Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:04 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
Hillary's Rahm ProblemEditorial: Hillary’s Rahm problem NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Today, 7:24 PM ET Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton appears to be putting politics ahead of justice when it comes to Chicago mayor and former top Clinton and Obama White House aide Rahm Emanuel. Snip So far Clinton, who vowed to “replenish our depleted reservoirs of trust” between law enforcement and communities of color, has only said, via a spokesman, that she is “deeply troubled” by the shooting and “the outstanding questions related to both the shooting and the video.” As to Emanuel? “She knows Mayor Emanuel loves Chicago, and is sure he wants to do all he can to restore trust in the Chicago Police Department.” Snip If Clinton is serious about black lives — and not just black votes — this is a moment of truth. http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-hillary-rahm-problem-article-1.2455978
|
109 replies, 5432 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Bjorn Against | Dec 2015 | OP |
MerryBlooms | Dec 2015 | #1 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #3 | |
MerryBlooms | Dec 2015 | #4 | |
Fawke Em | Dec 2015 | #56 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #93 | |
BlueCaliDem | Dec 2015 | #101 | |
roguevalley | Dec 2015 | #64 | |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | #2 | |
Thinkingabout | Dec 2015 | #5 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #6 | |
Bjorn Against | Dec 2015 | #8 | |
Post removed | Dec 2015 | #9 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #10 | |
Thinkingabout | Dec 2015 | #15 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #17 | |
Thinkingabout | Dec 2015 | #21 | |
beam me up scottie | Dec 2015 | #23 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #29 | |
ESKD | Dec 2015 | #46 | |
kath | Dec 2015 | #75 | |
840high | Dec 2015 | #103 | |
NCTraveler | Dec 2015 | #47 | |
roguevalley | Dec 2015 | #65 | |
JonLeibowitz | Dec 2015 | #78 | |
friendly_iconoclast | Dec 2015 | #81 | |
Bjorn Against | Dec 2015 | #18 | |
beam me up scottie | Dec 2015 | #20 | |
Bjorn Against | Dec 2015 | #12 | |
beam me up scottie | Dec 2015 | #13 | |
ejbr | Dec 2015 | #40 | |
raindaddy | Dec 2015 | #63 | |
beam me up scottie | Dec 2015 | #74 | |
JonLeibowitz | Dec 2015 | #77 | |
friendly_iconoclast | Dec 2015 | #79 | |
kath | Dec 2015 | #106 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #24 | |
Bjorn Against | Dec 2015 | #28 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #35 | |
Fawke Em | Dec 2015 | #11 | |
strategery blunder | Dec 2015 | #19 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #22 | |
strategery blunder | Dec 2015 | #32 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #94 | |
Truprogressive85 | Dec 2015 | #37 | |
strategery blunder | Dec 2015 | #38 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #91 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #92 | |
strategery blunder | Dec 2015 | #97 | |
jfern | Dec 2015 | #27 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #30 | |
morningfog | Dec 2015 | #52 | |
beam me up scottie | Dec 2015 | #34 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #95 | |
Truprogressive85 | Dec 2015 | #31 | |
morningfog | Dec 2015 | #51 | |
Cheese Sandwich | Dec 2015 | #73 | |
ViseGrip | Dec 2015 | #100 | |
Cheese Sandwich | Dec 2015 | #102 | |
NorthCarolina | Dec 2015 | #7 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #14 | |
Doctor_J | Dec 2015 | #16 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #25 | |
NCTraveler | Dec 2015 | #48 | |
Motown_Johnny | Dec 2015 | #26 | |
WillyT | Dec 2015 | #33 | |
WillyT | Dec 2015 | #36 | |
bvf | Dec 2015 | #39 | |
zentrum | Dec 2015 | #41 | |
Bjorn Against | Dec 2015 | #42 | |
zentrum | Dec 2015 | #45 | |
kath | Dec 2015 | #107 | |
840high | Dec 2015 | #104 | |
MaggieD | Dec 2015 | #43 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #44 | |
MaggieD | Dec 2015 | #50 | |
Bjorn Against | Dec 2015 | #54 | |
Fawke Em | Dec 2015 | #60 | |
MaggieD | Dec 2015 | #68 | |
Fawke Em | Dec 2015 | #80 | |
MaggieD | Dec 2015 | #84 | |
MaggieD | Dec 2015 | #67 | |
morningfog | Dec 2015 | #53 | |
forest444 | Dec 2015 | #49 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #57 | |
forest444 | Dec 2015 | #71 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #89 | |
DhhD | Dec 2015 | #61 | |
forest444 | Dec 2015 | #69 | |
ibegurpard | Dec 2015 | #88 | |
Thespian2 | Dec 2015 | #55 | |
AzDar | Dec 2015 | #58 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #59 | |
Fawke Em | Dec 2015 | #62 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #90 | |
winter is coming | Dec 2015 | #96 | |
Bread and Circus | Dec 2015 | #98 | |
SHRED | Dec 2015 | #66 | |
Fearless | Dec 2015 | #70 | |
Cheese Sandwich | Dec 2015 | #72 | |
hrmjustin | Dec 2015 | #76 | |
hrmjustin | Dec 2015 | #82 | |
kath | Dec 2015 | #83 | |
hrmjustin | Dec 2015 | #85 | |
kath | Dec 2015 | #86 | |
hrmjustin | Dec 2015 | #87 | |
winter is coming | Dec 2015 | #99 | |
840high | Dec 2015 | #105 | |
Bernblu | Dec 2015 | #108 | |
kath | Dec 2015 | #109 |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:08 PM
MerryBlooms (11,269 posts)
1. I read earlier today that Clinton is distancing herself from Rahm, that would be the smart move.
It's about to get ugly for Rahm, and the last thing any of our Democratic candidates need is to be associated with him.
|
Response to MerryBlooms (Reply #1)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:10 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
3. They shouldn't be associated with him anyway
And the fact that any of them were LONG before this does not speak well of them anyway.
|
Response to ibegurpard (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:12 PM
MerryBlooms (11,269 posts)
4. Yeah, I hear ya. :(
Response to ibegurpard (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:38 PM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
56. Amen.
When I first heard Obama had appointed him chief of staff is the moment I realized we weren't going to get as much "hope and change" out of Obama as I had "hoped."
And, I was an early Obama supporter. I still like him, mind you, but he didn't shake up the insiders as much as most wanted him to do. |
Response to Fawke Em (Reply #56)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:09 AM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
93. He lost me
With public subsidies for private insurance masquerading as healthcare and it's been all downhill since.
|
Response to Fawke Em (Reply #56)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:39 AM
BlueCaliDem (15,438 posts)
101. Yeah, I thought that was a bad choice, too. But "No Drama Obama" needed an attack dog
so I was ok with it for a little while...until I discovered that Rahm was behind booting Howard Dean out of the DNC.
I still support President Obama completely, but this was one of his really bad choices. |
Response to MerryBlooms (Reply #1)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:53 PM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
64. I loathe the expression 'deeply troubled'. it usually means they aren't.
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:09 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
2. K&R - As usual, Hillary's campaign rhetoric rings hollow when the chips are down. nt
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Thinkingabout This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:14 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
6. Call Rahm
Tell him to go with that.
I beg you! |
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:17 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
8. Sorry, but it is not Bernie who is saying a guy who covered up a murder "Loves Chicago"
You can try your hardest to change the topic, but this is about a murder that was covered up by one of Clinton's allies.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #8)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #9)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:28 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
10. That is either a mistake on your part or a lie.
Which is it?
|
Response to ibegurpard (Reply #10)
Thinkingabout This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #15)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:46 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
17. So lie it is.
See the posts below me refuting it.
|
Response to ibegurpard (Reply #17)
Thinkingabout This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #21)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:58 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
23. He voted against it because he believed background checks should be handled by the states:
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm Try again. |
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #21)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:02 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
29. you lied about saying he doesn't support background checks.
The Brady Bill was not a bill solely about background checks.
|
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #21)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:13 PM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
47. You aren't suppose to mention that.
Or the Iraq Liberation Act, his leading role in blocking a path to citizenship for over ten million people, his direct support of arming foreign armies, the F-35, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, his old writings, Sanders wife being appointed to two commissions by Schumlin shortly after Sanders stumped for him, the fact he is the career politician running, his colleagues not endorsing him, etc... Quiet down over there.
|
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #47)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:56 PM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
65. how about clinton voting for the war that should have never happened?
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #47)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:25 AM
JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)
78. A better reason not to mention it is because it is an outright fabrication.
Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #78)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:31 AM
friendly_iconoclast (15,333 posts)
81. A fabrication that just got hidden...
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #15)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:48 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
18. You said he opposed background checks, that is a lie
And there is a link in this thread to prove it is a lie. But keep lying in an effort to defend Hiĺlary for standing behind a guy who covered up a murder, you are only making yourself and your candidate look bad.
|
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #15)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:54 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
20. You said he opposes background checks and that is a lie, see post 13.
Next time try not to be so obvious and you might get away with it.
|
Response to Post removed (Reply #9)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:33 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
12. That is absolutely false
Bernie has said many times that he supports stronger background checks and an assault weapons ban, he has voted for those things as well.
|
Response to Post removed (Reply #9)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:37 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
13. That is a lie. He has voted for background checks and assault weapons bans.
Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban
Wednesday, April 17, 2013 WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn. “Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added. The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said. Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.” In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban |
Response to Post removed (Reply #9)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:51 PM
raindaddy (1,370 posts)
63. "Sander's wants guns in the streets"
That's such a blatant misrepresentation..
That would be like saying Hillary believes that "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" and want to annul all same sex marriages.. |
Response to raindaddy (Reply #63)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:14 AM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
74. I think I'm going to add that to the big book of smears.
Despicable comment.
|
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #74)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:23 AM
JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)
77. They certainly try to outdo each other though! Keep up the good work on the book of smears. n/t
Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #77)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:26 AM
friendly_iconoclast (15,333 posts)
79. Thinkingaboutit will be thinking about it elsewhere: 7-0 vote to hide that libel
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message On Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post: Sanders wants the guns in the streets, it is fine with him, no background checks, etc http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=874882 REASON FOR ALERT This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ALERTER'S COMMENTS Disruptive, over the top. this is just one of many distortions and lies posted by this poster against a Dem candidate. Enough is enough is enough. JURY RESULTS You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:23 PM, and the Jury voted 7-0 to HIDE IT. Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: Deliberate misrepresentation. Definite hide. Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: EPIC FAIL. Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future. |
Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #79)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:30 AM
kath (10,565 posts)
106. Despite the name, that one is not much of a thinker.
Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #8)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:58 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
24. Is it proven beyond a doubt Rahm was part of the cover up?
Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #24)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:02 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
28. A five million dollar settlement was handed out in this case
Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1) If the city gave away millions of dollars to keep the family quiet and if Rahm did not know about it then he is extremely incompetent.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #28)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:04 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
35. Interesting. We live in a very corrupt world.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:31 PM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
11. And that has nothing to do with why Rahm is on the hot seat.
He is going down because of his knowledge of a video showing the blatant murder of a young man by a police officer.
|
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:53 PM
strategery blunder (4,225 posts)
19. Chicago gun violence is more of a problem for corrupt Chicago politicians.
I used to live there. The Laquan cover-up is no surprise whatsoever to me.
The Brady Bill is irrelevant to this case. THE COP MURDERED LAQUAN WITH HIS SERVICE WEAPON. The Brady Bill would have done nothing to restrain police from using their service weapons in inappropriate situations. The problem is this: 1) corrupt Chicago police think they can do whatever they want at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to serve (and the Black community bears the brunt of this), 2) corrupt Chicago politicians cover up the crimes committed by their own police department, and 3) neither cops nor politicians are held accountable. And that is barely scratching the surface. The problem for Hillary is that she is closely associated with one of those corrupt Chicago politicians, because she worked closely with him during his time as President Obama's Chief of Staff. And now Hillary is showing the corrupt Chicago politician some "professional courtesy" by trying to dodge and deflect the issue of corrupt cops and cover-ups, rather than leave her friend out to dry by condemning the cover-up. Wink wink, nod nod. Bernie never did play the "professional courtesy" insider connections game. He can condemn it as a person of integrity, from the outside looking in. You can try to argue that the Hillary-Rahm relationship is innuendo, but there were those of us who knew he had no business anywhere near the White House from before the day he was appointed. I do believe it is fair to judge people by the company they keep. |
Response to strategery blunder (Reply #19)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:56 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
22. Oh she worked closely with him long before that
Response to ibegurpard (Reply #22)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:04 PM
strategery blunder (4,225 posts)
32. I did say I was barely scratching the surface in that post ;)
I know they also worked together before that on assorted Democratic congressional campaign committees but I trust you understand that I do not want to spend my Friday night wading into that cesspool.
Suffice it to say that I knew Rahm's "promotion" from congresscritter to CoS was a very, very bad idea immediately upon the appointment. Sure enough, it turned out to be a very, very bad idea. ![]() |
Response to strategery blunder (Reply #32)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:09 AM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
94. Rahm Emanuel worked for Bill Clinton
From Wiki:
Working early in his career in Democratic politics, Emanuel was appointed as director of the finance committee for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. In 1993, he joined the Clinton administration, where he served as the Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy before resigning in 1998. |
Response to strategery blunder (Reply #19)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:06 PM
Truprogressive85 (900 posts)
37. So ignore a possible cover up and focus on gun violence right?
Why not put effort on both issues
This like when conservatives say "what about black on black crime |
Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #37)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:10 PM
strategery blunder (4,225 posts)
38. Those are two separate issues
And I can pay attention to both simultaneously. That does not, however, mean they should be conflated.
I was replying to someone who was attempting to use Brady Bill votes that had nothing to do with the police cover-up to deflect attention from such cover-up (and by extension, who might be implicated therein). |
Response to strategery blunder (Reply #19)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:06 AM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
91. And then they use $5,000,000 of taxpayer money to cover up the crime. Crazy.
Response to strategery blunder (Reply #19)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:07 AM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
92. The Clinton's and Rahm go way back (way before Obama)
From wiki:
Working early in his career in Democratic politics, Emanuel was appointed as director of the finance committee for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. In 1993, he joined the Clinton administration, where he served as the Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy before resigning in 1998. |
Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #92)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:26 AM
strategery blunder (4,225 posts)
97. Yeah I was speaking from my experience living there
And the Clintons have had connections to the Rahmbo for almost as long as I've been alive.
|
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:01 PM
jfern (5,204 posts)
27. What the hell does gun control have to do with
some Hillary supporting mayor covering up a murder committed by cops? That's right, nothing. You are just trying to cover for the Rahm/Hillary wing of the party.
|
Response to jfern (Reply #27)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:03 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
30. It's all he's got
Response to ibegurpard (Reply #30)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:31 PM
morningfog (18,115 posts)
52. He was thinking about it.
Response to jfern (Reply #27)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:04 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
34. That's their default position, whenever they don't have a defense they bring up gunz!
Every. Single. Time.
|
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #34)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:10 AM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
95. That or a poll.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:03 PM
Truprogressive85 (900 posts)
31. Gun violence is a problem in Chicago yes but
When police are shooting black people and the citizens are asking for transparency ,yet officials ignore that call I think that is major problem
|
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:30 PM
morningfog (18,115 posts)
51. This isn't about gun violence, it is about Rahm covering for cop murderers.
You posted in the wrong thread.
This one is about Chicago cops killing black men. BLM's and other activist group's in Chicago primary goal right now is cleaning house, including Rahm. Especially Rahm. |
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:12 AM
Cheese Sandwich (9,086 posts)
73. Would the Brady Bill have banned guns from murderous cops?
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #73)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:34 AM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
100. I thought it was about Rahm being close to the Clinton's and posing a problem?
Response to ViseGrip (Reply #100)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:02 AM
Cheese Sandwich (9,086 posts)
102. I was responding to a post that was saying hey it's Bernie's fault because he voted against the
Brady Bill
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:15 PM
NorthCarolina (11,197 posts)
7. Rahm is one of their own. What else could she say?
eom
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:38 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
14. I was there at the Chicago protests on the Friday after Thanksgiving... they really wanted...
Rahm to get out. They were chanting he had to go over and over... so yeah... I guess there's that.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:43 PM
Doctor_J (36,392 posts)
16. best for her to stay the course. her supporters don't care about her friendships with the Bush
family, Kissinger, dimon, trump, and so on. OTOH if she suddenly breaks up with Rahm, it pisses him off and presents as yet another flip flop. Plus no one will believe it.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:59 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
25. If you cover up a known murder, doesn't that make you and accomplice to the crime?
Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #25)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:21 PM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
48. I believe...
It would be something along the lines of accomplice after the fact. I believe there is some kind of legal distinction. I'm sure Rahm has his ass covered pretty well. He's the lefts version of Rove in my opinion. I'd use him to help run a campaign but don't want him in any type of elected position. The next week or two will be interesting with him. I only imagine pressure for him to resign increasing.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:59 PM
Motown_Johnny (22,308 posts)
26. The person to replenish our depleted reservoirs of trust sure isn't Hillary.
Most people don't trust her. The idea that she has any hope at all of creating trust between law enforcement and communities of color (or between any 2 groups no matter who they might be) is not a reasonable one. |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #26)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:04 PM
WillyT (72,631 posts)
33. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!
![]() |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:04 PM
WillyT (72,631 posts)
36. HUGE K & R !!!
![]() |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:37 PM
zentrum (9,864 posts)
41. Rahm Knew. Here's why.
Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1) The city of Chicago offered 5 Million to the family of Laquan MacDonald pre-emptively. They had not even sued yet—if they were going to at all before the video surfaced. 5 Million. That's a lot.
There is no way the Mayor of Chicago would allow 5M to go out to some poor, powerless family, when the City has a budget shortfall—unless he had seen the video and wanted to buy them off. |
Response to zentrum (Reply #41)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:44 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
42. Yes, I think that settlement is the smoking gun that ties Rahm to this
Unless he is enormously incompetent then there is no way he could not have noticed a five million dollar settlement, but while Rahm has a lot of bad traits incompetence is not one of them. He knew, and the provision in the settlement that requires the family to remain silent proves there was a cover up.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #42)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:04 PM
zentrum (9,864 posts)
45. Yes--
…I forgot about the "silence" clause. It was a sheer pay-off cover up and Rahm had to know. There will be a trail of some sort I think.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #42)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:39 AM
kath (10,565 posts)
107. Yep, sure seems like a smoking gun to me. What about the Board of Alderman - wouldn't they have
Known about that big settlement? And shouldn't many people's curiosity have been piqued by the fact that the city was giving a big settlement BEFORE the victim's family had even sued?
EVERYONE who knew about the video and the scrubbing of the Burger King video should be charged with obstruction of justice or similar charges. Plus all the cops on the scene, of course, |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:50 PM
MaggieD (7,393 posts)
43. Oh good lord
You folks simply amaze me with how far you'll strain yourselves to find something to smear Hillary with.
This morning she was castigated because she wasn't whining about more debates, and this evening she is apparently being accused of not publically saying "fuck you" to Rahm Emanuel even as she criticized the issue. Has Bernie publically said "Rahm, you suck" and I missed it or something? SMH |
Response to MaggieD (Reply #43)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:53 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
44. Why can't she come out and forcefully denounce Rahm and call for his ouster?
Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #44)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:26 PM
MaggieD (7,393 posts)
50. Same reason Bernie doesn't
It would look a purely political move.
|
Response to MaggieD (Reply #50)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:34 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
54. Bernie has called for Emanuel to resign
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251874542
Bernie thinks he should resign, but despite the strong evidence that Rahm was involved in a murder coverup Hillary thinks he should remain in office. Do you really want to tell me that Hillary is doing the right thing here? |
Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #54)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:43 PM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
60. That poster tends to mouth-off first and find out real info later.
Thanks for calling her on it.
![]() |
Response to Fawke Em (Reply #60)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:00 AM
MaggieD (7,393 posts)
68. Except he didn't call for Emanuel to resign
He equivocated just like you're accusing Hillary of doing.
|
Response to MaggieD (Reply #68)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:28 AM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
80. Yeah, basically he did.
Bernie is not in Rahm's head, thank God, to know what he really knows, but Bernie, unequivocally, said that if what's in the media is true, Rahm should resign.
Whether you want to take that at face value or not, it's still a far, far, far cry from Clinton hoping he says in office. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #54)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:59 PM
MaggieD (7,393 posts)
67. LOL!
"Any elected official with knowledge...."
Yeah, that's the same weak sauce you're accusing Hillary of. Again, any port in a storm for you guys. SMH. |
Response to MaggieD (Reply #43)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:34 PM
morningfog (18,115 posts)
53. Glad you asked! A learning moment for you.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/12/04/bernie-sanders-weighs-in-on-chicago-police-controversy/
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Friday that any official involved with suppressing the release of a video of the shooting death of a black teen by a white Chicago police officer should be “held accountable” and, if necessary, resign.
Though Sanders never mentioned his name, the comments appeared aimed at Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a long-time ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton and former White House chief of staff to President Barack Obama. “Any elected official with knowledge that the tape was being suppressed or improperly withheld should resign. No one should be shielded by power or position,” Sanders said in a statement. We all know that Rahm knew. Rham's got to go. If Hillary knew how to lead, or actually gave a shit about black lives, she would call for Rahm's head to. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:24 PM
forest444 (5,902 posts)
49. The DEMOCRATS as a whole have a Rahm problem.
Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1) People who, while parading as progressives, needlessly close over 50 schools in disadvantaged areas and then turn over educational policy to Eli Broad Academy gestapo flunkies.
Among many other duplicitous actions, unfortunately. |
Response to forest444 (Reply #49)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:41 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
57. Exactly. It's all this third way bullshit and this "nothing matters as long as we win" myopic...
attitude that hurts us all in the long run.
|
Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #57)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:06 AM
forest444 (5,902 posts)
71. And worst of all, it all seems to have been narrowed down to a choice between that
and Reichpublican mob rule - until Bernie came along, that is.
We can only hope the timing is right; it has to be. |
Response to forest444 (Reply #71)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:03 AM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
89. It is kind of like that... it's almost a bind between cynicism and softcore fascism
Response to forest444 (Reply #49)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:45 PM
DhhD (4,695 posts)
61. Did Clinton support Rahm on shutting down Chicago public schools? Please read how to sell of
a city through privatization.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17533/how_to_sell_off_a_city Scroll down to look at the privatization under Rahm. Who benfits? Hillary's backers and donors. |
Response to DhhD (Reply #61)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:01 AM
forest444 (5,902 posts)
69. Great reading. Thank you!
Profitization of public assets seems to be in style these days.
![]() |
Response to forest444 (Reply #49)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:55 AM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
88. this is what we are fighting
And this is what Hillary represents and is fighting US for.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:36 PM
Thespian2 (2,741 posts)
55. Gonna' have to put on some running shoes...
to get enough distance away from Ram Emanuel...a person (?) who should never have been given any public office, but managed to screw over large segments of the population...
![]() |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:41 PM
AzDar (14,023 posts)
58. So. MANY. Problems.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:41 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
59. I was at the Chicago protests, I have some good pics, what's a good site to post them and link?
Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #59)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:45 PM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
62. Start a thread in General Discussion and post them on DU.
I'd like to see them!
Let me know when you do! |
Response to Fawke Em (Reply #62)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:04 AM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
90. Can I just upload them directly to DU from my phone?
Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #90)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:22 AM
winter is coming (11,785 posts)
96. Pretty sure you'll have to host them somewhere, like photobucket. n/t
Response to winter is coming (Reply #96)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:27 AM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
98. ahh ok cool ty
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:56 PM
SHRED (28,136 posts)
66. Third Way corporate DLC'ers
They stick together on the gravy train.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:04 AM
Fearless (18,421 posts)
70. Problem is that she's not serious.
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:10 AM
Cheese Sandwich (9,086 posts)
72. Ok so he partly stole the election by hiding this video
If the video had been public, he might have lost. That guy is trash.
And Hillary is standing by her pal. Tells you something. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:32 AM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
82. Hillary doesn't have a Rahm problem.
Rahm has a Rahm problem.
|
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #82)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:36 AM
kath (10,565 posts)
83. Why don't you tell us again, like you just did but deleted, that "you guys would vote for the
Crucifixion of Christ"? (Post76)
That was SUCH a lovely post. |
Response to kath (Reply #83)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:39 AM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
85. I said You guys would blame her for the crucifixion of christ.
I deleted it because it was harsh.
Get what I said right please. |
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #85)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:42 AM
kath (10,565 posts)
86. Sorry I didn't get the wording right - read it right before it disappeared,but knew that it was some
Over-the-top-bullshit about the crucifixion of Christ. Thanks for clarifying.
|
Response to kath (Reply #86)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:44 AM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
87. That is why I self deleted my snark.
It was over the top.
|
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #82)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:30 AM
winter is coming (11,785 posts)
99. "She knows Mayor Emanuel loves Chicago, and is sure he wants to do all he can...
to restore trust in the Chicago Police Department"
The notion that Emanuel would be someone who could restore trust is laughably absurd, yet that's HRC's current response to this situation. It's classic noncommital weasel-speak, and it will come back to bite her in the ass. |
Response to winter is coming (Reply #99)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:37 AM
840high (17,196 posts)
105. She has a problem taking
a stand and sticking to it. More blah-blah from her.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:11 AM
Bernblu (441 posts)
108. Of course she's not serious about BLM. Politics is more important. She is not going to throw Rahm
under the bus because he know where all the skeletons are buried.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:44 PM
kath (10,565 posts)
109. Kick
Every official who knew about the mrder of that young boy and covered it up should be charged with obstruction of justice or worse.
|