30
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

 
 
Blickers
 
  6  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 02:38 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote Bobsal:
Quote:
And now we're past that and we need to reform the election system IE: make it more conducive to a more than two party race. Finding a way to compel the two parties to be more responsive to the almost half of voters who have interest in specific strong candidates (like Bernie Sanders) but have no party affiliation.

I like Bernie, don't get me wrong. But it could be argued that one of the reasons Trump is the GOP candidate is that the open primaries made it easier for people who didn't belong to a party before to just go down and vote in the primaries. So out came the Aryan Nation and Klan guys to vote for Trump on Primary Day.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  5  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 05:28 pm
Apparently there is a big thing going on now with the state department and the FBI and a mix up being reported as a "Quid Pro Quo" I am surprised some right wing poster or Lash hasn't brought it up yet. Andrea Mitchell debunks the whole thing on MSNBC today.

Quote:

Mitchell: "There Was No Quid Pro Quo, There Was No Linkage ... There Was Nothing At All Nefarious"


KRISTEN WELKER (HOST): The Clinton campaign is being forced to respond today to newly released documents from the FBI's investigation into her use of a private email server when she was Secretary of State. The documents, called 302s, are shorthand notes taken by FBI agents during an investigation. They were released because of a Freedom Of Information Act request. Now Republicans are seizing, in particular, on a note outlining discussions between a now-retired FBI agent whose name has been redacted, and Patrick Kennedy, the Undersecretary of State.

An agent writes in the note, quote, "(redacted name) indicated he had been contacted by Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistants in altering the email's classification in an exchange for 'quid pro quo.'" Another redacted name advised that in exchange for marking the email classified, State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in the countries where they are presently forbidden.

The Clinton campaign, the FBI and the State Department are denying that this happened. It was the FBI agent who first brought up how many agents are placed abroad. The FBI officials tell NBC News the matter resulted in a serious internal investigation into that agent.

[...]

You have been following this story, Andrea, all day long. What are the other take-aways here that we need to know about?

ANDREA MITCHELL: What you've got here is the FBI and the State Department, who have been fighting for a year and a half over the classifications of these e-mails, the FBI and the intelligence communities saying they should be more classified, and retroactively re-classifying some that had had not been, and the State Department saying "No, this is the way we do business, this is not something that should be classified, it's simply mentioning a name here and a name there," and the FBI basically winning all of these the arguments.

So, the fact that there was this debate, this negotiation, is not anything unusual. We've been, in fact, told every day at the State Department "Hey, this is happening, we're pushing back, well we lost this one, well, we lost another one." This is an ongoing negotiation.

What is unusual is this note from the FBI official saying that the agent saying that this happened, and in fact we were told it was exactly the opposite, that an FBI official brought up placing agents in Iraq, a country where they had not been able to get in, as an add-on to another conversation with Patrick Kennedy. He said "Now I've got you on your phone -- on the phone, basically, we finally nailed you down here to talk about this, let me bring this up."

And so they brought it up from the FBI's standpoint, it wasn't Patrick Kennedy, there was no quid pro quo, there was no linkage, they were really separate issues, and that there was nothing at all nefarious. But that doesn't mean that there won't be attacks, and in fact we are told Donald Trump in his speech tonight is going to be jumping all over this.


source
reasoning logic
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 05:45 pm
@revelette2,
Fox seems to have a different point of view.

reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 05:59 pm
@reasoning logic,
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 06:14 pm
@edgarblythe,
You are assuming again that Bernie would have done better in the primary rather than caucuses. The caucuses were the only reason Bernie was within a mile of Hillary. His strength was in the young who were mobile enough to take part in and control the caucuses. If all 50 states had primaries she would have wiped the floor with Bernie. A minority of people were involved with the caucuses. A majority of voters were involved in the primaries that put Hillary over the top.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 06:38 pm
@revelette2,
Thanks for posting that!

Gee, I miss most of an a2k day (reading sports news in preparation for our Pickum a2k football game, and other non political stuff) and, back to a2k, find out more hell is breaking loose yet again re emails. You'd thing even Trump would get bored.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 07:13 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Trump's also had some slide from solid to leaning


more of this going on at http://www.270towin.com/maps/clinton-trump-electoral-map

at the same time, Mrs. Clinton has had more states move into the solid category (lead of more than 10%)

Clinton
268 / 203 / 65
Trump
167 / 87 / 80

103

Lash
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 04:12 am
The DNC/Obama manipulating the Supreme Court to push through their unconstitutional bullshit Obamacare.

It's a ******* disaster.

http://www.wsj.com
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 05:31 am
Clinton sics Kennedy on DOJ in an effort to make her unaccountable.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/18/hillary-clinton-emails-records-suggest-state-department-put-pressure-on-fbi
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 05:40 am
This is a good example of why some voters judge Trump to be less of a danger than Hillary. The tentacles of her shadow government run too deep. Quid pro quo, pay for play... ultimate corruption.

Anyone is cleaner by comparison, which is why the Clinton campaign orchestrated the rise of Trump.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/17/the-state-departments-shadow-government/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=twitter
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 05:43 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Vote Trump!


Just come out and say it Lash
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 05:50 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I'm a pathetic douchebag!


You first.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 06:30 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I'm a pathetic douchebag!


You first.



I'll wait for that.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 07:22 am
@Lash,
The funny thing about that story is that it was the FBI that suggested the quid pro quo that ultimately never occurred. Perhaps you should follow stories to the end before you trumpet them Lash.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 07:30 am
@parados,
It's amazing that you think that's the takeaway from this ****.
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 07:41 am
@Lash,
What is not amazing is that you take any little tid bit and run with it before gathering facts. This story has already been debunked Andrea Mitchell, a very respected news woman.
snood
 
  6  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 07:56 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

It's amazing that you think that's the takeaway from this ****.

What's amazing is that little things like the FBI being on TV for the last several days saying "There was no Quid Pro Quo", doesn't phase or hinder you one bit from your lunatic non-stop Hillary bash.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  4  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 07:58 am
@reasoning logic,
Am I supposed to be impressed or persuaded because Fox News has a negative view of another made up email scandal?

The whole email scandal has been run by Judicial Watch who for years have been behind smear jobs of the Clinton's and Obama administration and any other prominent democrat. They even outright admitted the whole investigation of Benghazi was started to bring down Clinton who up to that point had high approval ratings as her time as Secretary of State. Judicial Watch was responsible for the NYT reporting a story of Clinton signing authorization for Huma Abedin, her then-deputy chief of staff, to become a special government employee. A few days later the NYT had to retract that story because it was false it was Cheryl Mills.

Meet Judicial Watch, A Driving Force Behind The Clinton Email Story That Keeps Duping The Press
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 08:30 am
@Lash,
I'm a pathetic douchebag!

Your turn.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2016 08:40 am
@maporsche,
Ok.

I think progressives should vote for Stein and conservatives should vote for that idiot, Gary Johnson --we should strengthen third parties and clean up the incumbent cesspool in DC.

Because the US mindset is so entrenched in our ignominious duopoly, it's hard for people to comprehend that heavy criticism of one party's candidate doesn't equate to support of the other major party.

I do cop to satisfaction of some anti-Clinton Trump supporters. I fear both equally. The primary difference between them: he may blunder into something horrible; she has carved out a mission toward it.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 04:04:13