Help Bring Down Hillary

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2955

Re: Help Bring Down Hillary

Postby Daglord » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:05 am

Judge orders feds to release details of Clinton email probe after FBI refused request
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/31/judge-fbi-must-disclose-hillary-clinton-email-prob/

Image

A federal judge ordered the FBI on Thursday to disclose more details about how it handled its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s secret email account.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg said court papers describing the grand jury subpoenas the FBI obtained to compel information from Mrs. Clinton’s internet service providers can be made public.

In doing so, he overruled objections by the Trump administration that had insisted making the information public would violate grand jury secrecy rules.

“After reviewing the document in camera, the court concludes that it largely rehashes information already made public, thus obviating any need for secrecy,” the judge said.

Two groups, Judicial Watch and Cause of Action Institute, have been prodding the government for more information about the Clinton emails, and they cheered the judge’s ruling as a victory for transparency.

“This order makes public details submitted by the government about the FBI’s efforts to recover then-Secretary Clinton’s unlawfully removed emails. Americans deserve to know the full scope of that investigation,” said COA President John J. Vecchione.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said he didn’t understand why the Trump administration was still backing the Obama administration’s fight against transparency in this case.

“President Trump ought to be outraged his appointees are protecting Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Fitton said. “The State Department should initiate action with the Justice Department — and both agencies should finally take the necessary steps to recover all the government emails Hillary Clinton unlawfully removed.”

Image

The case stems from questions about Mrs. Clinton’s secret server and the trove of emails she belatedly turned over.

The former secretary of state said she included all of her work-related emails in what she returned to the department, then wiped the server — which she had kept at her home in New York — clean.

But the FBI managed to obtain some emails that were clearly work-related, but which the former senator and first lady didn’t turn over, raising questions about what else may be out there.

Mrs. Clinton’s critics have said the FBI needs to make a more robust effort to try to recover those messages.

The FBI this week also refused an open-records request from a lawyer seeking the bureau’s file on its investigation into Mrs. Clinton. The FBI said there was too little public interest in the case to outweigh Mrs. Clinton’s privacy interests.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2955

Postby Daglord » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:30 am



Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2955

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:15 pm

New Clinton book blasts Sanders for 'lasting damage' in 2016 race
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html

Image

(CNN)Hillary Clinton casts Bernie Sanders as an unrealistic over-promiser in her new book, according to excerpts posted by a group of Clinton supporters.

She said that his attacks against her during the primary caused "lasting damage" and paved the way for "(Donald) Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

Clinton, in a book that will be released September 12 entitled "What Happened," said Sanders "had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character" because the two Democrats "agreed on so much."

The excerpts represent a small number of the roughly 500-page book in which Clinton reflects on her stunning loss to Donald Trump in 2016. The few pages on Sanders are also remarkably candid for a candidate who was more known for being careful than blunt, especially when it came to the Vermont senator.

A Clinton spokesman declined to comment on the published excerpts.

Image

"Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist," she wrote.

"When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn't come up with anything," Clinton wrote. "Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

The excerpts were first posted by a pro-Clinton Twitter account and by a user on a Clinton "super volunteer" Facebook page.

"She says a lot in this book, and some of it is going to surprise people. People should buy it, read it, and consider what she constructively lays out. It's a great read," a Clinton aide said, asking not be named because they were not authorized to discuss the book.

Image

Clinton's decision to step back into the spotlight with the book will likely be met with wide praise from many in the Democratic Party, including some of the millions of Democrats who backed her over Trump. But it also could tear at wounds that are still open between the wing of the party Sanders animated and those who backed Clinton.

While Clinton remains a powerful force among Democrats -- and will be in the coming elections -- there are some who have publicly said they would rather the party move on from the 2016 election.

Additionally, Clinton's public critique of Sanders has her attacking a politician who has stoked speculation that he could run for president against in 2020.

"I am not taking it off the table," Sanders said in July.

In her forthcoming book, Clinton noted that the Vermont independent "isn't a Democrat."

"That's not a smear, that's what he says," she wrote. "He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party."

After outlining how she disagrees with Sanders' view of the Democratic Party, Clinton concludes, "I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too."

Clinton wrote that President Barack Obama counseled her to "grit my teeth and lay off Bernie as much as I could," according to the excerpts. That strategy, Clinton wrote, made her feel she was "in a straitjacket."

She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.
"Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.

Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"

Image

let us not forget, it was Clinton & the DNC who "elevated" Trump:

Image

WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton
http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/

In June 2015, Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign.

According to an email from Marissa Astor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook’s assistant, to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the campaign knew Trump was going to run, and pushed his legitimacy as a candidate. WikiLeaks’ release shows that it was seen as in Clinton’s best interest to run against Trump in the general election. The memo, sent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) also reveals the DNC and Clinton campaign were strategizing on behalf of their candidate at the very beginning of the primaries. “We think our goals mirror those of the DNC,” stated the memo, attached to the email under the title “muddying the waters.”

The memo named Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson as wanted candidates. “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,” the memo noted.

All the Clinton campaign had to do was push the mainstream media in the general direction of covering and attacking Trump as though he was the star of the Republican presidential primaries. As the presumed Democratic nominee, whomever she decided to dignify by responding to—whether the comments were directed at her or not—would be presumed to be the spokesperson, or nominee, of the Republican Party.

“Clinton, Trump trade insults as rhetoric heats up between front-runners,” read the headline from a CNN article in September 2015. “Hillary Clinton Seizes On Donald Trump’s Remarks to Galvanize Women,” read a New York Times headline from December. Several media outlets criticized the mainstream media obsession with Trump, but despite a few concerns that the media was propping up his legitimacy as a candidate with their constant news coverage, it continued unabatedly.

The mainstream media was more than willing to do the Clinton campaign and DNC’s work for them by creating a narrative that the 2016 presidential elections was about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

Image

Jeb Bush, the initial Republican frontrunner, assumed what should have been Trump’s role as the Republican Primary novelty sideshow. Sen. Bernie Sanders was blacked out of media coverage, and during the rare instances when he was discussed in mainstream media reporting, it was always under the pretenses that his candidacy was a pipe dream. The media gave Clinton what she wanted; impunity for the corruption, lies, and deceitfulness rampant in her political record, and an opponent who divided his own political party while driving fear and anxiety into her own to the point where enough Democrats and voters would gladly vote for her just to avoid Trump becoming president.

Image

User avatar
The Anti-Archon
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:11 pm
Reputation: 209

Postby The Anti-Archon » Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:23 pm

Never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2016...



Image

Image

Image

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 2190
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 1742

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:21 am

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2955

Postby Daglord » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:50 pm

The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is-largely-ignoring-the-vital-role-of-endless-war-in-the-2016-election-result/

Image

TO PITCH HER BOOK, Hillary Clinton is sitting down this week for a series of media interviews, mostly with supportive TV personalities, such as Rachel Maddow, to discuss her views of “What Happened,” the book’s title. Calls for Clinton to be quiet and disappear are misguided for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that she is a very smart, informed, and articulate politician, which means her interviews — especially when she’s liberated from programmed campaign mode — are illuminating about how she, and her fellow establishment Democrats who have driven the party into a ditch, really think.

An hourlong interview she sat for with Vox’s Ezra Klein is particularly worthwhile. Clinton, for good reason, harbors a great deal of affection for Klein, which she expressed on multiple occasions during their chat. But Klein nonetheless pressed her on a series of criticisms that have been voiced about her and the Democrats’ stunted political approach, banal policies, status-quo-perpetuating worldview, and cramped aspirations that seem far more plausible as authors of her defeat than the familiar array of villains — Bernie Sanders, Vladimir Putin, Jill Stein, Jim Comey, the New York Times — that she and her most ardent supporters are eager to blame.

Despite being illuminating, Klein’s discussion with Clinton contains a glaring though quite common omission: There is not a word about the role of foreign policy and endless war during the entire hour. While some of this may be attributable to Klein’s perfectly valid journalistic focus on domestic policies, such as health care, a huge factor in Clinton’s political career and how she is perceived — as a senator and especially as secretary of state — is her advocacy of multiple wars and other military actions, many, if not all, of which were rather disastrous, rendering it quite strange to spend an hour discussing why she lost without so much as mentioning any of that.

This is not so much a critique of Klein’s specific interview (which, again, is worthwhile) as it is reflective of the broader Democratic Party desire to pretend that the foreign wars it has repeatedly prosecuted, and the endless killing of innocent people for which it is responsible, do not exist. Part of that is the discomfort of cognitive dissonance: the Democratic branding and self-glorification as enemies of privilege, racism, and violence are directly in conflict with the party’s long-standing eagerness to ignore, or even actively support, policies which kill large numbers of innocent people from Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia to Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza, but which receive scant attention because of the nationality, ethnicity, poverty, distance, and general invisibility of their victims.





But a major part of this minimization is a misperception of the domestic political importance of these policies. From the beginning of his candidacy through the general election, Donald Trump rhetorically positioned himself as a vehement opponent of endless war, inveighing against both parties when doing so.

Though there is now a revisionist effort underway to falsely depict those who pointed this out as being gullible believers in Trump’s dovish and antiwar credentials, the reality is that most of us who warned of the efficacy of Trump’s antiwar campaign theme made explicitly clear that there was no reason to believe Trump would actually be dovish if he were elected. Indeed, from Trump’s history of endorsing the wars he was denouncing to his calls for greater and more savage bombing to his desire to nullify the Iran deal, there was ample reasons to doubt that he would usher in dovishness of any kind. But the point was that Trump’s antiwar posturing was a politically potent approach because of how unpopular endless war and militarism have become:

Image

THESE WARNINGS — about the efficacy of Trump’s attacks on America’s bipartisan posture of Endless War — largely fell on deaf ears. Clinton continued to defend the virtues of her record of militarism, and even now, those topics are excluded almost completely from discussions of why Clinton lost.

What makes this exclusion particularly notable is that empirical data suggests that questions of endless war and militarism played a big, if not decisive, role in the outcome of the 2016 election. A study published earlier this year by Boston University political science professor Douglas Kriner and Minnesota Law School’s Francis Shen makes the case quite compellingly.

Titled “Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House?,” the paper rests on the premise that these wars have exclusively burdened a small but politically important group of voters — military families — and that “in the 2016 election Trump was speaking to this forgotten part of America.” Particularly in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — three states that Clinton lost — “there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.” Examining the data, the paper concludes that “inequalities in wartime sacrifice might have tipped the election.”

The paper notes that Trump did not run as any kind of pacifist but rather as someone who “promised a foreign policy that would be both simultaneously more muscular and more restrained,” yet “promised to be much more reticent” in committing the U.S. to new, foreign military adventures. The scholars argue that not only military families but Americans generally have grown increasingly hostile to these policies:

In one sense, all Americans have been affected by fifteen years of nearly continuous war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans of all stripes have watched each conflict’s developments unfold through extensive media coverage, movies, and personal stories from veterans returning from combat. Indeed, so great are its posited effects on American society that some analysts have proclaimed the emergence of an “Iraq Syndrome,” echoing the public skepticism about the efficacy of the use of force and the growing popular reluctance to employ it that emerged after Vietnam.


Clinton was uniquely ill-suited to channel this widespread sentiment given that she has vocally supported almost every proposed U.S. war and military intervention over the last 20 years (including ones Obama rejected in places such as Syria and Ukraine and, of course, Iraq). For that reason, she was one of the leading symbols of war and militarism, perhaps its most potent one, and Trump — however deceitful and cynical it might have been — positioned himself as her opposite.

From these premises, the authors argue that had the U.S. fought fewer wars, or at least experienced fewer casualties, Clinton would have won those three states and thus won the election:

Image

One need not uncritically accept this maximalist conclusion to acknowledge the vital point: Clinton specifically and Democrats generally are perceived, with good reason, to be proponents of endless war policies that critical constituencies now despise. From a policy perspective, endless war and militarism shape virtually every key issue, from budgetary priorities and tax policy to corporatism and lobbyist power, making it inexcusable on the merits to ignore or downplay them. But also as a political matter, any discussion of why Clinton lost, or what the Democrats must reform, is woefully incomplete if it excludes these questions.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2955

Postby Daglord » Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:50 am

Image

User avatar
Redneck
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:44 am
Reputation: 328

Postby Redneck » Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:15 am

You know that "conspiracy theory" about Hillary selling Uranium to Putin?

Well it's now front page news.


Hillary Clinton and the real Russian collusion

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/ ... usion.html









Trump says this is bigger than Watergate. It implicates the Obama admin big time.


Trump says Russian uranium deal Hillary Clinton had a hand in approving was 'underhanded' as he labels the scandal 'Watergate modern age'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... n-age.html



User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11985
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5527

Postby Masato » Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:30 pm

Wow so much happening lately it's mind boggling

I can't even keep up. Donna Brazille ratting them out, more Wikileaks showing election rigging/DNC-MSM-Clinton Collusion, Kevin Spacey getting busted (good friends w/ Clintons), Trump calling out Podestas, High profile Pedos in the public discussion,

oh man its like a CT hunters wet dream, lol so much leaking everywhere. Too bad I'm not the sleuth I was before, this has been the juiciest month in a long time for CT shit bubbling to the surface and proving its legitimacy

I told you; Clintons are nasty, nasty people this needs to come out

Life is busy but I'll try to archive the main points here if I get some downtime.

Amazing, amazing. I am almost turning back to a faith in Trump, he really does sometimes appear to be making an effort to drain the swamp and keep calling out the liars (MSM etc). This is big stuff, keep pressing everyone we got em on the run! :D

User avatar
penxv
Posts: 949
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:49 pm
Reputation: 710

Postby penxv » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:53 pm

Trump's candidacy was way more elaborate and nefarious than people realize. The buffoonishness is a red herring.


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests