. If there is a source that you can provide that 90 to 95 percent were on the State Department's system, then I will know that I need to ask the State Department what took them so long, because I'm just telling you, Madam Secretary, I got eight emails the first time I asked, and now I have got over 1,500.

So there's some disconnect there.

CLINTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a fair question. And I'm not at the State Department any longer, but I do want to defend them. They are under the most extraordinary pressure to answer congressional inquiries.

I saw a figure recently that FOIA requests have jumped something like 300 percent. They don't have the resources. They don't have the personnel. They take their responsibility of reading every single line.

And as Ranking Member Cummings reminded us, having to redact personal information, personnel information, obviously they take it very seriously, I think they're doing the best they can.

And I know that they've tried to be responsive to you and to the many other requests that have come their way.

GOWDY: Madam Secretary, on behalf of all of us, we want to thank you for your patience and for your willingness to come. And you have been willing to come in the past, as I noted in my opening. And we appreciate it.

And with that, we will be adjourned.

CLINTON: Thank you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/#third

 

[Gopher State]

I wish their was someone else then Hillary, but given opinions of Sanders or Trump, she is like a Saint, with a few bruises

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wish their was someone else then Hillary, but given opinions of Sanders or Trump, she is like a Saint, with a few bruises

(Ha, I'm sorry, I'm all outta likes but you got one to take to the bank brohan).

 

[The Commish]

I wish their was someone else then Hillary, but given opinions of Sanders or Trump, she is like a Saint, with a few bruises

oh my

 

[trogg78]

Enough with the email. /sanders

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Enough with the email. /sanders

How's he doing lately, since he got behind his main opponent? Things looking up?

 

[trogg78]

Enough with the email. /sanders

How's he doing lately, since he got behind his main opponent? Things looking up?

Better than the saintsdome2006 email investigation team.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Enough with the email. /sanders

How's he doing lately, since he got behind his main opponent? Things looking up?

Better than the saintsdome2006 email investigation team.

Ha, ok thanks for being a good sport.

eta - fwiw since Bernie slapped Hillary on the back and got the crowd behind her on 10/14 the RCP average has gone from +18.2 to +23.5 for Hillary.

 

[Slapdash]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

One of the most bizarre arguments I've seen, but he makes it a lot.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hillary campaign living up to expectations.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI6bMbhsDE&feature=youtu.be

 

[Rove!]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

One of the most bizarre arguments I've seen, but he makes it a lot.

Rodney's plan to cap deductions was a pretty progressive proposal. The current policies have benefited the rich, while the middle class continues to shrink and the labor participation rate and wages go down.

 

[Zegras11]

Hillary campaign living up to expectations.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI6bMbhsDE&feature=youtu.be

Check your email Hillary!

 

[Todem]

I wish their was someone else then Hillary, but given opinions of Sanders or Trump, she is like a Saint, with a few bruises

100% agreed.

 

[Todem]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

One of the most bizarre arguments I've seen, but he makes it a lot.

Rodney's plan to cap deductions was a pretty progressive proposal. The current policies have benefited the rich, while the middle class continues to shrink and the labor participation rate and wages go down.

Another huge agreed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary campaign living up to expectations.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI6bMbhsDE&feature=youtu.be

This stuff comes from Podesta. He is slimy. There is no way the underling on the ground managers do this stuff without up top authorization.

 

[Sand]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

One of the most bizarre arguments I've seen, but he makes it a lot.

Cracking open an Econ 101 book (to Chapter 1, no less) and understanding that a huge influx of supply will lower prices isn't really "bizarre", Slap. You're usually pretty sharp on these things - kinda surprised.

Besides, the effects of current policy are pretty evident. Say one thing, policy does the exact opposite. Pretty hypocritical, but they've managed to get away with it thus far.

 

[squistion]

Dylan Byers ‏@DylanByers

RNC suspends partnership with NBC News for Feb. GOP Debate

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/30/media/gop-debates-nbc-reince-priebus/index.html?iid=Lead…

James Hell Brooks ‏@BobbyBigWheel

Hillary spent 11 hours getting grilled by people who hate her but Republicans can't handle 2 hours from a pro-business network.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dylan Byers ‏@DylanByers

RNC suspends partnership with NBC News for Feb. GOP Debate

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/30/media/gop-debates-nbc-reince-priebus/index.html?iid=Lead…

James Hell Brooks ‏@BobbyBigWheel

Hillary spent 11 hours getting grilled by people who hate her but Republicans can't handle 2 hours from a pro-business network.

Well that's just dandy, everyone can go into their little respective corners and never be challenged. I agree it's a pathetic response. I do think the mods did a lousy job but that's also on the RNC.

 

[timschochet]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clinton’s campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the “African Americans for Hillary” group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. It’s her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

“We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity,” said Clinton, adding: “We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.”

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a “spontaneous investigative activity” unless there’s information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently “disproportionately hurts black Americans,” who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to “ban the box,” a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

 

[timschochet]

I don't agree with the last move, at least off the top of my head. It seems to me that if a person was convicted of a felony, particularly a violent one, that should be a consideration when the government is looking to hire. Is there something here that I'm not considering?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

...

Semi-serious question: why do we need a Congress? For what? Why?

 

[timschochet]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

...

Semi-serious question: why do we need a Congress? For what? Why?

I'm not sure it's the role of Congress to regulate federal hiring practices. Isn't that performed by the executive branch anyhow?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

...

Semi-serious question: why do we need a Congress? For what? Why?

I'm not sure it's the role of Congress to regulate federal hiring practices. Isn't that performed by the executive branch anyhow?

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a “spontaneous investigative activity” unless there’s information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

Which to me is not the business of the federal government. But it's definitely not something a monarch president should just decide all on his/her own.

And sentencing guidelines, which Obama already did act on but again those IMO should be Congressionally debated and passed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't agree with the last move, at least off the top of my head. It seems to me that if a person was convicted of a felony, particularly a violent one, that should be a consideration when the government is looking to hire. Is there something here that I'm not considering?

The city of New Orleans did this. Theory was that people who come out of jail need a job or they end up being recidivist, I really don't buy it and frankly if you have a manager or a client or vendor who doesn't want to have a drug dealer or convict working for them or with them they should be able to have that assurance that they won't have to.

 

[jon_mx]

Almost all jobs in the DoD require security clearances. If you can't screen for felonies, what can you screen for? From Hillary's email fiasco, it is pretty obvious she does not give a lick about protecting classified information.

 

[jon_mx]

At least there will be a job waiting for Jared in the federal government when he gets out of prison.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Almost all jobs in the DoD require security clearances. If you can't screen for felonies, what can you screen for? From Hillary's email fiasco, it is pretty obvious she does not give a lick about protecting classified information.

That's a good point. Hey you can take classified documents home with you as long as they're not marked and you can hire felons to work in federal government, great idea.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

The disparity between crack and powder cocaine shouldn't exist but the real problem is the amount of non-violent drug offenders we put in jail.

 

[timschochet]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/



Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing....

Semi-serious question: why do we need a Congress? For what? Why?

I'm not sure it's the role of Congress to regulate federal hiring practices. Isn't that performed by the executive branch anyhow?

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

Which to me is not the business of the federal government. But it's definitely not something a monarch president should just decide all on his/her own.

And sentencing guidelines, which Obama already did act on but again those IMO should be Congressionally debated and passed.

She supports legislation for that part, the executive order was for federal hiring.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The disparity between crack and powder cocaine shouldn't exist but the real problem is the amount of non-violent drug offenders we put in jail.

City of NO has a huge building on the interstate, and it's about to be joined by a second, huge modern one. People probably think it's a major corporation, but there are no signs or logos. It's the city's largest employer. It's the criminal sheriff's jail.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing....

Semi-serious question: why do we need a Congress? For what? Why?

I'm not sure it's the role of Congress to regulate federal hiring practices. Isn't that performed by the executive branch anyhow?

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

Which to me is not the business of the federal government. But it's definitely not something a monarch president should just decide all on his/her own.

And sentencing guidelines, which Obama already did act on but again those IMO should be Congressionally debated and passed.

She supports legislation for that part, the executive order was for federal hiring.

Ah, sorry I did not see that part.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

The disparity between crack and powder cocaine shouldn't exist but the real problem is the amount of non-violent drug offenders we put in jail.

City of NO has a huge building on the interstate,

and it's about to be joined by a second, huge modern one. People probably think it's a major corporation, but there are no signs or logos. It's the city's largest employer. It's the criminal

sheriff's jail.

Incarceration has turned into big business in this county