Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[reddogblitz]

 

She's Lumbergh's mistress.

 

Lumbergh does it while drinking coffee.

[Deranged Rhino]

[Chef Jim]

Lumberg !@#$ed her.

[B-Man]

The truth is in their actions ............not their words.

 

Clinton puts pressure on Sanders to agree to new debate: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debate/index.html …

 

 

Secure candidates, don't beg for more debates at the last minute.

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton stopped by a bowling alley in Iowa today, but it wasn't a photo-op: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jan/27/2016-presidential-campaign-live-donald-trump-megyn-kelly-debate-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton?page=with:block-56a93b9ae4b0990ef7a5140c#block-56a93b9ae4b0990ef7a5140c …

 

 

 

 

Will Hillary Clinton’s brand of feminism and patronizing of men turn voters off? - http://washex.am/1NAS9xY

[B-Man]

HILLARY TRYING THE “SORRY IF YOU WERE OFFENDED” NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY ANGLE:

 

Clinton Regrets ‘Uproar and Commotion’ Over Her Insecure Email System.

 

“In other words, the reason her unique email arrangement was a mistake is not that she mishandled classified information (making it easier to hack into, possibly even exposing intelligence assets on the ground) but because it got her in trouble.”

 

 

 

 

 

Please, please make this the centerpiece of your campaign

 

Hillary ClintonVerified account ‏@HillaryClinton 2h2 hours ago

The NRA has called the shots long enough. @SenBlumenthal and @RepAdamSchiff on why we need to repeal gun immunity: http://hrc.io/1WOMziF

 

Good luck in Ohio and Pennsylvania.................

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

Will Hillary Clinton’s brand of feminism and patronizing of men turn voters off? - http://washex.am/1NAS9xY

Perhaps, but not as much as her utter lack of an economic vision and her obtuse embrace of the Obama legacy....which is failing on all fronts.

 

Everybody wants to vote their wallet. It's the economy, stupid. Women voters want financial security and security security a lot more than anything Planned Parenthood has to offer.

 

Men don't care what an old bag has to say about them. Hell, men don't even care what a hot POA has to say about them. Men care about winning. Look at this site, predominately male, and half of it wanted to fire Rex and Doug....for not winning.

 

All the R has to do is say "I'm gonna make better deals with our friends and better deals with our acquaintences, which will increase the money coming into the US, and, I'm going to protect our(not your, very important key word when speaking to women) families from our enemies no matter where and who they are.", and that gets women. Then, all he has to say "I'm tired of losing. Who else is tired of this country losing at everything we do? It's far past time to start winning again, and voting for (the D) means more losing. We've done enough listening to them, now It's time to fire them." and that gets men.

 

These two statements aren't mutually exclusive, or even contradictory. And yeah, this is Trump's message, and this is why he's up where he is.

 

The best thing today:

 

Trump has picked a fight with FOX news over the debate, but then shows up on O'Reilly the day before? Genius. Pure Genius. He can't los, and he still gets his insulation from the MSM at the same time.I wouldn't be surprised if he decided not to do the debate long ago, was just waiting for an opening exploit.

[B-Man]

The Hill ‏@thehill 2h2 hours ago

BREAKING: State Dept to withhold thousands of Clinton emails until after NH primary http://hill.cm/CNQsgJl pic.twitter.com/2VTdWpZjPx

 

[Deranged Rhino]

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/27/the-u-s-intervention-in-libya-was-such-a-smashing-success-that-a-sequel-is-coming/

[B-Man]

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/27/the-u-s-intervention-in-libya-was-such-a-smashing-success-that-a-sequel-is-coming/

 

 

From DR's link;

 

“We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton sociopathically boasted about the mob rape and murder of Qaddafi while guffawing on 60 Minutes.

 

Since then, Libya — so predictably — has all but completely collapsed, spending years now drowning in instability, anarchy, fractured militia rule, sectarian conflict, and violent extremism.

 

{snip}

 

Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the U.S. bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it. Now the U.S. is about to seize on the effects of its own bombing campaign in Libya to justify an entirely new bombing campaign in that same country. The New York Times editorial page, which supported the original bombing of Libya, yesterday labeled plans for the new bombing campaign “deeply troubling,”

 

In particular, “this significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops” (the original Libya bombing not only took place without Congressional approval, but was ordered by Obama after Congress rejected such authorization

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

From DR's link;

 

“We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton sociopathically boasted about the mob rape and murder of Qaddafi while guffawing on 60 Minutes.

 

Since then, Libya — so predictably — has all but completely collapsed, spending years now drowning in instability, anarchy, fractured militia rule, sectarian conflict, and violent extremism.

 

{snip}

 

Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the U.S. bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it. Now the U.S. is about to seize on the effects of its own bombing campaign in Libya to justify an entirely new bombing campaign in that same country. The New York Times editorial page, which supported the original bombing of Libya, yesterday labeled plans for the new bombing campaign “deeply troubling,”

 

In particular, “this significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops” (the original Libya bombing not only took place without Congressional approval, but was ordered by Obama after Congress rejected such authorization

 

Thanks for that, meant to include quotes.

[B-Man]

JOHN SCHINDLER: Why Hillary’s EmailGate Matters: In casually disregarding basic security, Secretary Clinton harmed our country and helped our adversaries.

 

 

Her disregard wasn’t casual. It was a conscious and involved scheme to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, and possibly also Obama Administration scrutiny of her actions.

 

She put the nation as a whole at risk, along with individual lives of intelligence sources, for political reasons: to avoid accountability.

[DC Tom]

JOHN SCHINDLER: Why Hillary’s EmailGate Matters: In casually disregarding basic security, Secretary Clinton harmed our country and helped our adversaries.

 

 

Her disregard wasn’t casual. It was a conscious and involved scheme to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, and possibly also Obama Administration scrutiny of her actions.

 

She put the nation as a whole at risk, along with individual lives of intelligence sources, for political reasons: to avoid accountability.

 

Not "administration scrutiny." Congressional scrutiny.

 

Is anyone ever going to understand how she undermined the constitutional basis of our government?

[Nanker]

Look Tom, she was the Secretary of State... the God Damned Secretary of State. No wonder she had her breasts in a wringer about that appointment all along and never took it seriously. She wasn't even named the friggin' Administrative Assistant of State - NO! She was the God Damned Secretary of State. How callous and demeaning of B. O. sexist, misogynist mother !@#$er. You expect her to take that lying down? And as for Congress, the only thing they're good for is paying the bills for her travel and expenses. And if the Clinton Family Fortune Foundation is any measure of her needs, Congress is nothin' but a pack of farging pikers!

 

 

Not "administration scrutiny." Congressional scrutiny.

 

Is anyone ever going to understand how she undermined the constitutional basis of our government?

[3rdnlng]

Look Tom, she was the Secretary of State... the God Damned Secretary of State. No wonder she had her breasts in a wringer about that appointment all along and never took it seriously. She wasn't even named the friggin' Administrative Assistant of State - NO! She was the God Damned Secretary of State. How callous and demeaning of B. O. sexist, misogynist mother !@#$er. You expect her to take that lying down? And as for Congress, the only thing they're good for is paying the bills for her travel and expenses. And if the Clinton Family Fortune Foundation is any measure of her needs, Congress is nothin' but a pack of farging pikers!

 

To add to the insult Obama never even took her out to lunch on Secretaries Day.

[4merper4mer]

If a top secret email is sent in the woods, will anyone ever read it?

[IDBillzFan]

If a top secret email is sent in the woods, will anyone ever read it?

 

But hey...that GOP...they're a clown car, amirite?

[B-Man]

If a top secret email is sent in the woods, will anyone ever read it?

 

From the link:

 

Hillary Clinton's handling of CLASSIFIED MATERIAL isn't as bad as you think — it’s as bad as it’s possible for you to think:

 

EXCLUSIVE: The intelligence community has now deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging” to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

The decision to withhold the documents in full, and not provide even a partial release with redactions, further undercuts claims by the State Department and the Clinton campaign that none of the intelligence in the emails was classified when it hit Clinton’s PERSONAL SERVER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

Just a reminder that she's been a criminal for at least 42 years:

 

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_34734.php

 

Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing. It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

 

Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

 

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

 

Dan Calabrese reports:

 

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

 

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

 

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

 

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

 

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.

 

So what did Hillary do? “Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said.

 

Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

 

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon. 

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner.

 

Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

- See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_34734.php#sthash.ZpluDbq4.dpuf

[3rdnlng]

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/07/6-billion-went-missing-hillary-clintons-state-departmentwhere-did-money-go

 

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a “significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions,” according to the report.

The alert, originally sent on March 20 and just released this week, warns that the missing contracting funds “could expose the department to substantial financial losses.”

Read more at freebeacon.com→

[keepthefaith]

Just a reminder that she's been a criminal for at least 42 years:

 

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_34734.php

 

Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing. It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

 

Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

 

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

 

Dan Calabrese reports:

 

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

 

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

 

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

 

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

 

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.

 

So what did Hillary do? “Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said.

 

Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

 

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon. 

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner.

 

Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

- See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_34734.php#sthash.ZpluDbq4.dpuf

There is so much material to work with in the general election campaign. Really she should go down in one of the most epic political collapses in the history of US politics if she gets the nomination. Hell even Bernie could bury her if he put his mind and campaign to it.