Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Hillary Clinton has had a tightly-fought race in February against Bernie Sanders, but she could soon be in for a raft of victories in the Super Tuesday contests on March 1.

A new set of polls released by Democratic-aligned firm Public Policy Polling finds Clinton leading in 10 out of 12 primaries to be held that day, with Clinton especially benefitting from the support of minority voters.

From the pollster’s analysis: “Clinton is benefiting in these states from overwhelming African American support. She leads by anywhere from 40-62 points among black voters in the nine of these states that have more black voters than the national average.”

The listing of polled states is as follows:

  • Alabama: Clinton 59 percent, Sanders 31 percent
  • Arkansas: Clinton 57 percent, Sanders 32 percent
  • Georgia: Clinton 60 percent, Sanders 26 percent
  • Louisiana: Clinton 60 percent, Sanders 29 percent
  • Massachusetts: Sanders 49 percent, Clinton 42 percent
  • Michigan: Clinton 50 percent, Sanders 40 percent
  • Mississippi: Clinton 60 percent, Sanders 26 percent
  • Oklahoma: Clinton 46 percent, Sanders 44 percent
  • Tennessee: Clinton 58 percent, Sanders 32 percent
  • Texas: Clinton 57 percent, Sanders 34 percent
  • Virginia: Clinton 56 percent, Sanders 34 percent
  • Vermont: Sanders 86 percent, Clinton 10 percent

Caveat: Two additional states that are voting on March 1, Colorado and Minnesota, were not included in this round of polling. PPP confirmed to The National Memo that this was because those states are holding caucuses rather than primaries, and are much more difficult to poll reliably.

For a variety of reasons, though, it might seem to an outside observer that Bernie Sanders could do quite well in both contests, given the nature caucus structures as well as the very progressive tendencies of those states’ Democratic voters.

Photo: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton meets with civil rights leaders at the National Urban League in the Manhattan borough of New York City, February 16, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar

  • nero88888

    lhttp://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/clinton-leads-in-10-of-12-early-march-primaries-benefits-from-overwhelming-black-support.html

    Hillary 468 delegates

    Bernie 53 delegates

    Bernie is TOAST.

    • JPHALL

      Never count your chickens until they hatch.

  • Otto Greif
  • Otto Greif

    If Hillary wins the nomination I wonder how many bitter Sandersistas will stay home on election day.

    • TheTruthCommission

      Ive been watching this kasich guy… I would consider him over clinton… And in a new poll just released my suspicions were confirmed, he smokes hillary head to head

    • Cpt_Justice

      Yeah, that’s what the rightwing is counting on.

  • nero88888

    These numbers TERRIFY the DELUSIONAL Bernie bots. hahahaahh Bernie is DONE.,

    • JPHALL

      Nothing is done. Polls are pretty meaningless over time.

      • Keep holding on to that for the next 12 days.

        • JPHALL

          That is the point! A vote means something much more, a pool depends on who you talk to.
          Subject: Re: Comment on New Polls: Hillary Clinton Way Ahead In Super Tuesday States

    • Nunya Bizness

      I sure hope so. I can’t stand the Bernie Bots.

      • AL

        Let’s just hope hillary goes to jail before the primaries are done.

        • Cpt_Justice

          Let’s just watch you hold your breath until it happens.

    • ginger ale

      I really hope so. It’d be a shame to see such a good candidate get passed over for one who is so much less equipt for the job, much less making it through the general election…

    • Seth Wu

      Boo-hoo.

      Quinnipiac Presidential Poll of Wed. Feb. 17, 2016

      Bernie Sanders better-liked, runs better against Republicans than Hillary Clinton: poll

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/bernie-sanders-better-liked-runs-better-against-re/

      By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times – Thursday, February 18, 2016

      Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont is better-liked among overall voters and runs ahead of 2016 Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton in match-ups with top 2016 GOP candidates, according to a poll released Thursday.

      Mr. Sanders led Ohio Gov. John Kasich by 4 points, businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida by 6 points each and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by 10 points each, according to the Quinnipiac University poll.

      Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, trailed Mr. Kasich by 8 points, trailed Mr. Rubio by 7 points, trailed Mr. Cruz by 3 points, trailed Mr. Bush by 1 point, and led Mr. Trump by 1 point.

      Fifty-one percent of U.S. voters said they have a favorable view of Mr. Sanders, compared to 36 percent who reported an unfavorable one. Mrs. Clinton had a negative 37 percent/58 percent favorable/unfavorable split.

      “It’s certainly Sen. Bernie Sanders’ moment. The Vermont firebrand leads all potential GOP rivals in raw numbers and raw emotion with the best scores for favorability and several key character traits,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

      Mr. Sanders had the best favorability rating of any candidate in the survey, Democrat or Republican. Among Democrats only, he had an 82 percent/7 percent favorable/unfavorable split, compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 76 percent/20 percent split.

      Nearly seven in 10 voters said Mr. Sanders is honest and trustworthy ­ also better than any candidate ­ while about the same percentage saidMrs. Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. He also narrowly edged Mrs. Clinton on having strong leadership qualities, though Mr. Trump led all candidates on that front.

      Sixty-one percent said Mr. Sanders cares about the needs and problems of “people like you” ­ also tops in the field. He also led on the question of whether he shares voters’ values or not.

      Mrs. Clinton did hold an advantage over the other candidates on the issue of experience, with 64 percent saying she had the right kind of experience to be president, with 54 percent saying the same of Mr. Sanders.

      And despite the head-to-head match-ups, 55 percent said Mrs. Clintonwould have a good chance of defeating the Republican nominee in the fall general election, compared to 47 percent who said the same of Mr. Sanders.

      • nero88888

        James Clyburn about to endorse Hillary Clinton.

        BAM Bernie the UNELECTABLE DINO is DONE you brain dead parasite. hahaahah

        Hillary 481 delegates

        Bernie 55 delegates

      • ginger ale

        Being most likeable, does not mean they will be elected. When we vote for president, how likeable a person is won’t be as important as if they can do the job best. Also,right now Republicans are rooting for Sanders, if he were to get through they would begin a campaign of character assassinations on him. He is popular now because he is not a threat. Right now there is no reason to attack him which is why he is treated with kid gloves. Presidential elections are not a popularity contest.

        • Seth Wu

          Bernie and Hillary, the Master and the Shadow

          Hillary is an excellent and nimble politician, almost as good as a weather vane. She will be fine to be a ‘caretaker’ President, trading this and that away for incremental changes and progress, if any, against a Republican congress who hates her. But she does not have the visionary leadership to, even try, to move the US above and beyond the strictures of a Republican congress who hates her.

          Hillary remains rooted in establishment politics, even as she tries to show herself shedding vistages of establishment and big business influence. Now running for President, she has been reversing some of her previous establishment positions. Hillary does not have a stable image of herself, nor a stable world view of what is right and wrong with our world, nor a clear viewed sight of how to and what is needed to help put things right. Yes, I do feel that Hillary continues to have a somewhat split personality as to her political leanings. Often when she is in one mode, she completely repudiates her other mode; and then vice versa.

          Now she is reversed herself here and there, so that she is —

          o no longer for private prisons, no longer for the pipeline, no longer for the trade pacts, no longer for outsourcing, no longer against hiring of illegals, now supports Dreamers, no longer against Gay marriage, just recently would protect and expand social security, no longer for the carried interest tax subsidy, most recently would reverse Citizens United, but still taking super PAC and industry cash, etc.

          But she is still —

          not yet for $15 minimum wage (she had been on the Board of Walmart, so should know its work conditions where many thousands make a $7.25 minimum wage), not yet for for child care for all, not yet for 3 months of paid child birth leave, not yet for free public college and university tuition, not yet for Single Payer Healthcare (she received $2.8 million for health industry speeches), not yet for free tuition,), not yet for Glass-Steagell (she received at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks), not yet for doing away with massive offshore deferral tax subsidies (in the trillion dollar range) for wealthy multinationals, etc.

          Big money is “smart money looking after its own interests.” It doesn’t go to candidates that are merely indifferent to its interests. All corporations other than ‘nonprofits’ have their primary directive to make profits, if not for their shareholders, then at least for the management. Their political contributions and speaker fees are only to those whose positions are aligned to benefit their pocketbooks. This is not to say there is any direct quid pro quo. A politician is free to change her mind, and many do, but only after extensive countervailing voter pressure; but then the big money contributors will dry up. Hillary and her allies have taken $21.4 million from Wall Street for her presidential campaign so far, according to an analysis by Washington Post. So there is an indisputable underlying incentive to stay the course once your positions are raking in the money; especially if there is no significant voter pressure. Notice how almost all of Hillary’s reversal of positions occurred only in the last year or two.

          What does big money contributions get you? It gets you an investment in candidates that are sympathetic to you and gets you an ear, access to the legislative process, and support of important political decisions that have impact on business’ special interests.

          I used to work for a billion dollar multinational. Yes, there were industry group paid lobbyists, and participating companies also had their own paid lobbyists. Even as a mid-level corporate staffer, I regularly met with industry and trade groups, focusing lobbying efforts, meetings, dinners, etc., on key congressional people and their staff regarding legislative issues that were important to us. It was my job and I enjoyed doing it well. Yes, I enjoyed playing the game of finding ways to gain advantage for “my” business enterprise through existing law, or by creating new legal pathways. It was a challenging and engaging intellectual exercise in the spirit of facilitating free enterprise capitalism. I was absorbed in helping lubricate the engine of American business genius and American wealth. We had just about monthly face to face meetings with congressional staff. The people with the money and organization have regular access and often directly shape (by that, I mean we and I actually drafted … no, I wrote) legislative language to be pushed and passed for the benefit of “my” enterprise, and also my industry.

          Obviously the inverse is true. People with no money and no organization have no access, no voice, are unheard of, too often ignored, and sadly forgotten, as a matter of course.

          Again, this is not to say there is any illegal corruption under current campaign law, but Bernie is correct in saying the campaign finance law is rigged in favor of Big Money.

          Is it fair in this establishment, that Wall Street fleeced America and none of the big shots got punished?

          Enough is enough, of trading away the principles that all of our people deserve a fair deal.

          Bernie on the other hand is an ‘exceptional’ leader who will be an exceptional President. Bernie has the exceptional wisdom, penetrating insights, and steely courage that is needed. Bernie is rooted in his principles to the bottom of his being and soul.

          Bernie knows how to affect ‘real change,’ and will mobilize and marshal the forces of a pro-active citizenry in an ongoing “political revolution,” demanding that public servants represent just causes.

          Real change did not through the incremental mutuality of a benevolent congress and president to birth:

          1. emancipation from slavery,

          2. right to vote for blacks,

          3. right to vote for women,

          4. social security, medicare (born out of the great depression),

          5. civil rights act (born out of civil rights protests and Dr. Martin Luther King),

          6. etc.

          Bernie will win both independents and the smarter disaffected and disenfranchised Republicans and Trump supporters who rail against the same-old, same-old establishment political and economic structure. Bernie will not be politicking away his core principles.

          While Hillary wanted to be a Bernie in her long ago younger days, she was diverted, and now is trying to find her way back, but is still a mere shadow of the master. The real thing, is Bernie himself.

          So, absent Bernie Sanders, Hillary would be a fine Presidential candidate for the same-old, same-old system. Unfortunately for her, Bernie IS running, and Bernie is the real thing, a true original masterpiece, who is not jaded by establishment politics and economics.

          Hillary should and probably will win Super Tuesday, the only question is by how much? The democratic nomination process is a proportional one, not winner take all in a state.

          Will Bernie be trounced by the Republicans? I and millions don’t think so. Have you seen the most recent the national Quinnipiac poll?

          Bernie erased a 31 point deficit to tie Hillary in a December national Presidential poll — now 44% Hillary to 42% Bernie. Barely a month or so earlier Hillary had been up 31 points (61% to 30%).

          Bernie is the Katniss in the national Burning Man Games, that seek to renew our national leadership.

          Mr. Sanders also performed better than Mrs. Clinton against top Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups, leading businessman Donald Trump by 10 points, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas by 4 points, and tying Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

          Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, beat Mr. Trump by 5 points, was tied with Mr. Cruz, and trailed Mr. Rubio by 7 points.

          Bernie’s momentum will only gain increasingly as he shines the Bern on other states as his campaign progresses.

          And yes, the truth hurts, but the truth will set you free.

          Her fantasy firewall is at best a wall of sand, before the Bernie tide.

          Compare, in 1988, Bernie’s endorsement of Jesse Jackson for President (see video below).

          Bernie Sanders Endorses Rev. Jesse Jackson

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66fyBz2GhCA

          It’s Not Over | Erica Garner Says – We Need Bernie Sanders

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syln8IkOIqc

          Video of Bernie Sanders Being Arrested in 1963 While Protesting School Segregation and Racism in Chicago’s South Side

          http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-old-video-shows-bernie-sanders-arrest-article-1.2533704

          http://inthesetimes.com/article/18873/bernie-sanders-arrest-1963-civil-rights-chicago

          Bernie Sanders Radio Spots

          https://soundcloud.com/user-755353891

          Bernie is the real thing. The real deal. Honest Bernie is the one with the soulful heart. He is of the same fabric as the soul of Dr. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi.

          FEEL the Bern, JOIN the Bernie Men and Women; VOLUNTEER for Bernie; GET THE VOTE for Bernie.

          BernieSanders.com

          Beware the Hillary Bros

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/beware-of-the-angry-white-people-supporting-hillary_b_9250538.html

      • rebeccagavin

        I am reading this 2 days after the NV primary and laughing up my sleeve. As I will be doing on Super Tuesday, Mr. Know it All Wu.

        • Seth Wu

          You may be interested to learn a few more things about our super smart Snow White leader in the race.

          Breaking News From JudicialWatch.org on our super smart Clinton leadership. The ones’ who know how to reach out, find common ground ($$$$), and get things done (####).

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/whitewater-documents-the-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton/

          Whitewater Documents: The Criminal Case Against Hillary Clinton by the Office of Independent Counsel

          JANUARY 29, 2016

          o The Castle Grande transactions were crimes’

          o Hillary Clinton ‘destroyed’ her personal records

          o A case of ‘possible obstruction’ of justice

          o Sources say redacted portions of memoranda contain a draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton

          o Never-before-published prosecution memos from April 1998 say Clinton’s ‘sworn statements to the RTC, the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives and to OIC … reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories’

          o A 4/10/98 OIC memo uses terms ‘crime(s),’ ‘criminal,’ ‘fraudulent,’ ‘misrepresented,’ ‘inaccurate,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘mislead,’ ‘misstatement,’ and ‘concealed’ 27 times in 20 pages to describe actions by Clinton and Whitewater associates

          (Washington, DC) January 28, 2016 – Judicial Watch today released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) internal memos revealing extensive details about the investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton for possible criminal charges involving her activities in the Whitewater/Castle Grande fraudulent land transaction scandal. The memos are “statements of the case” against Hillary Clinton and Webster Lee “Webb” Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and former Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department. Ultimately, the memos show that prosecutors declined to prosecute Clinton because of the difficulty of persuading a jury to convict a public figure as widely known as Clinton. (Links to the full set of documents are below.)

          Although some details of the documents have been previously reported, Judicial Watch is today publicly releasing the independent counsel prosecution memos for the first time. The prosecution memos—portions of which were heavily redacted—were obtained by Judicial Watch from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

          An April 10, 1998, memo summarizes “the crimes under consideration”

          What, then are the crimes under consideration? Between January 1994 and February 1996 both Hillary Clinton and [Webster] Hubbell made numerous sworn statements to the RTC, the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the OIC. Each of these reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories relating to: how RLF [Clinton and Hubbell’s Rose Law Firm] came to be retained by MGSL [the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan]; Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL before state agencies’; Hubbell’s representations to the RTC [Resolution Trust Corporation] and FDIC regarding Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; and the removal of records from the RLF. The question, generally, is not whether the statements are inaccurate, but whether they are willfully so.

          The records released today by Judicial Watch were prepared for an “All OIC Attorneys” meeting on April 27, 1998, at which a final decision about whether to indict Clinton and Hubbell was the subject of a lengthy debate. The records explore in detail the role Clinton played in the fraudulent Castle Grande transaction, the role of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, and the subsequent lengthy cover-up as the Clintons sought and won the White House.

          Clinton, according to prosecutors, drafted an option agreement that concealed from federal bank examiners a fraudulent $300,000 cross-loan in the Castle Grande transaction. Her concealment of her role in this fraudulent transaction, including the hiding of her Rose Law Firm billing records concerning her legal work for Madison, were the subject of an OIC obstruction of justice probe.

          The 1998 memoranda include substantial evidence depicting Clinton and her former Rose Law Firm partners—Hubbell, and Vincent Foster, both of whom went on to senior positions in the Bill Clinton presidency—as complicit in activities that “facilitated crimes.”

          Page 18 of the OIC documents notes that Clinton “destroyed” her personal records of her work for Madison Guaranty. Page 39 of the documents notes:

          Section II contains a chronological background and contextual summary of the investigation so that the facts relating to possible obstruction can be placed in the context of the ongoing investigation by OIC.

          The evidence in the new documents (pages 17-38) covers:

          • Castle Grande. “The Castle Grande transactions were crimes.” The statement is followed by an explicit six-paragraph dissection of the land-flipping scheme.

          • Madison Guaranty S&L. Clinton minimized the role she played in seeking state regulatory assistance for the corrupt savings and loan, headed by key Clinton financial and political supporter James McDougal. At the time, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

          • Vincent Foster and the Missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records. The Rose records were a key piece of evidence in the probe. They were missing for years. After Foster’s July 1993 suicide, the OIC documents note, where the billing records went “is an open question…. Several pieces of evidence support the inference that personal documents which Hillary Clinton did not want disclosed were located in Foster’s office at the time of his death and then removed.”

          • Removal of Records from Vincent Foster’s Office. “ [O]n the afternoon of July 21st Bernard Nussbaum, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow two career DOJ employees to review the documents in Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning Nussbaum, Hillary Clinton, Susan Thomases, and Maggie Williams (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) exchanged 10 separate phones calls … That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as ‘personal’ to the Clintons.”

          • Hiding the Billing Records. “On the evening of July 22nd, Thomas Castleton … assisted Williams [Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton chief of staff] in carrying a box of personal documents up to … a closet in Hillary Clinton’s office. The closet is approximately 30 feet from the table in the Book Room, where the billing records were found 2 years later…. There is a circumstantial case that the records were left on the table by Hillary Clinton. She is the only individual in the White House who had a significant interest in them and she is one of only 3 people known to have had them in her possession since their creation in February 1992.”

          • Buying the Silence of a Co-Conspirator? Hubbell, criticized by the OIC for his lack of cooperation with the probe, received several “jobs” from Clinton supporters for which he apparently did little or no work. During a taped conversation in prison, Hubbell appears to acknowledge that he withheld information from the OIC. Several of Hubbell’s job-providers fell most strongly within the hush money allegation. The OIC notes eight of them on page 197.

          • The Missing Draft Indictment. More than 60 pages of the OIC memoranda are completely censored, withheld by the National Archives. Multiple sources tell Judicial Watch that these pages include a full draft indictment of Clinton and Hubbell, as well as a detailed “order of Evidence” list.

          The National Archives is withholding additional documents Judicial Watch believes to be critical to understanding Clinton’s full role in the Whitewater scandal.

          On March 9, 2015, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request seeking all draft indictments of Clinton in the files of Hickman Ewing Jr., who served as deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater probe. In 1999, Ewing testified that he wrote a draft indictment of Clinton.

          On March 19, 2015, the National Archives admitted locating records responsive to the Ewing material request, confirming that it found 38 pages of responsive records in a folder entitled “Draft Indictment,” and approximately 200 pages of responsive records in a folder entitled “Hilary Rodham Clinton/Webster L. Hubbell Draft Indictment.” Judicial Watch is suing in federal court to force the release of the draft indictment, which is being withheld by the National Archives to protect the privacy of Hillary Clinton.

          Ultimately, as an April 24, 1998, memo suggests, prosecutors were persuaded that a jury would not convict Clinton based upon circumstantial evidence. OIC attorney Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

          In a high profile case of this sort, however, I think that some jurors are likely to put OIC to the full measure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and, in effect, insist that circumstantial evidence is an inferior form of evidence on which they cannot convict. Such a distinction would be “lawless” in a formal sense, as contrary to their jury instructions – but we blink reality if we do not expect this reaction to a primarily circumstantial high profile case.

          The prosecutor concluded:

          Bottom line: We can anticipate the following: 2% = Rule 29; 18% = Acquittal; 70% =Hung Jury; 10% = Conviction. Not enough in my view.

          “These new Hillary Clinton prosecution memos are damning and dramatic,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s bank fraud, obstruction, lies, and other fraud began in Arkansas, continued in the White House and actually accelerated because the suicide of her friend Vincent Foster. The memos suggest that if she weren’t First Lady, she would have been successfully prosecuted in federal court. As we continue the court fight to get the actual draft indictment of Hillary Clinton we first uncovered in this investigation, Americans would do well to read these memos. If you want to understand the deplorable ethics and corruption at the Clinton State Department, these documents provide important background.”

          Links to the complete set of documents are available here:

          Part one of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-1-16-2/

          Part two of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-17-38/

          Part three of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-39-77/

          Part four of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-78-154/

          Part five of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-155-175/

          Part six of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-197/

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/whitewater-documents-the-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton/

  • Seth Wu

    Wrong-Way Hillary is just a democratic NEO-CON SUPER HAWK republican; A FALSE FLAG incremental change progressive.

    Hillary oscillates between harshness and compassion. She reaches instinctively for the hard-line position, before eventually pandering to positions that more closely reflect American ideals that Bernie voices fluently.

    She starts out as “right wing entitled establishment” and then begrudgingly swings to “populist.”

    Given her proven First Calls of TERRIBLE JUDGMENT, has Wrong Way Hillary really shed her innate closet republicanism?

    o She says, Bernie disloyal to President, THEN declines to push DNC to reverse its overturn of Obama’s ban on accepting campaign cash from lobbyists and political action committees.

    o She says “You’re not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance reform than me,” promising to “crack down on corporations that game the system.” THEN seeks cash from companies in regulated industries.

    o Use of personal email for official business ALL in good judgment.

    o Wall Street speaking fees ok b/c not running for office; THEN after running, their donations are ok.

    o Against combat troops in Mideast; BUT special forces ok.

    o Hawk for invading Iraq, urged regime change in Libya, and Syria; THEN, Oops, Iraq was a ‘mistake;’ THEN Oops, Benghazi was a ‘tragedy.’

    o Wants ‘no-fly’ zone in Syria. So US jets will or would have shot down Russian jets supporting Assad?

    o “Proud to be a moderate,” and THEN a “progressive.”

    o SUPER DUPER ‘Embellishments’ to her Resume: “Corkscrew landing, running through sniper fire, life on line, just like our warriors.” THEN, “Oops, did not happen.”

    o Against, THEN for gay marriage.

    o For Hillarycare, THEN against Obamacare, THEN for Obamacare, THEN against Universal Healthcare.

    o Attack on Single Payer Healthcare absolutely NOT influenced by $2.8 million from 13 speeches to health industry.

    o For Keystone Pipeline (hiring major Keystone lobbyist as consultant), THEN against it.

    o Pro-fracking, NOT ready for carbon tax, NOT ready to limit fossil fuel digs, NOT ready to limit green-house gas emissions.

    o For NAFTA, and TPP, saying “TPP is the GOLD STANDARD in trade agreements,” THEN against TPP.

    o For outsourcing to India, THEN US job loss is an “issue.”

    o Opposed entry of kids escaping murderous regimes in Central America (“Send them back as a message”), THEN such children should have access to lawyers and not be held in family prisons.

    o Opposed drivers licenses for undocumented, THEN supports them.

    o Against illegals, need stronger borders, stop hiring of illegals; THEN supports Dreamers.

    o For, THEN against private prisons.

    o Proud that Bill, in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done, destroyed Glass-Steagell, fights against replacing it; RESULT Big Banks get Bigger; absolutely NOT influenced by getting $1.8 million from 8 speeches to bankers. Yes, the same Wall Street investors and bankers that play a huge role in discriminatory redlining, predatory lending, and foreclosures; the same big banks that stole the American dream from black homeowners.

    o Proud of role in Bill’s REFORM OF WELFARE ACT, reducing welfare roll by 60%, REPEATING RACIST STEROTYPE language; BUT result was BY REDUCING WELFARE BENEFITS, PUTTING MILLIONS OF POOR AND WORKING POOR ONTO STREETS IN DIRE POVERTY. This is what Clinton means of having experience in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done.

    o Proudly lobbied congress with RACIST STEOROTYPE language for 3 STRIKES, JAIL BUILDING, PRIVATE PRISONS, MASS INCARCERATION; BUT this bill put the black poor before the criminal-justice firing squad, resulting in more people in US jails than any other country on earth including China with 4 times our population.

    o Hillary HELPED INSTITUTIONALIZE RACISM in our criminal justice system. Hillary said, “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.” This is what Clinton means of having experience in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done.

    o Clinton family / foundation accepted cash from 20 foreign governments, while Hillary State Department approved $151 billion, then additional $163 billion of weapons exports to such governments, including those w/ systematic human rights abuses (eg, Algeria). In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clintons State Department have delivered over $54 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.

    o For 30% credit card interest.

    o Turning $1,000 into $100,000 was beginner’s luck in cattle futures trading, THEN had “assistance” from Tyson Food’s attorney and futures trader.

    o Fired White House travel staff for financial improprieties to install her own friends, THEN had to rehire them when FBI found nothing but wrongful termination due to her false statements.

    o No idea where her Rosewater files are; THEN no idea why or how they could have been found in the Whitehouse.

    The clear abundance of evidence from her vaunted experience shows that Wrong Way Hillary’s TERRIBLE First Call Judgment is way out of whack.

    Hillary DOES NOT EVEN KNOW HERSELF, which of her BIPOLAR political selves will flip up day by day !

    CAN you, DO you, DARE you, REALLY TRUST Wrong Way Hillary’s judgment, or her?

    Wrong Way Hillary is simply unelectable. She will lose the election to the GOP.

    Compare, in 1988, Bernie’s endorsement of Jesse Jackson for President (see video below).

    Bernie Sanders Endorses Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66fyBz2GhCA

    It’s Not Over | Erica Garner Says — We Need Bernie to Rid Institutionalized Racism in Criminal Justice System

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syln8IkOIqc

    Bernie Being arrested in 1963 Protesting School segregation and Racism in Chicago’s South Side.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPYCeO0seLU

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-old-video-shows-bernie-sanders-arrest-article-1.2533704

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/18873/bernie-sanders-arrest-1963-civil-rights-chicago

    Fact Checker Gives — Bernie on Income/Wealth Inequality Divide — an A Grade.

    Bernie says, “Median family income today is $4,000 less than in 1999.” “The 15 richest Americans acquired more wealth in two years than the bottom 100 million people combined.”

    http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/fact-check/fact-checker-bernie-sanders-talks-income-divide-20160125

    The facts check out, “The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time,” Sanders said. “It is the great economic issue of our time and the great political issue of our time. Truthfully, there is something profoundly wrong when the richest 80 people in the world own more wealth than the bottom half of the global population, 3.5 billion people.”

    http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/feb/17/bernie-s/pretty-much-money-sanders-says-80-richest-own-more/

    Bernie is the real thing. The real deal. Honest Bernie is the one with the soulful heart. He is of the same fabric as the soul of Dr. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi.

    FEEL the Bern. JOIN the Bernie Folks. VOLUNTEER for Bernie !

    SPEAK OUT for Bernie ! GET OUT THE VOTE for Bernie ! Berniesanders.com

    And Beware the Hillary Bros

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/beware-of-the-angry-white-people-supporting-hillary_b_9250538.html

    • ginger ale

      She’s pretty great actually. Greatly qualified, dedicated, committed years and years of service to helping others, really proven herself, and appears to have great breadth of vision and great comprehension of world and US politics too. Looks like she’d make a good president.

      Sorry you don’t like her politics. But it’s important to fact check and be careful of your sources. We all have disagreements about how to deal with problems in the world, but there is no need to insult this impressive persons character. I think you are kind of in an echo chamber, and seek out information and perspectives that confirm what you seem to want to believe. We all do this somewhat. If Sander’s runs you’ll soon see the same sorts of things about him. Anyway, Good luck with it.

      • Seth Wu

        Ginger Ale,

        Sigh. I would have voted for her in the primary if I had not learned about Bernie.

        Of course I already knew she had lot of miscellaneous baggage, but it had not appeared to be such a big deal.

        Knowing about Bernie, then I had to go back and double check Hillary to give her the benefit of the doubt. The more I did that, the more the verifiable troubling items added up.

        They keep harping that Bernie is unelectable. So it was only fair to evaluate her on this question as well. It is only recently that I had to conclude that she had serious flaws in her character; challenging her ultimate electability.

        I suppose that if Bernie does not make it through the primaries, I will have to vote for Hillary, … rather than just give it away.

        I really do not think that Hillary can be sure herself, which of her bi-polar political selves will show up each flip-flopping day, in response to the pressures of the time. She is as reliable as a weather vane in her directional positions.

        But I’ll concede that she is smarter, more competent, and has more compassion than the GOP field, and would be a better President than them.

        Cheers and God Bless our Society and Nation

        • ginger ale

          Seth Wu

          I looked at original sources myself and was satisfied by what I saw. Having to resort to name calling does not impress me.

          I also will vote for the liberal candidate.

          That said, I don’t believe for one fraction of a heartbeat Bernard Sanders could survive the assault of his character much less his impossible policies by the Republicans.

          Even without that, I don’t think a majority of Americans would vote for him.

          If by some miracle he did make it into the White house I think we would all have to wait through four years of nothing getting done by someone whose all or nothing approach is crazy in the current political climate.

          I want someone who can govern.

          I like what Clinton has to say. I like the substance and ideas that she brings to the table. I believe her style and abilities are best suited for getting something done right now. I agree with a lot of her ideas.

          On the other side all I see for policy looks a promise for magic and unicorns. All politicians give some empty promises, but empty promises are all I see coming from Sanders. I don’t get what people like. I wonder if it is just that he expresses their anger for them. What I want is someone who can do something, survive Republican attacks, and make smart choices, and lead. Clinton can do that. Can Sander’s do that?

          • Seth Wu

            Hi,
            As to empty policies based on economics of magical fairies, unicorn, and voodoo,
            please, please take a moment to read the two links below.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fight_us_56c74dade4b0ec6725e25f49

            http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

            Well, I’ll copy here the first one, but the 2nd link, the pdf of the underlying original letter to the 4 CEA economists is really quite revealing as well.
            ………………………………………………….

            The Fight Between Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton Is Officially Super Ugly

            Even elite economists are throwing punches.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fight_us_56c74dade4b0ec6725e25f49

            02/19/2016 01:12 pm ET | Updated 12 hours ago

            WASHINGTON — A former executive director of the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Thursday accused columnist Paul Krugman and four prominent Democratic economists of dishonestly smearing an academic in order to score political points for Hillary Clinton.

            The dispute, which is ostensibly over the ultimate cost of Bernie Sanders’ economic agenda, is more than a simple war among wonks. It demonstrates that elite economists — not merely paid campaign operatives — are fueling the ugly escalation of hostilities between major factions of the Democratic Party as the presidential primary continues.

            To explain the costs and benefits of his Medicare-for-all health care plan, $15-an-hour minimum wage, gender pay equity, increased infrastructure spending and other programs, the Sanders campaign has touted an analysis performed by University of Massachusetts Amherst economist Gerald Friedman.

            Earlier this week, four economists — Alan Krueger, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee and Laura D’Andrea Tyson — wrote an open letter accusing Friedman of making “extreme claims” in that study that “undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda.” Krugman then published multiple blog posts citing the letter as evidence that the Sanders campaign was engaging in “fantasy” and “voodoo.”

            The problem with these condemnations, according to former JEC Executive Director James Galbraith, is that none of the economists involved in the fracas actually crunched any numbers to show why Friedman’s study was supposedly such a sham. Galbraith now teaches economics at the University of Texas at Austin.

            “You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans,” Galbraith wrote in a letter to Krueger, Romer, Goolsbee and Tyson. “On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.”

            Friedman, who is a political supporter of Hillary Clinton, had projected a 5.3 percent economic growth rate under Sanders’ platform. That rate is high relative to the current figure of about 2.4 percent, but Galbraith said it is clear from the paper that Friedman reached the figure by relying on “standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods.”

            Economic growth did in fact reach that level in 1983, 1984 and 1985, Galbraith noted, as the economy bounced back from recession and responded to the 1981 Reagan tax cuts.

            “What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition,” Galbraith wrote. “When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.”

            “It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman’s methods are extreme,” Galbraith added. “Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman’s paper a rigorous review. You have not.”

            The four economists who wrote the original letter have all been chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers under either President Barack Obama or President Bill Clinton. Galbraith suggests that the real sham in the wonk scuffle is not Friedman’s work, but the willingness of prestigious economists to rely on their mere authority to demean the work of others without actually analyzing it.

            “What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as ‘nonsense.’ Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case. Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it.”

            Krugman has aggressively defended Clinton in the wonk trenches all year. In January, he wrote a post belittling Sanders’ call to break up the banks by claiming “too big to fail was at best marginal” to the 2008 financial crisis.

            The statement ran against the official conclusion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the views of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair, former bank bailout inspector general Neil Barofsky and FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig, who have all maintained that “too big to fail” was, in fact, central to the crisis.

            Read Galbraith’s full letter here.

            http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

          • Dominick Vila

            The biggest challenge for Bernie and his supporters is that his policy proposals, as worthy as they are, will be rejected by Congress.
            Hillary has the qualifications, relevant experience, and vision to handle the responsibilities of the presidency on Day One.
            Her centrist positions are far from being a detriment or liability. In fact, they are consistent with those of most Americans.
            I like Bernie, I like what he says, and I think he would make a great VP, but I fear that his nomination would hand the White House – and the Supreme Court – to the GOP.

    • Mr Corrections

      Ah, still spreading your fake conspiracy theories I see, despite having had them disproven.

      • Seth Wu

        You are talking about the Clinton campaign?
        The truth hurts;
        But the truth will set you free.

        • Mr Corrections

          No, I’m talking about you, credulously repeating Clinton Cash lies despite being linked to non-partisan takedowns of every single point. Rupert Murdoch is very pleased.

          • Seth Wu

            1. Oh, I forgot; you said you don’t bother to read any content of my posts, so that is why you are still a know-nothing as to the content of my postings. Every factual item in my post is from well vetted public records. Opinions are mine. And if you can’t tell the difference between the two, well that may be the whole story about this disagreement.

            2. One person is by definition, not a conspiracy. However the Clinton campaign and surrogates thereof, well that is another tale, one of the artful smear.

            3. By Rupert Murdoch, are you talking about the same person who held a fundraiser at his home for Hillary during her Senate campaign; who Hillary thanked and appeared with at a Georgetown Party for Foxnews; who with his son gave the max permitted in contributions to Hillary’s presidential campaign; who said, “I could live with Hillary as President?”

          • Mr Corrections

            I can tell when you’re repeating, as you endlessly do, utterly discredited Clinton Conspiracy Theories™. Barely even need to skim the walls of text you post to grasp that.

          • Seth Wu

            Well, good luck to her and good luck with her. May she always gloriously move like a dancing butterfly, and sting like an angry bee.

            I hope she does not disappoint you and others somewhere along the way.

            As I’ve said elsewhere, I would have voted for her, but for my learning about Bernie.

            Bernie is the Katnis in the national Burning Man games we hold every four years to choose our national leader.

            And of course, if Bernie is not nominated, I’ll have to stiffen up, hold my nose, give her my vote; as being better than the others.

            Cheers,

          • Mr Corrections

            OK, good luck. Please stop mindlessly spreading right-wing smear jobs.

          • rebeccagavin

            Oh, he won’t listen. He thinks he’s one of the kool kids.

          • yabbed

            You berniebots and your ugly attacks do more to turn people off Sanders than his life’s record does.

    • nero88888

      Hillary 481 delegates

      Bernie 55 delegates

      Bernie is TOAST you low information parasite

      • Seth Wu

        Everyone likes toast. Everyone will flip over for toast.

  • AL
  • Cpt_Justice

    And, cue the screams of CTs, in 5, 4, 3….

  • Seth Wu

    Breaking News From JudicialWatch.org on our super smart Clinton leadership. The ones’ who know how to reach out, find common ground ($$$$), and get things done (####).

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/whitewater-documents-the-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton/

    Whitewater Documents: The Criminal Case Against Hillary Clinton by the Office of Independent Counsel

    JANUARY 29, 2016

    o The Castle Grande transactions were crimes’

    o Hillary Clinton ‘destroyed’ her personal records

    o A case of ‘possible obstruction’ of justice

    o Sources say redacted portions of memoranda contain a draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton

    o Never-before-published prosecution memos from April 1998 say Clinton’s ‘sworn statements to the RTC, the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives and to OIC … reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories’

    o A 4/10/98 OIC memo uses terms ‘crime(s),’ ‘criminal,’ ‘fraudulent,’ ‘misrepresented,’ ‘inaccurate,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘mislead,’ ‘misstatement,’ and ‘concealed’ 27 times in 20 pages to describe actions by Clinton and Whitewater associates

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/whitewater-documents-the-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton/

    (Washington, DC) January 28, 2016 – Judicial Watch today released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) internal memos revealing extensive details about the investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton for possible criminal charges involving her activities in the Whitewater/Castle Grande fraudulent land transaction scandal. The memos are “statements of the case” against Hillary Clinton and Webster Lee “Webb” Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and former Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department. Ultimately, the memos show that prosecutors declined to prosecute Clinton because of the difficulty of persuading a jury to convict a public figure as widely known as Clinton. (Links to the full set of documents are below.)

    Although some details of the documents have been previously reported, Judicial Watch is today publicly releasing the independent counsel prosecution memos for the first time. The prosecution memos—portions of which were heavily redacted—were obtained by Judicial Watch from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

    An April 10, 1998, memo summarizes “the crimes under consideration”

    What, then are the crimes under consideration? Between January 1994 and February 1996 both Hillary Clinton and [Webster] Hubbell made numerous sworn statements to the RTC, the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the OIC. Each of these reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories relating to: how RLF [Clinton and Hubbell’s Rose Law Firm] came to be retained by MGSL [the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan]; Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL before state agencies’; Hubbell’s representations to the RTC [Resolution Trust Corporation] and FDIC regarding Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; and the removal of records from the RLF. The question, generally, is not whether the statements are inaccurate, but whether they are willfully so.

    The records released today by Judicial Watch were prepared for an “All OIC Attorneys” meeting on April 27, 1998, at which a final decision about whether to indict Clinton and Hubbell was the subject of a lengthy debate. The records explore in detail the role Clinton played in the fraudulent Castle Grande transaction, the role of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, and the subsequent lengthy cover-up as the Clintons sought and won the White House.

    Clinton, according to prosecutors, drafted an option agreement that concealed from federal bank examiners a fraudulent $300,000 cross-loan in the Castle Grande transaction. Her concealment of her role in this fraudulent transaction, including the hiding of her Rose Law Firm billing records concerning her legal work for Madison, were the subject of an OIC obstruction of justice probe.

    The 1998 memoranda include substantial evidence depicting Clinton and her former Rose Law Firm partners—Hubbell, and Vincent Foster, both of whom went on to senior positions in the Bill Clinton presidency—as complicit in activities that “facilitated crimes.”

    Page 18 of the OIC documents notes that Clinton “destroyed” her personal records of her work for Madison Guaranty. Page 39 of the documents notes:

    Section II contains a chronological background and contextual summary of the investigation so that the facts relating to possible obstruction can be placed in the context of the ongoing investigation by OIC.

    The evidence in the new documents (pages 17-38) covers:

    • Castle Grande. “The Castle Grande transactions were crimes.” The statement is followed by an explicit six-paragraph dissection of the land-flipping scheme.

    • Madison Guaranty S&L. Clinton minimized the role she played in seeking state regulatory assistance for the corrupt savings and loan, headed by key Clinton financial and political supporter James McDougal. At the time, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

    • Vincent Foster and the Missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records. The Rose records were a key piece of evidence in the probe. They were missing for years. After Foster’s July 1993 suicide, the OIC documents note, where the billing records went “is an open question…. Several pieces of evidence support the inference that personal documents which Hillary Clinton did not want disclosed were located in Foster’s office at the time of his death and then removed.”

    • Removal of Records from Vincent Foster’s Office. “ [O]n the afternoon of July 21st Bernard Nussbaum, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow two career DOJ employees to review the documents in Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning Nussbaum, Hillary Clinton, Susan Thomases, and Maggie Williams (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) exchanged 10 separate phones calls … That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as ‘personal’ to the Clintons.”

    • Hiding the Billing Records. “On the evening of July 22nd, Thomas Castleton … assisted Williams [Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton chief of staff] in carrying a box of personal documents up to … a closet in Hillary Clinton’s office. The closet is approximately 30 feet from the table in the Book Room, where the billing records were found 2 years later…. There is a circumstantial case that the records were left on the table by Hillary Clinton. She is the only individual in the White House who had a significant interest in them and she is one of only 3 people known to have had them in her possession since their creation in February 1992.”

    • Buying the Silence of a Co-Conspirator? Hubbell, criticized by the OIC for his lack of cooperation with the probe, received several “jobs” from Clinton supporters for which he apparently did little or no work. During a taped conversation in prison, Hubbell appears to acknowledge that he withheld information from the OIC. Several of Hubbell’s job-providers fell most strongly within the hush money allegation. The OIC notes eight of them on page 197.

    • The Missing Draft Indictment. More than 60 pages of the OIC memoranda are completely censored, withheld by the National Archives. Multiple sources tell Judicial Watch that these pages include a full draft indictment of Clinton and Hubbell, as well as a detailed “order of Evidence” list.

    The National Archives is withholding additional documents Judicial Watch believes to be critical to understanding Clinton’s full role in the Whitewater scandal.

    On March 9, 2015, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request seeking all draft indictments of Clinton in the files of Hickman Ewing Jr., who served as deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater probe. In 1999, Ewing testified that he wrote a draft indictment of Clinton.

    On March 19, 2015, the National Archives admitted locating records responsive to the Ewing material request, confirming that it found 38 pages of responsive records in a folder entitled “Draft Indictment,” and approximately 200 pages of responsive records in a folder entitled “Hilary Rodham Clinton/Webster L. Hubbell Draft Indictment.” Judicial Watch is suing in federal court to force the release of the draft indictment, which is being withheld by the National Archives to protect the privacy of Hillary Clinton.

    Ultimately, as an April 24, 1998, memo suggests, prosecutors were persuaded that a jury would not convict Clinton based upon circumstantial evidence. OIC attorney Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

    In a high profile case of this sort, however, I think that some jurors are likely to put OIC to the full measure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and, in effect, insist that circumstantial evidence is an inferior form of evidence on which they cannot convict. Such a distinction would be “lawless” in a formal sense, as contrary to their jury instructions – but we blink reality if we do not expect this reaction to a primarily circumstantial high profile case.

    The prosecutor concluded:

    Bottom line: We can anticipate the following: 2% = Rule 29; 18% = Acquittal; 70% =Hung Jury; 10% = Conviction. Not enough in my view.

    “These new Hillary Clinton prosecution memos are damning and dramatic,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s bank fraud, obstruction, lies, and other fraud began in Arkansas, continued in the White House and actually accelerated because the suicide of her friend Vincent Foster. The memos suggest that if she weren’t First Lady, she would have been successfully prosecuted in federal court. As we continue the court fight to get the actual draft indictment of Hillary Clinton we first uncovered in this investigation, Americans would do well to read these memos. If you want to understand the deplorable ethics and corruption at the Clinton State Department, these documents provide important background.”

    Links to the complete set of documents are available here:

    Part one of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-1-16-2/

    Part two of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-17-38/

    Part three of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-39-77/

    Part four of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-78-154/

    Part five of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-155-175/

    Part six of “HRC Meeting” NARA Whitewater OIC document

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nara-whitewater-oic-report-pg-197/

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/whitewater-documents-the-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton/

    • yabbed

      Judicial Watch is a nutters haven. They have been hammering after the Clintons for decades and all Judicial Watch has to show for itself is its clown suit.

Menu Title