Bernie's In

South Carolina, Bern?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/bernie-sanders-gaining-crucial-ground-over-clinton/

This is beginning to be nerve-wracking.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

It's an interesting question. Despite Hillary's dominance - and resilience - so far in the campaign, her support appears to be slipping. She has survived a number of setbacks, but each time losing a little ground after the recovery. One or two more of these and she may find herself in real trouble. She's not a particularly good campaigner and a bit prone to gaffes - not to mention the occasional whopper. Her campaign has kept her on a fairly short leash with minimal exposure to serious questions or critical audiences. That may leave her unready for the contests ahead. Finally the FBI may drop a bombshell on her. I suspect none of this has escaped the notice of Bernie's campaign.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Take a look at this. I can't believe Slate actually printed it. The bloom is definitely off the rose if a major publication would go here.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/01/15/decoding_hillary_clinton_s_style_choices.html

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I think your dreaming in regards to the FBI and dropping a bombshell. The inquiry is a non criminal investigation by the FBI.

As for the rest, we'll see as time goes by. RealClearPolitics has her at an average 48.3, Sanders at 39.7. here

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

The inquiry is a non criminal investigation by the FBI.

Where did you get that?? FBI investigations exist to discover criminal activity, Without the suspicion or expectation, there is no investigation.

I certainly don't know the outcome, but in view of recent criminal charges against other seniou government officials over the handling of classified material and the accumulated evidence already released, that certainly seems a possibility. Then there is the matter of the connections of her actions and decisions as Secretary of State and uncannily timely and large contributions to the Clinton foundation and/or payments to husband Bill. Both matters are included in the ongoing investigations.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I misspoke. I meant, Clinton is not the subject of the investigative FBI investigation.

Quote:

The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.

source

What was not criminal was the referral from the IG IC.

Quote:

An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

1 Reply

@revelette2,

The details you reported may be accurate, but they are not complete. The counterintelligence element is present in any breech of security. Hillary has denied that any breech occurred (though the contrary evidence is piling up very fast) and chosen her words in a very self-serving and lawyerly way to evade her ex officio responsibitlity as classifying authority responsible for protecting the information, however it was marked (or, as it increasingly appears, unmarked at her specific direction). The investigations into several of her State Department policy decisions and other actions in directing US AID funds, as they may be connected to payments to husband Bill and the Clinton Foundation, is another, equally threatening, matter.

1 Reply

As far as I am aware there is no investigation Hillary as Secretary of State and the Clinton foundations, the whole angle is another media created connect-the-dots hit job on Clinton.

Quote:

The Clinton campaign strikes back

Hours after the New York Times reported on a Canadian mining company -- whose principals donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation over the years -- sold its uranium business to Russia (which had to be approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department), the Clinton campaign struck back at the newspaper. It issued these rebuttals to attempt to knock down any quid-pro-quo:
1.Hillary wasn't involved in the State Department's review; it is the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy, and business affairs who makes the call;
2.The main Clinton Foundation donor, Frank Giustra, sold his stake in the Canadian mine business in 2007, so before Hillary became secretary of state;
3.The State Department was one of nine U.S. agencies to review the sale.

source

1 Reply

@revelette2,

I agree with you there. Hillary has consistently denied any wrongdoing and instead laid the blame on various "vast right wing conspiracies". However the typically Cintonian fog and blurring of events is very evident in the piece you cited above. None other agencies reviewed the sale - but the State Department was the lead agency and she was Secretary of State and prominently involved. It was Hillary's deputies in the State Department who approved the actions (and who denied the repeated requests for additional diplomatic security in Libya). No military commander or CEO of a corporation could use such a defense.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I don't know any way to say any clearer than Hillary is not the target in the FBI investigation, period. The rest of your post is a lot of fancy words signifying nothing, really.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You are parsing words in an impressively Clintonian way. There are well-documented FBI investigations now ongoing addressing exactly the matters I outlined. No criminal indictments naming her as the accused in a criminal matter (and therefore making her "the target") have yet been issued. However the accumulating evidence in the public domain (even in the face of a friendly press and a protective political administration) makes such indictments increasingly likely. I can't exclude some unlawful action on the part of the Administration to protect her from these events - certainly the political stakes for them are very high.

Stranger things have happened in our history.

There was nothing clear or straightforward in what you wrote. There was nothing "fancy" in what I wrote - merely statements of verifiable fact. What they may signify is, of course, up to the reader.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Until Hillary Clinton is actually charged or named as a target of any official investigation, she is not suspected of such, however likely you see it as becoming. Most of the rumors you have floated have been false, the rest is just a lot of vague connections people have joined together on their own, because, surely, she must be guilty. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You are increasingly being misled by the chore of parsing your words so carefully. Hillary has that problem too (most habitual liars do as well). The fact is that many people, including some in the FBI, suspect her of criminal behavior. Whether, in the face of the political pressures involved and the stakes in the coming election, they are able to put together a compelling legal case for those suspicions is a matter yet to be determined. However it is considered to be a real possibility by some serious observers.

Most of us use all the information we have available in making choices like where to live; what car to buy; or which political candidated we favor. Absolute certainty isn't generally available. You are certainly entitled to your own interpretation of these events and your own judgment. However your categorical denials are both foolish and evasive.

0 Replies

Quote:

There was nothing "fancy" in what I wrote - merely statements of verifiable fact.

What a crock

0 Replies

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8987488

Bernie, inevitable? Some pro-Bern, anti-Clinton points by HA Goodman for Huff.

1 Reply

@Lash,

I suspect that a significant portion of the Democrat support for Bernie arises from perceptions of his greater trustworthiness compared to the Clintons. I certainly don't suscribe to his political and economic ideas, but I do believe he means what he says and says what he really means to do. That kind of trustworthy authenticity is the antithesis of what the Clintons represent.

I certainly don't know if any of this will end up being decisive in the current campaign, but I do believe it is the central element in Hillary's current vulnerability - something that few would have predicted as recently as two years ago. Interestingly it was also something that emerged in her 2004 campaqign against Obama and which also proved decisive then.

0 Replies

I also read to a great deal what he's done in Vermont. People there are deeply conservative, mostly rural farmers and he won his mayor seat by a hair. By the time he run for senator, he got 86 % of their vote. It says something about him and it says something about a conservative state that can put their political affiliation aside and vote for someone who does the job and has their best interest at heart.

I am amazed that these young millennials are so taken by him and rally to promote him. I guess he's their grandfather figure who makes things happen.

0 Replies

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/sanders-courageous-stand-universal-coverage

An Alternet review on recent events a la Sanders and Clinton.

0 Replies

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/16/1470870/-Ohio-s-Not-Waiting-for-Bernie-Sanders

Ohio opens Sanders Campaign offices without Sanders. (Awesomeness!!). The Bernie ball is rolling with outrageous momentum.

0 Replies

Robert Reich
59 mins ·
According to a lead story in today’s New York Times, the Clinton campaign is "concerned that her ‘rational message,’ in the words of an aide, is not a fit with a restless Democratic primary electorate. Allies and advisers of the Clintons say Mr. Sanders is clearly connecting with voters through his emotional, inspiring rallying cry that the American economic and political systems are rigged for the wealthy and powerful.”

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know