Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[Keukasmallies]

Wow, and I thought dead man's switch meant Hill'ry switching w/ BHO come next January...since both are at least figuratively brain dead on most issues.

[meazza]

 

Apparently she had her team use something called BleachBit to flush her emails entirely, but FBI was still able to retrieve them.

 

Such a mess.

 

And yet, there is your faithful left, from baskin to birdog, ready to pull the lever for her.

 

Hey man baskins busy making it rain. Don't you know he's a very successful person?

 

Because nothing says insecurity more than having to boast your wealth and status on a message board

[B-Man]

Defenders of Clinton miss the point: Access to her for Clinton Foundation donors was itself the favor.

Do you know the old wheelbarrow joke? It’s truly funny only to grandpas and the grandkids they tell it to, so I won’t bother with the elaborate setup. For years a factory worker pushes a wheelbarrow full of straw past a security guard on his way out. Suspicious that the guy is stealing something, the guard looks in the straw but can’t find anything. Finally, when the worker is retiring, the guard asks, “I know you’ve been stealing something — can you tell me what it is?

The guy smiles and says, “Wheelbarrows.”

That joke keeps popping into my head whenever I hear Hillary Clinton’s defenders say there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo in the fresh batch of e-mails released this week. According to many Republican critics, the trove provides fresh evidence that the Clinton Foundation was, in Donald Trump’s words, a “pay-to-play” scheme, selling access to and favors from the secretary of state.

The Clinton team says there’s no proof of that. Both Clinton and many of her critics can get ahead of the facts, though in opposite directions. But one thing is clear: Clinton lied. That’s not shocking; she’s famous for doing that

Just last month, Clinton said, “There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.” During her confirmation hearings, members of the Obama administration and Congress extracted assurances from Clinton that there would be a high wall between her State Department and her family’s foundation. It turned out it was more like a turnstile.

Former Clinton Foundation official Doug Band would contact Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest aide, when he needed a “favor” for a “friend” (his words) — and the friend would in many cases be a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. Radio host Hugh Hewitt tartly describes the Clinton Foundation as providing “concierge service” to the State Department. While everyone but ardent Clinton surrogates can agree that the whole thing looks bad, there’s ample disagreement about whether there’s any fire under all the smoke. The Clinton campaign insists that there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo in any of the newly released e-mails. In other words, there isn’t an e-mail saying something like, “If you donate $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, you can be ambassador to Kenya. For $20 million, we’ll exempt you from the ban on importing baby elephant ivory.”

To which the obvious response is, “Duh.” Some things just aren’t put in writing.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439401/

[4merper4mer]

 

Former Clinton Foundation official Doug Band would contact Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest aide,

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439401/

 

 

 

 

Hillary's closet aide? I don't think so.

[Joe Miner]

 

Defenders of Clinton miss the point: Access to her for Clinton Foundation donors was itself the favor.

 

Do you know the old wheelbarrow joke? Its truly funny only to grandpas and the grandkids they tell it to, so I wont bother with the elaborate setup. For years a factory worker pushes a wheelbarrow full of straw past a security guard on his way out. Suspicious that the guy is stealing something, the guard looks in the straw but cant find anything. Finally, when the worker is retiring, the guard asks, I know youve been stealing something can you tell me what it is?

 

The guy smiles and says, Wheelbarrows.

 

 

That joke keeps popping into my head whenever I hear Hillary Clintons defenders say theres no evidence of a quid pro quo in the fresh batch of e-mails released this week. According to many Republican critics, the trove provides fresh evidence that the Clinton Foundation was, in Donald Trumps words, a pay-to-play scheme, selling access to and favors from the secretary of state.

 

The Clinton team says theres no proof of that. Both Clinton and many of her critics can get ahead of the facts, though in opposite directions. But one thing is clear: Clinton lied. Thats not shocking; shes famous for doing that

 

 

Just last month, Clinton said, There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation. During her confirmation hearings, members of the Obama administration and Congress extracted assurances from Clinton that there would be a high wall between her State Department and her familys foundation. It turned out it was more like a turnstile.

 

Former Clinton Foundation official Doug Band would contact Huma Abedin, Hillarys closest aide, when he needed a favor for a friend (his words) and the friend would in many cases be a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. Radio host Hugh Hewitt tartly describes the Clinton Foundation as providing concierge service to the State Department. While everyone but ardent Clinton surrogates can agree that the whole thing looks bad, theres ample disagreement about whether theres any fire under all the smoke. The Clinton campaign insists that theres no evidence of a quid pro quo in any of the newly released e-mails. In other words, there isnt an e-mail saying something like, If you donate $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, you can be ambassador to Kenya. For $20 million, well exempt you from the ban on importing baby elephant ivory.

 

To which the obvious response is, Duh. Some things just arent put in writing.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439401/

 

 

At a minimum it's called a conflict of interest and in the private sector she would be fired.

[B-Man]

ANALYSYS: TRUE. . . . . Clinton Is Making Her Trust Problem Worse.

 

Bloomberg’s left-leaning Al Hunt:

 

Her inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation,” the influential liberal columnist Jonathan Chait wrote last week in New York magazine, shows she “has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.” He added, “If the Clinton Foundation is not leveraging the Clinton name, it has no purpose.”

At the same time, I spoke with a prominent Clinton insider, a person of integrity and high ethical standards. He said shutting the Clinton Foundation would hurt millions of people around the world and would be giving in to right-wing critics who will find something else to seize on.

I agree that right-wingers like Representative Jason Chaffetz, Senator Tom Cotton or former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — who seemed to grant himself a medical degree last week when he ludicrously diagnosed Clinton with health problems — will find something. Much of it will be phony.

That is no reason to give them ammunition. Politifact and Jonathan Chait are not part of what Clinton once famously called the “vast right wing conspiracy.”

 

 

 

 

It’s a safe prediction that Clinton will continue to hand out ammunition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nanker]

Well this is certainly interestin'. Apparently in March of this year a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Hillary for President.

AND the Klan says they've given over $20,000 to her campaign.

 

Gee. I don't remember seeing any reference to that endorsement in Hillary's speech yesterday.

Guess hate groups going mainstream aren't a bad thing, as long as they're donating to the right campaign.

[B-Man]

"If only I had given to the Clinton Foundation!"

[snafu]

 

Defenders of Clinton miss the point: Access to her for Clinton Foundation donors was itself the favor.

Do you know the old wheelbarrow joke? It’s truly funny only to grandpas and the grandkids they tell it to, so I won’t bother with the elaborate setup. For years a factory worker pushes a wheelbarrow full of straw past a security guard on his way out. Suspicious that the guy is stealing something, the guard looks in the straw but can’t find anything. Finally, when the worker is retiring, the guard asks, “I know you’ve been stealing something — can you tell me what it is?

The guy smiles and says, “Wheelbarrows.”

That joke keeps popping into my head whenever I hear Hillary Clinton’s defenders say there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo in the fresh batch of e-mails released this week. According to many Republican critics, the trove provides fresh evidence that the Clinton Foundation was, in Donald Trump’s words, a “pay-to-play” scheme, selling access to and favors from the secretary of state.

The Clinton team says there’s no proof of that. Both Clinton and many of her critics can get ahead of the facts, though in opposite directions. But one thing is clear: Clinton lied. That’s not shocking; she’s famous for doing that

 

Just last month, Clinton said, “There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.” During her confirmation hearings, members of the Obama administration and Congress extracted assurances from Clinton that there would be a high wall between her State Department and her family’s foundation. It turned out it was more like a turnstile.

Former Clinton Foundation official Doug Band would contact Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest aide, when he needed a “favor” for a “friend” (his words) — and the friend would in many cases be a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. Radio host Hugh Hewitt tartly describes the Clinton Foundation as providing “concierge service” to the State Department. While everyone but ardent Clinton surrogates can agree that the whole thing looks bad, there’s ample disagreement about whether there’s any fire under all the smoke. The Clinton campaign insists that there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo in any of the newly released e-mails. In other words, there isn’t an e-mail saying something like, “If you donate $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, you can be ambassador to Kenya. For $20 million, we’ll exempt you from the ban on importing baby elephant ivory.”

To which the obvious response is, “Duh.” Some things just aren’t put in writing.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439401/

 

 

 

All this seems pretty much true. The thing about it is that it won't affect Hillary's numbers. Either (1) it will get a "ho hum, we already knew this about her" response, or (2) it is too esoteric for most voters, or (3) it won't move her diehard supporters away from her. There are probably a dozen more reasons.

[4merper4mer]

ANALYSYS: TRUE. . . . . Clinton Is Making Her Trust Problem Worse.

 

Bloomberg’s left-leaning Al Hunt:

 

 

Her inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation,” the influential liberal columnist Jonathan Chait wrote last week in New York magazine, shows she “has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.” He added, “If the Clinton Foundation is not leveraging the Clinton name, it has no purpose.”

At the same time, I spoke with a prominent Clinton insider, a person of integrity and high ethical standards. He said shutting the Clinton Foundation would hurt millions of people around the world and would be giving in to right-wing critics who will find something else to seize on.

I agree that right-wingers like Representative Jason Chaffetz, Senator Tom Cotton or former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — who seemed to grant himself a medical degree last week when he ludicrously diagnosed Clinton with health problems — will find something. Much of it will be phony.

That is no reason to give them ammunition. Politifact and Jonathan Chait are not part of what Clinton once famously called the “vast right wing conspiracy.”

 

 

 

It’s a safe prediction that Clinton will continue to hand out ammunition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the same time, I spoke with a prominent Clinton insider, a person of integrity and high ethical standards.

 

Does that even seem possible?

[keepthefaith]

"At the same time, I spoke with a prominent Clinton insider, a person of integrity and high ethical standards. He said shutting the Clinton Foundation would hurt millions of people around the world and would be giving in to right-wing critics who will find something else to seize on."

 

 

Why not have the foundation write checks to all those groups in need? Empty the bank account. That should help these needy groups far more than the slow drip of money that trickles from the foundation now. The Clintons can call it a charitable stimulus.

[Nanker]

[/dev/null]

So when George W Bush cites Colin Powell's testimony before Congress and the UN Security Council as justification for invading Iraq, it's part of a grand political conspiracy

 

But when Hiliary Clinton cites Colin Powell's off the record comments about data retention, it's a matter of public record and I'm a raysis misogagnis, mysoga, a fuquit i'm sexist whiteboy for doubting her?

[B-Man]

Hillary’s worst scandal is that she really thinks she’s clean.

 

 

 

 

EMAILS SHOW CLINTON OBSESSED WITH SLEEP, “EXOTIC DRUGS.”

 

Flashback: Nets Skeptical of McCain Health in 2008, Worried About Mental Fitness.

[DC Tom]

Flashback: Nets Skeptical of McCain Health in 2008, Worried About Mental Fitness.

 

 

 

In May of 2008 ABC’s Charles Gibson, who was the anchor of World News at the time, wonder if McCain had sustained any “psychological damage” from his time in a North Vietnamese prison camp.

 

Let me be the first to openly wonder if Hillary is suffering from PTSD after running for her life from sniper fire in Bosnia.

[Keukasmallies]

Probably, except in her case PTSD also stands for Permantly Tiresome Simpleminded Democrat.

[/dev/null]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/27/facebook-censors-video-exposing-pbs-cutting-hillarytpp-criticism-jill-stein-interview/

 

Its almost like media outlets don't want people to know there are alternatives to Hiliary

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

BYRON YORK: HILLARY CLINTON BLEACHBITS HER PAST.

 

 

 

 

 

JOHN LOTT: Sorry, Hillary: Trump’s policies are clearly better for blacks.

[Chef Jim]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/27/facebook-censors-video-exposing-pbs-cutting-hillarytpp-criticism-jill-stein-interview/

 

Its almost like media outlets don't want people to know there are alternatives to Hiliary

My wife read me a poll from the WSJ this morning. More than 50% wanted a third party candidate. Ummmm we have a couple already.

[keepthefaith]

My wife read me a poll from the WSJ this morning. More than 50% wanted a third party candidate. Ummmm we have a couple already.

Yes but they aren't named Bernie, Ted, John or Marco.