Hillary Clinton

[Heracleum Persicum]

Tzipi Livni, Haim Saban, and Hillary Clinton.png (155.67 KiB) Viewed 12305 times

.

Just minutes before Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, Israeli Channel One News interviewed Haim Saban, an American-Israeli media magnate and long-time Clinton supporter.

..

Then came the big question: What is her position on the Iran deal ?

Saban responded carefully, “She will have to, at some stage, express her opinion. But we know that in essence and in every important matter, she is committed to the security of Israel. She is a friend of the State of Israel. And we've seen this over the past 25 to 30 years. So, there won't be any problems with relations between the United States and Israel when Hillary Clinton is president. No problem. On the contrary.”

But Ya’akov Ayalon, the host of the nightly Channel One news pressed on :

And where does Hillary Clinton stand on this issue ?

"I know where she stands but I can't talk about it," Saban admitted.

"Give me a hint," Ayalon had to ask.

"I hinted to you – that I know," Saban couldn’t repress a laugh. "But I can't reveal to you things that were said behind closed doors. She has an opinion, a very well-defined opinion. And in any case, everything that she thinks and everything she has done and will do will always be for the good of Israel. We don't need to worry about this.”

The implication: Clinton is against the Iran deal.

Why ?

Because Israelis – across the political spectrum – are against the deal, and Saban knows this.

From the extreme left of Zionist parties and partisans to the extreme right, Israelis oppose the deal.

For Haaretz reporter Ari Shavit, it’s President Obama’s big mistake.

Former Prime Minister and head of the Labor Party Ehud Barak came right out and urged the United States to tell Iran to “dismantle or else.” Barak said, "The Pentagon and the forces of America under the backing and probable directive of the [US] president [could] create an extremely effective means to destroy the Iranian nuclear military program over a fraction of one night.” And as the former IDF Chief of General Staff and Israeli Minister of Defense, Barak might know a thing or two about this topic.

Barak is not alone.

Israelis, across the political spectrum, want the military option on the table – on the negotiating table, where it belongs.

The debate in Israel is not whether the deal is good. It’s whether Prime Minister Netanyahu is responsible for the bad deal – by spoiling Israel’s relations with the United States, or whether Obama is responsible for the bad deal by virtue of his unrealistic idealism and tendency to over-compromise.

So when Yaakov Ayalon says, “Give me a hint” and Haim Saban says “I hinted to you – that I know,” and just after he’s said “there won’t be any problems with relations between the United States and Israel when Hillary Clinton is president,” that means he is convinced that Hillary Clinton is against the Iran deal.

And this is big news. Israelis have been anxiously waiting for Hillary Clinton to openly state her position on the Iran deal. Congress is the last bastion of hope for Israel. Well before the P5+1 negotiations in Lausanne, Israeli news analysts focused intently on the Corker-Menendez bill. If Hillary Clinton comes out against the deal, more Democrats will join Republicans in demanding that Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions. And this is what Israelis, across the political spectrum, are praying for.

.

Either Zionist idi*t or they thinking Joe idi*t

Not so that "only" Obama wants a deal with Iran .. America, Europe, China, Russia, Japan and all the world want a deal with Iran .. American political elite from both parties knows this .. and .. Iranians too know this

Zionist know this but want to milk joe last dime B4 Joe flat broke


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Scam Of The Week :
Hillary Clinton’s Fake Populism


.

[Doc]

.

Scam Of The Week :
Hillary Clinton’s Fake Populism
.

This is dog bites man. IF you really want a story find something about Hillary Clinton in general that is not fake

[Doc]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... eign-money

Hillary Promises to Get Everyday Americans Foreign Money

By Andy Borowitz

NASHUA, N.H. (The Borowitz Report)—Delivering a stirring populist message at a campaign appearance in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton vowed that as President she would help everyday Americans obtain large cash payments from foreign governments.

“Like a lot of everyday Americans, many of you are struggling to pay your bills,” she told an audience here. “As President, I will work tirelessly to help you make ends meet—by getting foreign governments to pay you.”

“In cold, hard cash,” she added, to a standing ovation.

Growing emotional, the former Secretary of State spoke of the “transformative power of foreign money,” calling it “nothing short of magical.”

“I’ve seen up close how large sums of foreign currency can change people’s lives,” she said. “And I will not rest until every middle-class American partakes of the riches of the Emirates.”

Clinton said that she and she alone was qualified to disgorge heaps of cash from foreign governments, and took a swipe at two of her Republican rivals.

“Do you honestly think Ted Cruz could pry loose any Moroccan money—or Rand Paul?” she asked. “Come on. No one in Morocco knows those losers.”

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.


And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweitzer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

..

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of Mrs. Clinton’s agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation’s top diplomat.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign individuals and businesses whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

.

Not India but America is the "corruption capital" of the world

Poor China

.

[Parodite]

Isn't this true everywhere these days.

okLAfn_QOSI

[Simple Minded]

Isn't this true everywhere these days.

okLAfn_QOSI

This guy, always expresses himself very articulately, but I suspect this was always true everywhere. Large groups of people require lots of compromises that suit few. The larger the group, the worse the one size fits all solution suits the group members.

The primary difference between "then & now" is flow of information.

Now-a-days, with information age tech, "we" have never been in each other's face so often, our "sensibilities" have never been offended so easily, over such trivial issues, of which "we" know so little.

"Mind your business? That's no fun! My business is boring. I need trauma and drama!"

A couple minutes on Google, and suddenly anyone can be a expert regarding the ________ community, or issue _______.

Me tends to think virtual reality reflects imagination and prejudices much more than reality. "We" are all experts on everything, especially expert on what "they" are thinking or "they" are doing wrong. Or if "we" are not expert now, "we" can be in just a few minutes.

Plus with an infinite supply of confirmation bias available, "our" is easily proven.

[manolo]

Isn't this true everywhere these days.

okLAfn_QOSI

This guy, always expresses himself very articulately, but I suspect this was always true everywhere. Large groups of people require lots of compromises that suit few. The larger the group, the worse the one size fits all solution suits the group members.

The primary difference between "then & now" is flow of information.

Now-a-days, with information age tech, "we" have never been in each other's face so often, our "sensibilities" have never been offended so easily, over such trivial issues, of which "we" know so little.

"Mind your business? That's no fun! My business is boring. I need trauma and drama!"

A couple minutes on Google, and suddenly anyone can be a expert regarding the ________ community, or issue _______.

Me tends to think virtual reality reflects imagination and prejudices much more than reality. "We" are all experts on everything, especially expert on what "they" are thinking or "they" are doing wrong. Or if "we" are not expert now, "we" can be in just a few minutes.

Plus with an infinite supply of confirmation bias available, "our" is easily proven.

Folks,

I find that keeping in friendly touch with folks that hold markedly different views from our own can be empowering and enlightening. It is, at least, a good way or scrutinising our own beliefs against what can be powerful attacks.

Especially on internet forums we can be involved in debates with all kinds of inputs. I have often felt a little closed in by some bigotry and then suddenly a new poster comes along and opens the door to agreeable thoughts. It's like the cavalry.

Alex.

[Parodite]

SM, what maybe didn't change is that what people perceive as being the case, as different from the past and as a more desirable future.. is what brings their asses into action and creates changes in their societies.. the world. It is hard to believe and accept for most that whoever you are and wherever you reside.. you are most likely not better or worse off than anybody else. Of course I myself am one of those deluded sods. But of course "they" better speak for themselves, and "I" better try the same.

[Simple Minded]

SM, what maybe didn't change is that what people perceive as being the case, as different from the past and as a more desirable future.. is what brings their asses into action and creates changes in their societies.. the world. It is hard to believe and accept for most that whoever you are and wherever you reside.. you are most likely not better or worse off than anybody else. Of course I myself am one of those deluded sods. But of course "they" better speak for themselves, and "I" better try the same.

Parodite,

Betting on the consistency of human nature from generation to generation, and village to village, and country to country, seems to me a solid bet.

Their perception of "their culture" is always going to be superior to their perception of "our culture." I think "they" are pretty consistent in this trait.

"We" just have to accept that, "we" will never meet up to "their" standards.

This seems like a liberating thought.

Idealists/Intellectuals can find an oppressor or liberator behind every blade of grass..... and if they are losing sleep over it, that is just icing on the cake.....

I think "we" celebrate diversity by not being able to define terms, right, left, rich, poor, liberal, conservative, etc. !!!

Long live labels!!! Especially for those of whom we have no knowledge!!!

[Doc]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in- ... le-grants/

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

April 27, 2015 By Sean Davis


After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.”

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

Clinton Foundation 2013 Breakdown

In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

Clinton Foundation Overhead 2013 990

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.

Clinton Foundation Programmatic Breakdown 2013

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

[Typhoon]

Fear of the "other" drives politics

2 political scientists have found the key to partisanship, and it’s deeply depressing

Politics isn't about who you love. It's about who you fear.

That's the upshot of a draft paper by political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster that attempts to untangle a mystery about modern American politics: how can there be record levels of party loyalty and straight-ticket voting at the same time that fewer Americans than ever before are identifying as Republicans and Democrats?

This, then, is the last 30 years of American party politics in a sentence: we like the party we belong to a bit less, but we hate the other party much more.

Which explains why some US citizens are willing to spend countless obsessive hours on the internet railing against and demonizing the opposition.

[YMix]

To me that sounds like a very obvious effect of the political duopoly. Since you're stuck with one of the two parties, you might as well start taking shots at the other. They're attacking you anyway so...

[noddy]

i think the 2 parties are largely baby boomer parties with baby boomer issues at their foundations.

this creates the lack of connection with the younger people who grew up in a world that has moved on from those worldviews plus the solid base of folks who have withdrawn into those issues and become caricatures of themselves.

the greens and the libertarians are the future , i expect them to grow and morph as the boomers eventually relinquish power.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Pat Buchannan planned this strategy with Nixon in the sixties of dividing America into halves, and then making sure Their side got the bigger half.

Before that, moderates and constructive dialog were typical. Now they are exceptional.

[Doc]

Pat Buchannan planned this strategy with Nixon in the sixties of dividing America into halves, and then making sure Their side got the bigger half.

Before that, moderates and constructive dialog were typical. Now they are exceptional.

Nonsense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167–19 for, Democrats 118–107 for)[4] and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43–0 for, Democrats 29–18 for).[5] President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Lyndon ... Rights.htm

FactCheck: Civil Rights Act led to 90% black vote for Dems
FactCheck by OnTheIssues.org: Morris states that "The Democratic domination of the African American vote really did not begin until 1960." That is not true; the current Democratic domination began in the 1964 election. Morris cites JFK's actions as the source of that Democratic domination; it would be more historically accurate to cite LBJ's passage of the Civil Rights Act. After that bill's passage, the trend in the black vote changed from about 70% Democratic to nearly 90% Democratic, where it has stayed until the present.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/blogg ... 0349/posts

[Endovelico]

[Doc]

What Bill and Hillary Could Tell Tom Brady

Good job refusing to turn over your texts and emails. Now delete them.

By
Allysia Finley

May 7, 2015 7:11 p.m. ET


Tom—First off, delete this message after reading. We’ve got enough problems without you adding to them. That hack right-wing writer Peter Schweizer just put out a book, “Clinton Cash,” on us, so we appreciate you taking the tabloid spotlight for a bit.

Second, terrific job responding to all those ankle-biting reporters in January about the deflated pigskins you used during the Patriot’s AFC championship game against the Colts: “I didn’t alter the ball in any way.” Of course, you didn’t. Your ball boys did. That’s what flunkies are for: Doing things you don’t want to get caught doing and then taking the fall.

When asked if you had cheated, you replied honestly: “I don’t believe so. I feel like I’ve always played within the rules. I would never do anything to break the rules.” We added the italics. In admiration. We couldn’t have obfuscated any better. Of course, you don’t believe you did anything wrong. And neither do we.

Also, nice job stonewalling Ted Wells, the NFL’s special investigator, by refusing to hand over your texts and emails. (We can tell you stories about special prosecutors that’ll pin your ears back.) FYI, you should delete those files asap since Congress might decide to pile on and launch its own investigation. Republicans never met a rabbit hole they didn’t want to dive into. Then declare that you only deleted personal correspondence like notes between you and Gisele—no one, not even nosy Republicans or sleazy reporters, has the right to read the correspondence between a husband and wife. Even if it comes to, like, 30,000 emails.

If asked about those autographed footballs and game-worn jerseys that you slipped to the ball boys, claim that they were really gifts that were intended to be auctioned off for fill-in-the-blank charity. We know that Gisele is already checking off the do-gooder box by serving as the “Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Environment Programme,” but now also might be a good time for you two to set up a putatively philanthropic foundation. You’re making millions, but you still gotta pay the bills.

Most important: Deflect, deflect, deflect like one of those monster Packers defensive linemen batting down one of your passes. For starters, denounce the Wells investigation as a league conspiracy—a “sting operation” as your agent Don Yee said on Thursday. Your dad got it right when he called it “Framegate.” Remember that the NFL front office may be the only governing body in the U.S. that’s less popular than Congress.

It should be clear to fans that the league has had it out for you and Coach Belichick since 2007 when a Patriots video assistant was caught secretly taping Jets defensive signals. But the media back then got distracted by other things—like our presidential campaign. Now here you are all these years later taking the heat off us! Don’t worry though. Reporters have a very short attention span, and lucky for you the NFL is full of screw-ups, maybe even more than on Capitol Hill. Johnny Manziel just came out of rehab. How long can that last?

But if reporters won’t stop hounding you, hold a press conference. Don’t actually answer any of their questions, just keep calling audibles and try to confuse them. Here’s a line you can use, an oldie but goody from Hillary in ’96 that we still love: “It is possible that I did once know something more that would be responsive to these interrogatories. But if I did, I do not recall it now.’’

Hope this helps. If you need any more advice, just holler. Oh, and maybe you could contribute to the Clinton Foundation?

—Bill and Hill

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-bill-a ... 1431040303

[Mr. Perfect]

Hillary Clinton has lost her leads in IA and NH to an unknown elderly socialist and is now almost single digits nationally, where she used to be up 40. It's very rare to win the nomination if you lose those 2 states, particularly if one person wins them both as Bernie can.

Hillary Clinton is now losing to all GOP frontrunners, including/especially Ben Carson.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/ ... index.html

Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for the Democratic nomination has fallen to just 10 points, and at the same time, her advantage in hypothetical general election matchups against the top Republican contenders has vanished,

In the general election matchups, Clinton trails former neurosurgeon Ben Carson by a significant margin (51% Carson to 46% Clinton among registered voters) while running about evenly with both former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (49% Bush to 47% Clinton) and businessman Donald Trump (48% back each).

So, why? The media are all in agreement that she won in 2008 because she was inevitable. Sorry, she didn't win in 2008. She is guaranteed to win this year. Because she is inevitable. Like 2008. Last time she got beat by the Greatest Democrat of ALL TIME, this time by an old dude who technically wasn't ever even a Democrat.

Why is this happening.

The email thing is the straw that broke the camel's back. Everyone knows the Clintons are criminal liars. It's in the polls now. Hillary doesn't even know how to talk without lying, as anyone can see. Every word out of her mouth is scripted to deceive the public for her personal benefit. Not working though.

This is a big problem. Why?

Because of the nature of the email thing. It has all the hallmarks of campaign death.

1. No end in sight

2. No surrogates can adequately defend her case for something they know nothing about

3. No end in sight

4. No Hillary voters can go on forums and defend her. Notice you don't see a single person here defending her emails. Not a single one. The issues is destroying her, and the Democrat Party, and not one single person on the internet is defending her. Because they can't. The exonerating arguments can only come from her, and she refuse to make them.

5. The short story looks terrible. The potential long explanation is flaccid. Definition of the word is looks robust in comparison

6. No end in sight. This will drag on for months

7. If no one can defend her, she is defenseless, and the defenseless lose in politics

We are in the middle of the trend. HRC is moving down, everyone else is moving up. In a month, she'll be down 10 to the GOP leaders if she doesn't do something. We are still in the middle of the trend.

The entirety of the HRC campaign for President is her beating the rap. We're supposed to support her like an underdog sports team being treated unfairly by NFL referees and front office. What's in that for the voter. Why do you vote for that for President.

The MSMs sole mission in life is to elect Democrats and make money off of human suffering. Profits are vulgar unless they come from aborted babies or murder and mayhem on the telly. It's how the left wing MSM rolls. Turning blood into profit. Those profits are sacred.

Many of you are new to politics so you may not know that until GWB started hitting turbulence HRC was radioactive. IE she used to be a pariah liberal. Ted Kennedy and she were the symbol of loony leftists. She was never electable previous to 2008. And then she failed to even get the nomination.

Despite all that, since her entrance on the stage, HRC was selected by the delusional left MSM to be the first female President. It was in the cards from way back then. They believed it. They wanted to make it happen. They were going to make it happen.

But it's a delusion. Isn't it?

This is I think a topic worthy of a thread. If it doesn't go anywhere we can put it in the election thread.

But this is an historic moment. The MSM has been grooming one of their own, without the American people asking for it, at all, and for the 2nd time at the moment of truth she is failing.

So, discussion points for those that don't want to see a Republican elected.

1. What are you telling people about the emails. They are ripping her to pieces. If a compelling excuse is not made, she is finished. I don't see anyone saying anything. Will she go down without a fight?

2. What can the MSM say when their 20 year candidate bites the dust. Again. For the last time. When the American People reject out of hand a person the MSM has been grooming for over 20 years, what do you do with that MSM.

[Typhoon]

Good riddance.

I don't think that family political dynasties are healthy for any democracy.

Especially if the current dynastic candidate is too dumb to understand how e-mail works.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

So, discussion points for those that don't want to see a Republican elected.

1. What are you telling people about the emails. They are ripping her to pieces. If a compelling excuse is not made, she is finished. I don't see anyone saying anything. Will she go down without a fight?

Do you want to know the most outrageous defense I read? A "MSM" piece suggesting quite confidently that Mrs.Clinton only did what she did to better remember her time working in the White House. It is such a dizzying experience, and with everything done electronically, that someone with Mrs.Clinton's obsessive work ethic [not making an iota of this up here] was compelled to set up her own server to better have a memento for her dedicated service.

So yeah, there's nothing left to say.

I think she'll make an exit if and only if Bill intervenes. Otherwise, she'll stick with it to the end no matter how ugly she gets.

Is there anything to do? Yeah, present a whole bunch of muck and general disarray to hide the muck of the e-mail scandal. That is Clinton 101- tell people that if they think scandal X is bad, they should forget about that and deal with all the other dysfunctional things they've been up to.

Double up, double down, make it a double that any comments about e-mails is an apocalypse on a woman. Then leak to the media that Bill hasn't lived with Hillary in a long time, is chasing bimbos, Hillary has no control over her campaign, may have a drinking problem and there is some weird funny-money scheme that may be worth your time.

2. What can the MSM say when their 20 year candidate bites the dust. Again. For the last time. When the American People reject out of hand a person the MSM has been grooming for over 20 years, what do you do with that MSM.

Nothing, they'll move on big time if she doesn't show a pulse soon and act like it never happened. She was to be the culmination of a woodstock dream; an affirmation of second wave feminism- that was her trump card for so so long- she was the 'new' kind of first lady who had it all and could do so much more.

I don't think she's ever really recovered from Bill's bimbo eruptions as it became more apparent he couldn't keep it in his pants.

So they pivoted to 21st century Hillary: ultra-competent, pragmatic Hillary, still a feminist icon but realistic about it with scars to show....it doesn't really ignite the passions.

[manolo]

So they pivoted to 21st century Hillary: ultra-competent, pragmatic Hillary, still a feminist icon but realistic about it with scars to show....it doesn't really ignite the passions.

Nap,

True, Hillary does not ignite my passions but it would be safe sex.

Alex.

[Heracleum Persicum]

H_8y0WLm78U

[manolo]

Folks,

I hate to admit this, but I've been wrong about Obama. I thought he was the top dog but really he is just warm up.

Hillary Clinton is the main feature. Watching her recent media appearances and interviews, this lady is cookin!

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/entertain ... ht-laughs/

What is most appealing about Clinton is her humility in the face of public office and yet her serious commitment to every one of the American people. It is a wonderful thing that Americans have public servants of this calibre. Awesome.

Alex.

PS - Kevin McCarthy is out. Strike one to HC.

[Doc]

Lady Gaga had Hillary's personal email address Ben Afleck had Hillary's personal email address But guess what? Amb Chris Stevens didn't have Hillary's personal email address.
I guess she must have been worried about Gaga or Afleck being murdered because of a Quentin Tarantino video or something.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10 ... picks=true
[quote]From Gaga to Affleck, latest release shows who had Clinton's personal email address while at State
Published October 31, 2015FoxNews.com
Facebook442 Twitter352 livefyre Email Print

Americans will have to wait until President Obama leaves office to see his email exchanges with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But a new batch of State Department emails from when Clinton ran the agency reveals the breadth of her personal network -- from Lady Gaga to then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The 7,000 emails released Friday show her Rolodex included powerful celebrities, CEOs, political advisers and politicians that she's now tapping for her Democratic presidential campaign.

The release, the largest since the State Department began posting the records in May, show Clinton and her aides balanced requests from a long list of boldface names.

Lady Gaga complimented her, Blair praised her for doing the "Lord's Work," Myanmar's pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi asked for technology help and former President Jimmy Carter pitched in on negotiations with North Korea.

But as with prior releases, any communication between Obama and Clinton was absent.

An administration official told Fox News there is a “small number” of such exchanges and described them as “mostly non-substantive” because the two leaders conducted most their discussions in person or by phone.

The White House position is that the president’s communications are not subject to public record requests under the Freedom of Information Act and can be withheld until he leaves office in 2007.

The George W. Bush White House likewise held that his correspondence would not be released until he left office, while the Clinton campaign has pledged to make her records public.

Meanwhile, the State Department plans to release a total of 55,000 emails handed over by Clinton, who was using a private email address and server during her tenure as secretary of state, from 2009 to 2013.

A State Department spokesman said the latest batch contains 200-300 emails with information that has since been deemed classified.

Heavily redacted exchanges regarding Burma, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen are among the retroactively classified emails in the batch.

Clinton has faced questions about whether her unusual email setup, which involved a private server located at her New York home, was sufficient to ensure the security of government information and retention of records.

At least two Senate committees are still investigating her email arrangement and seeking the release of correspondence from her top aides. The FBI is also investigating the security of Clinton's private setup.

Clinton has maintained all along that she had never received or sent any classified documents under the setup.

Republicans and others investigating the 2012 terror attacks on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, have shown that Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in the strikes, made numerous official requests for additional security. However, he did not appear to have Clinton's private email address.

Unclassified exchanges include an email from close adviser Sidney Blumenthal, who refers to Obama’s faltering poll numbers, calling it the “vulnerability of charisma.” Blumenthal has been a frequent name among the thousands of emails already released, often offering the then-secretary advice and gossip on foreign policy flashpoints, including the run-up to the intervention in Libya.

Though past email releases showed Blumenthal offering advice mostly on Libya, this batch showed him also writing to Clinton about Syria and other countries.

Some communications even pertained to the use of personal email.

A June 2011 email from senior official Anne-Marie Slaughter to Clinton advised "it would be a great time for someone inside or outside to make a statement/ write an op-ed that points out that State's technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively."

Republicans zeroed in on the fact that hundreds more emails contained retroactively classified material.

"This court-ordered email release is another reminder of why Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted in the White House," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

While Clinton's private email address was unknown to much of official Washington, at least one Hollywood celebrity wrote to her there. Actor Ben Affleck, a longtime Clinton supporter, urged her in April 2012 to review a draft of a report about security problems in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Roughly half of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails are now public, and the State Department's effort to release the rest will linger into next year. Most of the correspondence made public to date involves the mundane workings of government -- scheduling meetings, organizing secure phone lines and booking flights.

A few of them hint at the ways Clinton maintained her network of campaign donors, even while serving in a position at a distance from electoral politics. In a June 2011 message, an aide informs Clinton that longtime donor Susie Buell contributed $200,000 toward a summit at which Clinton was scheduled to speak.

"She wants it to be wonderful for you," wrote Clinton aide Melanne Verveer.

Other emails highlight the struggles of her daily life at the State Department.

In April 2011, daughter Chelsea Clinton, using the email alias Diane Reynolds, emailed her mother a link to a Wall Street Journal story headlined "The Sleepless Elite: Why Some People Can Run on Little Sleep and Get So Much Done.[/quote]