Let's pick on Hillary (Her Thighness)

[JLM]

There's few ethical people in the world JLM. No sense expecting any difference in politics.

To tell you the truth, none of the participants in this charade interest me too much, least of all Trump & Hillary!

 

[gopher]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/



Clinton emails continue to be non-scandal, disappointing Republicans





By Paul Waldman March 4 at 12:03 PM

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – On Super Tuesday morning, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets voters at Mapp’s Cafe in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Tuesday March, 1, 2016. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
While we were all busy laughing about how insecure Donald Trump is about the size of his manhood, the New York Times released this story, the latest development in the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails:

A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
The security logs bolster Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments.
The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, began cooperating with federal agents last fall, according to interviews with a federal law enforcement official and others close to the case. Mr. Pagliano described how he set up the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and according to two of the people, he provided agents the security logs.
​

What does this tell us? Although it’s possible there will be some future discovery, it appears that whether Clinton’s emails were vulnerable to hacking or not, they weren’t actually hacked. That’s good news! The closest thing they’ve found is some attempts at phishing scams, which means that Clinton’s email is just like every other email address on earth.
So here’s what we know at this point, put as succinctly as I can:

1. Clinton set up a personal email account and used it for work. Even though previous Secretaries of State did the same thing, and even though thousands of people in government use personal emails for work, she still shouldn’t have done it. She may have violated department policies, but there’s no evidence she broke any laws.
2. Clinton has said it was a mistake and apologized for it.
3. There were concerns that her email server could have been vulnerable to hacking from a foreign power. But it does not appear to have been hacked.
4. None of the work-related emails she sent and received were marked classified at the time. However, some 200 of them were retroactively classified. This is now the subject of a spat between the State Department and the intelligence community, which classifies many things that people elsewhere in the government think are absurd to classify.
5. For Clinton to be charged with mishandling classified information, she would have had to knowingly passed such information to someone not authorized to have it — like David Petraeus showing classified documents to his mistress — or acted with such gross negligence that people without authorization were bound to see it. According to what we know, neither of those things happened.
6. The FBI is investigating the matter, but has said that Clinton herself is not a target of that investigation, meaning that they don’t suspect that she committed any crime.
7. That former aide, Bryan Pagliano, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department and is working with them as they complete their investigation, which will probably conclude this spring. Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server. Here's what that means.
   
   
   Play Video1:22
   
   
   The Justice Department granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who set up Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home. Here's what the FBI is looking to investigate and what it means for the Democratic presidential front-runner. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.
They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?
In recent weeks, I’ve had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, “I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!?” The answer is no, but they heard that because it’s something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long you’ll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that she’s about to be indicted or that she won’t be permitted to run for president because she’ll be on trial. It hasn’t happened and it won’t happen, but that isn’t going to stop them from saying it.
Finally, there’s a phrase you should watch out for when you see this issue discussed: “Drip, drip, drip.” Sometimes it’ll be a Republican partisan using it, but more often it will be some pundit explaining why the issue is important. What “drip, drip drip” means is that despite the fact that there was no crime and no security breach, the media will keep discussing the story as the investigations continue, and that will cause political difficulty for Clinton. “Drip, drip, drip” is this controversy’s version of, “it’s out there,” meaning, “there isn’t anything scandalous about the substance of this matter, but here’s how we’ll justify talking about it as though it actually were something scandalous.”
I don’t say that to justify Clinton’s original decision to set up the private server. She shouldn’t have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was.












No scandal - yes, yet another Republican FAIL

 

[talloola]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/



Clinton emails continue to be non-scandal, disappointing Republicans





By Paul Waldman March 4 at 12:03 PM

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – On Super Tuesday morning, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets voters at Mapp’s Cafe in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Tuesday March, 1, 2016. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
While we were all busy laughing about how insecure Donald Trump is about the size of his manhood, the New York Times released this story, the latest development in the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails:

A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
The security logs bolster Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments.
The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, began cooperating with federal agents last fall, according to interviews with a federal law enforcement official and others close to the case. Mr. Pagliano described how he set up the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and according to two of the people, he provided agents the security logs.
​

What does this tell us? Although it’s possible there will be some future discovery, it appears that whether Clinton’s emails were vulnerable to hacking or not, they weren’t actually hacked. That’s good news! The closest thing they’ve found is some attempts at phishing scams, which means that Clinton’s email is just like every other email address on earth.
So here’s what we know at this point, put as succinctly as I can:

1. Clinton set up a personal email account and used it for work. Even though previous Secretaries of State did the same thing, and even though thousands of people in government use personal emails for work, she still shouldn’t have done it. She may have violated department policies, but there’s no evidence she broke any laws.
2. Clinton has said it was a mistake and apologized for it.
3. There were concerns that her email server could have been vulnerable to hacking from a foreign power. But it does not appear to have been hacked.
4. None of the work-related emails she sent and received were marked classified at the time. However, some 200 of them were retroactively classified. This is now the subject of a spat between the State Department and the intelligence community, which classifies many things that people elsewhere in the government think are absurd to classify.
5. For Clinton to be charged with mishandling classified information, she would have had to knowingly passed such information to someone not authorized to have it — like David Petraeus showing classified documents to his mistress — or acted with such gross negligence that people without authorization were bound to see it. According to what we know, neither of those things happened.
6. The FBI is investigating the matter, but has said that Clinton herself is not a target of that investigation, meaning that they don’t suspect that she committed any crime.
7. That former aide, Bryan Pagliano, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department and is working with them as they complete their investigation, which will probably conclude this spring. Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server. Here's what that means.
   
   
   Play Video1:22
   
   
   The Justice Department granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who set up Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home. Here's what the FBI is looking to investigate and what it means for the Democratic presidential front-runner. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.
They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?
In recent weeks, I’ve had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, “I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!?” The answer is no, but they heard that because it’s something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long you’ll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that she’s about to be indicted or that she won’t be permitted to run for president because she’ll be on trial. It hasn’t happened and it won’t happen, but that isn’t going to stop them from saying it.
Finally, there’s a phrase you should watch out for when you see this issue discussed: “Drip, drip, drip.” Sometimes it’ll be a Republican partisan using it, but more often it will be some pundit explaining why the issue is important. What “drip, drip drip” means is that despite the fact that there was no crime and no security breach, the media will keep discussing the story as the investigations continue, and that will cause political difficulty for Clinton. “Drip, drip, drip” is this controversy’s version of, “it’s out there,” meaning, “there isn’t anything scandalous about the substance of this matter, but here’s how we’ll justify talking about it as though it actually were something scandalous.”
I don’t say that to justify Clinton’s original decision to set up the private server. She shouldn’t have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was.












No scandal - yes, yet another Republican FAIL

thanks gopher, good read, and yes I'm one of those who just assumed because of all the repetition of
the subject, thought she must be guilty of a crime, so my eyes are opened here, and I understand how
the repetition of the same thing over and over makes it seem 'that' it just must be.

I didn't delve into the subject, just skimmed over the headlines etc.

and it will be interesting to continue to watch just how many hundreds of times the republicans keep
bringing up 'that Hillary e mail' thing, so it is hammered into people's brains, and they, like me
don't really find out for themselves.

 

[tay]

Clinton expects people to think that she's going to stand up to the very people who wrecked the economy in 2008 while at the same time allowing them to fund her campaign.

Donald Sussman donated $2.5 million to Clinton's superPAC, Priorities USA Action.

You can read more about Paloma Partners getting $200 million in bailout funds here

Here is another article detailing the funds that Paloma received and the connections it had to AIG.

 

[pgs]

thanks gopher, good read, and yes I'm one of those who just assumed because of all the repetition of
the subject, thought she must be guilty of a crime, so my eyes are opened here, and I understand how
the repetition of the same thing over and over makes it seem 'that' it just must be.

I didn't delve into the subject, just skimmed over the headlines etc.

and it will be interesting to continue to watch just how many hundreds of times the republicans keep
bringing up 'that Hillary e mail' thing, so it is hammered into people's brains, and they, like me
don't really find out for themselves.

Forget the e-mail scandal that was nothing , I mean the Secretary of State is not in a position to have damaging material on her servers . Forget the non action on the Bengazi front that is just politics ,if people get killed what matter does it make .

But really taloola wouldn't you like to know what she said to Wall Street bankers in those $250,000.00 speeches .
And aren't you a little concerned about her superpac of about a billion dollars and who she is beholden to ?

 

[talloola]

Forget the e-mail scandal that was nothing , I mean the Secretary of State is not in a position to have damaging material on her servers . Forget the non action on the Bengazi front that is just politics ,if people get killed what matter does it make .

But really taloola wouldn't you like to know what she said to Wall Street bankers in those $250,000.00 speeches .
And aren't you a little concerned about her superpac of about a billion dollars and who she is beholden to ?

but I don't know, you don't know, and the millions of things that trump, I'm sure has done that is not
ethical or even legal along the way, I also don't know about, so I'm not going to assume or make up
things like that, life goes on, look ahead, no one can change the past, and no one can change heresay
into facts, when there is no proof, or any charges, just because people hate certain people.

 

[tay]

but I don't know, you don't know, and the millions of things that trump, I'm sure has done that is not
ethical or even legal along the way, I also don't know about, so I'm not going to assume or make up
things like that, life goes on, look ahead, no one can change the past, and no one can change heresay
into facts, when there is no proof, or any charges, just because people hate certain people.

She refuses to give any details on her highly paid speeches to these Corporate donors which indeed makes the assumptions that she has promised to look after them at the expense of the peons.

If Trump can continue on without any Super Pac funding and becomes the nominee, he will have so much ammo against her (if she becomes the nominee) that she will be shredded.


One of Clinton’s primary liabilities in her race against Bernie Sanders is the perception that she is overly friendly with corrupt corporate interests. So it's pretty bizarre that she has decided to have a (reportedly) corrupt corporation host her next big fund-raiser. And it’s only one of several unforced errors the campaign has made since last Friday.

 

[tay]

 

[Locutus]

must watchy:

http://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/t50.2886-16/12598332_463283900548817_197731434_n.mp4

 

[talloola]

She refuses to give any details on her highly paid speeches to these Corporate donors which indeed makes the assumptions that she has promised to look after them at the expense of the peons.

If Trump can continue on without any Super Pac funding and becomes the nominee, he will have so much ammo against her (if she becomes the nominee) that she will be shredded.


One of Clinton’s primary liabilities in her race against Bernie Sanders is the perception that she is overly friendly with corrupt corporate interests. So it's pretty bizarre that she has decided to have a (reportedly) corrupt corporation host her next big fund-raiser. And it’s only one of several unforced errors the campaign has made since last Friday.

again, assumptions, perception, reportedly, nothing in those words says anything that proves
anything. people who don't want her, or anyone they dislike, can insinuate anything they
want, but that is all it is.

I can't imagine trump shredding her or anyone else, unless of course he keeps talking and doesn't
stop, which he often does, and again I notice he is slinking out of a debate, a good way to avoid
having to answer questions, and more excuses why he won't be showing up 'again'.

it would not have mattered who had become the front runner for the republicans, they would have
gathered round by the zillions, 'anyone' who had become the frontrunner, just so Hillary Clinton
might be defeated by that person, it just happened to be Donald trump.

 

[pgs]

again, assumptions, perception, reportedly, nothing in those words says anything that proves
anything. people who don't want her, or anyone they dislike, can insinuate anything they
want, but that is all it is.

I can't imagine trump shredding her or anyone else, unless of course he keeps talking and doesn't
stop, which he often does, and again I notice he is slinking out of a debate, a good way to avoid
having to answer questions, and more excuses why he won't be showing up 'again'.

it would not have mattered who had become the front runner for the republicans, they would have
gathered round by the zillions, 'anyone' who had become the frontrunner, just so Hillary Clinton
might be defeated by that person, it just happened to be Donald trump.

So Hillary didn't get kicked off the Watergate commission hearings for lying under oath , O.K.

 

[talloola]

So Hillary didn't get kicked off the Watergate commission hearings for lying under oath , O.K.

again more stories that have never been proven, those who hate her can put forward all kinds of things

they claim are facts, but when investigated, are not facts, just heresay, and stories again by those

who want to slander her. he said this, he said that, he accused her of this, he accused her of that,

no facts or charges whatsoever.

if any of us pick out any public figures, lawyers, or whomever, and decide we are going to dig up dirt,

we can find things to light on fire and make it sound like crime, and its all heresay.

she wasn't even married then, it was so long ago.

 

[tay]

Hillary Clinton will say just about anything to anybody if she smells a vote in it and America's young voters are on to her.

Let's talk coal. Trying to be environmentally-courageous Hillary, Clinton said "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Then she realized that she was in Ohio at a CNN town hall taping. Coal-friendly Ohio where the coal production industry was already reeling.

US News reports that Democrats in the coal states of Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio have tried to “distance themselves from Clinton’s comments.” Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Clinton ally who handily won his party’s primary election for senator, called her slip, “unartful.” Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who, last April, endorsed Clinton, took issue with her comments and contacted her campaign.

Facing the backlash, and in damage-control mode, Clinton sent a letter to Manchin: “Simply put, I was mistaken.”

Clinton critics seized on this line from that letter: “Coal will be part of the energy mix for years to come, both in the U.S. and around the world.” Even better, Hillary announced a $30-billion relief package for the coal states which one critic characterized as: “Don’t worry, coal bosses; we’ll foam your landing strip too.”

 

[taxslave]

she meant what she said the first time. In order to win the young citiot vote she is perfectly willing to throw working people and the industries they depend on under the bus.

 

[Ludlow]

she meant what she said the first time. In order to win the young citiot vote she is perfectly willing to throw working people and the industries they depend on under the bus.

She's an actress. I'm not sure who I'd vote for this time. Like anyone else I've put my faith in certain politicians and they've took a shyt on us. Because they just talked shyt that they thought we wanted to hear. I believe Hilary is that way. I'm looking for an Erin Brockovich or a James J Braddock type of person but damn if I think they'd be anywhere but in the Labor force. Who the hell knows who is qualified to be Prez. I sure as hell don't.

 

[JLM]

Who the hell knows who is qualified to be Prez. I sure as hell don't.

If the truth be known, probably none of the current candidates! I suppose Trump could surprise us, but he has one draw back - a mouth that is big enough to fit both feet!

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[JLM]

Sounds like Hillary.

 

[Ludlow]

That is a problem with Hillary but let me ask this, how many politicians do you know who don't lie? Hell their like TV preachers it's a mandatory part of their job.

 

[Locutus]

Ezra Levant Verified account ‏@ezralevant

Ezra Levant Retweeted Hillary Clinton
Real question: how many have donated to you, or hired you for "speeches"?








Hillary Clinton Verified account ‏@HillaryClinton

The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all of the kindergarten teachers in America combined. That’s not acceptable.