Clinton Coverup Queen

[7Wannabe5]

I saw Clinton close-up during one of his early first-run rallies. Killer smile, 6'2", IQ 156, sex-fiend. Exactly my type. I don't blame Monica a bit, I would be on that like butter on toast. Apparently her mother had a fling with Placido Domingo. Short ring finger, high IQ, above average gluteal fat deposits,relatively weak, chubby little arms. Clearly, she inherited the slut gene in the womb. There is no such thing as will power or chance in this world. We just go round and round and round, forgetting what happened yesterday.

[IlliniDave]

The thing that concerns me about H regarding B's activities is the allegations shat she was at the forefront of an alleged campaign to intimidate/silence the ones who's butter got spread on the toast against their wishes. They are only allegations, but if true it makes her an accessory.

[Riggerjack]

I don't care about Monica. I don't care about where, when it how affairs happen, President or not.

It's the cases of missing consent. The cases of obstruction. The pattern of abuse of power. It's the call to create the " black hawk down" situation, without even having ANYONE with a day's military experience present, when the decision was made that "tanks make bad TV'.

It's the decision to not allow military forces in Benghazi reinforce the embassy.

Hillary has a body count. I'm OK with that. Doing the job means making hard calls. But she has sacrificed lives to save face. That should be treason. As a former soldier, she is the last person I want as commander in Chief. Dying because Trump threw a hissy fit would suck. Dying because saving my ass would look bad? Unbelievable.

[Gilberto de Piento]

there is a lot of evidence to indicate that she tried to defame the accusers through third parties such as private investigators

I don't particularly like Clinton and am not trying to defend her but could we link to sources when making statements like this?

This is the stuff I can't believe rank and file democrats are putting up with ... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpC ... ef=2&pli=1
I still can't believe Sanders caved. What could they have on him?

The paper is not peer reviewed or published in a journal and is by a couple of psych grad students who don't appear to do political science research. On its face it doesn't look right to me but I don't have time to really read it. These articles (from NY Times and Daily Kos, so not journal articles either) appear to debunk the paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upsho ... .html?_r=1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/12 ... s-analysis

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Riggerjack:

I'm confused by this talk of voting for a lesser evil. Yes, I will do this in local elections, but I live in Washington state. 65% blue.

x2, I forgot that aspect. My state of Murderland already went to Clinton by like 70% in the primary, no need to wonder which way the electoral votes will go. Your vote literally doesn't matter anyway if you're not in a swing state--a fact in itself that doesn't exactly encourage me to keep voting the status quo, but never mind!

@Jenny:

This is the stuff I can't believe rank and file democrats are putting up with ...

Apparently, they're not. Recent emails from Democrat organizations:


http://i.imgur.com/Vm2k8Gl.jpg

Haha, I probably shouldn't take such glee at their desperation, but... I totally do. Maybe some super-delegates will wise up before the convention? (...Haha, see, I can be funny, too.)

I still can't believe Sanders caved. What could they have on him?

Per a conference call with his delegates after the, ahem, enthusiastic endorsement, he hasn't conceded and is still urging his delegates to attend the convention (sadly I imagine fewer will go now than would have otherwise, not to mention DNC protestors). While he hasn't actually conceded, he realistically expects to lose to Clinton on the first floor vote given the delegate math. From there, he makes the standard lesser evils argument that Trump is scarier than Clinton, and that third parties won't win, and so concludes that he must fight for her election as the "least worst option". (Ego's words, not Bernie's.)

Conference call with Bernie delegates after endorsement

There is a lot of speculation and confusion as to his motivation. Some speculate that he was strong-armed either by DNC rules (I see no evidence of that) or political threats from the Clinton camp to vote down the progressive concessions her people made on the DNC platform if he refused to endorse (no evidence, but believable). Of course there are the darker theories that he was threatened some other way...

Some even claim this is some masterful political chess move. IMO this will do far more harm than any potential good in terms of bringing delegates and protestors to Philly. But, on the other hand, some point out it did have the effect of showing the super delegates and Democratic party, before it's truly final, what will happen with a Clinton nominee: no grassroots donations and tens of thousands of new Jill Stein supporters.

Guardian poll of Sanders supporters finds twice as many to vote for Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton

Donations to Jill Stein Explode Nearly 1000% Since Sanders’ Endorsement of Clinton

I don't think the super delegates will budge, though. The Democrats would clearly rather risk handing the election to Trump than ever risk crossing their wealthy donors, special interests, and the Clinton cartel. And I don't think this was a chess move, or that Bernie has any other aces up his sleeve, since he refuses to acknowledge the election fraud. I would like to take him at his word. He's scared of Trump and he sees no way of winning the nomination.

It's just the timing that really makes no sense whatsoever, especially if he's still not conceding and asking his delegates to go at their own expense. The total lack of motivation on his part to hurt his apparently still ongoing campaign with this endorsement would seem to indicate coercion. His body language definitely said he wasn't at all comfortable or happy about it:

Bernie Sanders's Body Language Says He Angrily and Reluctantly Endorses Hillary Clinton

We may never know. I will say after the meeting with Obummer and Reid, the Bern lost all his fire. Whatever he learned that day, I think that was what ended it. I kinda suspect they at least told him she would not be indicted.

[jennypenny]

@GdP--I linked to the paper so people could check the math and decide for themselves. There is definitely something statistically noteworthy in those results. The original tweet promoting the paper was over-the-top and drew fair criticism, but the paper has merit. I also think there is some deflecting going on. What jumped out at me was not that exit polls didn't match actual results, but that the results in polling areas with no paper trail were much more favorable to Clinton than those areas with a paper trail.

I'm not indicating that Clinton had direct involvement with this. My point is that the DNC machine has backed Clinton from the beginning and there is lots of circumstantial evidence that their support has gone beyond rhetoric. I find it interesting that Sanders couldn't get enough traction even with the sometimes overwhelming tide of populism and antiestablishmentarianism during this election cycle. Trump had no trouble harnessing that sentiment and winning the nomination (and he doesn't really know what he's doing and had no party backing throughout most of the primaries).

Why the discrepancy? I believe the biggest reason is that the Democratic party establishment is much more powerful than the Republican one at the moment, and it put its full weight behind Clinton. I include most mainstream media in that group, given their constant sympathetic and apologetic reporting regarding her exploits (like those articles you linked to). Sanders and his followers never got more than a pat on the head. Trump supporters got that kind of treatment or worse, but their response was to push back even harder. Sanders supporters are obviously feeling the same sort of fervor that Trump supporters are, but their voice was suppressed enough to get Clinton through.

The DNC machine built a wall around Clinton with talking heads, politically active groups like PP, and sympathetic media to make sure she secured the nomination, but SW's links indicate that cracks are beginning to show in the wall. It doesn't surprise me since surveys show anti-establishment sentiment is strong in both parties. Sanders may have endorsed Clinton, but he might have a hard time convincing his followers that an establishment candidate is in their best interest, especially since his endorsement seemed a little forced. The Clinton's long-standing reputation for doing the 'forcing' when necessary also makes Sanders' endorsement look more like complicity than compliance.

[enigmaT120]

As usual, mercilessly accurate:

http://www.theonion.com/article/nation- ... d-ou-53203

[Spartan_Warrior]

Scenes from the Portsmouth "Unity" rally. What Democratic unity looks like under Clinton.

https://www.facebook.com/mathmusic/vide ... 582193080/

[Spartan_Warrior]

I believe the biggest reason is that the Democratic party establishment is much more powerful than the Republican one at the moment, and it put its full weight behind Clinton.

I agree with this assessment, but would agree even more completely if you had worded it as: The establishment currently has much more power over the Democratic party than the Republican party, and put its full weight behind Clinton.

Although I believe that is true, I would also suggest another, complementary reason for the discrepancy: the establishment fears Bernie much more than it fears Trump and thus more effort was put into silencing Bernie than Trump, and I mean at all stages and levels, from within the party nominating process to the media conglomerates' presentation of them (or telling lack thereof).


In other news...

Democrats "Freaked Out" About Polls in Meeting with Clinton

[Riggerjack]

I would rephrase it as "consistent legislative history of supporting women's rights including support for Planned Parenthood" but to-ma-to to-mah-to.

I don't know HRC's voting record on women's issues. My pass fail issue is gun rights, so I understand a single issue that would cause you to support her.

My question is what do you think she can do as president for legislating women's issues? I mean, it's not like anyone running is going to sign any bill limiting women's rights. If you like her voting record, wouldn't you be better served with her in the Senate?

Maybe I'm putting my ignorance on display here, but my understanding is that the only "woman's issue"* under political pressure is abortion. And that the battleground is being fought at the state level.

* I put quotes around women's issue, because it doesn't seem to be a women's issue. Everybody I know has an opinion on abortion, and the dividing line isn't between the sexes. For the record, I am pro choice on guns and abortion. hell, I'm pro choice on nearly everything, I think.

[jennypenny]

@Riggerjack -- It's that open SCOTUS seat (and potentially one or two more over the next four years) that are important for any "rights" issue. The court is evenly split for the most part, so the next justice will tip the court one way or the other. I understand people voting based solely on a single issue that might come up before SCOTUS. I will, too.

[Riggerjack]

From FFJs link above:

. Until now the administration has led us to believe the military did not have assets — men or machines — close enough or ready enough to arrive in Benghazi in time to save lives. As one earlier committee put it, ‘given their location and readiness status it was not possible to dispatch armed aircraft before survivors left Benghazi.’ The first asset to arrive in Libya — a Marine ‘FAST’ platoon — did not arrive until nearly 24 hours after the attack began. What is troubling is that the administration never set in motion a plan to go to Benghazi in the first place. It is one thing to try and fail; it is yet another not to try at all.

Now, I'm not worried about the lies. I expect politicians to lie. I'm concerned about the willingness to sacrifice lives to no purpose but covering incompetents. With ALL the military resources in the region, sending in Marines a day late and an air strike short is incompetent. Skipping on security in on your embassy in a civil war, incompetent. Starting your 3rd war without finishing number 1 or 2? Incompetent.

The President's powers are primarily just filling posts, and making speaches. However, since WWII, the President's power to make war without Congressional approval has vastly expanded.

It is this power that is my primary concern. Hillary is a warmonger, of the worst kind. She is an incompetent warmonger. It's almost as if she is playing a different game, and the troops being sacrificed are just a feint, moving toward a completely different goal. I could handle this, if I thought there was a chance that the goal was something other than more money/power/influence for the Clinton Crime Family.

[Riggerjack]

@jp, yeah, SCOTUS seats are important, but the thing is, it doesn't matter who is President, they still have to clear the Senate. And more importantly, justices are pretty unpredictable. We could load the court with 6 more Clarence Thomas clones, and still knot know how an issue facing the court would go 5 years down the road.
This is because they are ruling on ever finer points of law, based on law, rather than voting conscience. Or, at least most of the time, they are.

[RealPerson]

This is because they are ruling on ever finer points of law, based on law, rather than voting conscience. Or, at least most of the time, they are.

The latest comments from justice Ginsberg are a stunning public admission that at least one justice is more of a politician than a neutral supreme court justice. In my mind she disqualified herself as a competent justice, regardless of her later apology. She showed us her innermost and very partisan thoughts. She is unworthy of the high office she holds.

Ginsberg supposedly is considering a move to New Zealand if Trump becomes president. I think that resigning from the Supreme Court and running as a democrat for congress may be more suitable for the politician she really is. This is the caliber of people passing final judgment on the law of the land? I seems to me that the finer points of the law are lost on justice Ginsberg.

BTW I would feel exactly the same if the target of her comments was Hillary. We deserve better from the US Supreme Court. This Ginsberg spat is hopefully a reminder for the president and senate to focus on qualified people for SCOTUS, but I am not holding my breath.

[Chris]

It's that open SCOTUS seat (and potentially one or two more over the next four years) that are important for any "rights" issue.

The way things are today, I wouldn't be surprised to see Congress just reduce the number of seats on the Supreme Court. Then the Senate doesn't need to keep stalling on the nomination; they just eliminate the seat. No constitutional amendment required.

In addition to the Supreme Court, the President also nominates lower federal court judges, and those are important too. When you consider how many cases SCOTUS declines to hear, the federal circuit courts have the final say on a lot of cases. So that's another thing that could affect how voters vote.

[vezkor]

I find myself wanting to re-watch House of Cards on netflix. The Bill and Hillary Clinton show seems to have borrowed heavily from Kevin Spacey's source material.

[Riggerjack]

Yeah. I have a secret security clearance and a few friends with higher clearance, and we were talking about this month's ago, on a road trip.

If we stored classified material the way HRC did, there was never any question about whether there would be prison time.

There has always been a bit of a double standard for leaking classified material in DC. If you are a Senatorial aide, you may be fired. If you are a senator, you will probably get away with it.

For the director of the FBI to come out and declare HRC as above the law was over the top, though. Whether she becomes President, or President for Life, I just don't know how having people above the law is compatible with democracy.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Quite compatible with oligarchy, though.

[tommytebco]

We have never had a democracy in the US of A. We have a Democratic Republic. We elect our representatives (Senate and House) who then do as they deem best.
Reelection was supposed to keep these representatives aligned with the "will of the masses".

Perhaps it still does, as we approach a majority of the populace living all or in part on the dole. Each of us wants our part of the free stuff.

[Spartan_Warrior]

How can we not have democracy? Aren't we the chief exporters of the stuff to several nations of unwilling brown people?

Speaking of cover ups, anyone heard anything on Seth Rich, the DNC official who was killed last week? He was working on "data involving voter expansion". Last I heard there was still no suspect and, according to D.C. police, no motive.

Coincidentally, I'm sure, the DNC is being sued by multiple states and at least one class action lawsuit for voter suppression and election fraud.