Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[BassNBrew]

It’s not compromising, selling out, or picking the lesser of two evils to choose a candidate that can appeal to the broad middle of America—it’s democracy.

Wow, I couldn't have put it better. The above article is much more accurate, IMO, than the one posted earlier today in the Bernie thread. There is no guarantee that Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump. But at least she has a decent chance. Bernie Sanders does not. 

You couldn't have put it better because it's as wrong as you are.  I don't think a criminal and liar appeals to the broad middle.  Neither does someone lining their pockets from Wall Street lobbyists.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Who is this broad, and why does she support Clinton when most Americans find her untrustworthy, and unfavorable?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Elected officials do not hold security clearances.   There are background checks, but they are granted access based upon their elected position.    There isn't any authority within the government which could declare an elected official they are unworthy of a clearance and say deny a president access to top secret information.  The President gets access because he is the President and has a need to know.  

Something that has come up recently is that all US gov personnel handling class material must sign a statement that they have turned over all such information upon leaving USG employment.

Right now there is an open discovery request via FOIA for this information on Hillary. If she signed it then she is in violation, if she wasn't presented the form then the question is who decided that and on what basis and then is that basis provided for under law. I do think SOS's and other high ranking officials can retain their clearance (I believe), whether granted because they were elected like you say or otherwise, after they leave but they still have to turn over all classified documentation regardless.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So the emails contained passages with similar wording as items marked classified.  Not entire documents.  Shame that no one around here ever suggested that was likely the case.  

- Is this the conversation you were having with Commish a while back, that the content would have had to have been purposefully "lifted" from one repository to another? If so along with your point that Hillary may not have wiped her server after all this would be a second good insight. This is in and of itself a crime though.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

- Is this the conversation you were having with Commish a while back, that the content would have had to have been purposefully "lifted" from one repository to another? If so along with your point that Hillary may not have wiped her server after all this would be a second good insight. This is in and of itself a crime though.

Nope!  Besides my original insight on all of this is still the best 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Something that has come up recently is that all US gov personnel handling class material must sign a statement that they have turned over all such information upon leaving USG employment.

Right now there is an open discovery request via FOIA for this information on Hillary. If she signed it then she is in violation, if she wasn't presented the form then the question is who decided that and on what basis and then is that basis provided for under law. I do think SOS's and other high ranking officials can retain their clearance (I believe), whether granted because they were elected like you say or otherwise, after they leave but they still have to turn over all classified documentation regardless.

Nothing in Hillary's possession was deemed classified until this summer.  

 

[Smack Tripper]

Nothing in Hillary's possession was deemed classified until this summer.  

She admitted with stephnapolis that this doesn't matter per the agreement she signed 

 

[timschochet]

She admitted with stephnapolis that this doesn't matter per the agreement she signed 

Whatever. One second later she argued that she was innocent because they weren't classified. So she contradicted herself. 

In any case, she's not going to be indicted, so this is all irrelevant. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whatever. One second later she argued that she was innocent because they weren't classified. So she contradicted herself. 

...

That's not correct.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

They got her

 

[timschochet]

Hillary leading among blacks over 50- something like 80% to 20%. And they're the ones who vote. A few days ago it sounded like Bernie might get to within 10 points in South Carolina, which would have been a victory for him, but now it looks more like a landslide for her. 25-30 points seems possible if not likely. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

She admitted with stephnapolis that this doesn't matter per the agreement she signed 

I don't think so.

ETA:  I disagree with her last sentence in that there is some information which should not need markings to be recognizable as classified.  Whether there are any of these....

George Stephanopoulos: “You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. The non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state says that that’s really not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Hillary Clinton: “Well of course and that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously. You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put on an unclassified system, no matter what that system is. We were very specific about that. And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

— exchange on ABC’s “This Week,” Jan. 31, 2016

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nothing in Hillary's possession was deemed classified until this summer.  

Deemed? Or just was? No and yes.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm gonna follow Hillary's lead and put my self-interest first, and vote for Bernie.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think so.

George Stephanopoulos: “You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. The non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state says that that’s really not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Hillary Clinton: “Well of course and that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously. You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put on an unclassified system, no matter what that system is. We were very specific about that. And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

— exchange on ABC’s “This Week,” Jan. 31, 2016

ST was correct.

It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Well of course...

- That settles that.

You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put on an unclassified system, no matter what that system is.

- Can't physically or can't as in it's not permitted? Well it can be done physically, so she is acknowledging it's not permitted.

And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.

- This only makes sense in relation to the above if you consider that what she must be saying is that since no one (per her) marked it then she was safe in assuming it did not need marking.

That brings us back to:

all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Well of course...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nope!  Besides my original insight on all of this is still the best 

This is terrible, I try to give you a compliment and you just won't have it.

 

[raidergil]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/16/why-a-vote-for-bernie-sanders-is-a-vote-for-donald-trump.html

Dear Bernie Voter,
Unlike many Clinton supporters, I am not writing to you because I think you’re naïve, or misguided, or sexist, or dumb, or any of the other patronizing and condescending crap that Hillary voters often say. In fact, I probably agree with you on most issues. I am writing to you because I am sincerely worried that you will hand this election to the Republicans, and I want to do my best to convince you not to do so.


The point of primary elections is not to select a president; it’s to select a candidate. For that reason, “electability” is not just one among many issues: It is the central issue. Yet despite having absorbed several dozen pro-Bernie articles and videos, I have yet to hear a plausible path to victory for Bernie Sanders.


et’s tease apart two very different arguments.
First, let’s concede that Bernie is more progressive on just about every substantive issue: the economy, health care, foreign policy, the Iraq War, campaign finance, environmentalism, corporatization—even LGBT equality, if you want to hold Hillary’s past against her. I have no idea why the Clinton campaign is pretending she is more progressive than a democratic socialist, but let’s agree that she isn’t. Let’s even concede that she is beholden to Wall Street, a Washington politician (with all the ethical problems that entails), and, basically, part of a broken system.


But let’s separate all of that out from the questions of who can win in November, and what’s at stake.
From that perspective, the problem isn’t that Clinton isn’t liberal enough; the problem, according to the best data we have, is that she may be too liberal. Every time a Sanders supporter criticizes Clinton for not being progressive enough, to me, that’s a good thing, because she’s still left of center. Let’s look at the numbers.
First, I know, there are head-to-head polls right now that show Sanders doing even better than Clinton against Rubio, Cruz, and Trump. But the reason these polls are meaningless is that most people still have no clear idea of who Bernie Sanders is or what he stands for. This may sound ridiculous to those of us who follow politics closely, but it’s the sad reality of American democracy.
Meanwhile, everyone has an idea of what Hillary Clinton stands for. We’ve been barraged with anti-Hillary messaging for most of the past 25 years. Her negatives are “baked in.”


But when voters are asked about Bernie’s positions, rather than his name, the numbers are brutal. In a Gallup Poll taken last June, fully 50 percent said they would not vote for a socialist. Some 40 percent said they’d never vote for an atheist, which Bernie also basically is. Most of those are probably Republican voters anyway, but many are the swing voters in the seven states that will likely determine this election. (This is not like Obama in 2004: Only 7 percent of Americans said they would not vote for an African American to be president.)
This view tracks with age, as Nate Silver pointed out recently. Only 30 percent of voters 18-29 view the term “socialism” unfavorably, compared with 60 percent of those 45-64. (Silver noted that younger voters are also less averse to the term “libertarianism.”) Just as older Clinton supporters seem out of touch with how younger voters see the world, so younger Sanders supporters seem out of touch with older ones for whom “socialist” is toxic. (And it doesn’t matter that Bernie is a “democratic socialist.” As my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out, Republican attack ads will not parse the difference.)
But there’s much more.
According to polls, most Democratic and Republican voters agree on the top four issues in the campaign: national security, the economy, unemployment/jobs, and Obamacare. Bernie is an electoral disaster on all four.


First, even Bernie’s supporters concede that he’s inexperienced on foreign policy, especially in contrast to a former secretary of state. He’s also more dovish than Clinton, and the average American (not you or me, but the swing voters who will determine this election) already thinks that President Obama has been too “weak” and “soft” on our enemies. The last thing they’ll do is vote for someone even softer.
On the second and third issues, i.e., Bernie’s core, his promise to raise taxes on both the upper and the middle classes is the opposite of what nearly all voters want. Fifty-two percent of Americans say taxes are too high, 42 percent say they’re about right. Only 3 percent agree with Sanders that taxes are too low. (Three percent had no opinion.) He loses on this issue 94 to 3!)


In fact, you’d have to go back to Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 to find a winning candidate who said he’d raise taxes not just on “the rich” but on pretty much everyone. A trillion dollars in new spending? This is way out of the mainstream and there is no plausible strategy for how to change that. People are not going to just “wake up” and agree with socialist political positions. They sure haven’t so far.
Finally, on question of health care, 53 percent of Americans still disapprove of Obamacare, yet Sanders wants to go even farther in the direction of big government, to a single-payer system that would require new taxes on the middle class, truly socialized medicine with fewer choices for those who can afford to make them, not to mention “death panels” and, somehow, the end of private health insurance.
Maybe these positions are good things to progressives, but they aren’t to most Americans. They’re the left-wing equivalents of Trump’s Mexican wall or Cruz’s call to abolish the IRS: They play well to the base, but alienate the middle.


Try this: Imagine yourself as someone who sometimes votes Republican, sometimes Democrat. You’re white, middle-class, basically fiscally conservative, moderate on social issues, and concerned about terrorism. You’ve got a family, and you live in the suburbs of North Carolina or Ohio. Are you really going to vote for a 74-year-old cantankerous socialist calling for revolution and a trillion dollars of big government?
Sure, Bernie will (hopefully) bring out younger voters. But those will be outweighed by mainstream Democrats, let alone swing-state swing-voters. And, large rallies notwithstanding, it hasn’t happened yet; in New Hampshire, overall turnout on the Democratic side was 233,993, down from 282,000 in 2008. It would take a statistical miracle for these new voters to swing the election. It’s magical thinking.
Obama’s approval rating is 47 percent not because he is not liberal enough (as we on the left think) but because his policies are more liberal than the mainstream. In this light, Bernie reminds me of Michael Dukakis, who lost 40 states to 10 in 1988. I was in high school at the time, and I remember how we all thought Dukakis was great, and how polls had him beating George H.W. Bush. Then came the Republican attack machine, painting Dukakis (in racist ways) as a soft-on-crime liberal. The election was a disaster.
Show me why this won’t happen to Sanders, please.


Now, some of my pro-Bernie friends say that even if Bernie isn’t ultimately electable, they can’t vote for Clinton in the primary because she’s so awful on, well, insert your key issues here. That is, of course, a coherent position to take. If Clinton’s negatives, or Bernie’s positives, are so high as to be worth losing the general election, then of course it makes sense to vote your values.
But let’s remember what’s at stake. We’ve all seen those simplistic ads making Clinton look more like the GOP than like Bernie. But as Sanders himself said, both he and Clinton are 100 times better than any Republican candidate. Specifically, a Republican president would mean:
- Further tax breaks for the 1 percent including income tax breaks, capital gains tax breaks (Rubio wants to eliminate the capital gains tax entirely), and estate tax breaks. More cuts to the social safety net to pay for them.

- New conservative Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, plus Obama’s executive orders on LGBT people, and allow new restrictions on contraception.


 No action on climate change—indeed, denial that it even exists—and the undoing of the Obama administration’s executive actions on it, and undermining international efforts. Plus potentially eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency entirely (!) and rolling back regulations on logging, mining, and drilling.

- No acknowledgement that white privilege exists, that black lives matter (in the way BLM means it), or that racism persists in housing, voting, and employment. On the contrary, more voter suppression and racist gerrymandering and housing policies.

- Warmongering in the Middle East, either overt or covert Islamophobia at home, the growth of the surveillance state, and the return of torture.

- Stripping 18 million people of health insurance by repealing Obamacare, or at the very least restricting its implementation, with no alternative plan in sight.

- Not only no campaign finance reform and money in politics, but even more “freedom” for corporations and 1 percenters to buy our government.
Is it still worth it? I’m not asking you rhetorically; maybe you think it is. Maybe you think we need a political revolution, even though only around 25 percent of Americans agree with you, and this is the only way forward. Maybe you’re “tired of the status quo.”


To me, though, I couldn’t look someone struggling with poverty, perhaps in a community of color, perhaps in an urban context blighted by a century of the new Jim Crow, and say that I helped bring this about. I couldn’t explain my vote to a civilian family we bombed in Iraq or Syria, or to my children who will have to deal with a changed climate. Hell, I couldn’t explain it to my own husband, who will be legally un-wedded from me within half a decade if a Republican president delivers on his campaign promises.
Show me a Sanders path to victory, or admit that you’re making that choice, and putting the Republican Party in charge of all three branches of government.
Finally, and at the risk of alienating you a little, I think that preferring my moral/political purity over these life-or-death questions is a privileged position to take. I think one reason Bernie’s supporters tend toward the white, young, and privileged is that we don’t have as much skin in the game as others who would be affected by a Republican victory. Moral purity is a luxury not.
It’s not compromising, selling out, or picking the lesser of two evils to choose a candidate that can appeal to the broad middle of America—it’s democracy.




 


 




 

ADVERTISEMENT




 
 
 



 


 
 
 



 









 



 

Seems like Bernie was just sent out there by Dem party so Hillary at least had someone to run against.  Party knew he was too far left to beat her and probably told him such.  If he really wanted to win there's no way he doesn't address the server situation etc.  Reminds me of Romney - not nearly aggressive enough to beat Obama with the machine against him.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think so.

ETA:  I disagree with her last sentence in that there is some information which should not need markings to be recognizable as classified.  Whether there are any of these....

George Stephanopoulos: “You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. The non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state says that that’s really not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Hillary Clinton: “Well of course and that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously. You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put on an unclassified system, no matter what that system is. We were very specific about that. And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

— exchange on ABC’s “This Week,” Jan. 31, 2016

What a load of ambiguous garbage.  That is a statement only a lawyer could love.  Precisely worded to sound like she is saying one thing, but really is saying nothing.  You really have to understand that can't and has to be really don't mean what most people would understand them to be in the given context.  Extremely misleading and delivered like the professional liar which see is. 

 

[jon_mx]

I hate to break it to Tim, but if it takes a 10,000 word essay to attempt to make a simple point, you really don't have a point.  

Did anyone even read the pant load?  

 

[jon_mx]

This email story is a non-story and has run its course...../Tim everyday 

Will Hillary Clinton's Top Aides Be Forced to Testify Over Email ...ABC News-Feb 23, 2016

Clinton Email Scandal: Jailed CIA Officer Says Hillary Is Getting A ...Investor's Business Daily-Feb 23, 2016

Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution-Politico (blog)-14 hours ago

Lynch confirms career Justice Department attorneys involved in Clinton email probe Fox News - 8 hours ago 
 
Hillary Clinton urges voters not to worry about emailscandal ...


Washington Times-19 hours ago
 
 
Judge inches toward subpoenas in Clinton emailserver case


CNN-Feb 23, 2016
 


[SIZE=11pt]Court Gives Conservative Group Right to Gather Evidence in [/SIZE]Hillary[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]...Wall Street Journal-Feb 23, 2016
 
 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

. . . and once again, we're back to discussing whether or not Hillary should be charged with a felony and sent to prison.  This is the person who the Democrats are going to up up in November, folks.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm starting to get optimistic on Hillary getting prosecuted. If you're reading tea leaves, things are reaching a head.  If you buy the utter bulk#### that she's innocent of serious wrongdoing and no overtly duplicitous acts were taken, then it may seem ready to blow over...

...but it if you're paying attention at all to the fact that she's guilty as all sin as were her staff of copying information from secure environments to insecure, then you can see that that's going to come out in the wash and there will be nothing Lynch or Obama will be able to do to make it smell any better than it is.

We could see something in between next. Hillary's aides and maybe Hillary herself could be deposed. Or it could be leaked that one of her aides might be or should be indicted. Or maybe it will be leaked that the FBI will interview Hillary or already has. 

Lynch just had to comment on it in an appropriations hearing at Congress. She claims there will be an independent review by longtime attorneys. It really doesn't matter. Lynch and maybe two others under her, Democrats, politicos like her, will make the call. I think Hillary has provided enough fig leaf defenses - it wasn't marked, others did it, etc. - either irrelevant or false, but it doesn't matter if the base buys it. Most of them don't really look at the facts or try to grasp what's underlying all this. The only question after that is if as you say the leaks from the FBI, IC and Congress counter all that so it becomes impossible to ignore.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is terrible, I try to give you a compliment and you just won't have it.

A compliment?

 

[Sinn Fein]

I wish there was a betting site for this.  I would put money that Philippe Reines is the only one of consequence to see any charges.  Mrs. Weiner and Ms. Mills are too important - so they will be protected.

ETA - And Clinton will express her disappointment in Reines, but be glad that she decided to hand over all half of her emails in an effort to be the most transparent government official ever.  Without her insisting on releasing the emails - this never would have come to light.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A compliment?

Yes. I thought I recalled you and Commish discussing this last summer or fall. And I thought it was you who suggested it was possible that information could have been transcribed or recapitulated rather than transferring whole documentation. If it wasn't you then whether Commish or whoever it was a good observation, insightful. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We could see something in between next. Hillary's aides and maybe Hillary herself could be deposed. Or it could be leaked that one of her aides might be or should be indicted. Or maybe it will be leaked that the FBI will interview Hillary or already has. 

Lynch just had to comment on it in an appropriations hearing at Congress. She claims there will be an independent review by longtime attorneys. It really doesn't matter. Lynch and maybe two others under her, Democrats, politicos like her, will make the call. I think Hillary has provided enough fig leaf defenses - it wasn't marked, others did it, etc. - either irrelevant or false, but it doesn't matter if the base buys it. Most of them don't really look at the facts or try to grasp what's underlying all this. The only question after that is if as you say the leaks from the FBI, IC and Congress counter all that so it becomes impossible to ignore.

What exactly did Lynch state was being investigated?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What exactly did Lynch state was being investigated?

I'll see if I can find the article. Not sure.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes. I thought I recalled you and Commish discussing this last summer or fall. And I thought it was you who suggested it was possible that information could have been transcribed or recapitulated rather than transferring whole documentation. If it wasn't you then whether Commish or whoever it was a good observation, insightful. 

OK, fair enough.   It was me that considered it very unlikely that any of the emails contained "documents with their markings removed" either electronically or manually but instead contained nuggets of information that was contained in such documents.   But why this insight ever "going against the grain"?  Why was this not obvious?  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'll see if I can find the article. Not sure.

Be careful.  One of these links cuts that little detail out.

Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution-Politico (blog)-14 hours ago

Lynch confirms career Justice Department attorneys involved in Clinton email probe Fox News - 8 hours ago 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, fair enough.   It was me that considered it very unlikely that any of the emails contained "documents with their markings removed" either electronically or manually but instead contained nuggets of information that was contained in such documents.   But why this insight ever "going against the grain"?  Why was this not obvious?  

I don't know, it used to be pretty rarefied stuff, maybe if you live near DC or know USG personnel or work in the biz this kind of things is (or was) better understood. A lot has changed in the last few months as all these procedures have become better known. It's been interesting reading for me, for sure.

 

[The_Man]

I struggle sometimes with the cognitive dissonance so prevalent in our politics. Republicans rant and rave about Obama's socialism and all he has done to destroy the country, while I think he has largely upheld the right-center status quo of George W. Bush. And in that terrible letter to Bernie supporters, I find so many of the things that Hillary supporter decries to be, upon closer examination, policies that Hillary herself advocates:

Specifically, a Republican president would mean:

- Further tax breaks for the 1 percent including income tax breaks,
- No action on climate change
- Warmongering in the Middle East, ... the growth of the surveillance state

- Not only no campaign finance reform and money in politics

 
Has Hillary proposed tax increases of any kind, even for the 1 percent?

What has Hillary proposed on climate change? She was dragged kicking and screaming to oppose the Keystone pipeline.

That was a decision that was obviously born of political calculation and will be abandoned as soon as it is expedient.

She is already the Warmonger in Chief of the Middle East. She also called for a Manhattan Project-like expansion of the surveillance state in an October debate.

She is not credible on campaign finance reform, and is again just saying things to get elected that she will quickly ignore.

Seriously, how can you believe a Bernie supporter would ever trust her on any of these issues?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Be careful.  One of these links cuts that little detail out.

Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution-Politico (blog)-14 hours ago

Lynch confirms career Justice Department attorneys involved in Clinton email probe Fox News - 8 hours ago 

Ok thanks, I was going to post this, which is the article I had read.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/270592-lynch-promises-independent-review-of-clinton-case

A lot of it is editorialization so...

"possible criminal charges connected to Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information"

"the Clinton matter"

....is just the writer/editor. However it sounds like Lynch didn't say something to the effect "Hillary isn't under investigation" either. She also didn't say she is. Lynch just calls it "That matter."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Be careful.  One of these links cuts that little detail out.

Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution-Politico (blog)-14 hours ago

Lynch confirms career Justice Department attorneys involved in Clinton email probe Fox News - 8 hours ago 

Ok thanks, I was going to post this, which is the article I had read.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/270592-lynch-promises-independent-review-of-clinton-case

A lot of it is editorialization so...

"possible criminal charges connected to Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information"

"the Clinton matter"

....is just the writer/editor. However it sounds like Lynch didn't say something to the effect "Hillary isn't under investigation" either. She also didn't say she is. Lynch just calls it "That matter."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok thanks, I was going to post this, which is the article I had read.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/270592-lynch-promises-independent-review-of-clinton-case

A lot of it is editorialization so...

"possible criminal charges connected to Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information"

"the Clinton matter"

....is just the writer/editor. However it sounds like Lynch didn't say something to the effect "Hillary isn't under investigation" either. She also didn't say she is. Lynch just calls it "That matter."

Let me help.  

"With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-prosecution-219733#ixzz41Bc7IZX2

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I struggle sometimes with the cognitive dissonance so prevalent in our politics. Republicans rant and rave about Obama's socialism and all he has done to destroy the country, while I think he has largely upheld the right-center status quo of George W. Bush. And in that terrible letter to Bernie supporters, I find so many of the things that Hillary supporter decries to be, upon closer examination, policies that Hillary herself advocates:

 
Has Hillary proposed tax increases of any kind, even for the 1 percent?

What has Hillary proposed on climate change? She was dragged kicking and screaming to oppose the Keystone pipeline.

That was a decision that was obviously born of political calculation and will be abandoned as soon as it is expedient.

She is already the Warmonger in Chief of the Middle East. She also called for a Manhattan Project-like expansion of the surveillance state in an October debate.

She is not credible on campaign finance reform, and is again just saying things to get elected that she will quickly ignore.

Seriously, how can you believe a Bernie supporter would ever trust her on any of these issues?

Agreed.  Hillary is the kind of Republican that used to come out of the northeast -- pro-business, pro-banking, fairly liberal on social issues but cautiously so, downplays religion, moderately hawkish, etc.  As a right-winger, I suppose I'm happy that our country have moved far enough to the right this type of person is now a Democrat, but it's kind of astonishing to see her played up as some kind of ultra-liberal by partisans in both parties when she's clearly no such thing.   

 

[Blick]

Agreed.  Hillary is the kind of Republican that used to come out of the northeast -- pro-business, pro-banking, fairly liberal on social issues but cautiously so, downplays religion, moderately hawkish, etc.  As a right-winger, I suppose I'm happy that our country have moved far enough to the right this type of person is now a Democrat, but it's kind of astonishing to see her played up as some kind of ultra-liberal by partisans in both parties when she's clearly no such thing.   

Honestly, I don't think there is much distance between her and Trump ideologically, favorability, etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let me help.  

"With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-prosecution-219733#ixzz41Bc7IZX2

Good post, but again, that doesn't exclude Hillary, does it? It actually suggests a wider scope. That could even go past her aides. One of the news reports indicated as many as 30 or so accounts could have had spillage. And who did they spill to? It also obviously does not have to include her or her aides. I think we all know that someone else could be offered up to help move past thing, fairly or not.

There is no question given the sole private ownership of where this classified information was stored who was definitely among those doing the handling.

 

[Hang 10]

Agreed.  Hillary is the kind of Republican that used to come out of the northeast -- pro-business, pro-banking, fairly liberal on social issues but cautiously so, downplays religion, moderately hawkish, etc.  As a right-winger, I suppose I'm happy that our country have moved far enough to the right this type of person is now a Democrat, but it's kind of astonishing to see her played up as some kind of ultra-liberal by partisans in both parties when she's clearly no such thing.   

I don't oppose Hillary because she's ultra-liberal, I oppose her because she's the worst type of politician. She's not in it to serve the people. She's in it for Hillary. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't oppose Hillary because she's ultra-liberal, I oppose her because she's the worst type of politician. She's not in it to serve the people. She's in it for Hillary. 

Oh I agree with this completely too.  She's wretched.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Let me help.  

"With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-prosecution-219733#ixzz41Bc7IZX2

You are arguing over semantics imo.  The FBI has acknowledged that they are investigating matters related to Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.

They can't disclose more "without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts." (emphasis added)

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000152-c304-d19a-addf-cb3d623f0001

Now, obviously, we now know Clinton was not the only one using that server - but ultimately, she bears responsibility for having classified documents/information in her possession on an unsecured server for ~8 years.  That was the risk she took in setting up a non-government server.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The thing I have never understood is why do the Clintonistas hate the Democratic Party so much, that they would rather see a republican in the White House than a democrat?

Seems odd.

 

[pantagrapher]

The thing I have never understood is why do the Clintonistas hate the Democratic Party so much, that they would rather see a republican in the White House than a democrat?

Seems odd.

Oh man, hot take.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I kind of wonder sometimes how themes boil up in political campaigns. How do these themes just "float" out into the press and public discourse? All of a sudden everyone is talking about the same thing.

We have an open letter to Bernie Sanders' voters stating they are really just left wing Trumpites and also that they are resisting democracy. Examples:

Maybe these positions are good things to progressives, but they aren’t to most Americans. They’re the left-wing equivalents of Trump’s Mexican wall or Cruz’s call to abolish the IRS: They play well to the base, but alienate the middle.

It’s not compromising, selling out, or picking the lesser of two evils to choose a candidate that can appeal to the broad middle of America—it’s democracy.

I cannot help but notice a similar appeal to Sen. Sanders himself in another open letter from none other than David Brock, though on a different tack, basically telling Sanders he should just lay down his arms:

http://correctrecord.org/an-open-letter-to-senator-bernie-sanders/
 

Dear Senator Sanders,

I’m writing today to urge that you and your campaign immediately halt all negative campaigning against our party’s prospective candidate for the Presidency, Secretary Hillary Clinton.

...These attacks –- ranging from baseless insinuations that Mrs. Clinton is somehow compromised in her ability to support meaningful reform in the financial sector, when her record shows the opposite, to unfairly impugning her reputation as a true progressive, despite her 40 years of committed, passionate advocacy – must cease.

Your continued suggestions that Mrs. Clinton is untrustworthy and even corrupt – when nothing could be further from the truth – are a threat to our party’s standing, up and down the November ballot.

With Mrs. Clinton now universally recognized as the leading candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, at this juncture, by staying negative, all you are doing is helping Karl Rove and his ilk do their general election dirty work. In fact, Rove and his wealthy right-wing backers have already spent millions of dollars echoing the smears you and your campaign have unfortunately directed at Mrs. Clinton.

...You and I both know that the stakes for our country are just too high this November – with the Presidency, and control of the Senate and the Supreme Court hanging in the balance – for you to continue to spend your energy and resources on destructive attacks that stand to hurt all Democrats.

- s/ David Brock.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Clinton Fundraiser - asked why she called blacks "Super Predators"

"now back to the issues"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Clinton Fundraiser - asked why she called blacks "Super Predators"

"now back to the issues"

Oh my god that sign.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Love the reaction of a bunch of rich white women..

.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Tim Black's commentary sums it up well.

 

[timschochet]

Honestly, I don't think there is much distance between her and Trump ideologically, 

Well, this is true, if you ignore the fact that on every major issue that has been stressed by Trump, Hillary takes the exact opposite view. But other than that...

 

[timschochet]

Such silly commentary this morning. But I should come to expect it by now. 

 

[Blick]

Well, this is true, if you ignore the fact that on every major issue that has been stressed by Trump, Hillary takes the exact opposite view. But other than that...

Do you mean now that she moved a million miles left to snuff out Bernie or how she'll actually government as a centrist?