2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"things have now risen to the level of a grand jury investigation"
Immunity Deal Raises Stakes in Clinton Investigationsnip
Still, the immunity deal adds to the appearance of possible misconduct in Clintons email practices and creates more uncertainty for her campaign.
snip
Legal experts say the kind of deal the Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck with Pagliano is common in cases where investigators want to work their way up the food chain in uncovering possible criminal activity.
snip
If prosecutors confer immunity in a case, in general it means that they at least have some intention of pursuing the matter to a grand jury. Whether they ultimately decide to pull the trigger and press charges is a whole other question, said Bob Ray, a former federal prosecutor who was head of the Office of the Independent Counsel during the Whitewater investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and current co-chair of Fox Rothschild LLPs white collar compliance & defense practice.
What the immunity deal does suggest, experts say, is twofold.
First, that investigators believe Pagliano has potentially valuable information that will help them determine whether any laws were broken.
Second, that the Department of Justice is at minimum setting the stage for the possibility of a criminal case.
It doesnt necessarily signal that there will be charges. What it does signal is that they are accelerating past the investigation stage and things have now risen to the level of a grand jury investigation, Ray said.
Legal experts note that the Department of Justice (DOJ) under whose authority the FBI operates doesnt have the power to grant immunity. Federal judges are the only ones with that power, and only at the request of a DOJ prosecutor.
But for a DOJ prosecutor to make such a request is a pretty significant step, Ray argued, one that prosecutors dont typically take unless they believe the testimony is worth letting go of a smaller fish.
Prosecutors are in the business of making cases you dont hand out immunity unless the hope is it gets you additional evidence that you would not be able to get, and that [the] evidence leads towards being able to perfect a charge, he said.
Security experts say Pagliano could know a great deal.
I think of him as Sammy The Bull Gravano; he knows where the bodies are buried and he could bring down the whole organization, said Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity consultant who has worked with tech companies like Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent, referencing the underling who helped bring down mob boss John Gotti.
snip
Perhaps more importantly, Pagliano might have been part of conversations regarding what Clintons camp said the server would be used for, and how the team wanted to manage confidential information that could pass through the device.
Was he told, Oh this server is going to have confidential, or top secret, or secret State Department communications on it? Toren said.
All of the conversations with Clintons staff at State could give investigators more targets and leads.
This guys low-hanging fruit, Wright said. But hes going to lead them to bigger things.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/271718-immunity-deal-raises-stakes-in-clinton-email-investigation
Mufaddal
(1,021 posts)1) There's a problem with the source, so all points in the article are invalid
2) There's a Republican quoted somewhere, so all points in the article are invalid
Darb
(2,807 posts)The Teabaggers support this witchhunt with full vigor.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)I mean, that seems pretty significant.
Darb
(2,807 posts)when the FBI and Justice smash this farce with an ridiculously huge hammer.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)How about that? Learn something every day.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Let me spell it out for you. Obama put the FBI and Justice on the case to separate the facts from the Teabagger, Republican led bullshit. In order to put it to bed, officially (and with extreme prejudice I might add) they need the force of law. Which is what it is getting. I just find it curious that so many Bernies are so infatuated with this Bagger witch hunt? Any ideas?
Now when it happens, and it is coming soon, enjoy!
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If the hated teabaggers actually saved us from a whole lot of misery?
I see you think Obama is conspiring to make a federal case out of this to save it from becoming a federal case. Which, when seen that way is horse honky, but there you have it. Bwahahahaha
Darb
(2,807 posts)into situations which just are not there. No sense discussing it further, as another poster said, you want Stephan to break his leg.
Too bad.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)is mind bending.
From what I've been able to put together...it's a RW smear job thought up by Bernie Sanders and headed up by Obama appointees who direct the RW partisans in the FBI to target HRC because Bernie can't win the black vote......and Colin Powell something.
It's all very confusing
TM99
(8,352 posts)then it is not logical.
Just ignore that poster. They have a nasty habit of baiting and rude responses that never actually answer any of the rational arguments being presented.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,026 posts)just that kind of confusion. It's a failure to communicate...
'Some folks you just can't reach'
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"The cult figure is never wrong. The cult figure is perfect. The cult figure loves you."
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)amazing! It's like they're hypnotized. Rather unsettling.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)$@×÷%,# and #^*.
Have a nice day.
Alert on 3 ... 2 ...
is assuming Obama is not trying to hang her out to dry. I mean I think I would be kinda of pissed at someone who used race baiting against me in a primary and then was staying in after losing to force a deal to become Secretary of State. I don't think Obama wants a Watergate as his legacy as first African America POTUS.
For them to get to the bottom...whatever that is...is fine with me.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The FBI doesn't do investigations unless their is prima facie evidence of a felony. They have found something that doesn't pass the smell test. Of course it may turn out to be a misunderstanding. The fact that they are starting to offer immunity to the lower level people suggests they think there is definitely a violation here.
What the tea-baggers believe or want is immaterial. What you believe or want is immaterial. An FBI investigation of this sort could be a ticking time bomb since we do not have a clue what the FBI has found and why they feel it necessary to continue investigating.
You may bring up true witch hunts like Benghazi or Whitewater. Those are right wing nonsense. But, this is more like Watergate. As the investigators dig, they find more and more evidence.
Will Hillary be indicted for anything? Who knows. But for you to stick you head in the sand and try to belittle those who think it is a definite possibility smacks more of right wing tactics than what anybody else is doing.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The ultimate decision whether to convene a Grand Jury will be a political calculus for the Administration. Which course creates less damage? Either way, she has fucked over the Democratic Party. Thanks, Hill.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)President Obama is not going to ruin his legacy to protect Hillary. You can take that to the bank.
Mufaddal
(1,021 posts)3) Because a person or group with whom I disagree finds my preferred candidate's behavior problematic, therefore my preferred candidate's behavior is unproblematic.
Darb
(2,807 posts)3) Because a person or group that has never been right before about a goddamned thing, with whom I disagree, and find pathetic that people on the DU actually align themselves with, curiously, finds my preferred candidate's behavior problematic, I dismiss it with a grain of salt.
That's better.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Voter suppression and electioneering is only bad when the other guys do it. Or as I'm learning, follow the money, unless you're Hillary.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)However, since the tea baggers' version of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with this, other than cheering it on from the peanut gallery, your characterization of an FBI/DoJ investigation as a witch hunt is a bit like the man behind the curtain saying "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Just to alleviate a fear, you might harbor about me, I hope this matter is resolved soon and the sooner the better and with no charges being filed.
However, that does not excuse one from dismissing the matter as a right wing conspiracy when there is no evidence that this is a right wing conspiracy. DoJ does not immunize a witness for no reason. You really should be a little bit concerned.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... and, that is the purpose of the immunity deal.
They see that we have a presumptive Democratic nominee for President, and have no interest in even the appearance of attempting to influence a presidential election.
They're wrapping things up, and the immunity deal will expedite the process.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)She's already got a trust problem with the public and these investigations by the authorities aren't helping her case.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)No surprise there.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)It's time to come to terms with the fact that there will be indictments the only question is how high up the chain they go.
dchill
(38,562 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)to answer at all?
senz
(11,945 posts)Thanks for a good chuckle too, merrily.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Goldman Sachs, does it mean she's got something to hide? If she doesn't have anything to hide, why not release the transcripts.
Oh, what a tangled web Hillary weaves.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)of epic proportions, and the RW will have a field day with her in the GE.
Oh, and would you be so dismissive of this as "RW propaganda" if the FBI had 100+
agents investigating Bernie Sanders for suspected mis-deeds and possible criminal
activity? Tell me true: what would you be saying, if this was about Sanders?
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)"FBI are investigating Sanders in possible connection to KKK and involvement in Freedom Summer Murders"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that could put a Republican in the WH? This information is not coming from the Repubs in Congress, most of which I ignored. THIS is from Obama's DOJ and the FBI.
I can only imagine of this was Bernie the howls of 'he needs to go, he will bring down the party' etc You know what IF this was my candidate I would be the first to ask him to suspend his campaign because for me, this country matters WAY MORE than any individual politician.
But your'e right about one thing, Repubs are staying pretty silent on this right now, except for one.
Trump gave us a preview of how the GE will look IF Hillary gets the nomination.
'I can't wait to go head to head with Hillary. Well, if she isn't arrested before that' and the applause was deafening.
So the DNC who forced resignations from some very good Dems for minor stuff is ignoring the ramifications of this to our country and to the Dem Party.
Why?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Whitewater grand jury and civil contempt of court
During the grand jury, McDougal stated her full name "for the record" and then refused to answer any questions. In her book, McDougal explained, "I feared being accused of perjury if I told the grand jury the truth. The OIC had accepted David Hale's lies as the truth. They were also now relying on Jim McDougal's lies, which they'd carefully helped him construct. If I came in and directly contradicted those two -- whose testimony had been used to convict me of four felonies -- I feared the OIC would next accuse me of perjury." She also writes that she feared the same fate as Julie Hiatt Steele,[8] who had contradicted the testimony of White House aide Kathleen Willey: "Simply telling the truth cost Steele everything she had, almost landed her in jail [for perjury], and jeopardized her custody of her adopted son."[9]
McDougal's grand jury testimony included her response, "Get another independent counsel and I'll answer every question."[10] She was publicly rebuked for refusing to answer "three questions"[11] about whether President Clinton had lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, particularly when he denied any knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced her for civil contempt of court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Previous secretaries of state have used servers so what is the big deal? Why does our government waste so much time and energy on stupid stuff?
Rilgin
(787 posts)This is the excuse that is being used but its not true. Here is an article that is favorable to Hillary that will explain the difference in the practices. The conclusion of the article is wrong but it will show you what previous SOS used.
Neither Rice nor Powell created their own Servers. Both Rice and Powell had government email accounts for classified use and a private one for personal use. So Powell sent business emails on a .gov account. He sent his personal emails on whatever account he wanted. The article said it was an AOL account. Understand this is the proper way. The article said that he did wrong by occasionally emailing what should have been government business on his personal aol email account. This is clearly wrong but is not setting up your own server to do ALL your government business on your own server. Hillary did not use any .gov email. Further I would have no problem is Powell got in trouble for this although its more mixing emails rather than sole reliance on an outside server.
http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187
Personally I do not care about the classified aspects of this. I am for open government. The truth is she did this so she controlled the release of emails that were subject to FOIA requests because they were not stored on a government server available to people processing such requests. Upon leaving office, she was totally silent that her work emails were not being archived in the government records. She provided them only when it because an issue much later.
This is unacceptable to people who believe in sunshine laws and accountable politicians of both the democratic and republican stripe. In fact, we democrats have given a lot of criticism to the email practices and outside government communications of republicans through the years.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)It's a sad commentary that Bernie Supporters only reason for waking up in the morning is to scavenge the print media for any crap they can find regarding Hillary. You'd think they'd be so enthralled with their own candidate that they wouldn't have to resort to such matters. But whatever keeps them feeling warm and fuzzy at night.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)this is nothing
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Independents, and people who don't want Trump. I don't think she will be indicted either. It's still a problem of perception.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)This should come as no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 25 years.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)if she's not indicted.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I need to start a fracking timeline... will be useful I suspect, when I have to finally explain to my readers what the fuck happened here? And please, please, pretty please, Reuters, AP, anybody, do a nuts and bolts article on how this shit works. I can't... and I do know how this shit works. But I need somebody among you guys to do it first.
Duval
(4,280 posts)If I knew how, I would be glad to help.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Bill and Hillary Clinton are above the law as all other Presidents and First Ladies before them, in this and the last century, have been. No court of law will indict her in the end.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)untouchable.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)I certainly don't agree with that thinking, but understand how some misguided political-minded people do.
All the more reason to nominate an authentic progressive like Bernie!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Hawaii Hiker
(3,166 posts)I've never seen such an effort in my life to take down a political opponent....These people will stop at nothing to find her guilty of treason...
Once again, the emails on her server were not marked classified at the time they were sent or received....Only later where they deemed classified....Unlike General Petraeus who not only lied to FBI, he shared information with his biographer/mistress that he KNEW was classified...Furthermore, there is audio of him admitting the info was classified....And, as Director of CIA, he likely had more sensitive info than Clinton ever had as Secretary of State....
And, there was no evidence of hacking on Clinton's server...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html
Let the witch hunt continue.....Soon enough, the right will dig up Vince Foster, Whitewater, Monica, then perhaps Hillary's college & law school transcripts....
wryter2000
(46,099 posts)And of course, if she were real woman, Bill would never have cheated.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The investigation exists. It is moving forward. The FBI is building a case. These are facts, independent of how media outlets choose to report (or not report) them.
Yes, some media outlets will be more eager than others to report bad news for Clinton. Some media outlets are in the tank FOR Clinton, just as some are AGAINST. Likely neither are telling us the whole truth.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and to be honest, Newsmax does not pretend to be neutral, But this is now a real investigation.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"the emails on her server were not marked classified at the time they were sent or received....Only later where they deemed classified"
by the State Dept (after consultation with other departments).
On some emails the information and data appears to have been sourced outside of State Dept. Some of the info on that server was classified "from birth," so either somebody somewhere either failed to properly mark it or removed the headings. There is nothing that says that info wasn't copied from other sources, with their headings left out. From what I've read, that's part of what the FBI has been trying to sort out.
Also, the one thing seems forgotten by all that also would be material info is who instructed Pagliano to erase the server, and when did they give him those instructions?
Because iirc, Hillary stonewalled the FBI re: turning over her server for a few months before finally handing over an erased server. Did Pagliano erase it prior to the FBI's request? Or after? Only one of these scenarios would not qualify as obstruction of justice.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)She gave her staffer the order to remove the header of documents that should have been sent via a secure fax machine, and to email the confidential documents instead. Read the email exchange between Hillary and Jake Sullivan from the bottom up.
Boomer
(4,170 posts)As a Sanders supporter, I have some reservations about HRC as a candidate, but this email "scandal" is not one of them. This is a manufactured witch hunt and it does all of us -- Democratic Party and country -- more damage than good. I want Bernie to win on his own merits, not because he's the default Last Man Standing after a Republican hatchet job.
andrewv1
(168 posts)Oh & btw, do you think that maybe the MSM & HRC supporters are wanting Hillary to be the "Last Woman Standing" in how they are trying to push Sanders out of the race?
merrily
(45,251 posts)This is my recollection of the facts, though I could be wrong: This is not about a private email account, which we all have. She set up a private server in her home, got an FOIA request for her emails, took two years to begin to comply and wiped her server before she began to comply. One of her defenses is that nothing was marked classified when sent or received. It's part her job to classify--and evidence is showing she had aides remove the classified marking before they emailed something. The guy who set up the server for her took the Fifth as soon as they tried to question him.
What part of that screams FBI witch hunt during the Obama administration?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Does one chase witches in witch hunts?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Response to Hawaii Hiker (Reply #15)
FlatBaroque This message was self-deleted by its author.
Wednesdays
(17,450 posts)We can be concerned, worried, but still not hope for the worst.
It's like a bystander near a bad car wreck saying, "I cannot wait to see somebody die from this."
(And FWIW, my entire family voted for Bernie Sanders.)
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)is that other paper which are too busy printing "Clinton Won DNC primary" since SC are too much in her corner to print anything?
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)the opposition will wait until she has the nomination to subpoena her. that will put in her campaign and screw our chances of beating whoever the Rs put up in their brokered/crooked convention.
randome
(34,845 posts)Especially when a narrative conveniently fits what one wants to hear is the time to run the scenario through some harsh internal filters to see if it survives.
The most plausible explanation I've seen is that Pagliano only pleaded the 5th in front of Congress to avoid being made a party to their witch hunt and getting immunity now will inoculate him from that further.
That's not an 'excuse', it seems to be more plausible, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)better get immunity before clearing any Clinton!
Already, logs turned over by Pagliano document no hacking. No, that is not the end of that!
The shame of it all, here it is on a Democratic website.
Now you can bet they have something to work with!
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)"the immunity deal adds to the appearance of possible misconduct in Clintons email practices"
What it does is add to the presumption that the FBI are serious about their investigation, which we should hope they are, eh? But an investigation does not equate with guilt, nor should it equate with an "appearance" of guilt. Not an actionable statement, but not a truthful one, either.
-- Mal
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the mistake of making her our nominee and then find out they have indicted her. I do not want to lose to trump by default.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...in Bush v. Gore said last night on TV that the FBI will make its determination by May.
I hope so.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)The Hillary supporters know it all already.
The job of the FBI is over!
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clintons private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clintons 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
so they probably need to update that graphic...
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)while barely clinging to being technically accurate.
That's excellent spin right there!
-Marking is not classification. Unmarked things can be classified.
-Emails were deleted, in that someone hit "delete" on their email client. It's a fluke of email systems that hitting "delete" does not actually purge the message from the server.
-The FBI requested she turn over her server, and she complied. It is correct that the FBI did not have to forcibly take possession of it.
-There is a criminal investigation, at the moment Clinton is not named as the target of that investigation.
-Using a private server for unclassified email was not illegal. Using a private server for classified information has been illegal since 1947.
pugetres
(507 posts)servers at the heart of the issue?
The original (which may or not have been hacked twice in 2012 by someone in Serbia?) that was turned over by Clinton and the *backup* server (which didn't get hacked?) she had Datto Inc. make when she left office in 2013? That backup server was turned over to the FBI by Datto and not Clinton?
I cannot seem to keep up with which server people are talking about!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They made a copy of the server's hard disk(s).
pugetres
(507 posts)eom
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)Which ones did Hills use for classified info?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I have been following this closely and part of the problem is that stories mention anywhere from 1 to 3 servers.
IMHO media has been sloppy as hell. But they do have the servers.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)And we're always having to defend them against something or another?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Don't you know that's the only source of reliable information in the Internet Age?
k8conant
(3,030 posts)"The State Departments conclusion came as it has worked to process 55,000 pages of Clintons correspondence for public release, including about 1,000 pages that were released Friday night. Clinton has said that she deleted 31,000 additional emails in 2014, deeming them purely personal."
Faux pas
(14,698 posts)can come true if you're willing to wait for them. I don't want to wait much longer though. If they're gonna take her down, sooner would be so much better than later.
olddots
(10,237 posts)who ever gets the most ratings gets renewed for the fall lineup .
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Zambero
(8,974 posts)Of ALL members of Congress, their staffers, and the Executive branch to determine how widespread improprieties might be in regard to use of personal servers. This whole saga begs the question of what is driving this particular investigation. Is it examining the possibility of specific security breaches unique to Hillary's correspondence, or does it amount to yet another attempt to make political hay out of a practice that is routinely accepted or commonplace across the federal government, particularly as relates to "retroactive" classification of documents? I don't know the answer, but it be good to know just the same.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Besides, I don't know how it was at your home, but "Bobby did it, too" didn't work for me when I was 3 years old and running only for not getting a spanking. Why should it work for a 67 year old running for POTUS?
Zambero
(8,974 posts)Perception has and always will equal reality. It might get to the point where people are so desensitized by the barrage of 24/7 media-spun allegations and accusations that serious stuff gets brushed off. My particular question dealt with non-classified information or documents distributed through personal non-secured channels BEFORE someone actually decided they would be classified at some later date. It doesn't matter whether it's from the SOS, CIA, FBI, or dog catcher, psychic abilities to forecast what information might not be shared at some later date is sketchy at best. I'm leaning Bernie by the way.
merrily
(45,251 posts)perception of their supporters that they've never done anything wrong and are only innocent victims of Republicans and/or media.
Let's just say that I see the facts very, very differently than you do.
FYI, who people support or don't support does not affect my reaction to the content of their posts. I hope it doesn't affect anyone's reaction.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Last thing we need is for Bernie to get out, and the have Hillary get indicted.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I'm sure I will give more before this is done.
Mike Nelson
(9,973 posts)...good they're wrapping this up... too bad Hillary didn't put more on her server - it was more secure than the US Government's!
merrily
(45,251 posts)of hillaryclinton.com?
Gothmog
(145,666 posts)There will be no indictment http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1495858/-WaPo-s-Paul-Waldman-No-Clinton-will-not-be-indicted-and-the-email-issue-is-a-non-scandal
"
For Clinton to be charged with mishandling classified information, she would have had to knowingly passed such information to someone not authorized to have it like David Petraeus showing classified documents to his mistress or acted with such gross negligence that people without authorization were bound to see it. According to what we know, neither of those things happened.
He went on,
In recent weeks, Ive had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!? The answer is no, but they heard that because its something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long youll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that shes about to be indicted or that she wont be permitted to run for president because shell be on trial. It hasnt happened and it wont happen, but that isnt going to stop them from saying it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)on this heinously unfounded investigation "right fscking now."
https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+waldman+wikipedia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,304 posts)Getting mighty crowded under the Bernie bus.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Thanks, too, for attempting the double standards for which many Hillary supporters at DU have made themselves so famous on this board, but it's very crowded under the Hillary bus--crowded with real liberals, I might add, not Brock type (snort) "liberals."
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)"Both Clintons declined to be interviewed or comment for this article."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money
Drip, drip, drip
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)angrychair
(8,738 posts)First and foremost, when I realized my personal values and beliefs aligned me wiith the Democratic Party and I started participating in Democratic Party efforts I was never told that a major part of my work would constantly defending the Clintons. Not what I signed up to do.
Obama has always been different. Almost all of the hate and discontent is bigoted demagoguery. Very little about actual policy or accomplishments. Obama is an amazing president and human being and I will happily defend his name against that bigoted demagoguery.
The Clintons are different. It seems like a regular thing, that as a Democrat, people challenge or expect you to have to "defend" the Clinton name because of this thing or that. Funny, I don't have to do that with anyone else, not the Obamas, not the Carters, not the Johnsons and not the Kennedys. Just the Clintons.
My only hope is that, one day, a day will come when the Clinton's have faded from politics and we have moved on as a Democratic Party with new people and new ideas and a new way of going about our politics. I may be a hundred years old but I will dance a little dance and smile.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)"Chelsea Victoria Clinton today has announced on Sunday that she would seek the presidency for a second time, immediately establishing herself as the likely 2024 Democratic nominee."
senz
(11,945 posts)Guess they're not so easily intimidated.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Was it in the bathroom, a closet, the basement, under the bed or the garage?
I think we can take away some relevance on its location as to how Hills views doing the people's business.
senz
(11,945 posts)or so I heard. So people could do their business right next to where Hill did the people's business.
I don't even like to think about it.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Now that's sarcasm done right!
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)This is disturbing. Although I agree with my friends who support Hillary that Ms. Clinton will almost certainly not be charged with any wrong-doing, it appears possible that someone else associated with her could be. And that would be damaging to her campaign -- obviously more so if she is the party's nominee for the general election.