Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, February 18, 2019

Fearless prediction: no legalistic deus ex machina will descend to save the nation from the dread specter of President Hillary Rodham Clinton. No cigar-smoking duck like the one on the old Groucho Marx program, no Kenneth Starr-style “independent” prosecutor, no criminal indictment over her “damn emails,” no how, no way.’

Ain’t gonna happen.

Voters who can’t bear the thought of the former first lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State taking the oath of office in January 2017 are going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: defeat her at the polls.

Those impassioned Trump supporters holding “Hillary for Prison” signs are sure to be disappointed. Again. Played for suckers by a scandal-mongering news media that declared open season on Clinton 25 years ago. And haven’t laid a glove on her yet.

Which doesn’t exactly make her Mother Theresa. But it does lend credence to former New York Times editor Jill Abramson’s somewhat surprising column in The Guardian to the effect that, when push comes to shove, “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”

Surprising because from 1992 onward the New York Times has been de facto World Headquarters of what I’ve always called the “National Bitch Hunt.” However, after spending years probing Clinton’s “business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage,” Abramson’s been forced to conclude that said investigations all came to naught.

And whose fault it that? Why Hillary’s, of course. “Some of it she brings on herself,” Abramson thinks “by insisting on a perimeter or ‘zone of privacy’ that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.”

Well, some might argue that the years-long scrutiny of Bill Clinton’s zipper is comparable. However, being wrongfully labeled a “congenital liar” in the Times 20 years ago certainly might teach a girl to play her cards close. If not, being accused in a dear friend’s suicide (Vince Foster), might tend to make her, oh, a tad mistrustful of the press.

But enough ancient history, although few of the 40 percent of Democrats who tell pollsters they don’t trust her know it. Abramson is also right to say that Hillary “was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.”

Even as somebody aware that Bill and Hillary Clinton have donated roughly $18 million in speaking fees to charity, I find the sums Goldman, Sachs paid her preposterous. But payola?

As the late Molly Ivins put it: “As they say around the Texas Legislature, if you can’t drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against ’em anyway, you don’t belong in office.”

But back to Hillary’s emails. From the onset of the Clinton Wars, it’s been my experience that when the corrections and retractions reach critical mass and the “investigative” articles start to read like Henry James novels—i.e. diffuse and impenetrable—the end of a given “scandal” episode is near.

Last July, the New York Times got things started with an anonymously sourced exclusive claiming that federal investigators had initiated a “criminal” probe into whether Secretary Clinton had sent classified documents on her personal email server. Almost everything important about the story was false. It wasn’t a criminal investigation, nor was Clinton a target.

Rather, it was a bureaucratic exercise to settle an inter-agency dispute about which messages to release—as Clinton herself had requested. The Times was so laggard about making corrections that Public Editor Margaret Sullivan thought readers “deserve a thorough, immediate explanation from the top.”

They never got it.

Now comes the Washington Post with an interminable 5000-word narrative anchored by an “eye-popping” claim that according to “a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey,” a small army of 147 FBI agents was at work deciding if a crime had been committed.

That one fell apart overnight. Last time I checked, NBC’s sources said maybe a dozen agents are involved—an order of magnitude fewer than the Post claimed.

Meanwhile, the American Prospect turned to former Homeland Security classification expert Richard Lempert. Currently a Michigan law professor, Lempert pointed out that there are two big problems with the idea of charging Hillary.

First, we don’t have ex post facto laws. You can’t classify something tomorrow and charge somebody with leaking it yesterday. If you could, working for the State Department would be like inhabiting a cubicle in Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Nobody would ever be safe.

Second, the job of Secretary of State’s entails considerable powers: “Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether…information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified.”

Another ballyhooed scandal goes up in smoke.

Photo: REUTERS/David McNew

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit1
  • Print this page
  • 4410

163 responses to “Only The Ballot Box Can Beat Clinton, Not Bogus ‘Scandals’”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    For better or worse, our opinion of politicians is often influenced more by perceptions than reality. It really does not matter that all the pseudo scandals attributed to Hillary are over lies and fabrications. The bottom line is that a large number of Americans are convinced that she is untrustworthy, the same way a majority of American women are convinced that Trump is a bigot. In Trump’s case that opinion is based on the comments he has made, and his actions. In Hillary’s case, it is due to her failure to be open, her penchant for privacy, and the dismal performance of our political strategists who spend more time sending e-mails asking for $3 donations than focusing on the problems that may derail the candidacy of one of the most qualified presidential candidates we had in decades.

    • Theodora30 says:

      Penchant for privacy is not just a Hillary thing. Colin Powell who also used a private server destroy end all his emails and the media shrugged it off even though that is a violation of the Public Records Act. Bernie has not released his tax returns – mor have Cruz, Kasich or Trump but Hillary has. The media has ignored that, too.

      • FireBaron says:

        This all goes back to the Little Rock days. Even then, Hillary and Bill refused to pander to the press. Once they hit the national scene, and refused to kiss the butts of the NYT, the Post, etc. Those worthy news agencies retaliated by trying to turn over every rock that either Bill or Hillary may have stepped on or over since their Yale Law days. The grand total of actual wrongdoing? One slightly stained blue dress.

      • itsfun says:

        So it is okay for Hillary to violate the public records act because someone else did it? Isn’t that logic kinda like if Billy jumped off a bridge, would you?

        • bobnstuff says:

          In one word yes it is because she is the boss who can and does make the rules. She ran the state department and had the power to say what was and was not classified.

          Everyone who uses a Blackberry or any smart phone uses a public server, How do you think the internet works. A phone signal goes through a network to get to and from your phone. Don’t you watch NCIS or CSI Cybor. Anything that is transmitted over the airways is up for grabs.

          • itsfun says:

            I understand how the internet works, I am a retired IT Security Officer for a company of over 4000 employees. She doesn’t make any national security laws, which she violated. It is obvious that you know nothing about how internet signals are transmitted. Try watching educational programs instead of network fiction.

          • bobnstuff says:

            She doesn’t make the laws, she had say over what was or was not classified. She ran the department so if she said it was classified it was and if she said it wasn’t it wasn’t. That was her power of offices.

            If you are an IT guy then you know that internet security doesn’t really exist and isn’t real and anything that goes over the net is not secure. I run with some of the top computer people in the world and it’s interesting to listen to them talk about how little people really know about the net. My daughter worked IT at a small college, you might have heard of CMU.

          • itsfun says:

            I didn’t know that knowing a IT guy or have a child working in IT qualifies you as a IT security or Internet expert. With all your experience and knowledge you should apply for a job as a CEO at Apple or IBM.
            Hillary broke the public records act; that is a crime. Also, she is not in charge of what is made classified or not. It was her job to know what documents should be treated as classified. She didn’t do that.

          • bobnstuff says:

            I’m not impressed with your knowledge as an IT guy. I’m the guy who hires IT guys and I don’t think you would have gotten the job. You can’t read! Since you missed it, here it is again.

            “First, we don’t have ex post facto laws. You can’t
            classify something tomorrow and charge somebody with leaking it yesterday. If you could, working for the State Department would be like inhabiting a cubicle in Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Nobody would ever be safe.

            Second, the job of Secretary of State’s entails
            considerable powers: “Not only was Secretary Clinton the ultimate authority within the State Department to determine whether…information should be classified, but she was also the ultimate authority in determining whether classified information should be declassified.”

            Another ballyhooed scandal goes up in smoke.”

          • itsfun says:

            What make you think I would work for you?

            Check the following: You will see what the duties and responsibility of the SOS are. You will see that she had to follow the laws and that she had to protect all classified documents, and she also was charged with knowing what should be classified. She is running for President and you don’t believe she should be able to determine what should and what should not be classified.

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

            Duties of the Secretary of State

            January 20, 2009

            Under
            the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S.
            foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with
            the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign
            affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign
            policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the
            United States.

            Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of
            Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive
            Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties
            relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then,
            but they have become far more complex as international commitments
            multiplied. These duties — the activities and responsibilities of the
            State Department — include the following:

            Serves as the President’s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;

            Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;

            Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;

            Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;

            Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;

            Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;

            Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;

            Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;

            Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;

            Provides information to American citizens regarding the
            political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in
            foreign countries;

            Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;

            Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;

            Administers the Department of State;

            Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

            In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities
            that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include
            the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of
            certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and
            international acts as well as the official record of the foreign
            relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original
            treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the
            channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States
            on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.

          • bobnstuff says:

            Administers the Department of State;

            I think that make her in charge, right.

          • itsfun says:

            In charge of that department only, not in charge of making classified documents or making laws for how classified documents are handled. Her main duty was to advise the President in foreign policies. Look at good our foreign policy is working.

          • bobnstuff says:

            I believe she runs one of the department that says if something is classified or not and as head of that department she has that power. You just don’t like her so no matter what anyone says she is wrong in your little mind. By the way IT guys are a dime a dozen but if you did what you claim then you will agree that on the fact that there is no such thing as a secure internet. That’s why the papers that are classified are not put across it but sent in hard copy.

          • itsfun says:

            Make sure you let your IT friends know they are a dime a dozen. All of the department heads have the ability to decide if a document should be classified. They also are expected to know what should be classified. Do you really want a president that has allowed over 2000 classified documents on a unsecured document because she couldn’t tell the difference between what should be classified and what shouldn’t. The department she ran is concerned about foreign policy more than anything, Apparently you didn’t read the information I posted about the duties of the SOS.

          • bobnstuff says:

            They are the ones complaining that they make $15 per hour with a masters. You keep saying her Email was unsecured when it had better security then the governments. There are people in the go0vernment that classified the Washington Post. I read your post, did you?

          • itsfun says:

            You have no idea what kind of, if any security she had on her machine. If your IT friends are working for 15 per with a masters, then they are working in the wrong place or they are not very good.

          • bobnstuff says:

            We have to many tech people around here. There are two young ladies with masters working at the paint desk at Home Depot. From what I read her security was first rate. That’s why the stopped talking about it.

          • dpaano says:

            And, as you’ve been told MANY MANY times….the documents were classified AFTER she received them and most of them were already public record in newspapers, etc. Can you PLEASE keep up with the news?

          • itsfun says:

            You say they weren’t classified, am I suppose to believe you? If someone is the SOS and can’t even tell that a document should be classified, then how can you or anyone say that person is qualified to handle top secret documents? Some say that the documents were classified and she had her IT guy strip the markings off the documents, so she could send them and say they weren’t marked. So far at least 2 top secret documents were found, were they in the newspapers also? How about one classified Secret, were they in the newspapers too. You can defend this criminal all you want, it doesn’t change the fact she is a criminal.

          • Theodora30 says:

            It is well known that our government over classifies tons of documents – things like an email that mentioned an article in a major newspaper was retroactively classified by the CIA.In this case it is a dispute between the CIA and State over these emails as has been reported by many media outlets.

          • itsfun says:

            It doesn’t matter if a document is over classified, what matters is the documents were classified. It has been reported that names of CIA operatives were found on her email. This could lead to the operatives being murdered. This is not a dispute between departments, but a question of national security.

        • Theodora30 says:

          There is no violation. She has turned over thousands of work emails. She is the only Sec State to do so but she is the one being trashed. The State Department has asked others to do the same (Powell, Condi) but have gotten nothing.

          • itsfun says:

            She didn’t turn them over. She deleted them. The FBI was able to recover them from her private server that was being used to house classified American documents. Read the public document act. You will see she did violate the law.

          • Theodora30 says:

            Those were mostly her personal emails. Apparently there were a few that were later deemed work related. But she had already turned over 55,000 pages of her work emails. State asked all the former Sec States to do this (the law leaves it up to the official to determine what papers, emails, etc are relevant) but no one else has done it.
            http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/11/technology/security/hillary-email-paper/

          • itsfun says:

            The FBI has found over 2000 classified documents. Her emails were not suppose to be on a personal server. Not even one document was suppose to be there.

      • yabbed says:

        The Secretary of Defense at this very moment is using a private server. It’s been an accepted operational device for decades now. It’s only Hillary who gets criticized for what is a common practice in government.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        I voted for Hillary, and I believe she is the most qualified candidate running for POTUS. Unfortunately, unlike some of her rivals, she is not very charismatic, and sometimes that is what it takes to win a nomination and an election.

        • indiokie says:

          If she runs the country like Bill did, we got a good thing going here.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Including a balanced budget, debt reduction, and the creation of 23 million jobs. I doubt her detractors, and Bill’s, care about things like that though. All they, and the governor of Alabama, remember is Monica.

          • Theodora30 says:

            You forgot a significant surplus that Gore wanted to use to pay down the debt but Bush squandered with tax cuts. Also record numbers of people moving from poverty into the middle class.

  2. itsfun says:

    The FBI hasn’t spend a year investigating her for unpaid parking tickets.

    • Bren Frowick says:

      What part of “they aren’t investigating her” are you struggling with?

      • itsfun says:

        I am not struggling with anything, its the ones denying there is an investigation going on that are struggling.

        • Jinmichigan says:

          No one I know is denying there is an investigation. Like all the other scandals we have seen over the years, maybe we should wait until something actually happens and avoid the speculation.

          • itsfun says:

            Didn’t you see the comment by Bren Frowick to me? There has been several comments made on this site by people saying there is no investigation.

          • Jinmichigan says:

            Saying there is no investigation is just ignorant. The question is, “what are they investigating”? It’s hard to say since they haven’t said much other than it’s not criminal. I don’t think Hillary’s critics have much else to do besides get all worked up over another scandal. It’s pretty much all they have. And considering all the past scandals, this one also, is not likely to go anywhere.

          • itsfun says:

            One of the thing they are investigating is did she break the public records act.

          • Bren Frowick says:

            BS, They are not investigating HILLARY. They are examining a PROCESS in order to determine if security measures in place are adequate or need to be changed in some way. It is the absurd delusion that she is the focus of their work that people like you appear to have a hard time accepting. or comprehending.

          • itsfun says:

            They are investigating Hillary. Why do you think they gave immunity to her IT person? She is the focus of this investigation, because of her allowing classified US documents to be put in a compromising position. There is even a report of her having her IT guy take classification marking off some documents so she could send the documents to and from her private server. Look at what happened to the General for letting a confidential document be exposed on his desk. In the case of Hillary, we are talking about secret and top secret documents.

          • itsfun says:

            Probably won’t go anywhere. Politicians have too many friends in powerful places and know where the skeletons are buried.

          • Bren Frowick says:

            You clearly haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about, and are impervious to reality. It will be SUCH a surprise to you when this is all over, though it appears you already concocting your excuses for why your absurd fantasies aren’t going to pan out.

          • itsfun says:

            What reality are you whining about? Do you deny Hillary is under FBI investigation? Do you deny politicians have many friends in powerful places and know where skeletons are buried. Just what is it you are whining about.

      • plc97477 says:

        He is still struggling with trying to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    • yabbed says:

      There remains in government in civil service positions many, many GWB administration employees. That explains it all.

      • itsfun says:

        Have you any ideal of how the FBI head is selected for his position? Have you any idea of how and why the FBI starts an investigation? Your old ideas of blaming Bush for everything is very very old and complete BS.

    • dpaano says:

      And that would be something only YOU would believe!!!

      • itsfun says:

        What do you think the FBI investigates? Could it be criminal or treasonous activities?

        • dpaano says:

          itsfun: As I told your fellow “troll” David, I will no longer waste my time responding to your inane comments. You have been told to believe what the GOP wants you to believe, and that’s what you’re going to go with…..no chance of having an open mind. I don’t have time to deal with people who can’t at least THINK that someone else might have a point. Have a great life!

          • itsfun says:

            You really hurt my feeling (LOL) You have the closed mind here and only do what the left tells you to do. You have been wasting my time and I am glad I won’t be reading anymore of you BS.

        • The lucky one says:

          We know the DOJ doesn’t prosecute high ranking government officials for treason or else most of the Bush/Cheney cabal that lied us into Iraq would be in prison by now.

          • itsfun says:

            Prove it. Bush along with many world leaders used their best intelligence information.

          • The lucky one says:

            If you want me to do your research for you let me know and I’ll give you the address to send the check. Otherwise do your own, it’s been amply documented that “intelligence” was both distorted and even manufactured to fit their agenda for invading Iraq.

          • itsfun says:

            You’re the one making the claims, you do your own research and prove it.

          • The lucky one says:

            I already have but why should i do your work for you when absent a signed confession by the perpetrators you will reject it. Do you at least admit that it was a huge mistake?

          • JPHALL says:

            So why can’t Bush or Cheney travel overseas? Maybe it is that warrant for their arrest as war criminals.

          • itsfun says:

            So they can be captured like the sailors in Iran, or beheaded like the Christians? People die in wars. Maybe we should charge all Presidents current and past with war crimes.

          • JPHALL says:

            As usual nothing from you but BS. They are wanted for war crimes in two countries. No other American political leaders have ever faced those charges. Not Truman for the A-bomb. Not Johnson for Vietnam. Not Bush I for Iran I. Subject: Re: Comment on Only The Ballot Box Can Beat Clinton, Not Bogus ‘ Scandals’

          • itsfun says:

            The BS is coming from you. While Obama surrenders to Iran and ISIS you complain about President Bush. Do you actually believe President Truman would have been welcome in Japan?

          • JPHALL says:

            Wow! More BS. Truman and all the rest of the American presidents and vice presidents can freely travel to most of the world. What countries do Bush and Cheney feel safe in? Not even Canada!
            Subject: Re: Comment on Only The Ballot Box Can Beat Clinton, Not Bogus ‘ Scandals’

          • itsfun says:

            So you do believe that President Truman would have been welcomed in Japan after WWII. I spend some time in Japan while in the service. They held huge demonstrations every time any nuclear powered ship came into a Navy base. I really doubt if President Truman would have been welcomed or safe. I don’t know where Bush or Cheney would feel safe. You will need to ask them that. President Bush did not commit any crimes at all. What crimes did the people that got beheaded by ISIS commit. Oh, I forgot they were Christians.

          • JPHALL says:

            Wow! So much BS. Truman could have gone anywhere he wanted. Especially post war Japan. Comparing today with post World War ii is really stupid. As to Bush / Cheney, there are two international arrest warrants. Some people do believe they committed crimes. Finally, most of the people being beheaded or mistreated by Isis are Muslims. Get some real information for a change.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Only The Ballot Box Can Beat Clinton, Not Bogus ‘ Scandals’

          • itsfun says:

            Again: I was in Japan in the late 60’s and those people were still pissed off. Do you have any idea how many civilians were killed by the nuclear bombs? You have spent the last 8 years blaming Bush for every problem the world has ever had and you bitch about a comparison. I don’t care if there a hundred bogus arrest warrants by some piss-ant countries. They committed no crimes. How many Christians have to get beheaded for you to care? You are the one that needs to get real information.

          • JPHALL says:

            I see now that you are merely an ideologue who lacks the ability to use facts. So, goodbye and good riddance to someone who lacks the intelligence to hold an honest conversation. Subject: Re: Comment on Only The Ballot Box Can Beat Clinton, Not Bogus ‘ Scandals’

          • itsfun says:

            I feel the same way about you. My only question is what would you know about an honest conversation?

        • David says:

          You are beating your head against a wall with dpaano. But, she claimed to be an attorney in California. I caught her lying. Her own biography does not say that; she doesn’t know the correct name of the California Bar Association; and, she won’t/can’t give her California Bar number. She claims to be a member of Mensa. If she is, then she knows she is a lying POS.

          • itsfun says:

            I know what you are saying. She also claimed to be military once to me. She makes up numbers and is a lying POS. Yesterday she sent me a post saying she wouldn’t talk to me anymore. I wonder if she thinks she hurt my feelings.

          • David says:

            Probably so. Kinda like that hag from New Jersey–Eleanore!

  3. Bren Frowick says:

    This particular bit of nonsense went up in smoke long ago, but the frantic right wing propaganda machine just keeps that smoke a-flying in the wind, augmented by all the mirrors they can bring to bear.

  4. yabbed says:

    Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic Party nominee and the next President of the United States. Both Trump and Sanders have only whites with no educational degrees as supporters. Sanders had a horrifyingly stupid editorial meeting with the NY Daily News. He proved himself utterly clueless about how government works and he had absolutely no answers for how he was going to break up big banks or pay for all his promised freebies. He showed himself to be a total idiot.

    • zorro037 says:

      I’d been looking for this Sander’s interview with NY Daily News and couldn’t find it. Is any way to access to that after so many days past?

    • The lucky one says:

      Your first sentence may well turn out to be accurate, the rest is utter nonsense.

      • dpaano says:

        Not so much…..Bernie is a great guy with great ideas, but he has NO idea how he’s going to accomplish his goals. He has to get most of his major ideas passed through Congress, and that ain’t going to happen!!! Even if the Democrats retake the House and/or the Senate….they won’t go for any of his ideas.

        • David says:

          But, he has congenital liars like you to assail him. Right, Madam attorney?

          • dpaano says:

            David: I’m no longer going to waste my time responding to your inane comments for the simple reason that no amount of information or proof will change your cement-hard mind. It’s a waste of my valuable time because you are going to continue to believe each and everything that you have been told to believe by your GOP brethren. Have a great life……too bad you have so much hate in it!

          • David says:

            What I hate are people that lie. You are not, and have never been, an attorney. LYING POS.

          • dpaano says:

            And, David, you know NOTHING about me, and I could care less what you think. My family and friends know what I do for a living and whether or not I’m a valid attorney…..your comments are not important to me. Enough said!

          • David says:

            Well…I DO know that you are a liar. Now, don’t I?

          • David says:

            In fact, if you are not lying, what is your Bar number?

          • dpaano says:

            None of your f……ing business!!!

          • David says:

            Oops!!!! You got caught lying! Oh well. Typical libtard bulls–. None of what you people do surprises me.

          • dpaano says:

            You “caught me lying” is a bunch of BS. First of all, as I said previously, I don’t have to prove ANYTHING to you! Secondly, my so-called “bar” number is personal and you do not have the need to know! Thirdly, again, I don’t give a flying f….k what you think or believe! Lastly, this has NOTHING to do with being liberal or otherwise, but, of course, you have to stick this in because it makes you feel better. Get a life, David……you did NOT catch me lying despite what you seem to believe!

          • David says:

            I love this. You take a business law course for your undergraduate or master’s degree and now you are an attorney. Hmmm….is that why you put in your biography that you were licensed to practice law in California?
            Admit you are a lying POS and go on. “At this point, what difference does it make.”?

        • The lucky one says:

          Possibly correct, especially since it is quite obvious the Dem establishment would prefer Sanders. But what “progressive” ideas of Hilary’s do you see being supported by congress?

          Pursuant to another discussion you questioned when has Clinton ever did the bidding of one of her corporate or bankster sponsors. I submit the following: GE owns 49% of NBC, which gave Chelsea Clinton a job at $600,000 a year to do basically nothing, and shortly thereafter Secretary of State Clinton approved big foreign arms sales for GE. But maybe she would have done so anyway and Clelsea’s job was just a thank you, in advance. As an attorney you must know that for a public official the appearance of impropriety is enough to qualify as an ethics violation.

          • dpaano says:

            Will check this out….wasn’t aware of this. May or may not have anything to do with doing a company’s bidding. But, again, will research this for my own edification. As for whether or not Hillary can get anything done by a GOP Congress…I think she has more grit than Sanders and won’t back down. But, hopefully, the Senate and the House will lose it’s majority in the next election……we can only hope!!!

          • The lucky one says:

            I agree that HRC has “grit”. She is tough and smart, I never thought otherwise but I don’t trust her. Sanders has more grit than you think. Imagine what it has been like for an American politician to identify his own position as socialist in a land of fundamentalist capitalism and to sit and work among a group that routinely does the bidding of their corporate sponsors. HRC is also far too warlike for me.

          • JPHALL says:

            The State Department does little but add its OK to already approved weapons sales. Those are handled by other departments like Defense, Homeland and Commerce.

          • The lucky one says:

            And you don’t think a good word from the secretary of state has any influence on weapons purchasing? Not to mention that as you said, she has final say.

          • JPHALL says:

            Not as much as Defense, Homeland, and Congress. Especially in these days. Subject: Re: Comment on Only The Ballot Box Can Beat Clinton, Not Bogus ‘ Scandals’

    • plc97477 says:

      bernie is also doing very well in deep red states that would not vote blue if their life depended on it. Makes me wonder how many of those votes are repugs hoping to derail Hillary.

  5. Böcker says:

    What a load of BS, Clinton is not getting a coronation and yes she can still be taken down by scandal the latest being the Panama papers. Gee who writes this crap?? The DNC??

  6. bluetah says:

    Has anyone checked to see if the speaking fees were given to charity? (Clinton Foundation is a charity- not an international crime syndicate)

    • jmprint says:

      So who said it was an international syndicate?

    • A_Real_Einstein says:

      Most of the speaking fees went to her personal income not to the foundation. This is how the Clintons became multi millionares. The special interest groups pay them handsomely for access and influence. It is a great partnership for everyone but the voters.

      • dpaano says:

        I think $18M is plenty….that’s what she donated to the Clinton Foundation. The so-called “special interest groups” you speak of are a figment of your imagination, as usual. Nothing that she has done has favored any particular group that she dealt with.

      • bluetah says:

        You engage in FOX News style speculation. Are you a conservative?

    • The lucky one says:

      In many cases there is little difference between the two.

      • bluetah says:

        I think HRC has more achievable goals and better planned ways to get there. Bernie is lacking in details and reality.

        • The lucky one says:

          You may be right on the details though I think we often accept a “reality” that falls short of what is achievable. My main problems with HRC is that she IMHO beholden to the banksters. She could dispel that idea by releasing transcripts of her talks with Goldman Sachs if indeed she was calling them to account for their misdeeds and role in crashing the economy not to metion money laundering but I don’t think we would see anything other a sycophantic homage to banksters..

          I also have a problem with the nepotism apparent in Chelsea’s grossly overblown salary at NBC which is obviously a quid pro quo for Hilary. However I think we both agree that either sanders or Clinton would be vastly preferable to either of the demagogues leading the GOP primary.

          • bluetah says:

            Yeah, it’s just like HRC said, just after Bernie lied about her for the second time- she “would take Bernie over Ted “Joe McCarthy Junior” Cruz or Donald “His Hair is an ET Controlling His Mind” Trump any day. Berners should think about the alternatives to hero worship.

          • The lucky one says:

            “Berners should think about the alternatives to hero worship” Agreed, and HRC supporters should do the same. We might actually accomplish something when each candidates supporters begin asking their own candidate the tough questions and calling on them to account for past behaviors. Instead most just try to tear down the opponents while giving their own “hero” a free pass.

          • bluetah says:

            Guess what? Many more (a vast majority of) Clinton leaners and voters say they will vote for Mr. Bern if he wins. A paucity of Bern worshipers say they will be sensible and vote for who ever the nominee is. Furthermore- Hillary herself said that the Senator Sanders is a far better choice than Cruz or Trump. And the resentful egoist Bernie cannot bring himself to say the same in his latest Matt Lauer interview. Bernie is behaving like a 74 year old child- I really am uneasy about immature Presidental candidates- but Bernie, compared to Trump or Cruz gets my reluctant nose holding vote for his one term Presidency. His methods of reaching his goals will result in just one term.

          • The lucky one says:

            Frankly I have no faith in the alleged statements that Sanders supporters won’t support Clinton or that Clinton’s will support Sanders. Most Democrats will vote for the party’s candidate. I’m an independent and will vote for the best candidate. At this point that eliminates any GOP candidate but does not necessarily mean a vote for a Democrat. Whether I would be able to hold my nose long enough to vote for someone like Clinton who I see as a warmongering corporatist would not be influenced by Sanders’ endorsement or lack thereof of Clinton.

            If anything I am slightly more likely to vote for Clinton due to the effect Sanders’ campaign has had on bringing Clinton a bit more to the Progressive side. The trouble is i see nothing in her history that leads me to believe she is being truthful. I agree that she is preferable to Trump/Cruz/Kasich on domestic social issues but she is in the pocket of the banksters and is just as belligerent militarily as any of them.

    • dpaano says:

      IT’s a non-profit charity!!!

  7. FT66 says:

    Drums of the so-called email scandal are beaten up so hard by republicans. They are doing so because that is the only hope they still have to win the election. Hillary didn’t commit any crime as no one can mention what it is. Nothing so far has been proved being compromised by the use of her private server. We understand all these is about politics. If Hillary wasn’t running for President and it was known she used her server, all republicans could have ignored the issue the way they ignored “W” Admin when they set fire all records of their work the had.

    • A_Real_Einstein says:

      Why would a democratic administration call for a criminal investigation against its front runner if there was no reason for it?

      • JPHALL says:

        As the article stated it is not a criminal investigation but a jurisdiction dispute. That has been stated twice by the FBI. Catch up with reality.

  8. bwbw123 says:

    http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2015/04/hillary-leaves-tracks-in-oil.html

    If not in and repeated by Mainstream corporate media it didn’t happen. That is the logic this author would have us conclude whether going to war with Iraq, Keystone, TPP, arms to the M.East, massive growth of fossil fuels defying the reality of science etc etc. If these things could all be corrected as if they were untruths think of the lives and environment that would have been saved. Guilty? Despite some of the flips and flopping most of the harm was done by the time she got around to being sorry or not at all when not questioned. Americans are coming together under Bernie or bust because despite the corruption and coronation we are saying NO today and tomorrow. the party should decide to be honest and let Bernie take over.

  9. A_Real_Einstein says:

    Based on the last 7 states she is getting killed at the ballot box. The question is will the Superdelegates override the will of the people when he ends up with more voted delegates?

    • Paul Bass says:

      I posted this on another comment stream, but it bears repeating here:

      Dream on.

      HRC has 1279 delegates to BS 1027, more than 25% more delegates. With superdelegates its 1748 to 1058, 62% to BS 38%. Bernie would have to win over 67% of ALL remaining delegates to get the nod. Not gonna happen.

      • bwbw123 says:

        The American voter will just say no to endless corruption represented by one insider getting a huge number of votes to nullify the will of the people.

        • Paul Bass says:

          If HRC gets a “huge number of voters”, i.e. a majority of the voters, how does that nullify rather than verify the will of the people?
          If HRC gets a majority of the voters, which she has so far, how is that NOT the will of the people?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            The question is about voted delegates vs Superdelegates. Should Hillary still get the nod if Bernie has more voted delegates?

          • Paul Bass says:

            Um, HRC has millions more voters and hundreds more delegates. BS DOES NOT and WILL NOT have more delegates, HRC WILL have the majority of the delegates at the convention, not even counting the super-delegates. How is HRC NOT, therefore, the will of the people?

        • Bob Eddy says:

          That’s Democracy for you…and the American voter apparently understand Democracy better than you do.

    • Linda Bullock says:

      Well, being that Hillary is “killing” Bernie in the delagate count, I think your concern about an “override” is all for naught. We’ll leave that kind of chaos to the Republican’s. They’ve been extremely entertaining from the first Republican debate.

      • A_Real_Einstein says:

        So when it is over you beleive that Hillary should be the nominee even though Bernie will have accumulated more voted delegates. If so why bother having primaries? Why don’t we just have the Superdelegates decide our nominee for us?

        • bobnstuff says:

          Have you look at the count, sorry but Hillary is still in the lead and even though Bernie had a good day it’s still a Hillary game.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            And fading fast. Her support among non whites and women is completely collapsing. She is shouting again and morphing into Carly Fiorina before our eyes. It is sad and hard to watch Even for Bernie supporters. The tide has officially turned. Cancel the coronation. Do you think she should be the nominee if Bernie has more voted delegates at the end?

          • Everybodhi says:

            Bernie is putting up a good fight so continuing with the “coronation” sound bite doesn’t make much sense. One would have to think Bernie’s campaign is a joke and he is not serious competition to be calling it a “coronation”. A coronation implies there is no competition and no contest, you may want to rethink that one.
            If Bernie wins more votes, super delegates will switch sides, like they did for Obama, if it’s a virtual tie, they will probably stay with Hillary, because of her long history of support for the party including millions donated to down ticket democrats during this race.
            Unless, of course, him and his followers hassle and threaten the super delegates until they refuse to vote for him in any circumstances. They have that right, they are only pledged to vote for “the good of the party” and they get to decide what that means.
            She does still have over two million more votes than Bernie, so the super delegates that have already endorsed her are in sync with the will of the voters so far.

        • itsfun says:

          The fix is in, that’s why

    • yabbed says:

      Bernie isn’t going to be the nominee. He’s not a Democrat and he can’t win a general election. Middle America elects Presidents and Middle America is moderate. Bernie had a very failed meeting with the NY Daily News editorial staff the other day and it was astonishing how incredibly ignorant he is about everything.

      • Bob Eddy says:

        I am not at all surprised by your incredible ignorance of the Daily News piece. It was not Bernies ignorance. He clearly understands that Glass Siegel has nothing to do with the Fed and they would have absolutly no affect in implementing its enforcement. Apparently that was byond the comcomprehension of both the editorial staff and you.e

    • Bob Eddy says:

      Enough of the stupidity about Superdelegates. Sanders knew about Superdelegates when he decided to run for the Democratic nomination. What is wrong with having Superdelegates that have actually lived an breathed the Democratic party, run and won elections as Democrats, donated to Democrats and supported Democrats over the years having more say than someone who came out for one election for one candidate and will abandon the party if they don’t win? And I say this as a long time Bernie supporter. Don’t like the Superdelegates? Get active in the party and change it.

      • A_Real_Einstein says:

        Sorry to disappoint you but Wasserman Schultz came out this week and said the Dems will not have a contested convention and whichever nominee has more voted delegates will be the nominee. The Superdelegates have never overridden the will of the people (voted delegates). I believe the Superdelegates will no longer be part of the process moving forward. So Bernie has about 200 delegates to make up with about 1500 remaining. His message of ending a rigged economy that is fronted by a corrupt campaign finance system is resonating. Hopefully the dems will nominate a Candidate that will build on Obama’s progressive agenda and accomplishments rather than a Plutocrat who will move us to the right.

        • Bob Eddy says:

          You don’t “disappoint” me at all. In fact you make my point. As I mentioned, I will be supporting Bernie in the primary, but I get really tired of the ignorant blathering about Superdelegates mostly from people who have been a Democrat for a few weeks or a few months and will no longer be a Democrat if Bernie is not the nominee. I know that the Supers have always rallied behind the people’s choice as they did in 2008…the newbies are apparently ignorant of that fact. I don’t think their demise is either imminent or useful. If nothing else they compel any candidate to address the party leaders and the party as a whole, thus preventing what we see happening in the Republican primary where each candidate seems to be pandering to his faction and ignoring the party as a whole.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            The domacratic party is a
            mess. With the GOP holding the House, Senate , Governorships and state legislatures we have to admit although progressivism is growing the democrat party is shrinking. The establishment and HRC have major branding issues and are awash in specialist interest group money and have sold out for corporate America. So now we have Bernie with his populist message that our economy is rigged and fronted by corrupt campaign finance system that has corporations and special interest groups writing our laws and selecting our representatives. Then we have HRC literally choking on campaign donations, Superpac contributions, and speaking fees. Selling access and influence to the likes of Wall Street, Health Insurance Companies, Big Pharma, Fossil Fuels, Monsanto, Miltary Industrial Complex, private prisons etc… to the tune of hundreds of millions. So what does the DNC do? They rig their primary in favor of the plutocrat. They disenfranchise all new voters and the white working class voters and left leaning independents that Bernie is trying to bring back to the party with enthusiasm. Did we not learn anything from 2014? Idiotic.

      • Sandy Simer Walper says:

        And people who think the Superdelegate thing is evil need to check out who started it up in the first place.

    • A. D. Reed says:

      I’ve seen your handle before, and it’s already been clear that you’re no Einstein. The last seven states have included six caucuses and one primary (Wisconsin). Caucuses are NOT the same as voting in a primary. Many caucuses don’t require participants to be registered voters, or registered with a particular party, and some even allow registered voters of the OTHER party to “vote” in their caucus meetings.

      Primary elections require people to be registered voters, and most allow only members of a particular party to vote in that party’s primary. (A few allow independent voters to choose a primary to vote in.)

      So “ballot box” is really a term that should be reserved for actual elections, not used for caucus meetings. And since a huge proportion of Bernie Sanders’s support has come from unaffiliated voters, the only way to see who’s winning at the ballot box is by counting actual ballots cast in primaries. In primary votes, Mrs. Clinton is ahead of Mr. Sanders by more than 2 Million votes, or about 40%.

      As a result, if superdelegates follow the wishes of Democratic voters who actually voted, they’ll all be for Hillary.

      PS: If you don’t know that the reason superdelegates exist in the Democratic party is precisely to be able to override the will of the voters, you know very little about American politics. The superdelegate system was set up after the Bernheads of their day nominated a candidate opposed by the vast majority of Democratic elected officials and political experts — and he lost 49 states.

  10. ray says:

    If Hillary were a man she would be just another politician.

    • itsfun says:

      If Hillary was a general, she would be in prison or on probation.

      • Sandy Simer Walper says:

        FACTS. What are your FACTS and SOURCES for this statement? This is just the kind of arrogance and idiocy and slander that this column talked about.

        • itsfun says:

          22 Top Secret documents on her private server. Over 2000 documents that were classified either confidential or secret on her private server. By having those on her private server she violated the law. She broke the public records act. If you refuse to accept the truth that is arrogance and idiocy. The truth is not slander. Calling her fundamentally honest and trustworthy is not a compliment.

      • Bob Eddy says:

        Probably not. Pissing off ignorant rightwing ass hats is not considered a crime outside the right wing propaganda circuit. Sadly for your side after 25 years of accusations, smears, character assassination and drooling from them, they have been able to come up with no proof that she has committed any crime…as the email psedo-scandal slowly drifts into oblivion.

        • itsfun says:

          22 top secret documents on her private server is a violation of the public records act is a crime. Email server is not going away. The FBI doesn’t investigate traffic violations. They investigate federal crimes. Her IT guy was given immunity for a reason. She is a proven liar and criminal and someday will pay for her lies and crimes.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            1. The use of s private server was not a crime.
            2. You have absolutely no way of knowing that there were any, let alone the exact number of top secret documents on her private server.
            3. The FBI has stated they were not investigating any person in the mstter.
            4. It is not a crime for anyone, let alone the Secretary of State, to be in possession of classified documents.
            5. Anyone as woefully misinformed as you are should learn to just stay out ofthese discussions.

          • itsfun says:

            Try reading the public records act. I just replied to your other comment and gave you the sites where the Obama Administration admitted that HIllary had top secret documents on her private server. It is a crime for anyone including the SOS to put classified documents in harms way. Look at what happened to the General for letting a confidential document be seen. Hillary had top secret documents on a unsecured private server. What do you think the FBI investigates? They are investigating Hillary and gave her IT guy immunity. They just got the hacker of her server sent to the US to question him. The Department of State has said 22 of the documents that were discovered were so sensitive that they can’t let the public see them. You can ignore what has been discovered all you want, but the evidence it there. The question is and will be is will the Justice Department be impartial when the FBI recommends indictment or will they ignore the evidence. Another question is will Obama just give her a pardon.

    • MissNomer says:

      If Hillary were a man she’d have already served two presidential terms and been added to Mt. Rushmore.

  11. The lucky one says:

    “(HRC) was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt.” What BS, the one thing we do know conclusively about Hilary is that she is not stupid.

  12. yabbed says:

    Who objected when GWB and Cheney were out making millions by giving speeches? Remember GWB joking that the end of his term in office meant he could go out and make some money on the speaker’s trail? There is nothing wrong with anyone speaking for a fee. The one speech I have seen in print, given to Goldman Sacks, was about equal opportunities for women in financial workplaces.

    • itsfun says:

      There is nothing wrong with giving speeches for millions as long as someone is willing to pay that kind of money. What the speeches are about does matter though. If someone says one thing giving a paid speech and another when talking to another group, then that speaker is untrustworthy.

      • MissNomer says:

        So you’d expect a professional speaker to make the same exact speech to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries that she made to the Advanced Medical Technology Association? For that kind of money I’d expect her to tailor her speech to her audience and say something different. But then I’ve hired speakers and apparently you haven’t.

        • itsfun says:

          Nope, you missed what I was saying. When she is talking to Wall street people and promising to help them for a fee of 250,000 and then talks to a anti-wall street group and says what they want to hear. I think it is just wonderful that you are so important that you get to hire speakers and the rest of us dummies aren’t smart enough to do such a high profile job.

  13. Andrew Long says:

    I am both fascinated and disgusted at how Americans are so terrified of a powerful, intelligent and strong female. I used to think it was just men afraid their….”hands” would wither to nothing but I now understand that women are just as intimated. It is a national terror and it is hysterical to observe and sad to ponder.

    • oldfed says:

      She is a crook and a liar it has nothing to about being “strong”

      • Andrew Long says:

        Please cite the evidence for your claim and explain the lack of indictment for same. You cannot. It does not exist. It has been and will continue to be nothing but a witch hunt perpetuated by old white men.

      • MissNomer says:

        Repeating it doesn’t make it true. It just reminds us that the GOP and the media have been lying about her for decades.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.