Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 36 of 46
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/01/clinton_actually_com
ey_said_i_was_truthful_about_my_emails.html
WALLACE: I want to ask about one aspect, what you told the American people.
CLINTON:
I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified materials.
I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time.
I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
WALLACE: After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.
CLINTON: Chris, that's not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity, in my view, clarify. Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails. ...
WALLACE: But in a congressionally hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public.
REP. TREY GOWDY, R-S.C., CHAIR, BENGHAZI COMMITTEE:
Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received. Was that true?
JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR:
That’s not true.
GOWDY:
Secretary Clinton said, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." Was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material e-mailed.
WALLACE:
He directly contradicted --
CLINTON:
Well, I --
WALLACE:
Well, let me just say -- he not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now that we've come to understated that the Great Pumpkin isn't going to 'push the button' because he thought the Chinese said his hands were too small ... let's get rid of a lot of others things that also aren't going to happen - which is nearly the entire DNC platform. Yes that includes worthwhile things like health care and climate change.
But if you believed those cheap - and empty - promises, let me explain why I eliminated the ones I did. It was because they were either 1) an empty statement of belief, usually starting with 'democrats believe ...', or 'we believe ...', and with no plan of action attached; 2) they were packed with empty action verbs like 'will make', 'fight', 'guarantee', or 'expand', but also with no plan of action attached; and/ or 3) they depended on congress to pass laws that the republican-dominated body is categorically opposed to.
The rest I left either because I gave them extra discussion, or because they are things that could occur.
Labor
WISHI - you listening?
Thanks to Saint Bill and the Third Way Democrats, the FSLA acquired a new barrier to being a non-exempt employee - ie it put more workers in the 'exempt from the protections of the FSLA' category.
That means they're 'exempt' from time-and-a-half overtime-pay rules, maximum-hours-worked protections, lunch and break requirements, protections against being given 'hours' credited for work instead of pay (a dodge of companies that know they're about to go under - rather than pay employees, they credit them with hours worked, then close shop, stiffing employees an unlimited number of hours worth of pay), etc.
Increased minimum wage and eliminating the Herman Cain law (not called that, it's another Saint Bill special which holds restaurant workers' minimum wage to $2.13 per hour until actively amended in law) mentioned in this plank are not going to pass Congress.
An amendment of the FSLA, not mentioned, might.
This was one item of a number of items where the DNC pretended to accommodate Sanders' position, knowing full well democrats wouldn't be held accountable. Yes, it was a cheap, empty, cynical promise among literally hundreds of other cheap, empty, cynical promises in this platform.
Social Security
"We will fight every effort to cut, privatize, or weaken Social Security ..."
Veto might be a good word to use here. Is that asking too much?
Infrastructure
"... we need a major federal jobs program that puts millions of Americans back to work ..."
REALLY not going to happen!
Clean Energy Jobs
"We must help American workers and businesses compete ... by making it the greenest and most efficient in the world ..."
She either fundamentally doesn't know, or intentionally mis-states, the problem.
Research, Science, and Technology
Hillary's looking for more government-funded research. It's hard to say how this will go. US business likes its free, publicly funded research. OTOH, government spending ...
"will oppose any effort by Republicans to roll back the historic net neutrality rules" Do you mean veto, Hillary?
"We will protect the intellectual property rights of artists, creators, and inventors at home and abroad." IP overwhelmingly benefits corporations, not individuals. Sigh. Hillary just can't help herself when it comes to padding the speech with stuff that isn't true.
Fixing our Financial System
"all the while thinking that taxpayers will be there to bail them out again."
Does that mean Hillary will LET banks fail? I doubt it.
"Democrats believe that no bank can be too big to fail and no executive too powerful to jail."
That would have been nice when it counted.
"Democrats support ... breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to the stability of our economy."
I'd argue th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Now that we've come to understated that the Great Pumpkin isn't going to 'push the button' because he thought the Chinese said his hands were too small ...
You mean now that you say so. Sorry lol, that doesn't cut it for me. As for the rest of your post which I deleted here, I will not waste my time even reading it. The information in these extended posts by you and SIG are edited, subjective, and designed to distort the truth.
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KIKI thanks for the detailed examination of the DNC platform.
And as usual, THUGR has not one RELEVANT thing to say. Instead, he "Troll, troll, trolls his boat..." If anyone belonged in Troll Country, it's him.
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who lied? Parents of Benghazi victims that Hillary called ‘liars’ sue her for lying
Quote:
Hillary Clinton is facing a lawsuit in the midst of her presidential campaign, as the parents of Americans slain in Benghazi have decided they have had enough and are suing her for wrongful death and defamation, among other things.
The complaint was filed by the lawyer of Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, the mother and father of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, who were both killed in the 2012 Islamist attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
“During her campaign for President, Defendant Clinton has negligently, recklessly, and/or maliciously defamed Plaintiffs by either directly calling them liars, or by strongly implying that they are liars, in order to protect and enhance her public image and intimidate and emotionally harm and silence them not to speak up about the Benghazi attack on at least four separate occasions,” attorney Larry Klaiman wrote, in laying out the basis of the lawsuit.
Smith recently spoke to RT about how Clinton has accused the victims’ parents of forgetting what she had or hadn’t said.
“Please, tell the world what she’s really like,” Smith said in late June, after Clinton aggressively denied on-air that she had said what the victim’s parents say she said in a private conversation with them. The interview came on the heels of a report from House Republicans blaming the Obama administration for a lax response to the emergency at the US embassy compound in Libya, which called it deliberate.
Smith claimed that Clinton had told her the attack was “the fault of the video…,” referring to a slanderous, low-budget, American-made film called 'Innocence of Muslims,' which was said to have gravely inflamed tensions around the time of the Benghazi attack.
“And later when I mentioned that, she said she never said anything like that to me. How can a woman be this way!”
Remarkably, that wasn’t the last time Clinton had called Smith a liar. Further complicating an increasingly questionable Benghazi narrative, at the end of July, the former secretary of state appeared on Fox News and said, “I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”
Suspicions about Clinton’s character were raised again when she claimed that FBI Director James Comey said that she had told the truth when describing her use of a private server for classified and work-related correspondence, although it later emerged that the FBI director had said the exact opposite.
Attorney for parents of two #Benghazi victims say they are trying to hold Hillary Clinton "personally liable" in new wrongful death suit
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 8, 2016
Now, NBC is reporting that the parents of the victims have had enough and are suing Clinton on several counts.
MORE: Parents of two #Benghazi victims also sue Hillary Clinton for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress pic.twitter.com/16KsvjpWrr
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 8, 2016
All day Monday, the network’s Seth McFarlane was tweeting out descriptions of the various charges – including wrongful death, negligence, and defamation.
MORE: Parents of two #Benghazi victims also sue Hillary Clinton for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress pic.twitter.com/16KsvjpWrr
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 8, 2016
Clinton’s use of a private server will also be included in the lawsuit as a factor that possibly contributed to the embassy deaths.
The Boston Herald asked a Clinton spokesman for comment, but received none.
The attack on the American embassy in Benghazi took place on September 11, 2012. The investigation that followed, which cost US taxpayers $7 million, was highly contentious. It was eventually dubbed “one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history” in a 344-page report compiled by House Democrats, which tried to absolve Clinton of any guilt or security lapses in the lNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
KIKI thanks for the detailed examination of the DNC platform.
I hope that's not your definition of "detailed" in your professional life.
For instance:
"Trade
"On the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), there are a diversity of views in the party."
And that says it all. " - Kiki
That's really not all - it also says:
"While we believe that openness to the world economy is an important source of American leadership and dynamism, we will oppose trade agreements that do not support good American jobs, raise wages, and improve our national security. We believe any new trade agreements must include strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards in their core text with streamlined and effective enforcement mechanisms. Trade agreements should crack down on the unfair and illegal subsidies other countries grant their businesses at the expense of ours. It should promote innovation of and access to lifesaving medicines. And it should protect a free and open internet. We should never enter into a trade agreement that prevents our government, or other governments, from putting in place rules that protect the environment, food safety, or the health of American citizens or others around the world.
These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to all trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."
One should also keep in mind that regardless of party, the Platform is considered by most people more as guidelines than written in stone. What else could it be? The world is constantly changing and evolving.
Debunking SIG and 1kiki's so called truths is like shooting fish in a barrel. As you so eloquently point out G. It is easy to show how what they reference from an article, is then twisted by them, by posting what they omit. Information from within the same article that debunks what they claim. Well, that’s one of the tricks they use, happily to no avail.
Do you think these two ego maniacs will ever realize they are not the brightest kids on the block?
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This might be a little too much "inside ball" for you guys, but the reality is that there is NO "diversity of opinions" about the TPP within the Democratic Party. Except for Hillary and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (disgraced former head of the DNC and Hillary operative) nearly all Dems oppose it.
So why would the DNC platform not reflect the near-universal opposition?
Democratic platform fight over TPP will show what democracy we really have
Quote:
The insurgent candidacies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and real estate mogul Donald Trump in the Democratic and Republican primaries, respectively — one uplifting and the other disturbing — together with the Brexit vote, have brought forth an unusual outpouring of discussion on the weaknesses of democratic governance in the high-income countries. There seems to be considerable agreement that all three of these unanticipated political earthquakes of 2016 are driven by discontent with a "democratic deficit." In the next few days and weeks, we will have a rare opportunity to see, close-up and raw, a historic effort to reduce that deficit.
The venue is the Democratic Party platform committee and the main event is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If that sounds like inside baseball, it could easily become the World Series of this year's presidential race. And if presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is smart, she will reconsider her bet.
The TPP, a commercial agreement among 12 countries with 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP), is strongly disliked by the base of the Democratic Party, as well as by a sizable majority of Democratic voters and the general public. There's an awful lot not to like about this thing.
Drafted mostly by corporations, negotiated in secret, with restricted access even for members of Congress, the deal would grant corporations the right to sue governments for all kinds of decisions, laws or regulations that infringe on their profits or potential profits. The lawsuits would be decided by a panel of private lawyers and their decisions could overrule our Congress and Supreme Court: The overlapping issues of national sovereignty and democracy are once again brought to the fore. Patent-boosting rules favored by pharmaceutical companies would increase the price of prescription drugs. And the economic gains, even as estimated by pro-TPP economists, are tiny: By their estimates, the agreement would make the U.S. as rich on January 1, 2030 as it would otherwise be by mid-March of the same year.
Sanders campaigned against the TPP, and Clinton — who had previously praised it as "the gold standard in trade agreements" while serving as secretary of State — has also come out against it. On June 24, at a meeting in St. Louis that produced a draft platform for the Democratic Party, Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) introduced language opposing the TPP. But it was defeated by a vote of 10–5, with only the five Sanders representatives supporting [defeating] it.
Everyone familiar with this process knows that Clinton has enormous influence over her delegates and representatives on the platform committee. So if the Democratic Party is unable to oppose the TPP, it will be because of her decision to keep it from doing so.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/286793-dem
ocratic-platform-fight-over-tpp-will-show-what
The idea of focusing on one meaningless paragraph to the detriment of seeing the big picture is a real problem. If you do that, you won't see what's really going on.
The standard argument for ANY trade deal ... whether its NAFTA or CAFTA or WTO or TPP or TTIP or any of the other half-dozen trade deals that Hillary has supported over the years, is
"This time, it's different"
Well, it has never BEEN different. When trade deals are negotiated in secret by corporations, do you really think that somehow they'll shit out an agreement that fosters more USA jobs or promotes greater
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This year, there are two issues that rise to the top of my personal Presidential "voter guide" list, and they will determine my vote, no matter what else gets tossed in my eyes:
War with Russia and/or China
All of the other issues pale in comparison. Unless we manage to survive the next Presidency, we won't have time to fix anything else. All of the other problems that we THINK are so important, from global climate change to the SCOTUS to gay rights, will fade into meaninglessness if we are mostly smoking, radioactive ruins. We need a President who will do something other than antagonize Russia and/or China into WWIII. And, for those of you who think Russia is an aggressor that needs to be contained, if I point out Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the forward placement of missiles on Russia's borders, you should ask yourselves: WHO is the aggressor? Because I guarantee you that if Russia managed to foment revolution in Mexico, place missiles in Cuba and Mexico, and add Canada to its trading bloc, the USA President would prolly be a bit irascible too.
International Trade Deals
The USA economy, the number of jobs, the robustness of the worldwide economic system, are all at further and further risk with each "free trade" deal that's signed. What good does "women's rights" and "gay rights" do if everyone is competing for fewer and fewer jobs??? The whole system needs to be righted. IMHO there should be a decent job for EVERYONE who can work, not for a select few.
These are not conclusions I've reached "lately" or in the heat of the Presidential campaign or in response to anything Hillary or Trump has said, and I've posted often about these issues, so nobody can accuse me of being a "commie troll" who is merely responding to the latest political events.
Bow before your masters: TPP finalized
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60048
Build The Keystone Pipeline!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=54469
Pelosi at odds w/ Obama over free-trade agreements.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=49388
What Obama Does in Private
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57787
This is why I came to the NEVER HILLARY conclusion. Never, ever Hillary.
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As far as WWIII is concerned, I believe I've pointed out, more than once, the close connection between the CIA and the State Department (The Pentagon is out of the loop in THAT cabal) and the State Department's war-mongering ways.
Former CIA deputy director: I want to scare Bashar al-Assad (And Kill Iranians and Russians, Secretly)
Quote:
Michael Morell 9who has many ties with Hillary] former deputy director of the CIA, suggested on Monday that the United States should support more aggressive action by Syrian rebels in the civil war.
"When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shi'a militia, who were killing American soldiers," Morell told "CBS This Morning" co-host Charlie Rose. "The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price."
He went on to explain making them "pay the price" would mean killing Russians and Iranians, and said he wants to make Syrian president Bashar al-Assad uncomfortable.
"I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad."
See the rest of Rose's interview with Morell Monday night on the "Charlie Rose Show" on PBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-cia-deputy-director-michael-morell-
i-want-to-scare-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad/
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The idea of focusing on one meaningless paragraph to the detriment of seeing the big picture is a real problem. If you do that, you won't see what's really going on.
You are wrong of course. I didn't focus on one paragraph. I merely used it to show how Kiki's detailed analysis (and you understanding of analysis) was inaccurate. I stopped at the one, though I'm sure there are many more.
I can't speak for the DNC. I can speak to your inaccuracies though. Here's another:
You said, "So why would the DNC platform not reflect the near-universal opposition?"
While the article you quoted said: "Sanders campaigned against the TPP, and Clinton — who had previously praised it as "the gold standard in trade agreements" while serving as secretary of State — has also come out against it. On June 24, at a meeting in St. Louis that produced a draft platform for the Democratic Party, Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) introduced language opposing the TPP. But it was defeated by a vote of 10–5, with only the five Sanders representatives supporting [defeating] it."
10-5 is hardly "near universal." Plus, it shows Hillary coming out against it.
It's really simple SIGNYM. When you and Kiki stopped posting so many slanted and inaccurate details I'll stop posting about you 2, and we can get on with comparing and analyzing known facts.
I would add that we have given SIG and 1kiki every opportunity to show they are not Putin etts (female Russian trolls). They failed to do so, I would add miserably. When they post they do so deceptively. It is always to promote Putin’s strategies of malice against the WEST and they should be confronted.
Even if the post is accurate we must not forget that they post it because it is negative information about the United States and its allies. Their implied outrage disappears when facts show the Russians are far worse regarding this very same topic. Then their response is always the same. It’s not true and the source is biased against Russia. They are liars and bullshit artists (not very good ones) and should be treated as such.
Below is an example of 1kiki defending against Russians being guilty of doping. Wouldn't it be nice if she defended the United States this way. Yanno, the place she claims to live.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So take your decades-festering mindless Cold War anti-Russian propaganda and go stuff it back into that dark smelly place that is your brain, where it came from. Or better yet, lance it, and let it drain. You'll be healthier for it.
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME