Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[B-Man]

WASH POST, Chris Cizilla: Can We Stop Talking About Hillary's Health Now?

 

—“McCain’s Health: What It Means,” Chris Cillizza, the Washington Post, May 23, 2008.

 

Hypocrite.

 

 

 

 

 

USA TODAY COLUMN: ‘Crooked Hillary’ nickname isn’t going away: The new FBI information suggests Clinton is either criminal, criminally incompetent or both.

 

 

 

 

 

Ethics wall between State, Clinton Foundation didn’t extend to staff............................Cough, cough

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Shouldn’t Step Down From Foundation Until After I Win.....................................cough , cough

[DC Tom]

Here's an interesting little tidbit regarding the Benghazi hearings -

 

Emails suggest Clinton aide stage-managed Benghazi hearing questions

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/06/wired-it-emails-suggest-clinton-aide-stage-managed-benghazi-hearing-questions.html

 

That's news? I thought that was known all along.

[B-Man]

An updated....................more High def Clinton media shot.

 

 

 

[Prickly Pete]

This stuff isn't funny to me, it's terrifying. I can't believe the blatant coordination of the media with the Clinton campaign. How can any voters just accept this from a candidate, and from the MSM?

 

Tell me things haven't always been skewed like this? It's sickening.

 

Didn't Nixon get chased out of office for activities way less corrupt, and didn't the media at that time aggressively condemn him?

Edited September 6, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[DC Tom]

This stuff isn't funny to me, it's terrifying. I can't believe the blatant coordination of the media with the Clinton campaign. How can any voters just accept this from a candidate, and from the MSM?

 

Tell me things haven't always been skewed like this? It's sickening.

 

The media's always had a hand in determining who gets elected. But I can't recall them ever actively joining a candidate in campaigning.

 

 

Didn't Nixon get chased out of office for activities way less corrupt, and didn't the media at that time aggressively condemn him?

 

18 minutes of tape, vs. how many emails deleted? Yeah, in a just, consistent, non-hypocritical world, Hillary would be gone from the public eye. Just imagine what she could do, claiming executive privilege according to to the standards set by Bush and Obama?

[Dante]

This stuff isn't funny to me, it's terrifying. I can't believe the blatant coordination of the media with the Clinton campaign. How can any voters just accept this from a candidate, and from the MSM?

 

Tell me things haven't always been skewed like this? It's sickening.

 

Didn't Nixon get chased out of office for activities way less corrupt, and didn't the media at that time aggressively condemn him?

It's way, way worse than it was 20 or 30 years ago. The radical left is far more pervasive in the media, academia and government. McCarthy was right. We needed a 12 more of him weeding these subversive rats out.

[Prickly Pete]

 

The media's always had a hand in determining who gets elected. But I can't recall them ever actively joining a candidate in campaigning.

 

 

 

18 minutes of tape, vs. how many emails deleted? Yeah, in a just, consistent, non-hypocritical world, Hillary would be gone from the public eye. Just imagine what she could do, claiming executive privilege according to to the standards set by Bush and Obama?

 

 

It's mind boggling that anyone can accept what is being shoveled out. It's blatant, but Hillary supporters "want to believe", and will turn a blind eye to all of it.

 

If someone tells me "Hillary is corrupt, but Trump is worse", I can at least see they aren't just turning away. But that's not what I hear from most of them. They just deny that Hillary is anything but a great woman, trying to make the world a better place, and any attacks are motivated by racism, and misogyny.

[keepthefaith]

 

Didn't Nixon get chased out of office for activities way less corrupt, and didn't the media at that time aggressively condemn him?

Yes and Nixon was simply guilty of covering up a campaign hotel room break-in which to me is akin to Clinton's campaign hacking Bernie's campaign.

[Prickly Pete]

The way the media covers for her is disturbing, because it makes me think "What do all the people/corporations etc, have at stake if Hillary loses, and Trump becomes president?"

 

Her support is basically across the board from Corporations, Media, both political parties....

Edited September 6, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Deranged Rhino]

Was there a consequence for this proven quid pro quo for the right ?

 

It can't be proven, which is GG's point. Citizen's United used that exact logic in the majority opinion, and the left for years has (rightfully) laughed at that logic... but now they're embracing it because it's protecting their candidate. It's text book hypocrisy, just more blatant than usual.

 

And in terms of consequences, we're living in the consequences of that logic. We don't have a functioning democratic republic anymore precisely because of logic like this. We support the continuation of that kind of naivety at our peril.

[IDBillzFan]

It's mind boggling that anyone can accept what is being shoveled out. It's blatant, but Hillary supporters "want to believe", and will turn a blind eye to all of it.

 

It's really not mind boggling if you spend any time reading or listening to leftists.

 

First you need to understand these are people who are convinced that intelligence is measured almost exclusively by elegantly framed pieces of paper. If you don't have one of these pieces of paper, you simply are not as intelligent as them, and as a result your opinion means nothing.

 

Ironically, these are people who simply aren't smart enough to understand how a woman who destroys the lives of her husband's sexual conquests is anything but a role model for women.

 

These are people who believe only the government can fix everyone's problems, and it starts with taking money from the rich as dictated by a person who literally launders foreign funds from terrorist states through a billion-dollar foundation that does less charity work than the person you see serving food to homeless people.

 

These are people who will get mad at you if you so much as joke about a homosexual, but will defend to their death the leaders who take money from countries that hang gays in the streets, because they believe you are more dangerous than terrorists, and actually will call you a terrorist because you aren't one of them.

 

See gatorman, baskin, ...lybob/gatorman, etc. They're all "with her" because while they are a lot of things, independent thinkers isn't one of them.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

This stuff isn't funny to me, it's terrifying. I can't believe the blatant coordination of the media with the Clinton campaign. How can any voters just accept this from a candidate, and from the MSM?

 

Tell me things haven't always been skewed like this? It's sickening.

 

Didn't Nixon get chased out of office for activities way less corrupt, and didn't the media at that time aggressively condemn him?

Umm in my opinion I started to take notice and question the media's motives when I first saw the stories that Bush was literally being blamed for allowing Katrina to happen because he was racist.

 

That was my awakening point and since then I've noticed it becoming increasingly partisan to today, where it has openly become the ministry of progressive propaganda.

Yes and Nixon was simply guilty of covering up a campaign hotel room break-in which to me is akin to Clinton's campaign hacking Bernie's campaign.

Watergate, is literally 1 day of Clinton's life. The most notorious scandal wouldn't even register when compared to a week with Hillary. But it's ignored by the media

[grinreaper]

http://observer.com/2016/09/emailgate-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-gamma/

 

Last week’s Federal Bureau of Investigation release of materials relating to their investigation of Hillary Clinton has reignited the political firestorm surrounding EmailGate. How the Democratic nominee mishandled her emails while she was secretary of state is again front-page news, which is bad news for Hillary. Particularly because the FBI’s data dump demonstrates clearly that Clinton is either dumb or dishonest—and perhaps both.

 

Although Team Clinton has responded in their customary fashion, with lawyerly lies and evasions—nothing was “marked” classified, this is really about over-classification, classification is too complex for anybody to understand anyway—the FBI’s assessment has thoroughly debunked all of them. Hillary’s professed inability to even recognize classified information, thinking the “C” (for Confidential) meant alphabetical order, will now enter the pantheon of laughable Clinton infamy, alongside her husband’s debating the meaning of “is” while under oath.

 

The Bureau’s assessment establishes once and for all that there was classified information—and lots of it—on Hillary’s email server and bunches of Blackberries, many of which she lost. In fact, the FBI concluded that roughly 2,000 of her “unclassified” emails included information that was Confidential, the lowest level of classification.

 

The FBI examined 81 Clinton email chains, determining that they included classified information relating to the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, NSA, and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency or NGA. In other words, Hillary compromised classified materials representing the full range of American espionage: human intelligence or HUMINT from CIA, signals intelligence or SIGINT from NSA, and imagery intelligence or IMINT from NGA.

 

Of those 81 classified email chains, the FBI assessed that 37 of them included Secret information while eight included Top Secret information. Worse, seven email chains included Special Access Program or SAP information, which is tightly protected by the Intelligence Community and shared on a restricted, need-to-know basis only.

 

Three more email chains contained Sensitive Compartmented Information or SCI, which was almost certainly SIGINT from NSA. SCI always requires special protection and handling. In fact, you’re only allowed to access it inside a specially-built Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, a SCIF (pronounced “skiff”) in spy-speak. Any exposure of SCI brings severe penalties—at least if you’re not named Clinton.

Edited September 7, 2016 by grinreaper

[IDBillzFan]

This is why we mock you, media.

 

 

And this is why we mock liberals...

 

Judge Appointed by Barry Gives Hillary Enough Ice To Skate Until After Election

[Magox]

To be fair, Chris Cillizza is one of the most objective down the middle journalists/arbiters I've read.

[Prickly Pete]

To be fair, Chris Cillizza is one of the most objective down the middle journalists/arbiters I've read.

 

Then you need to broaden your reading sources.

[Doc]

To be fair, Chris Cillizza is one of the most objective down the middle journalists/arbiters I've read.

 

Not in this case.

[B-Man]

This is why we mock you, media.

 

 

 

And this is why we mock liberals...

 

 

 

 

Behind every Double Standard is a Single Standard:.............................. Elect Democrats.

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton Sees No Problem With Chelsea Staying At Foundation

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-sees-no-problem-with-chelsea-staying-at-foun?utm_term=.rlkQYeqQ9

[snafu]

Latest CNN poll has The Donald ahead of LIAR by 2 points. Interesting.

Looks like she coughed up her lead!

[KD in CA]

The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting About Hillary Clinton

But it would be journalistic malpractice of the highest order if the billions of dollars received by the Clintons — both personally and though their various entities — were not rigorously scrutinized and exposed in detail by reporters. That’s exactly what they ought to be doing. The fact that quid pro quos cannot be definitively proven does not remotely negate the urgency of this journalism. That’s because quid pro quos by their nature elude such proof (can anyone prove that Republicans steadfastly support Israel and low taxes because of the millions they get from Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers, or that the Florida attorney general decided not to prosecute Trump because his foundation and his daughter donated to her?). Beyond quid quo pros, the Clintons’ constant, pioneering merger of massive private wealth and political power and influence is itself highly problematic. Nobody forced them to take millions of dollars from the Saudis and Goldman Sachs tycoons and corporations with vested interests in the State Department; having chosen to do so with great personal benefit, they are now confronting the consequences in how the public views such behavior.

That Donald Trump is an uber-nationalist, bigotry-exploiting demagogue and unstable extremist does not remotely entitle Hillary Clinton to waltz into the Oval Office free of aggressive journalistic scrutiny. Nor does Trump’s extremism constitute a defense to anything that she’s done.

 

 

And the cover that they are only concerned with stopping the 'dangerous' Trump is pure bullsh--. Shitbags like Krugman would be writing the same stuff if it was Jeb Bush or Cruz or anyone else on the GOP ticket. Just like he's been doing for decades.