Clinton faces new questions over emails - CNN

[Abbazorkzog]

When the Clinton News Network goes after Hillary like this you know it's bad.



Death by a thousand cuts.

 

[Chomsky]

When the Clinton News Network goes after Hillary like this you know it's bad.

<snip>

Death by a thousand cuts.

This whole thing does seem to be building into a crescendo as we head into the convention and general!

I personally would be content if she got indicted, causing the nomination to default to Bernie.

Bernie & Trump would give the citizenry an interesting referendum as to whether the country tacks more capitalistic or more socialist; It seems many if not most citizens are rebelling against "more establishment".

We live in interesting times!

 

[mak2]

Could happen. If there really is anything to the email scandal, surely the Dems leadership is aware, why else would she be running? Maybe to slingshot Bernie past trump?

This whole thing does seem to be building into a crescendo as we head into the convention and general!

I personally would be content if she got indicted, causing the nomination to default to Bernie.

Bernie & Trump would give the citizenry an interesting referendum as to whether the country tacks more capitalistic or more socialist; It seems many if not most citizens are rebelling against "more establishment".

We live in interesting times!

 

[joG]

This whole thing does seem to be building into a crescendo as we head into the convention and general!

I personally would be content if she got indicted, causing the nomination to default to Bernie.

Bernie & Trump would give the citizenry an interesting referendum as to whether the country tacks more capitalistic or more socialist; It seems many if not most citizens are rebelling against "more establishment".

We live in interesting times!

Two populists to choose a President from is quite amusing, isn't it? That is getting close to the standards in the last decades of the Roman Republic.

 

[joG]

Could happen. If there really is anything to the email scandal, surely the Dems leadership is aware, why else would she be running? Maybe to slingshot Bernie past trump?

A bankrupter egomaniac and a fuddyduddy socialist stuck in the 1968 liberties revolution is about what the population seems to want.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

This whole thing does seem to be building into a crescendo as we head into the convention and general!

I personally would be content if she got indicted, causing the nomination to default to Bernie.

Bernie & Trump would give the citizenry an interesting referendum as to whether the country tacks more capitalistic or more socialist; It seems many if not most citizens are rebelling against "more establishment".

We live in interesting times!

Trump and Clinton have everything to gain from shutting Bernie out in that respect. They don't want an exciting, pivotal referendum election between a Democratic Socialist and a Nationalist Capitalist (Napi), they want to ensure their somewhat tug-o-war-style Oligarchy remains in place and that real choices NEVER happen again. Somewhere between the conclusion of WWII, the Space Race and the fall of the USSR it seems as though - if not outright Nazis - a neo-fascistic syndicate seized control of this country.

Bernie and his people are merely a natural phenomenon occurring as a counterbalance to this rampant corruption, as all things in nature balance out in the end.

 

[Chomsky]

Trump and Clinton have everything to gain from shutting Bernie out in that respect. They don't want an exciting, pivotal referendum election between a Democratic Socialist and a Nationalist Capitalist (Napi), they want to ensure their somewhat tug-o-war-style Oligarchy remains in place and that real choices NEVER happen again. Somewhere between the conclusion of WWII, the Space Race and the fall of the USSR it seems as though - if not outright Nazis - a neo-fascistic syndicate seized control of this country.

Bernie and his people are merely a natural phenomenon occurring as a counterbalance to this rampant corruption, as all things in nature balance out in the end.

Are you sure, you never read the RL Chomsky?

 

[Chomsky]

Two populists to choose a President from is quite amusing, isn't it? That is getting close to the standards in the last decades of the Roman Republic.

That's quite an analogy!

But at least in Bernie's case the GOP Congress would keep him largely in-check, meaning his impact would be minimal to moderate. I personally wouldn't mind a slight bump to the left in social policy - single-payer/private provider healthcare (MedicAid/MedicAre for all) comes foremost to mind.

 

[Lafayette]

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

If there really is anything to the email scandal, surely the Dems leadership is aware, why else would she be running?

What "email scandal"? You've seen proof somewhere of a "scandal"? Or, are you hoping that proof will emerge?

Given the present notoriety of the matter in the press, what is it that the Secretary of State would know that could be divulged in an non-securitized email and would not have been outed in a blog somewhere a long time ago?

Quite certainly, if Julian Assange had had any such email-information, he would have posted it months ago.

And yet, all we have is an "internal review" of the matter. Which will blow-over in due time because the accusation aint got wings.

It is inconceivable that Madame Secretary of State would share state-secrets in an email. In person, given the circumstance, yes - but in an email?

Never - the lady is no dunce ...
_________________________________

 

[DTRAIN Designs]

Yeah - The Truth Always Catches Up

 

[Lafayette]

I personally wouldn't mind a slight bump to the left in social policy - single-payer/private provider healthcare (MedicAid/MedicAre for all) comes foremost to mind.

I'm all for a BigBump to the Left.

One that would correct the infamy of abject Income Disparity due to unfair flat-rate taxation of Upper-Incomes by introducing strictly Progressive Taxation reaching 95% at incomes beyond 1 megabuck a year.

That should get 'em by the short-n'-curlies.

Especially the banksters who would ask themselves seriously if they should be toying with our Banking System to see if the can't make quick fortune and retire to Fort Lauderdale by-the-sea ...
________________________________

 

[code1211]

When the Clinton News Network goes after Hillary like this you know it's bad.



Death by a thousand cuts.

One pundit mused that the Democrat Party would just keep this in the back pocket and make a judgement in about August if Hillary looked to be electable or not.

If she has it in the bag, they let her continue. If she looks like a loser, they have the Obama DOJ initiate the indictment, drop her and insert Biden.

Of course this assumes that the DOJ is nothing more than the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party under Obama.

This couldn't happen in America, could it?

Before it could happen, though, it would require that the media outlets controlled by the Democrat party start to prepare the party faithful.

The preparation has begun.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm all for a BigBump to the Left.

One that would correct the infamy of abject Income Disparity due to unfair flat-rate taxation of Upper-Incomes by introducing strictly Progressive Taxation reaching 95% at incomes beyond 1 megabuck a year.

That should get 'em by the short-n'-curlies.

Especially the banksters who would ask themselves seriously if they should be toying with our Banking System to see if the can't make quick fortune and retire to Fort Lauderdale by-the-sea ...
________________________________

I understand the sentiment and agree in principle, but do not agree with the high 95% tax rate at all.

But I would very much get rid of many of the upper-income loopholes though, along with some movement inducing taxation to promote corporations repatriating their overseas funds.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism itself, as long as it's well implemented, and in fact it's the best system going IMO!

 

[Abbazorkzog]

One pundit mused that the Democrat Party would just keep this in the back pocket and make a judgement in about August if Hillary looked to be electable or not.

If she has it in the bag, they let her continue. If she looks like a loser, they have the Obama DOJ initiate the indictment, drop her and insert Biden.

Of course this assumes that the DOJ is nothing more than the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party under Obama.

This couldn't happen in America, could it?

Before it could happen, though, it would require that the media outlets controlled by the Democrat party start to prepare the party faithful.

The preparation has begun.

Yup. Biden incoming.

 

[Lafayette]

THE NECESSITY OF PROGRESSIVE TAXATION

I understand the sentiment and agree in principle, but do not agree with the high 95% tax rate at all.

At the base of all our ills is Income Disparity. The market-economy that most resembles ours (the EU) has an Income Disparity almost 30% inferior to ours:


There is no way to way correct that disparity without changing the existing flat-rate taxation for progressive taxation. Whether it goes as high as I said or not is somewhat irrelevant.

What I would like to see is is some taxation modelling. That is, with a progressive-tax, what does it take to reduce the number of families living under the poverty threshold to 2% - that is, to somewhere near 6 million instead of the 50 million that exists today. The model that would answer that question, I sense, is very complex indeed.

And we need to think seriously about inheritance taxation. There is no reason whatsoever that tremendous sums of unfairly-got gains be transmitted to those who did not work one day for it. Why should lineage determine the transfer of unearned Wealth? Because "it's always been that way". (Not nearly good enough as a response.)

MY POINT

If we cannot tackle these questions, one must wonder just what is meant by "fairness" in our market-economy. Certainly, we must reward risk and effort. But, the rewards of hard-work are highly disproportionate compared to the huge amounts of Wealth earned by such a small percentage of American families.

I sense we Americans are an intrinsically fair people. I therefore cannot understand how we can look the other way confronted with the awesome Income Disparity that exists in our nation.

Bernie is wholly correct about our aberrant Income Disparity ...

 

[eohrnberger]

One pundit mused that the Democrat Party would just keep this in the back pocket and make a judgement in about August if Hillary looked to be electable or not.

If she has it in the bag, they let her continue. If she looks like a loser, they have the Obama DOJ initiate the indictment, drop her and insert Biden.

Of course this assumes that the DOJ is nothing more than the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party under Obama.

This couldn't happen in America, could it?

Before it could happen, though, it would require that the media outlets controlled by the Democrat party start to prepare the party faithful.

The preparation has begun.

Good point about Obama's DOJ.

Obama's DOJ has been little more than the legal face of his community organizer past and a political operative in service to the political agenda and ideology of this president and his administration. Exactly NOT what the Department of Justice should be all about.

The Blind Lady of Justice has the Obama's and his administration's thumbs on her scales.

 

[Lafayette]

BEING LEFT WITH THE LAUNDRY

Obama's DOJ has been little more than the legal face of his community organizer past and a political operative in service to the political agenda and ideology of this president and his administration. Exactly NOT what the Department of Justice should be all about.

Yes, he could have done better. But in his first tenure, we, the sheeple, (that is the 37% of us that voted in the 2010-midterms) cut him off at the legs by giving the HofR over to the Replicants. A PotUS cannot "execute" policy all alone - both Chambers of Congress are necessary to assist.

So, Obama made the choice in his first term to "lay off" BigMoney, simply because he needed "the muney" to get reelected. That's the way our political system works: Candidates obtain their elected positions with money borrowed from vested interests! Without the funding, they can't buy TV commercials, and in the US (almost uniquely) TV commercials "sell" candidates. (Not all countries fund their elections in this manner. See the WikiPedia article: Campaign advertising.*)

Of course, they are beholden - at least in the first-term - to those who "funded" their campaign.

The AG, in Obama's second-term, went after the Banksters and they were made to pay gigantic fines for their Toxic Waste lapses. But not one went to jail for fraud.

And the Replicants were in no mood to help Obama get the US out of the worst recessions since the 1930s. In fact, they did everything to produce his defeat in 2012. Puerile Politics did not work that time around, did they.

And America went on for another two years of no or very little job-creation at an Employment-to-population Ratio of 58.5%, down from its high-point of 63% before the Toxic Waste Mess. I repeat the Standard Economic Medicine for such circumstances, called Stimulus Spending - which the HofR steadfastly refused to past. (Out of some ignoramus reasoning about the National Debt.)

It would help, from time to time, to keep in mind that history in America is NOT five minutes ago, and Ancient History is NOT yesterday ...

When a country makes such a monumental mistake regarding economic policy, it suffers the consequences. Which meant for Americans this: from the midterms in 2010 to 2014, without Stimulus Spending, America created no jobs that put people back to work!. (Factual proof-positive from the Bureau of Labor Statistics here: here.)

My Point? Every two years, at election time, just turn-off the political-commercial nonsense on the BoobTube. Concentrate on the fundamental political/economic issues of the day. All candidates want you to think they "Wash whiter than white!".

History has proven that most do not - but we, the sheeple, are left with the dirty laundry ...

*Excerpt:

In 1964, aggressive advertising paved the way for a landslide Johnson victory. One of the first negative and maybe the most controversial commercial, perhaps of all time, was an advertisement dubbed "The Daisy Girl." The commercial showed a young girl picking the petals off a daisy. After she finishes counting, a voice off camera begins a countdown to a nuclear explosion. The ad ends with an appeal to vote Johnson, "because the stakes are too high for you to stay home." The commercial used fear and guilt, an effective advertising principle, to make people take action to protect the next generation.

_________________________________

 

[joG]

That's quite an analogy!

But at least in Bernie's case the GOP Congress would keep him largely in-check, meaning his impact would be minimal to moderate. I personally wouldn't mind a slight bump to the left in social policy - single-payer/private provider healthcare (MedicAid/MedicAre for all) comes foremost to mind.

I know that we don't agree on the cost benefit analysis of the public hand producing private goods, but everyone can err sometimes.

 

[Lafayette]

The Economist, Excerpt:

Ever since Mrs Clinton’s e-mail server became a matter of public debate last year, she has said she broke no rules. To the contrary, the State Department report says she was under an “obligation” to seek clearance for her e-mail system, did not, and it would have been denied if she had done, due to “security risks”.

Her e-mail rig was not a secret, exactly. The report notes “some awareness” of it among senior diplomats. It points instead to the impunity with which Mrs Clinton’s affairs were handled. When two IT whizzes expressed fears that her e-mails might not be preserved, their boss “instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal e-mail system again.”

In Mrs Clinton’s defence, the report notes that the department has “longstanding, systemic weaknesses” in its record-keeping. Colin Powell, Mrs Clinton’s predecessor but one, also used a private e-mail account and broke record-keeping rules. Yet the report suggests he had more of an excuse; it was hard to send e-mails outside the State Department’s system in his time.

And, there was a war going on when Powell was doing it. Nonetheless, Clinton is different, isn't she. She's now a presidential candidate and all the muck that one can rake-up on her is an integral "part of the game".

Now lemme see, who's more at fault? Clinton and her non-securitized computer or Trump and his Business Failures:


Dunno, after all business failures make for great "tax write-offs" ... !
_____________________________________

 

[eohrnberger]

BEING LEFT WITH THE LAUNDRY



Yes, he could have done better. But in his first tenure, we, the sheeple, (that is the 37% of us that voted in the 2010-midterms) cut him off at the legs by giving the HofR over to the Replicants. A PotUS cannot "execute" policy all alone - both Chambers of Congress are necessary to assist.

This is exactly when leadership in the role of POTUS needs to take place. Unfortunately Obama has no idea what that really means, and was/is woefully ill-equipped in that regard.

The first 2 years, Obama didn't even have an opposition congress to content with. Obama took joy and every chance to insult anyone that didn't agree with him. That's not leadership, that's just partisan rancor and partisan politics, all of which is remembered later.

The following years wasn't any different a situation than when any other POTUS has to deal with an opposition congress. Previous presidents found ways to work with the opposition congress, common ground on which to make progress. Unable to move forward on this agenda, he resorted to 'his phone and his pen' and issued a stream of executive orders that didn't deal with administrative matters so much as a 'make fit' replacement what should have been congressional legislation, many of which were in fact struck down in the courts, which should be taken as an indicator of how far afield they were from what they normally shuold have been.

So, Obama made the choice in his first term to "lay off" BigMoney, simply because he needed "the muney" to get reelected. That's the way our political system works: Candidates obtain their elected positions with money borrowed from vested interests! Without the funding, they can't buy TV commercials, and in the US (almost uniquely) TV commercials "sell" candidates. (Not all countries fund their elections in this manner. See the WikiPedia article: Campaign advertising.*)

Of course, they are beholden - at least in the first-term - to those who "funded" their campaign.

The AG, in Obama's second-term, went after the Banksters and they were made to pay gigantic fines for their Toxic Waste lapses. But not one went to jail for fraud.

And the Replicants were in no mood to help Obama get the US out of the worst recessions since the 1930s. In fact, they did everything to produce his defeat in 2012. Puerile Politics did not work that time around, did they.

Previous presidents found ways to work with the opposition congress, common ground on which to make progress. Obama, with his distinct lack of leadership was just unable to bring himself to do so. All the insults Obama delivered came back to haunt him, and he didn't like it, and only took a harder combative stance with even more insulting. Well actions have consequences.

And America went on for another two years of no or very little job-creation at an Employment-to-population Ratio of 58.5%, down from its high-point of 63% before the Toxic Waste Mess. I repeat the Standard Economic Medicine for such circumstances, called Stimulus Spending - which the HofR steadfastly refused to past. (Out of some ignoramus reasoning about the National Debt.)

It would help, from time to time, to keep in mind that history in America is NOT five minutes ago, and Ancient History is NOT yesterday ...

When a country makes such a monumental mistake regarding economic policy, it suffers the consequences. Which meant for Americans this: from the midterms in 2010 to 2014, without Stimulus Spending, America created no jobs that put people back to work!. (Factual proof-positive from the Bureau of Labor Statistics here: here.)

My Point? Every two years, at election time, just turn-off the political-commercial nonsense on the BoobTube. Concentrate on the fundamental political/economic issues of the day. All candidates want you to think they "Wash whiter than white!".

History has proven that most do not - but we, the sheeple, are left with the dirty laundry ...

*Excerpt: _________________________________

On this we agree. It is the nation and it's electorate that are left with the dirty laundry. In Obama's case the dirty laundry is a near doubling of the national debt, with the proportional increase in debt service costs, which, between this and social program spending increases, is squeezing out nearly all other spending priorities.

I see Obama's presidency a failed presidency and Obama as a failed president. He simply did not / does not have the leadership necessary to be / have been a successful one. I recognized this in him at the time of both of his campaigns. It's a shame that many more didn't also recognize it.

 

[Bootlace]

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING



What "email scandal"? You've seen proof somewhere of a "scandal"? Or, are you hoping that proof will emerge?

Given the present notoriety of the matter in the press, what is it that the Secretary of State would know that could be divulged in an non-securitized email and would not have been outed in a blog somewhere a long time ago?

Quite certainly, if Julian Assange had had any such email-information, he would have posted it months ago.

And yet, all we have is an "internal review" of the matter. Which will blow-over in due time because the accusation aint got wings.

It is inconceivable that Madame Secretary of State would share state-secrets in an email. In person, given the circumstance, yes - but in an email?

Never - the lady is no dunce ...
_________________________________

It has been in the news that 104 emails containing sensitive information were authored by her on her server.

 

[blackjack50]

Could happen. If there really is anything to the email scandal, surely the Dems leadership is aware, why else would she be running? Maybe to slingshot Bernie past trump?

Hillary a team player? Unlikely.

 

[countryboy]

It has been in the news that 104 emails containing sensitive information were authored by her on her server.

Not to mention, the very act of even having a private server, is, in and of itself, a crime.

 

[Bootlace]

Not to mention, the very act of even having a private server, is, in and of itself, a crime.

Depending on what was recovered from it, or discovered from the outside company that backed it up, it has the potential of being Pandora's box of crime and embarrassment.

 

[Lafayette]

BANKRUPT THIS!

It has been in the news that 104 emails containing sensitive information were authored by her on her server.

Colin Powel had probably even more during wartime.

I admire General Powel, but I don't understand - in a context where it is well-known that the Federal government IS-systems (with the exception of the NSA!) are pathetic - why are we paying particular attention to Hillary Clinton?

Has she presented herself as Snow White, or is it because she is a woman that she must prove herself "beyond reproach". Whilst a consummate businessman goes from bankruptcy-to-bankruptcy with alacrity and a broad smile.

And, you will explain, please, why this has anything whatsoever to do with her capacity to be a PotUS. Which is, after all, the reason this "issue" has arisen.

Is it really any worse than a candidate who has had a sizable number of corporate failures ... which would indicate, to me at the very least, that the person has a problem with "good business sense".

ABOUT BANKRUPTCY

NB: Donald Trump Proves What's Wrong With Bankruptcy Laws in America. Excerpt:

In America, people with lots of money can easily avoid the consequences of bad bets and big losses by cashing out at the first sign of trouble. Bankruptcy laws protect them. But workers who move to a place like Atlantic City for a job, invest in a home there, and build their skills have no such protection. Jobs vanish, skills are suddenly irrelevant and home values plummet. They’re stuck with the mess. Bankruptcy was designed so people could start over. But these days, the only ones starting over are big corporations, wealthy moguls and Wall Street bankers, who have had enough political clout to shape bankruptcy laws (like many other laws) to their needs.

One of the most basic of all economic issues is what to do when someone can’t pay what they owe. The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) authorizes Congress to enact “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States,” and Congress has done so repeatedly. In the last few decades, these changes have reflected the demands of giant corporations, Wall Street banks, big developers and major credit card companies who wanted to make it harder for average people to declare bankruptcy but easier for themselves to do the same.

The granddaddy of all failures to repay what was owed occurred in September 2008 when Lehman Brothers went into the largest bankruptcy in history, with more than $691 billion of assets and far more in liabilities. Some commentators (including yours truly) urged then that the rest of Wall Street be forced to grapple with their problems in bankruptcy as well. But Lehman’s bankruptcy so shook the Street that Henry Paulson, Jr., George W. Bush’s outgoing secretary of the treasury, and, before that, head of Goldman Sachs, persuaded Congress to authorize several hundred billion dollars of funding to protect the other big banks from going bankrupt. Paulson didn’t explicitly state that big banks were too big to fail. They were, rather, too big to be reorganized under bankruptcy—which would, in Paulson’s view, have threatened the entire financial system.

The real burden of Wall Street’s near meltdown fell on homeowners. As home prices plummeted, many found themselves owing more on their mortgages than their homes were worth, and unable to refinance. Yet chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code (whose drafting was largely the work of the financial industry) prevents homeowners from declaring bankruptcy on mortgage loans for their primary residence.

MY POINT

If we cannot see the BigMoney manipulation of laws to protect their own jobs, whilst we, the sheeple, must submit to no protection whatsoever (Law of the Jungle), then ... we are bunch of damn fools!

And we are about to elect a man who has proven to be a skillful master of bankruptcy laws as PotUS ... !
____________________