I must say, now that the B-dog has lost New York I am beginning to lose heart. Of course I didn't think it would be easy but my hope was he would have given the criminal a closer run for her money.

I can honestly say that the black voters are letting me down the most. In the end, it has been the black voters who have handed the criminal her various victories in the primaries.

Barring a well deserved indictment, I can't see the B-dog pulling off a miracle at this point.

gee. Dare I ask, why do you call Hillary a criminal? :)

dag

I am now taking wagers as to whether or not the criminal will be brought to justice this summer over her breach of office as secretary of state concerning the emails and home serve

What breach? It may have been she was safer than the official site.

Clinton’s private email server may have been penetrated by the Russians, though we don’t know that. But we do know that the official State Department nonclassified email system was indeed penetrated by the Russians, along with the White House unclassified email system.

The bottom line: If she had followed the rules and used her official email address, Vladimir Putin might actually have had a leg up on reading her correspondence.

I think Kristoff's article on "false narratives" may be interesting to you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opini ... email&_r=1

She, and Politfact think that, for a politician she's honest.
Her probable republican opponent (Trump or Cruz) aren't. And Bernie is about where she is according to them..

One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, calculates that of the Clinton statements it has examined, 50 percent are either true or mostly true.

That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards.

JimHackerMP wrote:gee. Dare I ask, why do you call Hillary a criminal? :)

Because he longs to be the respondent in a libel case?

Jim,

The Clintons are a very powerful couple supported by very powerful people in both high and low places.

Some make the claim that they have a knack for taking care of those who risk their political careers. Conspiracists I'm sure.

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt

But then there's

Whitewater
Benghasi
Email breach
Clinton Foundation
Primary voter fraud

I just can't bear to call her by her name until I have proof she is innocent of all the many claims made against her and her husband.

There just seems to be too many oddities connected with this couple to simply chalk it all up to coincidence.

dag

I just can't bear to call her by her name until I have proof she is innocent of all many claims made against her and her husband.

She has to prove she's not a witch?
Normally there has to be proof that she actually committed a crime.
Where's that evidence?
Whitewater>? There were never any charges...because ?
With Ben Ghazi there were 13 hearings, in large part trying to pin something on Hillary. They didn't.
What exactly can she do if her opponents continue to repeat clams that were proved untrue in all these hearings?

Email Breach? What email breach?

Clinton Foundation? There's never been quid quo pro demonstrating any economic or legislative benefit to a CF donor by Hillary. .
It seems like there is a double standard. And that you've bought in to the legitimacy of rather flimsy conspiracy theories.
Clinton doesn't do herself any favors with how she reacts and how she organizes her privacy against... But asking her to prove her innocence to the impossible standards of people who still see something in Ben Ghazi after 13 hearings run by republicans.. .. that's not possible.

rickyp wrote:dag

I just can't bear to call her by her name until I have proof she is innocent of all many claims made against her and her husband.

She has to prove she's not a witch?
Normally there has to be proof that she actually committed a crime.
Where's that evidence?
Whitewater>? There were never any charges...because ?
With Ben Ghazi there were 13 hearings, in large part trying to pin something on Hillary. They didn't.

If you have any desire to be fair (dubious), you must acknowledge the Administration has not cooperated with the Congress. Not at all. In fact, last month new info was discovered via FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch.

One thing is clear: Hillary has been proven to be a liar.

Judicial Watch says that the State Department provided those call notes only last month in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It is unclear why it took so long for the agency to hand over the documents.

Also unclear is why in other private conversations Clinton claimed that the video was not the spark for the Benghazi attacks.

During a Sept. 12 phone call with then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil Clinton said that the Benghazi attacks “had nothing to do with the film.”

“You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda,” Kandil responded to Clinton during their chat.

Clinton’s call with Kandil was referred to during Clinton’s Oct. 22 testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. As was an email that Clinton exchanged with her daughter, Chelsea, on the night of the attack. In that email she acknowledged that an “Al Qaeda-like group” had carried out the attack.

But Clinton’s comments in those communiques were at odds with the public position that she and others in the Obama administration took in the days after the attack.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a White House-approved statement on the night of the onslaught. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Further complicating matters is Clinton’s statement during the Oct. 22 Select Committee hearing and during a Democratic debate that she believes that the video did play a role in the Bengahzi attacks.

“Congressman, I believe to this day the video played a role,” she told Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan 
94%
during the Benghazi hearing.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/14/new-d ... z46r7svJby

What exactly can she do if her opponents continue to repeat clams that were proved untrue in all these hearings?

Tell the truth. I know that's something you can't imagine, but for most of us it's basic decency.

Clinton Foundation? There's never been quid quo pro demonstrating any economic or legislative benefit to a CF donor by Hillary. .

Because you want her on video saying, "Okay, for that gift I will do this . . ."

However, the number of apparent conflicts of interest situations is quite large. You can believe she never received money (via her husband or daughter or her speeches), but that is more a reflection of your willing suspension of disbelief than it is of reality. In fact, the FBI is looking at that right now.

I almost forgot her deal with Deutsche Bank.

Rickyp, here are a few choices I have before me:

1. The accusations I've outlined here are coincidence.
2. The accusations I've outlined here are right wing conspiracy claims to discredit her.
3. The accusations I've outlined here are true.

4. All of 1, but not 2 and 3.
5. Some of 1 but not 2 or 3.
6. Some of 1 and 2, but not 3.
7. All of 2, but not 1 and 3.
8. All of 3, but not 1 or 2.
9. Some of 1, 2 and 3.

I opt for #9. Anything else seems unlikely to me.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Jim,

The Clintons are a very powerful couple supported by very powerful people in both high and low places.

Some make the claim that they have a knack for taking care of those who risk their political careers. Conspiracists I'm sure.

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt

But then there's

Whitewater
Benghasi
Email breach
Clinton Foundation
Primary voter fraud

I just can't bear to call her by her name until I have proof she is innocent of all the many claims made against her and her husband.

There just seems to be too many oddities connected with this couple to simply chalk it all up to coincidence.

You forgot about cattle futures.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I almost forgot her deal with Deutsche Bank.

Rickyp, here are a few choices I have before me:

1. The accusations I've outlined here are coincidence.
2. The accusations I've outlined here are right wing conspiracy claims to discredit her.
3. The accusations I've outlined here are true.

4. All of 1, but not 2 and 3.
5. Some of 1 but not 2 or 3.
6. Some of 1 and 2, but not 3.
7. All of 2, but not 1 and 3.
8. All of 3, but not 1 or 2.
9. Some of 1, 2 and 3.

I opt for #9. Anything else seems unlikely to me.

It's clearly #1. She's simply the luckiest human being to ever live!

Of all the stuff the cattle futures thing seems the worst to me. It could have been a way for Tyson Foods to indirectly pay money to the Clintons. Not proven of course but the idea that Hillary Clinton just decided on a one-time basis to trade in cattle futures seems ridiculous. And she did it through the help of Tyson Food's outside counsel. And the broker they used did block trades where after the profits or losses were made, the profits could have been allocated to Clinton. In another words, her trades were part of a large pool of trades made by the Tyson counsel and then the profitable trades could have been allocated to her while the Tyson counsel took the losses. And she happened to get out at the right time when investors started to lose money, which makes sense if there were few profitable trades by the Tyson counsel to allocate anymore (one thing to allocate when there are a lot of profitable trade but it wouldn't look credible if the Tyson counsel was losing big-time while Clinton was winning). Nothing proven but it smells...bad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary ... ontroversy
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-05/ ... -trading/2

dag h

Rickyp, here are a few choices I have before me:

1. The accusations I've outlined here are coincidence.
2. The accusations I've outlined here are right wing conspiracy claims to discredit her.
3. The accusations I've outlined here are true.

I think the choice you should go with, which isn't on offer, is to evaluate the actual evidence for each claim, and then decide...
For instance Ben Ghazi ...
13 hearings, 12 Republican lead and what? Nothing of substance... Isn't that solid evidence that there's nothing there and that the reference you make to it is essentially baseless....

And the nonsense still goes on...
as Fate demonstrates.... the startling revelation (actually was known for many months) that one foreign source said that the attacks on Ben Ghazi had nothing to do with the film...
So what. There were hundreds of sources, and a great deal of confusion so that saying something like this ...

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a White House-approved statement on the night of the onslaught. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

could be plausibly true.. Some did seek to justify.... Just not the Egyptian Prime Minister...

The so-called outrage over Ben Ghazi has resulted in nothing more than picking at the earliest public statements rather than anything substantial. Millions of dollars and congressional time to discover that a couple of public pronouncements made only hours after a chaotic event, weren't precise? You would have thought the administration did something as misleading and dangerous as blaming Iraq for sending 9/11 bombers...

dag

I almost forgot her deal with Deutsche Bank

her speaking engagement fees?
It would be a big deal if it wasn't the sort of thing every bloody politician in Washington does when they are not in office. As soon as every politician gets out they go to work speaking and pontificating for money. (Fox News is every conservative politicians landing spot between potential attempts at office.)
She's just real good at getting the bucks. Striking a blow for women in the pay scale race!

The other thing is , write a book.... In some cases get PACs to pay for thousands of copies of the books in order to make some money from PACs when normally they can't. (Palin, Carson, Clinton).

There is nothing illegal or, based on common practice, particularly unscrupulous about getting paid for speaking when not in office. George Bush does it. Ben Bernake does it. Allan Greenspan. Jeb Bush. I attended a speech Ron Reagan gave for $150,000 only 2 months out of office.
So do you hold Hillary to a different standard than Romney, or the Bushes? Or Reagan?

I agree with you that Bernie is a lot cleaner than most politicians in the US. But the real reason he doesn't get paid for speeches is that since 1991 it has been illegal for members of Congress or the Executive Branch to get paid for speaking. He is only following the law .
(BTW, Bernie's rating for truth telling on the campaign trail is the same as Hillary's according to Polifact. How do you explain that if Hillary is as scurrilous as you claim she is...?)

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Donald Trump

I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.”

Hillary Clinton.

In the likely event that Bernie doesn't turn around the nominating process (and he'll get thrashed in Indiana, Pennsylvania and Connecticut tomorrow if the polls are right), Hillary's likely opponent will be Donald Trump. Consider their positions on climate change and tell me which is rationale and which verges on criminally stupid?
And who do you want in office given that choice?

rickyp wrote:dag h

Rickyp, here are a few choices I have before me:

1. The accusations I've outlined here are coincidence.
2. The accusations I've outlined here are right wing conspiracy claims to discredit her.
3. The accusations I've outlined here are true.

I think the choice you should go with, which isn't on offer, is to evaluate the actual evidence for each claim, and then decide...
For instance Ben Ghazi ...
13 hearings, 12 Republican lead and what? Nothing of substance... Isn't that solid evidence that there's nothing there and that the reference you make to it is essentially baseless....

No. We KNOW she lied. The only question is why?

She told some people the truth, but she lied to the American people--and the victims' families.

We also know she was incompetent as a manager. A competent manager would have taken precautions prior to 9/11 in a volatile area that had already seen multiple terror attacks.

And the nonsense still goes on...
as Fate demonstrates.... the startling revelation (actually was known for many months) that one foreign source said that the attacks on Ben Ghazi had nothing to do with the film...
So what. There were hundreds of sources, and a great deal of confusion so that saying something like this ...

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a White House-approved statement on the night of the onslaught. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

could be plausibly true.. Some did seek to justify.... Just not the Egyptian Prime Minister...

The only nonsense is that you cannot understand she lied to America. She lied to those who died at Benghazi. Why is that "okay?"

The so-called outrage over Ben Ghazi has resulted in nothing more than picking at the earliest public statements rather than anything substantial. Millions of dollars and congressional time to discover that a couple of public pronouncements made only hours after a chaotic event, weren't precise? You would have thought the administration did something as misleading and dangerous as blaming Iraq for sending 9/11 bombers..

.

"Not precise?"

You're a joke. She flat-out lied. She knew the truth--she told Chelsea--but she lied. Susan Rice went on national TV 5 times and lied. Why?

Oh, because lying to the American people allowed Obama to keep his "Al Qaida's on the run" myth alive and well?

Politics is an acceptable reason to deceive the American people?

Let Hillary run on that!

And, btw, jackass, no one said the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. Of course, now you will shift your argument, but here is what you claimed: "(The Bush administration) blam(ed) Iraq for sending 9/11 bombers."

That's not even close to being an accurate representation of a Bush Administration claim.

fate

No. We KNOW she lied. The only question is why?

Hillary Clinton is not a paragon of virtue. But there has been ample scrutiny on this issue. And here's what she says in return...

"There have been seven investigations (of Benghazi) led mostly by Republicans in the Congress" that concluded "nobody did anything wrong, but there were changes we could make.

"

Clinton’s number is correct: there were seven previous congressional probes into the Benghazi attack. Saying these committees were led "mostly by Republicans" is also a fair assertion: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were the only two committees not led by Republicans. As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate. We rate this claim Mostly True

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es-so-far/

Only conspiracy nut bars continue to prattle on about this....
And Dag unfairly points to it as a "crime". A mis-characterization, perhaps even a lie, that her opponents are happy people like Dag make....because it shows how effective their campaign has been in smearing her unfairly.