Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 3:43 pm

Ray Jay wrote:It's also possible that Trump will have to testify in one of the 3 civil trials in which he is being sued. Oy vey, what has happened to our Republic.


It's in a blind rage. On the GOP side because Republicans have failed to deliver on much. On the Democratic side, I think, because Obama and Co have been blowing smoke about how great the economy is.

Rank and file Democrats are thinking, "If this is great, then we need something else. Let's feel the Bern!"

It's amazing the media isn't talking about Trump's legal difficulties--and haven't really dredged up a lot of his past misdeeds. I suppose they won't cover them if he's the nominee . . .

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 3:45 pm

I'm actually starting to wonder if we would not be better off with a more open system--at least 4 parties, maybe more. Probably should start a topic.

1. Conservative.
2. Progressive.
3. Socialist.
4. Corporatist.

We might get more done as coalitions formed on various issues rather than the binary, push-pull of Dem/Rep.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Mar 2016, 11:18 am

Meanwhile, more dirt is landing on Hillary:

She's corrupt.

This past Tuesday Judicial Watch released 276 pages of internal State Department documents obtained in one of its FOIA cases agains the State Department. Based on the documents, the Judicial Watch press release states that within two days of the terrorist attack on our Benghazi consulate, then Libyan National Congress President Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.” Judicial Watch notes that the meeting between the Libyan president and Bill Clinton had not previously been disclosed. Judicial Watch also notes that the documents “show that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their ‘commitments’ during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.”

The press release adds context and details in a straightforward fashion without much in the way of editorial comment. It is worth reading in its entirety. At his Washington Post PostPartisan blog, Ed Rogers explicates the text as follows:

Judicial Watch released a batch of documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, that it says reveals blatant coordination between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Stunningly, the internal State Department emails expose Clinton’s eagerness to “thank [Clinton Foundation] supporters for their commitments.” Of course, these “commitments” must mean money. It’s incredible.

And, Clinton’s State Department was apparently coordinating meetings for Bill Clinton with foreign heads of state. If any other employee at the State Department had arranged such meetings for their spouse and actively thanked contributors to their spouse’s foundation, they would likely go to jail. No lawyer would even let it go to trial, because the sentencing guidelines would guarantee years behind bars. Another way to think about what was going on is to imagine that another country’s foreign minister’s spouse or family ran a foundation that American companies were caught giving to. Those American companies would certainly be vulnerable to prosecution by the Justice Department under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

It’s only because Hillary’s last name is Clinton and because she is the Democratic front-runner for president that she isn’t already being prosecuted for something or another. For anyone else at the State Department, their conviction and sentencing would produce only a matter-of-fact, back-page reference in The Washington Post.


Barack Obama has given us the one-man rule that is the necessary condition of a banana republic. Even before her election as president, Hillary Clinton has added the big-league corruption that is its hallmark.


The guy she hired to set up her home-brew server also got a backdoor appointment to the State Department IT.

How did Bryan Pagliano, the tech who ran Hillary Clinton’s campaign IT efforts, end up with a political appointment to the State Department’s normally apolitical IT group? According to Reuters, no one who worked with Pagliano ever found out, nor did they know of his moonlighting as the man who maintained Hillary’s personal e-mail server. Those arrangements were made by a very familiar figure in the murky world of Hillary’s State Department — Patrick Kennedy, who oversaw security issues for State, including the security decisions that left the consulate in Benghazi fatally exposed:

Soon after Hillary Clinton’s arrival at the State Department in 2009, officials in the information technology office were baffled when told that a young technician would join them as a political appointee, newly disclosed emails show.

The technician, Bryan Pagliano, was running the off-grid email server that Clinton had him set up in her New York home for her work as secretary of state. But even as years passed, Pagliano’s supervisors never learned of his most sensitive task, according to the department and one of his former colleagues. …

The newly disclosed emails show Patrick Kennedy, the department’s under secretary for management, oversaw the hiring of Pagliano. But Clinton and the department continued to decline this week to say who, if anyone, in the government was aware of the email arrangement.

“There was no permission to be asked,” Clinton said earlier this month. State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to say whether this was correct, citing the ongoing inquiries.


Isn’t it amazing just how often Patrick Kennedy ends up in the middle of these stories? Let’s not forget that the Accountability Review Board, assembled by State immediately after Benghazi, never bothered to interview Hillary or Kennedy while laying blame for the whole mess on lower-level career staffers at State. The two seem to be quite a pair when it comes to security — and lack thereof — at the State Department.

Why would Kennedy have taken an interest in an IT hire? His brief at State as Undersecretary for Management does include a wide range of responsibilities: “people, resources, budget, facilities, technology, financial operations, consular affairs, logistics, contracting, and security for Department of State operations, and is the Secretary’s principal advisor on management issues.” At that level, however, it seems surpassingly strange that Kennedy would take an interest in hiring one specific IT tech, especially in the context of a political appointment. Apparently, Pagliano’s supervisors and co-workers found it strange as well. Did Kennedy have knowledge of Hillary’s e-mail arrangements, and if he did, why didn’t he enforce proper security — which was definitely within his sphere of responsibility?

Perhaps that’s one of the questions that the FBI is asking Pagliano, now that the Department of Justice has granted him immunity. Another might be whether Hillary lied about the timeline of the use of her secret e-mail server:

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for recordkeeping and may have been lost entirely.

Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal “clintonemail.com” account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

But on Thursday, the watchdog group Judicial Watch released one message from Feb. 13, 2009, in which Mills communicated with Clinton on the account to discuss the National Security Agency’s (NSA) efforts to produce a secure BlackBerry device for her to use as secretary of State.

The discovery is likely to renew questions about Clinton’s narrative about her use of the private email server, which has come under scrutiny.

Last year, news organizations reported that Obama administration officials had discovered an email chain between Clinton and retired Gen. David Petraeus that began before Clinton entered office and continued through to Feb. 1. The chain of emails began on an earlier email system that Clinton used while serving in the Senate, but was reportedly transferred on to the clintonemail.com server.


If Hillary lied about when she started using the server, what purpose would she have had to do so? Legally, there isn’t much difference between starting its use in February or March. Maybe she just misremembered, but don’t forget that she and her team went through those records with a fine-tooth comb just prior to making the claim that the use started in March — deleting more than 30,000 messages from the system. Perhaps this is nothing, or … perhaps she had hoped to keep some e-mail messages from her first weeks in office from ever coming to the attention of investigators. Given her track record of honesty thus far, the latter seems like a much safer assumption.


She's going down--either for violating ethics laws or lying to the FBI, or maybe for exposing confidential info.

So corrupt; so incompetent. Hillary for Prison.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Mar 2016, 2:37 pm

You should spend less time reading Hot Air and Powerline with their obsessions that no one cares about and which never seem to have a pay off... Where's the quid quo pro?
And so what if the Libyan President wants to meet Bill Clinton. Who doesn't? He's cool.
Besides, it would be the job of State to facilitate gestures for foreign dignitaries..

Invest some time with National Enquirer. They are covering Ted Cruz's 5 affairs... Now that's something American voters will get up bothered about...

Apparently when Heidi found about the women , she was surprised other women would be willing to sleep with Ted. She has to, but they choose to?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Mar 2016, 3:13 pm

rickyp wrote:You should spend less time reading Hot Air and Powerline with their obsessions that no one cares about and which never seem to have a pay off... Where's the quid quo pro?
And so what if the Libyan President wants to meet Bill Clinton. Who doesn't? He's cool.
Besides, it would be the job of State to facilitate gestures for foreign dignitaries..

Invest some time with National Enquirer. They are covering Ted Cruz's 5 affairs... Now that's something American voters will get up bothered about...

Apparently when Heidi found about the women , she was surprised other women would be willing to sleep with Ted. She has to, but they choose to?


You're despicable.

Tell you what: if the National Enquirer is right, I'll give you $500. If it's wrong, you give me $50.

Deal?

Yeah, I thought not . . . Loser.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Mar 2016, 3:15 pm

I think you're going to be very disappointed when the ax falls on Hills.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Mar 2016, 9:47 am

Fate
I think you're going to be very disappointed when the ax falls on Hills.

No. Very surprised. Along the lines of the surprise I will feel in the event anything incredibly unlikely happens that I'm interested in, but not really invested in...

But frankly I wouldn't care, if it meant Sanders got the nod... In head to head polling against the three remaining Republican clowns he's way ahead of Hillary... And the change he would bring, if he gets a Senate and House majority, would be good for the US and the world.
Clinton would bring only incremental change... even with both House and Senate control.

I simply think that the obsession with smearing Hillary hasn't changed in 20 years, and always fails to do more than wound her. The constant attempts and the media's slavering attention to them even when they are of limited substance , along with her own limitations, have made her an unloved politician. But still, her net negatives are massively better than Cruz or Trump.
Republicans seem to be about to nominate exactly thee kind of person Hillary needs to enjoy a great electoral success... (Or perhaps Bennie)

Fate
You're despicable

Hey, I'm just reporting on the events of the day... and how they will probably actually effect the election. As opposed to the wishing and hoping that email gate amounts to...
And it turns out that it was largely Rubios folks who were peddling the story to the National Enquirer... (Daily Beast)
Just a wonderful collection of candidates...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Mar 2016, 10:13 am

rickyp wrote:I simply think that the obsession with smearing Hillary hasn't changed in 20 years, and always fails to do more than wound her.


That's delusional talk. It's not "smearing" when she actually does things that are, at best, questionable, ethically speaking.

And it turns out that it was largely Rubios folks who were peddling the story to the National Enquirer... (Daily Beast)


All the evidence points to the Enquirer story being used toilet paper. Amazingly, used toilet paper is more than Obama/Clinton sent to help the men who died at Benghazi.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Mar 2016, 2:15 pm

Fate
Amazingly, used toilet paper is more than Obama/Clinton sent to help the men who died at Benghazi.

One of the men who died at Ben Ghazi was part of a relief force sent to facilitate and protect the evacuation of the CIA Annex.
Another was a contractor who was responsible for the physical defense of the CIA Annex. The evacuation of the Annex was successful in large part through their sacrifice.
I think they deserve more respect then you give them with this flip retort.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Mar 2016, 2:58 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Amazingly, used toilet paper is more than Obama/Clinton sent to help the men who died at Benghazi.

One of the men who died at Ben Ghazi was part of a relief force sent to facilitate and protect the evacuation of the CIA Annex.


"Sent"???

WRONG!!!

The team, which included two active-duty JSOC operators and five CIA personnel, had commandeered a small jet in Tripoli by paying the pilots $30,000 and forcing them to fly to Benghazi.[30]:43 After being held up at the airport for a few hours, the Libyan forces and newly arrived Americans went to the CIA annex at about 5:00 am to assist in transporting approximately 32 Americans at the annex back to the airport for evacuation. Minutes after they drove through the gates, the annex came under heavy fire. With a lull in the fighting, Doherty began searching for his friend, Tyrone S. Woods, and he was told he was on the roof. He found Woods on the roof with two other agents. A mortar round then hit Woods' position, fatally wounding him. As Doherty attempted to reposition and take cover, a second round fell on him, killing him.[30]:46–47[93] 31-year-old Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent David Ubben suffered shrapnel injuries and several broken bones in the mortar attacks.[94]


Another was a contractor who was responsible for the physical defense of the CIA Annex. The evacuation of the Annex was successful in large part through their sacrifice.
I think they deserve more respect then you give them with this flip retort.


She doesn't. Hillary is the one who said "We didn't lose a single person in Libya." Yeah, actually, Secretary Clinton, it was four. You did nothing while the Ambassador was murdered and those men fought for their lives. And, to this day, we still have no tick-tock of her activities or Obama's.

They didn't do a thing to save Americans who served under them.

Call it what you want, but don't say she "sent" anyone. She let those Americans be killed--that's what she did.

Of course, since the closest you've ever come to having your life threatened by gunfire is probably being in the next room while someone watched a violent movie, it's no wonder you can't see what a spineless political hack she is.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Mar 2016, 9:18 am

You missed this part in your cut and paste Fate..
Conveniently.
By this time, communicators at the CIA annex were notifying the chain of command about current developments, and a small CIA and JSOC element in Tripoli that included Glen Doherty was attempting to find a way to Benghazi.

These men were sent to Libya as part of the CIA protection force. When informed of the events in Ben Ghazi they did their duty and attempted to help. They were part of what you describe as "used toilet paper".

Conspiracy nuts like you have to ignore reality in order to fit their preferred versions...
One of those realities is that the Ben Ghazi presence was largely a CIA operation and attendant upon that was the risk assumed by CIA operatives. Who you seem to think deserve the epithet
used toilet paper
.

There were 14 hearings and investigations about Ben Ghazi. everything that could reasonably be concluded about the situation has been said and done. No one is going to change their minds based upon reinterpretations by conspiracy nuts who change the facts as they go...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Mar 2016, 5:41 pm

rickyp wrote:You missed this part in your cut and paste Fate..
Conveniently.
By this time, communicators at the CIA annex were notifying the chain of command about current developments, and a small CIA and JSOC element in Tripoli that included Glen Doherty was attempting to find a way to Benghazi.

These men were sent to Libya as part of the CIA protection force. When informed of the events in Ben Ghazi they did their duty and attempted to help. They were part of what you describe as "used toilet paper".


Please provide ANY proof, again, ANY FREAKING PROOF, that Obama or Hillary "SENT" anyone to help.

Nothing in your snippet indicates they were sent. In fact, it shows the folks in the annex were notifying their chain of command, but the folks in Tripoli were not "SENT" by anyone in DC. The word "SENT" or "ORDERED" is not there. They went in spite of being told to "stand down."

You are either ignorant or lying, which one is it?

Conspiracy nuts like you have to ignore reality in order to fit their preferred versions...


"Conspiracy?"

You're a lying dog. I spouted no conspiracy. Please, please, please, point to evidence that Hillary, Obama, or anyone sent the handful of operators who responded.

Meanwhile, Benghazi begged for a flyover. They asked for help.

The amazing thing is that the incompetent Hillary was not prepared for any terror attacks on 9/11, even after the events in Cairo and in spite of the many terror activities in Benghazi over the previous months. She's almost as pathetic as you are.

One of those realities is that the Ben Ghazi presence was largely a CIA operation and attendant upon that was the risk assumed by CIA operatives. Who you seem to think deserve the epithet "used toilet paper"


So, you have proof that the Benghazi presence were all Americans willing to die? That's your story? Prove it.

You have no evidence for anything you assert and yet you have the nerve to call me a "conspiracy nut."

Rickyp = despicable
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Mar 2016, 6:14 pm

Well-written and, while not conclusive, pretty damning re Hillary's intention and competence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... ?tid=ss_tw
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Mar 2016, 6:10 am

Fate
Please provide ANY proof, again, ANY FREAKING PROOF, that Obama or Hillary "SENT" anyone to help

Doherty's JSOC and CIA group were in Libya to perform a role. They were sent to Libya by their superiors they weren't there on vacation.
They responded to the attack in Ben Ghazi because that was their role. What they were SENT to Libya to do.
Do you deny this?

Fate
They went in spite of being told to "stand down."

Dohertys' group were not ordered to stand down. There is controversy about whether or not the local CIA chief told the group that tried to rescue Stevens at the consulate building to stand down.

Fate
[quote]I spouted no conspiracy[/quote
]Its the so called cover up that is your conspiracy theory.
You spout what you read on the right wing blogs and according to you everything has been covered up despite 13 hearings...12 of them lead by republican majorities...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Mar 2016, 7:23 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Please provide ANY proof, again, ANY FREAKING PROOF, that Obama or Hillary "SENT" anyone to help

Doherty's JSOC and CIA group were in Libya to perform a role. They were sent to Libya by their superiors they weren't there on vacation.
They responded to the attack in Ben Ghazi because that was their role. What they were SENT to Libya to do.
Do you deny this?


Stop it. Answer the question. Did Hillary or Obama send anyone in response to Benghazi's pleas for help?

Fate
They went in spite of being told to "stand down."

Dohertys' group were not ordered to stand down. There is controversy about whether or not the local CIA chief told the group that tried to rescue Stevens at the consulate building to stand down.


Good on you.

Now, answer the question.

Fate
I spouted no conspiracy

Its the so called cover up that is your conspiracy theory.
You spout what you read on the right wing blogs and according to you everything has been covered up despite 13 hearings...12 of them lead by republican majorities...


Nope, you're lying. Then again, you're good at that. If you can't point to a "conspiracy theory" in my post, you're lying.

Rickyp, stop lying. Stop avoiding the question.