https://thesardonicobserver.wordpres...ump-harkonnen/
- Yssup Rider
- 06-01-2016, 10:33 AM
LMAO! This is YUGE! He loves the House Atreides!
https://thesardonicobserver.wordpres...ump-harkonnen/
https://thesardonicobserver.wordpres...ump-harkonnen/
- i'va biggen
- 06-01-2016, 11:05 AM
- Rey Lengua
- 06-01-2016, 11:51 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/n...060634239.htmlYou must like that picture because it reminds YOU of the good times that YOU and WOOMBY had picking dingleberries down at the 'holes !
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
- i'va biggen
- 06-01-2016, 03:45 PM
- Rey Lengua
- 06-01-2016, 04:07 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 06-01-2016, 05:04 PM
LMAO! This is YUGE! He loves the House Atreides!
https://thesardonicobserver.wordpres...ump-harkonnen/
that's a funny piece of fiction there pig. i find it shocking you can even read a novel like Dune. too many "big words" you'd have to look up on DICtionary.com
let's forget the "fan fiction" shall we? let's talk about your candidate .. just the facts
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...osition-223753
Lawyers clashed at Clinton aide's deposition
By Josh Gerstein
05/31/16 05:11 PM EDT
Lawyers for former Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, the State Department, and a conservative group tangled repeatedly on Friday as Mills testified at a contentious deposition in a lawsuit relating to Clinton's use of a private email account and server during her tenure as secretary of state, a transcript of the session shows.
The testimony illustrated the complexity of getting to the bottom of the email mess as Mills' attorney, Beth Wilkinson, objected to a variety of questions that she said intruded on Clinton's attorney-client privilege by asking about Mills work for Clinton as a private lawyer after serving for nearly four years as Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department.
Wilkinson and a State Department lawyer also objected that many of the questions asked by an attorney for Judicial Watch went beyond the areas permitted by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who authorized fact-finding highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
When Judicial Watch lawyer Ramona Cotca asked Mills whether she'd discussed Clinton's email issues with lawyer Heather Samuelson, Wilkinson jumped in.
"I'm going to object right now. Beyond the scope," Wilkinson said.
"I'm asking who represented Secretary Clinton," Cotca replied.
<img data-size="promo_xsmall_rectangle">
"That's totally irrelevant to the areas that we're here to talk about," Wilkinson shot back. "I'm going to instruct her not to answer on these issues."
An effort by Cotca to explore the role of computer specialist Bryan Pagliano in arranging Clinton's server met with a similar result.
"What did Mr. Pagliano tell you in those conversations you had about the setup of the server?" Cotca asked.
"Objection. Beyond the scope. And I'm going to instruct her not to answer," Wilkinson said.
"Objection. Beyond the scope and potentially calls for privilege," Justice Department attorney Marcia Berman chimed in.
While much of the deposition was occupied by such legal jousting, Mills did testify that she had no recollection of any discussion at the outset of Clinton's service as secretary about Clinton possibly using a State Department account.
"Secretary Clinton continued a practice that she was using of [sic] her personal email," Mills said according to the transcript. "I don't know that I could articulate that there was a specific discussion as opposed to her continuation of the practice she had been using when she was a Senator. ... I don't have a specific memory of the conversations that may or may not have occurred. I know that I understood she was going to be using her personal email and that's what she did."
Mills also said she thought Clinton's email was subject to search for FOIA requests, but could not recall any discussion with others in Clinton's office about that specific issue.
"I don't have a recollection of having a discussion with somebody in the Secretary's office and her email being subject to FOIA. It was my impression it was," the former aide said.
Mills said she expected that Clinton's support staff knew about the private email address, but never specifically talked to them about how to handle FOIA requests covering the secretary's messages.
"I would also be surprised that they would be unaware that [her account] was not on the State.gov system. ... Certainly, from my standpoint I wish that had been something we thought about," the former chief of staff said. She also said she thought, incorrectly, that all emails sent to or from state.gov email addresses were preserved "forever."
In response to a question from Berman, Mills denied that the private email arrangement was intended to avoid making records available under FOIA. "Absolutely not," the longtime Cinton aide said.
However, when Mills was asked whether she refused to speak to the State Department's Office of Inspector General about a FOIA request a liberal watchdog group submitted for details on Clinton's use of a personal email account, Mills' lawyer again objected.
"Beyond the scope. I'm going to instruct her not to answer," Wilkinson said.
Mills did say she wasn't sure why the State Department abandoned a proposal for Clinton to use a standalone computer to check her private email account, but the former aide confirmed that Clinton didn't have much familiarity with computers. (Records show she did her emailing through a BlackBerry and an iPad.)
"I do know know why it was not set up," Mills said. "I do know she was not someone who used a computer, And so to the extent the objective was to place that computer there for her use, it would not have been used."
At least 11 attorneys were on hand for Mills' testimony, not including the witness herself, who is a former deputy White House counsel under President Bill Clinton. The session held at a court reporter's office in downtown Washington stretched from a little after 9 A.M. Friday to just after 4 P.M., including several breaks.
Mills' testimony was videotaped, but last week Sullivan issued an order putting those videos under seal indefinitely.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/31/hillar...misstatements/
Over the months, Clinton misstated key facts about her use of private email and her own server.
Over the months, Hillary Clinton misstated key facts about her use of private email and her own server for her work as secretary of state, the department’s inspector general reported this week.
According to the findings, she claimed approval she didn’t have and declined to be interviewed for the report despite saying: “I’m more than ready to talk to anybody anytime.” Scrutiny of her unusual email practices appeared to be unwelcome, despite her contention those practices were well known and “fully above board.”
A look at some of Clinton’s past claims about her unusual email set-up and how they compare with the inspector general’s findings:
Clinton: “The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.” — March 2015 press conference.
The Report: Evidence emerged of hacking attempts, though it’s unclear whether they were successful.
On Jan. 9, 2011, (asterisk)an adviser to former President Bill Clinton notified the State Department’s deputy chief of staff for operations that he had to shut down the server because he suspected “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i did.,nt (sic) want to let them have the chance to.”
Later that day, he sent another note. “We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min.”
The following day the deputy chief emailed top Clinton aides and instructed them not to email the secretary “anything sensitive.”
Also in May 2011, Clinton told aides that someone was “hacking into her email,” after she received a message with a suspicious link, the new audit report said.
The Associated Press has previously reported that, according to detailed records compiled in 2012, Clinton’s server was connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. It appeared to allow users to connect openly over the internet to control it remotely.
Moreover, it’s unclear what protection her email system might have achieved from having the Secret Service guard the property. Digital security breaches tend to come from computer networks, not over a fence.
Clinton: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.” — AP interview, September.
The Report: “No evidence” that Clinton asked for or received approval to conduct official government business on a personal email account run through a private server in her New York home. According to top State Department officials interviewed for the investigation, the departments that oversee security “did not — and would not — approve” her use of a personal account because of security concerns.
Clinton has changed her account since the report came out. On Thursday, she told CNN “I thought it was allowed. I knew past secretaries of state used personal email.”
Colin Powell was the only secretary of state who used personal email for work, but not to the extent she did, and he did not use a private server.
Clinton: “It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email.” — AP interview, September.
Clinton: “The people in the government knew that I was using a personal account . the people I was emailing to on the dot gov system certainly knew and they would respond to me on my personal email.” — NBC News interview, September.
The Report: According to the findings, it’s unclear how widespread knowledge was about Clinton’s use of a personal account. Though Clinton’s use of a private email was discussed with some in her agency, senior department officials who worked for her, including the undersecretary responsible for security, said they were not asked to approve or review the use of her private server.
The officials also said they were “unaware of the scope or extent” of her email practices, even though Clinton exchanged hundreds of thousands of messages with people in government from her personal account.
Clinton: “In the fall, I think it was October of last year (2014), the State Department sent a letter to previous secretaries of state asking for help with their record-keeping, in part because of the technical problems that they knew they had to deal with. And they asked that we, all of us, go through our e-mails to determine what was work-related and to provide that for them.” — NBC News, September.
The Report: While it’s true that the State Department requested records from former secretaries of state in November 2014, the report says the department raised concerns about Clinton’s compliance with federal record-keeping laws years earlier, and the attention did not appear welcome.
Two employees in the Office of Information Resources Management discussed concerns about her use of a personal email account in separate 2010 meetings. One of the employees stressed in one of the meetings that the information being transmitted needed to be preserved to satisfy federal records laws.
They were instructed by the director of the department “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again,” according to the report.
Clinton: “I think last August I made it clear I’m more than ready to talk to anybody anytime. — CBS News interview in May.
The Report: Clinton declined through her lawyer to be interviewed for the report. Four other secretaries of state participated: John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. She now says: “everything I had to say was out there.”
But she has said she will speak to the FBI as part of a separate criminal investigation into possible security breaches related to her private server.
In October, she testified about the issue before the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
- i'va biggen
- 06-01-2016, 07:14 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 06-01-2016, 07:18 PM
0zombies be splaining in the morning...
- JD Barleycorn
- 06-02-2016, 10:09 AM
I see that the leader of the US Communist party is all but endorsing Secretary Blythe for president though he says he likes Bernie more.
- i'va biggen
- 06-02-2016, 10:45 AM
North Korea is all in for Trump...........
- Rey Lengua
- 06-02-2016, 11:11 AM
- i'va biggen
- 06-02-2016, 05:48 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 06-02-2016, 06:27 PM
Trump reveals a lot of shit... more to come!
- i'va biggen
- 06-02-2016, 06:50 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 06-02-2016, 07:04 PM
even the libtard HuffPost knows the truth ..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-go...rgnet_1017695&
yes i've posted this article before .. it's worth a repost bitches
Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before The FBI Reveals Its Findings
Millions of Democrats are voting for a presidential candidate linked to an FBI criminal investigation. These voters either don’t know there’s been a year-long FBI investigation of Clinton’s emails, don’t care, or would vote for Clinton even she faced Espionage Act indictments. Potentially our next Commander in Chief will be interviewed by the FBI soon, as will her top aides. This state of affairs would never take place in any other leading democracy, but American politics is unique.
Bernie Sanders has political momentum, grass roots support throughout the nation, and defeats Donald Trump by a wider margin than Clinton. Sanders has surged to within several points nationally of Clinton, despite being over 50 points down not long ago. In contrast, Clinton lost astronomical leads to both Obama and Sanders, and doesn’t keep polling leads. Furthermore, Trump won’t watch his tone about emails, and every other scandal associated with both Clintons. The pedestrian polling lead Hillary Clinton currently holds over Donald Trump isn’t set in stone; Trump is already ahead of Clinton in a recent poll.
Don’t be certain Trump can’t defeat Clinton in a general election, even if the FBI doesn’t recommend indictments. Once he pivots towards being a semi-normal human being, and distances himself from the bigoted stances he utilized to gain power within the GOP, Clinton would face a more “likable” Trump. In a battle of two individuals with negative favorability ratings, the person who might have jeopardized national security with a private server could easily lose.
In the best case scenario, Clinton doesn’t face indictments, but the FBI confirms that she jeopardized national security. Thus, Republicans would make even the best case scenario for Clinton’s campaign a major political liability. America isn’t a closed Democratic primary, and Clinton would be on the defensive during every televised debate against Trump.
This dynamic doesn’t exist with Bernie Sanders against Trump. All Bernie has to do is point and explain to America that Trump embodies everything wrong with money and politics. Bernie doesn’t have any controversies, or hidden Wall Street transcripts. Bernie also didn’t accept money from Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton did take Trump’s money. While Bernie can distance himself completely, Clinton is too closely tied to the eventual GOP nominee, especially through their social networks. There’s a reason Trump invited the Clintons, and not Bernie and Jane Sanders, to his wedding. There’s also a reason Trump goes golfing with Bill, and not Bernie.
However, the biggest reason Clinton should concede to Bernie Sanders involves the political repercussions of the FBI’s email investigation. The long-term future of the Democratic Party rests upon whether or not the FBI discloses its findings before, or after the contested Democratic convention. While I believe Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination, there’s a major issue few people have addressed in progressive circles.
What happens if Clinton wins the nomination, and the FBI recommends indictments after July 25, 2016?
If the FBI recommends indictments, and the DOJ indicts Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party would be handing Donald Trump the White House by nominating the former Secretary of State. I explain in this YouTube segment why Clinton should concede the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders, before the political ramifications of a contested convention, and before the FBI discloses its findings.
First, there used to be a time in American history when Bernie Sanders would be the only choice for Democratic nominee. Not long ago, an FBI investigation meant the end of a presidential campaign. Clinton would have been forced to conceded at any point in U.S. history before 2016, linked to a criminal FBI investigation.
Unfortunately, the inept Republican Party, combined with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s uncanny ability to circumvent scandal, have made even FBI investigations morally relative. Because of Ken Starr, Benghazi hearings, and the notion that anything Republicans advocate must either be a conspiracy, or some plot to harm Hillary Clinton, voters simply roll their eyes at controversy. I addressed why only Hillary Clinton is capable of enduring these issues during my CNN New Day appearance.
Second, millions of loyal Hillary supporters would still vote for Clinton, even if the FBI recommended Espionage Act indictments. Since “gross negligence” can be used to prosecute Clinton under the Espionage Act, and since convenience wasn’t the reason for owning a private server, indictments are likely. Also, if indictments become a reality, the fracture within the Democratic Party, caused by people who’d still vote for a candidate facing criminal indictment, would be irreparable. The rest of the world would either be laughing, or in disbelief, that Clinton decided to continue her campaign for the presidency (with supporters still loyal), even with the threat of jail time. Rest assured, even more Bernie supporters would refuse to vote for Clinton, if her campaign continued its quest for the White House, alongside criminal indictments.
Then there’s the likelihood of criminal charges. Every “legal scholar” or pundit defending Clinton assumes that merely convenience, or absent-mindedness, was the reason for a private server. Since there was almost certainly political utility involved in circumventing U.S. government networks, the DOJ has intent and motive to indict Clinton.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified, former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey states the case for Clinton’s prosecution:
The most important element of this story is how Hillary Clinton transferred classified data from a secure State Department network to a private server. I need to ask this question of my friend Tim Black, especially since he has an IT background, and made this comprehensive analysis of the email story.
Finally, if you don’t believe H. A. Goodman, then take the word of President Obama’s former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. On CNN with Jake Tapper, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn explains why Clinton should drop out of the race:
I trust Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn more than Brian Fallon.
The FBI will eventually disclose its findings. To pretend like this will never happen, or that these revelations won’t have an impact, is ludicrous. Democrats will need Bernie Sanders, when Clinton faces the political ramifications of this scandal. If criminal indictments hit, rest assured that many of her supporters will argue that she should still be Commander in Chief, even risking possible jail time. This depressing state of affairs could be on the horizon, which is why Clinton should concede to Bernie sooner, rather than later. Finally, I explain here why the FBI’s reputation is at stake, and how the Clinton campaign views the FBI, in the following YouTube segment.
Follow H. A. Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR
what's this ??? Salon .. another liberal rag .. bashing the "chosen one" yep!
This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure
David Niose
No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.
Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.
Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.
Maybe. But don’t be too sure.
Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?
Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.
A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”
Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.
Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.
Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views.
Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless.
Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination.
The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial.
David Niose is author of Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason. He serves as legal director of the American Humanist Association. Twitter: @ahadave
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-go...rgnet_1017695&
yes i've posted this article before .. it's worth a repost bitches
Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before The FBI Reveals Its Findings
Millions of Democrats are voting for a presidential candidate linked to an FBI criminal investigation. These voters either don’t know there’s been a year-long FBI investigation of Clinton’s emails, don’t care, or would vote for Clinton even she faced Espionage Act indictments. Potentially our next Commander in Chief will be interviewed by the FBI soon, as will her top aides. This state of affairs would never take place in any other leading democracy, but American politics is unique.
Bernie Sanders has political momentum, grass roots support throughout the nation, and defeats Donald Trump by a wider margin than Clinton. Sanders has surged to within several points nationally of Clinton, despite being over 50 points down not long ago. In contrast, Clinton lost astronomical leads to both Obama and Sanders, and doesn’t keep polling leads. Furthermore, Trump won’t watch his tone about emails, and every other scandal associated with both Clintons. The pedestrian polling lead Hillary Clinton currently holds over Donald Trump isn’t set in stone; Trump is already ahead of Clinton in a recent poll.
Don’t be certain Trump can’t defeat Clinton in a general election, even if the FBI doesn’t recommend indictments. Once he pivots towards being a semi-normal human being, and distances himself from the bigoted stances he utilized to gain power within the GOP, Clinton would face a more “likable” Trump. In a battle of two individuals with negative favorability ratings, the person who might have jeopardized national security with a private server could easily lose.
In the best case scenario, Clinton doesn’t face indictments, but the FBI confirms that she jeopardized national security. Thus, Republicans would make even the best case scenario for Clinton’s campaign a major political liability. America isn’t a closed Democratic primary, and Clinton would be on the defensive during every televised debate against Trump.
This dynamic doesn’t exist with Bernie Sanders against Trump. All Bernie has to do is point and explain to America that Trump embodies everything wrong with money and politics. Bernie doesn’t have any controversies, or hidden Wall Street transcripts. Bernie also didn’t accept money from Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton did take Trump’s money. While Bernie can distance himself completely, Clinton is too closely tied to the eventual GOP nominee, especially through their social networks. There’s a reason Trump invited the Clintons, and not Bernie and Jane Sanders, to his wedding. There’s also a reason Trump goes golfing with Bill, and not Bernie.
However, the biggest reason Clinton should concede to Bernie Sanders involves the political repercussions of the FBI’s email investigation. The long-term future of the Democratic Party rests upon whether or not the FBI discloses its findings before, or after the contested Democratic convention. While I believe Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination, there’s a major issue few people have addressed in progressive circles.
What happens if Clinton wins the nomination, and the FBI recommends indictments after July 25, 2016?
If the FBI recommends indictments, and the DOJ indicts Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party would be handing Donald Trump the White House by nominating the former Secretary of State. I explain in this YouTube segment why Clinton should concede the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders, before the political ramifications of a contested convention, and before the FBI discloses its findings.
First, there used to be a time in American history when Bernie Sanders would be the only choice for Democratic nominee. Not long ago, an FBI investigation meant the end of a presidential campaign. Clinton would have been forced to conceded at any point in U.S. history before 2016, linked to a criminal FBI investigation.
Unfortunately, the inept Republican Party, combined with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s uncanny ability to circumvent scandal, have made even FBI investigations morally relative. Because of Ken Starr, Benghazi hearings, and the notion that anything Republicans advocate must either be a conspiracy, or some plot to harm Hillary Clinton, voters simply roll their eyes at controversy. I addressed why only Hillary Clinton is capable of enduring these issues during my CNN New Day appearance.
Second, millions of loyal Hillary supporters would still vote for Clinton, even if the FBI recommended Espionage Act indictments. Since “gross negligence” can be used to prosecute Clinton under the Espionage Act, and since convenience wasn’t the reason for owning a private server, indictments are likely. Also, if indictments become a reality, the fracture within the Democratic Party, caused by people who’d still vote for a candidate facing criminal indictment, would be irreparable. The rest of the world would either be laughing, or in disbelief, that Clinton decided to continue her campaign for the presidency (with supporters still loyal), even with the threat of jail time. Rest assured, even more Bernie supporters would refuse to vote for Clinton, if her campaign continued its quest for the White House, alongside criminal indictments.
Then there’s the likelihood of criminal charges. Every “legal scholar” or pundit defending Clinton assumes that merely convenience, or absent-mindedness, was the reason for a private server. Since there was almost certainly political utility involved in circumventing U.S. government networks, the DOJ has intent and motive to indict Clinton.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified, former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey states the case for Clinton’s prosecution:
When asked whether she had her server “wiped,” she assumed an air of grandmotherly befuddlement: “What, like with a cloth or something?” she said. “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”Like former attorney general Michael Mukasey explains, any other individual would have already been charged with several crimes. Also, it’s almost certain foreign intelligence agencies and hackers compromised Clinton’s server.
...Whatever the findings from that part of the probe, intelligence-community investigators believe it is nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked, possibly by the Chinese or the Russians. This raises the distinct possibility that she would be subject to blackmail in connection with those transactions and whatever else was on that server by people with hostile intent against this country...
The simple proposition that everyone is equal before the law suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind—whether mere knowledge of what she was doing as to mishandling classified information; or gross negligence in the case of the mishandling of information relating to national defense; or bad intent as to actual or attempted destruction of email messages; or corrupt intent as to State Department business—justifies a criminal charge of one sort or another.
The most important element of this story is how Hillary Clinton transferred classified data from a secure State Department network to a private server. I need to ask this question of my friend Tim Black, especially since he has an IT background, and made this comprehensive analysis of the email story.
Finally, if you don’t believe H. A. Goodman, then take the word of President Obama’s former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. On CNN with Jake Tapper, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn explains why Clinton should drop out of the race:
“If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail,” said Flynn, who decried what he said was a “lack of accountability, frankly, in a person who should have been much more responsible in her actions as the secretary of state of the United States of America.”If Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn believes he’d be in jail for doing what Clinton did with a private server, why are millions still voting for Clinton?
“This over-classification excuse is not an excuse,” Flynn said Friday. “If it’s classified, it’s classified.”
I trust Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn more than Brian Fallon.
The FBI will eventually disclose its findings. To pretend like this will never happen, or that these revelations won’t have an impact, is ludicrous. Democrats will need Bernie Sanders, when Clinton faces the political ramifications of this scandal. If criminal indictments hit, rest assured that many of her supporters will argue that she should still be Commander in Chief, even risking possible jail time. This depressing state of affairs could be on the horizon, which is why Clinton should concede to Bernie sooner, rather than later. Finally, I explain here why the FBI’s reputation is at stake, and how the Clinton campaign views the FBI, in the following YouTube segment.
Follow H. A. Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR
what's this ??? Salon .. another liberal rag .. bashing the "chosen one" yep!
This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure
David Niose
No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.
Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.
Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.
Maybe. But don’t be too sure.
Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?
Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.
A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”
Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.
Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.
Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views.
Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless.
Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination.
The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial.
David Niose is author of Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason. He serves as legal director of the American Humanist Association. Twitter: @ahadave