Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

Al Couvillion @alcouviRetired Navy.

Al Couvillion ‏@alcouvi Aug 31

@oreillyfactor After 30 years in SIGINT, had I done what Hillary did, I'd be watching this from a jail cell #email scandal

Hillary isn't subject to the same rules as everyone else.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Al Couvillion @alcouvi

Retired Navy.

Al Couvillion ‏@alcouvi Aug 31

@oreillyfactor After 30 years in SIGINT, had I done what Hillary did, I'd be watching this from a jail cell #email scandal

Hillary isn't subject to the same rules as everyone else.

Yeah, I highly doubt dude would be "sitting in jail" if the Sec. Of State had signed off on him having his own server.

 

[cubd8]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

Obama has been hawkish? ISIS disagrees.

 

[Johnnymac]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

Obama has been hawkish? ISIS disagrees.

Good, less hawkish and more dovish is what is needed. The USA needs to quit ####### with people and start caring for the citizens here. How many veterans are living on the ####### street in this country? If it's one, that's too many.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

Obama has been hawkish? ISIS disagrees.

Good, less hawkish and more dovish is what is needed. The USA needs to quit ####### with people and start caring for the citizens here. How many veterans are living on the ####### street in this country? If it's one, that's too many.

And who do you blame for that?

 

[Johnnymac]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

Obama has been hawkish? ISIS disagrees.

Good, less hawkish and more dovish is what is needed. The USA needs to quit ####### with people and start caring for the citizens here. How many veterans are living on the ####### street in this country? If it's one, that's too many.

And who do you blame for that?

Beyond the point of blame. Let's just fix it.

 

[Widbil83]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

Obama has been hawkish? ISIS disagrees.

Obama compared ISIS to a JV basketball team. Hillary thinks they are a flag football team.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

Obama has been hawkish? ISIS disagrees.

Good, less hawkish and more dovish is what is needed. The USA needs to quit ####### with people and start caring for the citizens here. How many veterans are living on the ####### street in this country? If it's one, that's too many.

And who do you blame for that?

Beyond the point of blame. Let's just fix it

and make America great again.

 

[The Commish]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

Obama has been hawkish? ISIS disagrees.

Good, less hawkish and more dovish is what is needed. The USA needs to quit ####### with people and start caring for the citizens here. How many veterans are living on the ####### street in this country? If it's one, that's too many.

There's only ONE candidate running that has given our military veterans any sort of substantive love while out on the road.

 

[Trey]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

 

[Tom Servo]

Signs emerge FBI investigation of Hillary emails has moved to a new, more serious stage.

Despite the FBI’s efforts to remain tight-lipped over the ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, it looks as though substantial resources are being devoted, so that a political kill of the query would be difficult to justify if push comes to shove. Politico has been interviewing as many people as it can, both on and off the record, to get a sense of where theinvestigation is leading, and the indications are that Hillary should be worried. Rachel Bade writes:



The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and DOJ officials inteviewed [sic] by POLITICO.


“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”
Translation: scores of agents are involved, interviewing people, conducting technical analyses, writing memos, and constructing a vast paper (actually, digital) archive accessible to many people within the bureau. Not something easily suppressed.

 

[Tom Servo]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

 

[Trey]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

Match up polls a year out are meaningless. Ben Carson is currently the best performing Republicab and he'd lose 40 states in the general.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hm.

Josh Gerstein ‏@joshgerstein

UPDATE: DNI Clapper's office denies final determination on classification of disputed Clinton emails

Gerstein is the Politico reporter who said that the DNI had reversed field on the Top Secret emails issue. Apparently, no so fast.

 

[jon_mx]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

Match up polls a year out are meaningless. Ben Carson is currently the best performing Republicab and he'd lose 40 states in the general.

The more and more they hold, they get a lot truer. The fact is Hillary is well known and disliked will highly motivate GOP voters to the polls. She also doesn't create any enthusiasm within her party, so Democrat turnout will be low. She is highly distrusted by independents and will have a tough time winning them over. She is not a great candidate by most measures.

 

[Tom Servo]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

Match up polls a year out are meaningless. Ben Carson is currently the best performing Republicab and he'd lose 40 states in the general.

Missing the forest for the trees, I see.

ETA: Plus what Jon said.

 

[Tom Servo]

MODS: Please change thread title to SaintsinDome and Tim discuss Hillary Clinton. TIA

 

[pantagrapher]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

Match up polls a year out are meaningless. Ben Carson is currently the best performing Republicab and he'd lose 40 states in the general.

The more and more they hold, they get a lot truer. The fact is Hillary is well known and disliked will highly motivate GOP voters to the polls. She also doesn't create any enthusiasm within her party, so Democrat turnout will be low. She is highly distrusted by independents and will have a tough time winning them over. She is not a great candidate by most measures.

Can't wait to see how you explain her victory.

 

[jon_mx]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

Match up polls a year out are meaningless. Ben Carson is currently the best performing Republicab and he'd lose 40 states in the general.

The more and more they hold, they get a lot truer. The fact is Hillary is well known and disliked will highly motivate GOP voters to the polls. She also doesn't create any enthusiasm within her party, so Democrat turnout will be low. She is highly distrusted by independents and will have a tough time winning them over. She is not a great candidate by most measures.

Can't wait to see how you explain her victory.

Where did I say she wouldn't win? It is still up to the GOP to put out a decent candidate who will run a decent campaign. I don't see the front-runners as the ticket. It is not like I ever predicted either McCain or Romney to have a chance. But Hillary is very beatable and the GOP is much more motivated after 8 years of Obama and Hillary as the probably opponent.

 

[timschochet]

Jon is correct-he has never predicted Hillary would lose.

Although there have been a lot of conservatives (and a few progressives) who have expressed great hope for Hillary's downfall, the only person in this thread who has actually predicted it has been Sinn Fein.

 

[Trey]

I have no delusions that Hillary is an untouchable candidate who is guaranteed to be our next President. As I've noted many times in this thread, she ran an absolutely horrendous campaign until October with lots of political blunders that never should have been.

But showing me horse race polls from 1 year out that show Ben freakin Carson with insurmountable leads isn't adding to my worry at all.

Rubio is her biggest threat.

 

[timschochet]

Rubio is her biggest threat.

They've known that from the beginning. And Rubio basically laid out the essence of his campaign against her last night when he essentially said "I represent the new; she represents the old". That will be tough to combat. Still Rubio has to win the nomination first, no easy task.

 

[squistion]

Rubio is her biggest threat.

They've known that from the beginning. And Rubio basically laid out the essence of his campaign against her last night when he essentially said "I represent the new; she represents the old". That will be tough to combat.Still Rubio has to win the nomination first, no easy task.

Except being against marriage equality is not representing the new, it is representing old thinking, and this will cut against him among voters under 30. And while some of his other ideas play well with the Republican base (i.e. being against abortion under any circumstances even if the life of the mother is endangered) that probably won't win many younger independent voters.

 

[RCon]

Except being against marriage equality is not representing the new, it is representing old thinking, and this will cut against him among voters under 30. And while some of his other ideas play well with the Republican base (i.e. being against abortion under any circumstances even if the life of the mother is endangered) that probably won't win many younger independent voters.

Of course, most people don't vote on issues. Most people vote based on the D or R next to the candidate's name, and failing that, 30 second soundbites. Rubio could conceivably beat Clinton (I'd call it a 35% chance?), if he can win the nomination.

 

[pantagrapher]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

Match up polls a year out are meaningless. Ben Carson is currently the best performing Republicab and he'd lose 40 states in the general.

The more and more they hold, they get a lot truer. The fact is Hillary is well known and disliked will highly motivate GOP voters to the polls. She also doesn't create any enthusiasm within her party, so Democrat turnout will be low. She is highly distrusted by independents and will have a tough time winning them over. She is not a great candidate by most measures.

Can't wait to see how you explain her victory.

Where did I say she wouldn't win? It is still up to the GOP to put out a decent candidate who will run a decent campaign. I don't see the front-runners as the ticket. It is not like I ever predicted either McCain or Romney to have a chance. But Hillary is very beatable and the GOP is much more motivated after 8 years of Obama and Hillary as the probably opponent.

What I mean is, with the deck so stacked against her in your mind—high GOP turnout, low D turnout, distrust from independents—I can't wait to see what factors you point to to explain her victory, because those are three really huge things.

 

[Tom Servo]

Except being against marriage equality is not representing the new, it is representing old thinking, and this will cut against him among voters under 30. And while some of his other ideas play well with the Republican base (i.e. being against abortion under any circumstances even if the life of the mother is endangered) that probably won't win many younger independent voters.

Of course, most people don't vote on issues. Most people vote based on the D or R next to the candidate's name, and failing that, 30 second soundbites. Rubio could conceivably beat Clinton (I'd call it a 35% chance?), if he can win the nomination.

O RLY?

I have, with great pleasure, watched Hillary go ballistic on gun control. I understand why. It's the one issue where she is legitimately to Sanders's left. It's also a tell. She has no intention of trying to reassemble her husband's electoral coalition. She'll win the way Obama did, or she won't win at all – with minorities, single women, gentry liberals, gays, Hollywood, trial lawyers, and unions. The gun-toting white working class is not needed.

She's well aware of the dangers in this strategy. B.J. "Billy Jeff" Clinton, who was in a position to know, says that gun control cost the Democrats the House of Representatives in '96 and the presidency in 2000. She apparently doesn't care. She's basically calling out the NRA – come and get me, if you can.

And oh, they will. NRA people (I'm a life member since '83) are single-issue voters. There are a whole lot of them in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These guys like to hunt. Their dads taught them all about guns, and they teach their children. Firearms are family heirlooms and are passed down through the generations. Even if these guys are in a union, and don't care much for the Republicans, a whole lot of them will vote against Hillary on this one issue.

And it's not just in the Rust Belt. All across the country, blue-collar Democrats will abandon Hillary on this issue.

 

[Tom Servo]

The first part of the blog post is interesting too:

Apart from demographics, the Democrats' presidential hopes in 2016 are centered on their "blue wall" – eighteen states with 240 electoral votes that they've won for a quarter-century. With that as their base, it's relatively simple for them to tack on another 30 electoral votes for a majority. But there are weaknesses in the wall, and it's not really blue.

Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, with 46 electoral votes among them, are among the weakest sections of the wall. Were it not for a disappointing turnout of working-class white men, Romney could have won any of them. All three state legislatures are firmly under Republican control, and all had Republican governors until a weak Republican incumbent in Pennsylvania was ousted last year. Wisconsin and Michigan have gone right to work. These are not blue states.

Whites vastly outnumber Hispanics in all of them, 82-6 in Pennsylvania, 79-5 in Michigan, and 87-6 in Wisconsin.* Adding blacks and Hispanics gives you 12% in Wisconsin, 17% in Pennsylvania, and 19% in Michigan. You don't need to be Nate Silver to figure it out. The white vote is key in all three.

 

[squistion]

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

These candidates don't seem to mind a "big government" when it's politicians interfering in women's personal health decisions. #GOPdebate

 

[timschochet]

Both of you guys are wrong, IMO. Hillary's not going to win the election because of abortion and gay rights, and she's not going to lose the election because of gun control. These issues can play a big part in the nominating process. They're important to the politically minded, like you and I and anyone reading this.

But the public in a national election votes on the economy, and sometimes national security. If it's Hillary vs. Rubio, she wins if she can sell the nation that what Obama's done economically is working and that he's a warmonger. He wins if he sells the necessity of a new direction for the economy and that she's made us weaker. But in his case he also needs enough of the Blacks, Latinos, and women who would vote for her no matter what to stay at home.

 

[pantagrapher]

Except being against marriage equality is not representing the new, it is representing old thinking, and this will cut against him among voters under 30. And while some of his other ideas play well with the Republican base (i.e. being against abortion under any circumstances even if the life of the mother is endangered) that probably won't win many younger independent voters.

Of course, most people don't vote on issues. Most people vote based on the D or R next to the candidate's name, and failing that, 30 second soundbites. Rubio could conceivably beat Clinton (I'd call it a 35% chance?), if he can win the nomination.

O RLY?

I have, with great pleasure, watched Hillary go ballistic on gun control. I understand why. It's the one issue where she is legitimately to Sanders's left. It's also a tell. She has no intention of trying to reassemble her husband's electoral coalition. She'll win the way Obama did, or she won't win at all – with minorities, single women, gentry liberals, gays, Hollywood, trial lawyers, and unions. The gun-toting white working class is not needed.

She's well aware of the dangers in this strategy. B.J. "Billy Jeff" Clinton, who was in a position to know, says that gun control cost the Democrats the House of Representatives in '96 and the presidency in 2000. She apparently doesn't care. She's basically calling out the NRA – come and get me, if you can.

And oh, they will. NRA people (I'm a life member since '83) are single-issue voters. There are a whole lot of them in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These guys like to hunt. Their dads taught them all about guns, and they teach their children. Firearms are family heirlooms and are passed down through the generations. Even if these guys are in a union, and don't care much for the Republicans, a whole lot of them will vote against Hillary on this one issue.

And it's not just in the Rust Belt. All across the country, blue-collar Democrats will abandon Hillary on this issue.

Just like they abandoned Barack "Coming to Take Our Guns" Obama.

 

[RCon]

The NRA is not "most people".

 

[RCon]

Both of you guys are wrong, IMO. Hillary's not going to win the election because of abortion and gay rights, and she's not going to lose the election because of gun control. These issues can play a big part in the nominating process. They're important to the politically minded, like you and I and anyone reading this.

But the public in a national election votes on the economy, and sometimes national security. If it's Hillary vs. Rubio, she wins if she can sell the nation that what Obama's done economically is working and that he's a warmonger. He wins if he sells the necessity of a new direction for the economy and that she's made us weaker. But in his case he also needs enough of the Blacks, Latinos, and women who would vote for her no matter what to stay at home.

You can call it the economy and national security if you want, but most people's knowledge of those subjects is little more than the D or R next to the candidate's name and a few 30 second soundbites.

 

[jon_mx]

+50 in a pair of South Carolina polls (PPP and Monmouth) today.

Business as usual.

Or...

Everybody but Ted Cruz beats Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, according to a Survey USA poll done for KSTP Television.

Keep in mind that Obama won Minnesota by 8% in 2012, and Republicans have not won the state in a presidential election since 1972.

Match up polls a year out are meaningless. Ben Carson is currently the best performing Republicab and he'd lose 40 states in the general.

The more and more they hold, they get a lot truer. The fact is Hillary is well known and disliked will highly motivate GOP voters to the polls. She also doesn't create any enthusiasm within her party, so Democrat turnout will be low. She is highly distrusted by independents and will have a tough time winning them over. She is not a great candidate by most measures.

Can't wait to see how you explain her victory.

Where did I say she wouldn't win? It is still up to the GOP to put out a decent candidate who will run a decent campaign. I don't see the front-runners as the ticket. It is not like I ever predicted either McCain or Romney to have a chance. But Hillary is very beatable and the GOP is much more motivated after 8 years of Obama and Hillary as the probably opponent.

What I mean is, with the deck so stacked against her in your mindhigh GOP turnout, low D turnout, distrust from independentsI can't wait to see what factors you point to to explain her victory, because those are three really huge things.

Trump is a complete wildcard. He would actually energize the Democrats to vote despite not being enthusiastic for Hillary.

 

[squistion]

Both of you guys are wrong, IMO. Hillary's not going to win the election because of abortion and gay rights, and she's not going to lose the election because of gun control. These issues can play a big part in the nominating process. They're important to the politically minded, like you and I and anyone reading this.

But the public in a national election votes on the economy, and sometimes national security. If it's Hillary vs. Rubio, she wins if she can sell the nation that what Obama's done economically is working and that he's a warmonger. He wins if he sells the necessity of a new direction for the economy and that she's made us weaker. But in his case he also needs enough of the Blacks, Latinos, and women who would vote for her no matter what to stay at home.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was just pointing out that many of his positions negate the claim that he brings to the table a new or fresh viewpoint and approach, while Hillary belongs to the old ideas of the past. If his big selling point is that he represents a new generation of voters (like JFK in 1960) he can't be talking (even indirectly) against marriage equality or have other antiquated views that are associated with those on the right age 50+. It will strike a discord with younger, independent voters and the end result is that they won't take seriously what else he has to say.

 

[bakes]

Both of you guys are wrong, IMO. Hillary's not going to win the election because of abortion and gay rights, and she's not going to lose the election because of gun control. These issues can play a big part in the nominating process. They're important to the politically minded, like you and I and anyone reading this.

But the public in a national election votes on the economy, and sometimes national security. If it's Hillary vs. Rubio, she wins if she can sell the nation that what Obama's done economically is working and that he's a warmonger. He wins if he sells the necessity of a new direction for the economy and that she's made us weaker. But in his case he also needs enough of the Blacks, Latinos, and women who would vote for her no matter what to stay at home.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was just pointing out that many of his positions negate the claim that he brings to the table a new or fresh viewpoint and approach, while Hillary belongs to the old ideas of the past. If his big selling point is that he represents a new generation of voters (like JFK in 1960) he can't be talking (even indirectly) against marriage equality or have other antiquated views that are associated with those on the right age 50+. It will strike a discord with younger, independent voters and the end result is that they won't take seriously what else he has to say.

His hawkish stance will also alienate a number of people who are tired of the seemingly infinite US involvement in the Middle East.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The FBI has expanded its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server and is now looking into whether “materially false” statements were given to federal agents, Fox News is reporting.

Sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News that agents are focusing on U.S. Code 18, Section 1001 which governs “materially false” statements made in writing, orally or through a third party. The section could apply to Clinton, her aides or her attorneys if they made any misleading or false statements about her emails which caused federal agents to expend more resources and time on the investigation.

Violations of the code are punishable by up to five years in prison.

“This is a broad, brush statute that punishes individuals who are not direct and fulsome in their answers,” Timothy Gill, a former FBI agent who worked in the agency’s national security branch, told Fox News.

Why does the FBI hate Hillary?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The FBI has expanded its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server and is now looking into whether “materially false” statements were given to federal agents, Fox News is reporting.

Sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News that agents are focusing on U.S. Code 18, Section 1001 which governs “materially false” statements made in writing, orally or through a third party. The section could apply to Clinton, her aides or her attorneys if they made any misleading or false statements about her emails which caused federal agents to expend more resources and time on the investigation.

Violations of the code are punishable by up to five years in prison.

“This is a broad, brush statute that punishes individuals who are not direct and fulsome in their answers,” Timothy Gill, a former FBI agent who worked in the agency’s national security branch, told Fox News.

Why does the FBI hate Hillary?

Well, now, that would be a no-no, now wouldn't it.

Apparently FOIA requests have also turned up the signed certification from Hillary that she had received training and that the mishandling of "marked or unmarked" classified information is a crime.

I'll see your and throw in a .

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So in the continuing saga of "The Girl Just Can't Help It"...

...Hillary is now under examination for claiming she tried to join the Marines.

Hillary Clinton revives story of trying to join the MarinesManchester, New Hampshire (CNN)As the U.S. Marine Corps turns 240 years old this week, Hillary Clinton dusted off an old story that has previously been met with skepticism: When the Yale-educated lawyer moved to Arkansas in 1975, she says she tried to join the Marines.
She laughed Tuesday, the day before Veterans Day, as she recalled being turned away by a recruiter.

"He looks at me and goes, 'Um, how old are you,'" Clinton said at an event in New Hampshire. "And I said, 'Well I am 26, I will be 27.' And he goes, 'Well, that is kind of old for us.' And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, 'Maybe the dogs will take you,' meaning the Army."

...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/hillary-clinton-marine-army-recruit-2016-election/index.html

And oh yeah, Hillary was also getting married at the time. This might be nuttier than Carson and West Point.

You can throw this in with her bs story about having written NASA as young teen around 1962 asking if she could be an astronaut and supposedly she claims they told her to go pound sand. Which is false because they had a women's training and recruits team at that time. But she can't help just making sh1+ up.

 

[The Commish]

Adding more sticks to the "poor judgement, integrity" bonfire. Besides, it's FoxNews and the FBI, can we really trust them?

 

[tom22406]

This can't be a surprise to anyone right?

A large majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton did something either unethical or illegal in her use of a private email system for government business, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A total of 68 percent believe that what she did was wrong in one way or the other.

The biggest bloc, 40 percent, say she acted unethically, though legally. That includes large numbers of Democrats and independents.

The second biggest, 28 percent, believe she did something illegal.

The third, 27 percent, believe she did nothing wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article44297841.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Adding more sticks to the "poor judgement, integrity" bonfire. Besides, it's FoxNews and the FBI, can we really trust them?

Storing classified communications on an unsecured and unauthorized private server via an exclusive private email may or may not be a crime, because it's a novel situation (no one has ever been so brazen to try it), but we know lying to the FBI is definitely a crime. We don't even know if the FBI has talked to Hillary. I think any number of people from David Kendall to Mills, Abedeen, Reines to IT folks like Pagliano or employees at the CO & CT vendors to the aides who registered the server like Hothem are potentially in the wheelhouse. Now, I agree that's if you believe Fox.... sure, don't believe it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This can't be a surprise to anyone right?

A large majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton did something either unethical or illegal in her use of a private email system for government business, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A total of 68 percent believe that what she did was wrong in one way or the other.

The biggest bloc, 40 percent, say she acted unethically, though legally. That includes large numbers of Democrats and independents.

The second biggest, 28 percent, believe she did something illegal.

The third, 27 percent, believe she did nothing wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article44297841.html

Forty percent of Democrats and 46 percent of independents say she did something unethical but not illegal.

That's a key distinction. This question gets asked a few different ways. Unethical, vs lying, vs illegal.

The DOH (Defenders of Hillary) like to rush to the criminal trial burden of proof, requiring delivery of full certified video evidence of Hillary in black cloak and witch's hat wringing her hands and cackling as she personally secrets away documents marked classified and whiting out the markings, which they somehow see being necessary. Most people realize that in real life acting wrongly, recklessly, unethically and deceitfully overlap, depending on how you want to express it.

 

[Trey]

Adding more sticks to the "poor judgement, integrity" bonfire. Besides, it's FoxNews and the FBI, can we really trust them?

Storing classified communications on an unsecured and unauthorized private server via an exclusive private email may or may not be a crime, because it's a novel situation (no one has ever been so brazen to try it), but we know lying to the FBI is definitely a crime. We don't even know if the FBI has talked to Hillary. I think any number of people from David Kendall to Mills, Abedeen, Reines to IT folks like Pagliano or employees at the CO & CT vendors to the aides who registered the server like Hothem are potentially in the wheelhouse. Now, I agree that's if you believe Fox.... sure, don't believe it.

One of the real issues at play here is how far into the abyss journalism has fallen in the last few decades. Everything is tweeted or snap chatted or whatever new minimalist method gets the news out fastest.

The honest answer is that no one has any idea where the FBI is in their investigation. "Sources" say... That we need to generate likes and comments and clicks as fast as we can. How's Joe Biden's presidential campaign going that sources close to the Veep confirmed?

But the Dems are stuck with her as their only hope so they better pray this gets wrapped up in the next few months with no charges for any high ranking Clinton staffers.

 

[Trey]

This can't be a surprise to anyone right?

A large majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton did something either unethical or illegal in her use of a private email system for government business, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A total of 68 percent believe that what she did was wrong in one way or the other.

The biggest bloc, 40 percent, say she acted unethically, though legally. That includes large numbers of Democrats and independents.

The second biggest, 28 percent, believe she did something illegal.

The third, 27 percent, believe she did nothing wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article44297841.html

Forty percent of Democrats and 46 percent of independents say she did something unethical but not illegal.

That's a key distinction. This question gets asked a few different ways. Unethical, vs lying, vs illegal.

The DOH (Defenders of Hillary) like to rush to the criminal trial burden of proof, requiring delivery of full certified video evidence of Hillary in black cloak and witch's hat wringing her hands and cackling as she personally secrets away documents marked classified and whiting out the markings, which they somehow see being necessary. Most people realize that in real life acting wrongly, recklessly, unethically and deceitfully overlap, depending on how you want to express it.

It was 100% unethical. A huge unforced political error.

But then you have quotes from people in that article calling it treason or saying she should be in jail for the murder of 4 Americans. And that's where you lose me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This can't be a surprise to anyone right?

A large majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton did something either unethical or illegal in her use of a private email system for government business, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A total of 68 percent believe that what she did was wrong in one way or the other.

The biggest bloc, 40 percent, say she acted unethically, though legally. That includes large numbers of Democrats and independents.

The second biggest, 28 percent, believe she did something illegal.

The third, 27 percent, believe she did nothing wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article44297841.html

Forty percent of Democrats and 46 percent of independents say she did something unethical but not illegal.

That's a key distinction. This question gets asked a few different ways. Unethical, vs lying, vs illegal.

The DOH (Defenders of Hillary) like to rush to the criminal trial burden of proof, requiring delivery of full certified video evidence of Hillary in black cloak and witch's hat wringing her hands and cackling as she personally secrets away documents marked classified and whiting out the markings, which they somehow see being necessary. Most people realize that in real life acting wrongly, recklessly, unethically and deceitfully overlap, depending on how you want to express it.

It was 100% unethical. A huge unforced political error.

But then you have quotes from people in that article calling it treason or saying she should be in jail for the murder of 4 Americans. And that's where you lose me.

Thanks. I agree with you on the "treason" part as well.

 

[tom22406]

This can't be a surprise to anyone right?

A large majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton did something either unethical or illegal in her use of a private email system for government business, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A total of 68 percent believe that what she did was wrong in one way or the other.

The biggest bloc, 40 percent, say she acted unethically, though legally. That includes large numbers of Democrats and independents.

The second biggest, 28 percent, believe she did something illegal.

The third, 27 percent, believe she did nothing wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article44297841.html

Forty percent of Democrats and 46 percent of independents say she did something unethical but not illegal.

That's a key distinction. This question gets asked a few different ways. Unethical, vs lying, vs illegal.

The DOH (Defenders of Hillary) like to rush to the criminal trial burden of proof, requiring delivery of full certified video evidence of Hillary in black cloak and witch's hat wringing her hands and cackling as she personally secrets away documents marked classified and whiting out the markings, which they somehow see being necessary. Most people realize that in real life acting wrongly, recklessly, unethically and deceitfully overlap, depending on how you want to express it.

It was 100% unethical. A huge unforced political error.

But then you have quotes from people in that article calling it treason or saying she should be in jail for the murder of 4 Americans. And that's where you lose me.

Thanks. I agree with you on the "treason" part as well.

I think most of us agree with that but it still doesn't change the results of the survey either.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well conservatives have Common Core to kick around, and progressives have charter schools:

Hillary Clinton rebukes charter schoolsThe decades-long proponent of charters criticizes the schools for cherry-picking kids.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sounded less like a decades-long supporter of charter schools over the weekend and more like a teachers union president when she argued that most of these schools “don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them.”

Her comments in South Carolina came straight from charter school critics’ playbook and distanced her from the legacies of her husband, former President Bill Clinton — credited with creating a federal stream of money to launch charters around the country — and President Barack Obama, whose administration has dangled federal incentives to push states to become more charter friendly.


The change in tone on charter schools mirrors other moves Clinton has made to nail down the support of liberal blocs in the face of the progressive challenge of Bernie Sanders, including her recent decision to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And like her reservations about free trade, her new rebuke of charter schools suggests she’ll be less willing to challenge core Democratic constituencies than either her husband or Obama.

Teachers unions have been early and enthusiastic supporters of Clinton. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, a noted opponent of many education reform efforts, is a longtime friend and informal adviser to her campaign. Unions say they aren’t anti-charter but often attack the schools, a majority of which employ teachers who aren't unionized, accusing them of siphoning off money from traditional public schools.


...In contrast, the Democratic advocacy group Education Reform Now posted a statement from Director Charles Barone, who wrote that Clinton’s recent comments were “highly disappointing and seemed to reinforce fears about how her endorsements from both major teachers unions would affect her K-12 platform.”...
Charters use public dollars but are run outside of the confines of many of the rules and regulations that apply to traditional public schools. Numbering more than 6,400 today — or about 7 percent of publicly funded schools — they have become especially popular in urban areas including New Orleans, Detroit and the District of Columbia. Many Republicans embrace charter schools.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, there was a lone charter school in Minnesota, according to advocates. He helped create a grant program that provides seed money to open charters, providing hundreds of millions of dollars over the years and paving the way for thousands to open. As first lady, Hillary Clinton publicly applauded the program.

“The president believes, as I do, that charter schools are a way of bringing teachers and parents and communities together — instead of other efforts — like vouchers — which separate people out — siphon off much needed resources; and weakening the school systems that desperately need to be strengthened,” Hillary Clinton said at a 1998 White House meeting.

In 2011, Bill Clinton was honored with a lifetime achievement award from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

Nina Rees, president of the Alliance, noted that Bill Clinton is considered “one of the thought leaders and early adopters of charter schools” and said her organization appreciates past support from the Clintons. But Rees said her organization takes issue with Clinton’s recent statement.

“The data points we have … demonstrate that we are serving the hardest to teach and in fact many of our school leaders are seeking precisely the hardest to teach students and doing a very good job of educating them,” Rees said.

In her 1996 book “It Takes a Village,” Clinton endorsed charters as just the kind of innovation that could overcome stifling bureaucracy and return control to parents and teachers.

“I favor promoting choice among public schools, much as the President’s Charter Schools Initiative encourages,” she wrote. “Federal funding is needed to break through bureaucratic attitudes that block change and frustrate students and parents, driving some to leave public schools.”

Three years later, she encouraged NEA members at a meeting in Orlando to support the charter school movement as a way to improve education broadly, noting the union had helped start some charters.

“And I'm very pleased that you have done this, because I think when we look back on the 1990s, we will see that the charter school movement led by experienced, committed, expert educators will be one of the ways we will have turned around the entire public school system,” she told the crowd. And Clinton noted her support of charters during her prior bid for president, such as during a chat with the Des Moines Register in 2007.

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-charter-schools-education-215661#ixzz3rJsU5kG9

- Personally I find this disappointing, maybe because this is a very local issue. I guess I would have figured Hillary would hold the line on this one. As the article points out Hillary's support for charters dates back to the early 90s, and that's laudable. But no, it's another flipflop, but it's also sad, charter schools can make a great difference. One correction in the article above is that there are many Democrats in NO who embrace charter schools, they have been popular regardless of party or lack thereof. There is an entrenched political class who resent charter schools and the Recovery School District because of the loss of political power that happened when these schools were taken out of the local school board, which had been rent by years of corruption and abject failure.

 

[HellToupee]

Hillary Clinton[SIZE=14.3999996185303px] has a new headache to add to her list: Federal investigators are reportedly working overtime to determine if she lied to the government about her classified email scandal and considering whether to charge her with a cover-up crime that could draw a five-year prison term.[/SIZE][SIZE=14.3999996185303px]The expanded legal approach could put the former secretary of state in the same boat as TV hostess Martha Stewart, who famously drew a 5-month jail term in a 2004 insider-trading case.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]The feds ultimately dropped the main charge against Stewart – that she illegally traded stocks based on inside information – but turned her into a felon for lying to the Securities and Exchange Commission about it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]Clinton also faces a criminal probe related to the federal Espionage Act, whose 'gross negligence' language makes it a crime to move classified national defense documents to unsecure places, even without intending to.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]But it could be the cover-up, not the crime, that does her in.[/SIZE]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315711/FBI-agents-busting-build-case-against-Hillary-classified-email-investigation-expands-include-cover-crimes-including-law-sent-Martha-Stewart-prison.html#ixzz3rLNOi3yf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Sinn Fein]

New campaign slogan for Clinton: Orange is the new Black

Maybe this is why Biden opted out at the last moment. He knew Clinton was headed to the pokey, and figured it was better to step in as a white Knight later, rather than get sullied by the Clinton machine now.

 

[jon_mx]

This can't be a surprise to anyone right?

A large majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton did something either unethical or illegal in her use of a private email system for government business, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A total of 68 percent believe that what she did was wrong in one way or the other.

The biggest bloc, 40 percent, say she acted unethically, though legally. That includes large numbers of Democrats and independents.

The second biggest, 28 percent, believe she did something illegal.

The third, 27 percent, believe she did nothing wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article44297841.html

Forty percent of Democrats and 46 percent of independents say she did something unethical but not illegal.

That's a key distinction. This question gets asked a few different ways. Unethical, vs lying, vs illegal.

The DOH (Defenders of Hillary) like to rush to the criminal trial burden of proof, requiring delivery of full certified video evidence of Hillary in black cloak and witch's hat wringing her hands and cackling as she personally secrets away documents marked classified and whiting out the markings, which they somehow see being necessary. Most people realize that in real life acting wrongly, recklessly, unethically and deceitfully overlap, depending on how you want to express it.

It was 100% unethical. A huge unforced political error. But then you have quotes from people in that article calling it treason or saying she should be in jail for the murder of 4 Americans. And that's where you lose me.

That is not many. But there have been thousands of people who have been fired, fined or imprison for mishandling classified information or giving misleading information to the Feds. It is clear from what has been reported Hillary is guilty of both, the only real question is if they were serious enough offenses for the FBI to pursue charges and/or if Hillary is too big of a politician to go after with such charges. There will be some charges come out of this, most likely the IT guy or Huma, but Hillary is still a possibility.