2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGrassley Hits Back At Clinton: 'The FBI's Going To Question Her'
By Seung Min Kim
03/28/16 01:44 PM EDT
ESTHERVILLE, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley preemptively swung back at Hillary Clinton ahead of her expected Monday speech in which she's expected to hammer the Judiciary Committee chairman for his role in blocking the confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
With all the troubles shes getting on e-mail, and the FBIs going to question her, I would imagine shed want to change the tone of her campaign, Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO in an interview here. He was apparently referring to a Los Angeles Times story Monday that indicated an FBI investigation of the private email server she used as secretary of state is entering a final phase that will include interviews with her advisers.
The Democratic presidential front-runner is poised to criticize Grassley during a speech later Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The two have a contentious history: Grassley has led probes into Clintons use of a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state.
Grassley said Clintons comments would have no bearing on his plans not to hold confirmation hearings for Garland.
I want to spend my time on doing things were going to accomplish and you know ahead of time that this isnt going to be approved, Grassley said, referring to Garland being confirmation. So spend your time on things that
we can do in a bipartisan way instead of in a partisan way.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/chuck-grassley-hillary-clinton-221295#ixzz44EEM6QG5
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)LonePirate
(13,386 posts)There is nothing by bipartisan about refusing to hold hearings on Garland.
forest444
(5,902 posts)There almost certainly will be an indictment; the Retughs will see to that.
Once that happens, you can bet your keyboard that Crassley will wait until after the conventions to drag her through endless Senate hearings - while Trump sails through the campaign season, looking like a million bucks.
Or I should say, a billion.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)They love clapping at illusions.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Hounding Hillary like that. Expecting she follow the law like any of us peons. She's a Clinton for-gawd-sake, leave her alone and let her wear the crown and be the queen already, right?
840high
(17,196 posts)picked on Hillary.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Those awful republicans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1594838
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"The queen" crack is sexist. If one made such a remark about just about any other female Democratic politician, I suspect it would be hidden.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:43 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Mild. Get over it. It's primary season.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think "asinine posts" are against the rules
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: frankly a weak alert, go take a break and get out in the sunshine for 10 seconds, seriously
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the whole post was tongue-in-cheek. Don't think it's abusive.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: par for the course in the mud pit that GDP has become. And this is about using "queen"? you gotta be kidding me.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)ridiculous doesn't quite even say enough about that vote
edhopper
(33,205 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"The queen" crack is sexist. If one made such a remark about just about any other female Democratic politician, I suspect it would be hidden.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:43 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Mild. Get over it. It's primary season.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think "asinine posts" are against the rules
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: frankly a weak alert, go take a break and get out in the sunshine for 10 seconds, seriously
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the whole post was tongue-in-cheek. Don't think it's abusive.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: par for the course in the mud pit that GDP has become. And this is about using "queen"? you gotta be kidding me.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)When she has none. Thanks Hillary.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The FBI must hate Hillary!!! Haven't they something better to do than hound Hillary and ask questions? She's Hillary and they should just front for her and prepare the runway for the coronation, already.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...they certainly haven't said they're going to question her.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)And the serious precedent this has set for future administrations, even if you are unwilling to. Further, server aside - I'm able to read, and took the time to read many emails. I was appalled to see how she went against Obama, and worked with indiciduals he was clear he did not want involved in his administration. Even worse, she took bad advice from them, and used that to make bad decisions that ultimately were not good for our country (unless you feel ISIS occupying Libya was a good thing). Only further leading to the deterioration of the region.
So, on the contrary. While you sit in a dark room with ear plugs in, ignoring reality, playing victim & blaming others every time the light is turned on, or the music is cranked up louder. The rest of the Democratic Party, will be left to suffer the cost of her reckless mistakes.
So again I say, thank you Hillary.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)"Impossible" was the one that I was thinking of.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . it's going to wind up to be a world-class liars contest.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Sources matter
riversedge
(69,721 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Go for the jugular. And it will happen over and Over and OVER if she gets the nomination and in the unlikely event she wins. It will make her an unbelievably WEAK President. Don't you remember how Bill's troubles distracted and put him in a position where he constantly had to "give in" on important issues?
riversedge
(69,721 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I recently discovered my second Hillary supporting friend - he donates to her every time a Bernie supporter irritates him - and we have a dinner bet as to whether she will still be in the race by the end of May. I am predicting "personal business or family health issues" before the end of May, while he is predicting nominee at the convention.
We even picked a nice restaurant. Should be a win for both of us.
TheBlackAdder
(28,073 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,073 posts)Jaybird
(234 posts)They sicken me..they sound like my righty relatives. Is that you, aunt barb?
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)That is all.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,781 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Is that what this is about now? I'm sure Grassley doesn't have an ulterior motive in trying to flog his own Party's interests to undercut the Democratic front runner... any more than some "Democrats" who support all these Republican views do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)It's like Grassley and his ilk are sending out Republican talking points to a lot of DU members.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Nor are there allies of the Democratic party taking Grassley's side in this.
This is a very useful litmus test. People who side with Chuck Grassley on his SCOTUS blockade obfuscation are not on our side.
procon
(15,805 posts)So Republicans and Democrats are tag teaming now and sharing the same "litmus test" for Clinton? This is still DU... right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There are no allies of Democrats taking Grassley's side.
That does not mean no one is taking Grassley's side.
Know what I'm saying?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Like Hillary Clinton?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)especially now. Of all the things to do, that's one of the dumbest. Maybe she could criticize Comey and Lynch too, while she's at it.
Damn. She's lacking all kinds of common sense.
Please proceed, Mrs. Clinton.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Nothing I wrote says that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)including your odd claim that attacking Chuck Grassley over the Supreme Court blockade is like attacking Comey or Loretty Lynch.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)direct or indirect, into that little FBI matter with her name on it? The one Comey and Lynch might be working on too.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I doubt that changes your sympathies though.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)don't have influence. It's just a diagram in a civics book.
Let's put it this way, if I was in her shoes, I sure as hell would not be poking Chuck Grassley right now. But she has such great judgment, I'm sure she knows what she's doing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Chuck Grassley
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that's some genius insight, thank you for providing it
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And she just did it. This statement is telling her something subtly, which I'm sure Clinton won't pick up on either.
It's her problem, I've got my popcorn ready.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it helps your cause
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Hillary has painted herself into a corner. She has no way out of this.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...again.
I saw you bragging that you had never, ever attacked either of our candidates. I don't know about that, but I do see that you're spending your time on this site insinuating things about other members and personally attacking them. I described this to you in my reply to your very ill-considered private message (I meant it--don't write to me again), and I meant what I said. You're in violation of the terms of service of this site when you repeatedly impugn the character of other members of the site. And more important than some dusty old TOS language, you're acting like some goon who stepped out of the pages of Orwell's 1984. Stop it. Do consider criticizing a candidate if that's what it takes for you to stop personally attacking DUers. Or don't, whatever. But stop with the personal attacks.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)wrote a post you immediately deleted that was very threatening, I then pm'd and told you that, you then responded with another very angry, close to violent overtones message.
You are a very angry person and I think you should stay away from me, I dont feel safe based on that first post you deleted.
I said in the PM i wish you had not deleted it because EVERYBODY here would agree with me if they could see it, and you KNOW IT.
It wont surprise me in the least if you now try and silence me, man is this getting sick...and twisted.
I wish to GOD everybody here could see what you wrote and darn me for not copying and pasting it before you DELETED it!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Stop it NOW. And don't ever write another creepy pm like you did. CLEAR?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Mail Message
I almost wish you had not deleted it so we could figure out if that is what it was.
Very disappointing.
There is something wrong with you, I hope the admins are reading everything including the post you deleted ...
Oh, let me guess, it is against the rules to show PM's
So you can accuse me of sending a creepy PM, which I clearly didnt, but for me to prove I didnt I have to violate the rules
You are one sick person...you really are.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Quit trying to analyze things that you're either too stupid or too subjective to get right. That's why I replied to you in the first place, and you're doing it again now. So sit down and stop with your whiny little freakout. To be clear, I was telling you I would be watching for you to personally attack others again and smear them. And if I see that, I will take action. Guess what kind of action, Sherlock? The ALERT kind, that's what. I don't know you, your real name, your place of residence, or anything else about you. Additionally, I have no wish to garner state or federal charges for committing crimes. So I ask you, Dr. Einstein, what made it feel to you as though I was communicating a threat of physical violence? Which words? I detest the living shit out of weak and dishonest people who try to get their dishonest shots in, and then hide behind some other piece of dishonesty in order to get by with it (as in, "you sound like you're threatening me" .
Lastly, you need to know you're not putting me on the defense for shit. You're the lowlife who made baseless accusations against another member, telling them you believed them to be a Trump voter. I won't put up with filthy liars. Don't ever fucking write to me again.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lecture someone to "stop with the personal attacks" while comparing them to "some goon who stepped out of the pages of Orwell's 1984."
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm responding to a LIE. I'm responding with TRUTH.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)to try and make me look bad
Why wont you just admit you went too far and posted a very violent post? Or if not violent, way over the top, at least.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)to accuse me of before I come up with some defense. Maybe you should figure out what you're talking about before you go making accusations you cannot support. Maybe you should knock it off with telling other posters that you believe they're secretly Trump voters. Maybe you should realize I'm not backing down to you for any reason, ever. I value honesty too much to let that shit slide.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to take his side against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)First time the Democrats have ever put someone up as a potential nominee who was under threat of indictment. Of course, with Bill he was in the middle of a sexual harassment lawsuit for asking a hotel worker for a blow job, but he erroneously thought being President would make that all go away (and we all know how that turned out).
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Sanders has until April, then he is done.. And he knows it.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Hillary's criminal stupidity has NOTHING to do with Sanders; he will continue to battle in every state until the convention. If he doesn't have enough delegates to clinch it before then, and Hillary bows out for "personal reasons", then the convention folk will have to figure out who we put up. My guess is that it will be Sanders, but it's a convention, so we will see.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Well, at least we can keep our sense of humor about the situation.
Say, did you hear that Lying Ted had five different mistresses, and there are naked pictures of Trump's wife floating around the Internet?
What a Primary season!
Tarc
(10,472 posts)...but also for the right-wing hacks behind it?
It's not ad enough to be in bed with Judicial Watch, but now they have to parrot Grassley himself?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Good work, geek.
It is crucial to expose them.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)but be a obstructor or a teabag wannabe
I want to spend my time on doing things were going to accomplish....."
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)elleng
(130,143 posts)HIGH irony!
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Interesting how Grassley is wooing Bernie supporters. If Bernie doesn't win, who knows, maybe a few of them will vote Republican.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)She is smart enough to know that official government email is directed towards a server devoted to that purpose for a reason. She did what she is accused of and expects sympathy and support from people who will defend a Clinton on any RW accusation because they just have a vendetta. Yeah, they have a vendetta. But if She and Bill want to make it easy for them to pursue it, they deserve what they get.
840high
(17,196 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)TIMES WATCHDOG: New emails provide a fuller look into the former secretary of states advocacy for Boeing. The company helped her reach a major foreign-policy goal, gave over $1 million to the Clinton Foundation and sponsored speeches that paid former President Clinton six-figure sums.
* Supporting your country's various industries is admirable
Having that support result in one's husband getting hundreds of thousands in speaking fees is not
(I don't include the additional $million dollar Clinton Foundation donations in that criticism, but they are, at best, ill-conceived and blur the lines) If you are going to support your country's industries, do it without any strings. Is that so difficult? Is supporting the country you are employed to support without strings such a stretch?
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)johnp3907
(3,723 posts)....of right wing propaganda.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)just getting starting, imo and will be LBNews soon...