The Drip Drip Drip...

[liberty]

If a government "of, for and by the people" requires us to have to depend upon people like "Mr. Blowhard With the Bad Hairpiece" to lead us, I think we'd be better off to send a delegation to Buckingham Palace and respectfully ask Queen Elizabeth if she would be willing to overlook that bit of unpleasantness some 240 years ago and take us back into the British Empire.

I've been telling the buggers here that for ages, do you think they will listen to good common sense?

Couldn’t we get a better deal from the Russians?

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Bicycle Bill]

The above image courtesy of Alex Jones — renowned Texas conspiracy theory wacko and all-around shit-for-brains who hosts a radio program and a website that panders to pretty much the same people Trump is playing to.  You know, people who consider the "Dick and Jane" books to be advanced reading material and get their information spoon-fed to them by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, the talking heads on Fox News, and video "news exposés" on websites like "infowars.com".

So just consider the source.  All this proves is that the guy has more money than good sense since it probably required him to pay for at least a twin-engine aircraft to tow that thing against all the drag it was producing.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

Once again, Hillary owes a big thank you to Donald Trump for doing something so outrageous that he sucks the news media coverage away from yet another damaging email story:

Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation and State Dept. Overlap

WASHINGTON — A new batch of State Department emails released Tuesday showed the close and sometimes overlapping interests between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

The documents raised new questions about whether the charitable foundation worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department, a charge that Mrs. Clinton has faced in the past and has always denied.

In one email exchange, for instance, an executive at the Clinton Foundation in 2009 sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with the United States ambassador to Lebanon because of the donor’s interests there.

In another email, the foundation appeared to push aides to Mrs. Clinton to help find a job for a foundation associate. Her aides indicated that the department was working on the request.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, which has been shadowed for 17 months by the controversy over the private email server she used exclusively while at the State Department, said that the emails released Tuesday had no bearing on the foundation’s work.

The State Department turned the new emails over to a conservative advocacy group, Judicial Watch, as part of a lawsuit that the group brought under the Freedom of Information Act.

The documents included 44 emails that were not among some 55,000 pages of emails that Mrs. Clinton had previously given to the State Department, which she said represented all her “work-related” emails. The document release centers on discussions between Mrs. Clinton’s aides and Clinton Foundation executives about a number of donors and associates with interests before the State Department.

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, charged that Mrs. Clinton “hid” the documents from the public because they appeared to contradict her official pledge in 2009 to remove herself from Clinton Foundation business while leading the State Department.

The documents indicate, he said in a telephone interview, that “the State Department and the Clinton Foundation worked hand in hand in terms of policy and donor effort.”

“There was no daylight between the two under Mrs. Clinton, and this was contrary to her promises,” he added.

A number of the email exchanges released Tuesday included Huma Abedin, who was a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton at the State Department and later worked at the Clinton Foundation.

In April 2009, Douglas J. Band, who led the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, emailed Ms. Abedin and Cheryl D. Mills, another top adviser to Mrs. Clinton, for help with a donor.

Mr. Band wrote that he needed to connect Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire who was one of the foundation’s top donors, with someone at the State Department to talk about his interests in Lebanon.

“It’s jeff feltman,” Ms. Abedin answered, referring to Jeffrey Feltman, who was the American ambassador to Lebanon at the time. “I’m sure he knows him. I’ll talk to jeff.”

Mr. Band asked her to call Mr. Chagoury immediately if possible. “This is very important,” he wrote.

In a separate email exchange, Mr. Band passed along to Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills a request for “a favor” from an associate who had recently been on a Clinton Foundation trip to Haiti and was apparently seeking work at the State Department.

The State Department deleted much of the information about the associate, including his name and the outcome of the job referral, in turning over the emails to Judicial Watch.

In one undeleted section, however, Mr. Band wrote that it was “important to take care of” the associate’s request. A short time later, Ms. Abedin wrote back to say: “We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”

The Clinton campaign suggested that Mr. Band was acting in his capacity as former President Bill Clinton’s personal assistant, not in his role overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative.

Regarding the exchanges between Mr. Band and Mrs. Clinton’s aides, the campaign said in a statement: “Neither of these emails involve the secretary or relate to the foundation’s work. They are communications between her aides and the president’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the foundation.” The campaign did not elaborate.

The F.B.I. spent more than a year examining Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email account, but it is not clear how the work of the Clinton Foundation figured into that investigation.

James B. Comey Jr., the F.B.I. director, was noticeably circumspect in an appearance last month before the House oversight committee when Republicans questioned whether the investigation had looked at the Clinton Foundation. Twice, he declined to say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/po ... erlap.html

[MajGenl.Meade]

The Clinton campaign suggested that Mr. Band was acting in his capacity as former President Bill Clinton’s personal assistant, not in his role overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative.

Thank goodness they were only joking!
(This excuse courtesy of D Trump)

[Bicycle Bill]

Once again, Hillary owes a big thank you to Donald Trump for doing something so outrageous that he sucks the news media coverage away from yet another damaging email story:

Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation and State Dept. Overlap

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/po ... erlap.html

Is there anything else Hillary has done during the run-up to this election cycle that the press can try to make something out of?
I mean, they've been playing the same note (Hillary's emails) on that one-string banjo of theirs for so long I'm convinced that this is the only error/lapse of judgement on her part that can be held and used against her.

Now compare that to Trump who has probably made at least three outrageous, inaccurate, or patently false statements already today, and it's not even lunch time.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

A miracle

In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery, allegations that Clinton strongly denied. There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing.

Capitalist pig cheats are never charged with any wrongdoing. (Almost a direct quote from every poster on this board who berates bank presidents)

[BoSoxGal]

What a smoking gun, aides talking to other aides about smoothing the way for a job interview. Such shocking corruption!! You'd never see that anywhere else in public life, private life - certainly not from the Chump!



I think the Republicans should keep it up; seems like the longer and harder they attack Hillary, the more they're pushing away reasonable voters. The die hards already want to 'lock her up' and this much ado about nothing - while ignoring the reprehensible behavior of their own candidate - is backfiring, I believe.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What a smoking gun, aides talking to other aides about smoothing the way for a job interview. Such shocking corruption!! You'd never see that anywhere else in public life, private life - certainly not from the Chump!

That's a Trumpian explanation if ever there was one.

How did it go?

Money arrives
Jobs for the boys result

Or was it jobs for the boys
Money arrives

Something like that anyway.... total non-connection between money and jobs and favoritism. Not a bit of it. And anyway the man was wearing his private citizen hat, not his Foundation one. And it was a joke. Satire.

Riiiiiiight.

[Lord Jim]

I think the Republicans should keep it up; seems like the longer and harder they attack Hillary, the more they're pushing away reasonable voters.

No, actually The Donald is able to do that all by himself...

[Big RR]

What a smoking gun, aides talking to other aides about smoothing the way for a job interview. Such shocking corruption!! You'd never see that anywhere else in public life, private life - certainly not from the Chump!



I think the Republicans should keep it up; seems like the longer and harder they attack Hillary, the more they're pushing away reasonable voters. The die hards already want to 'lock her up' and this much ado about nothing - while ignoring the reprehensible behavior of their own candidate - is backfiring, I believe.

BSG--while it's not akin to murdering someone, let's not minimize influence peddling. It's not really something that advances democracy, and just goes to show that you service those who provide the money. The question is, if she does this to a big donor to the foundation, what would she do for a big donor to her campaign--which ties in with what Bernie has said many times.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I keep hearing "much ado about nothing" but that's only because many are saying it and then dropping it. Too many "situations" where if a normal regular Joe had done similar, he would be charged at the very least and most likely tried and convicted.

She's lied about lieing.
Too many things point to impropriety at the very least, conflict of interest and influence peddling at the middle and you can fill in the blank for the worst.

Are these two candidates the best the "major" parties can do?

[rubato]

I think the Republicans should keep it up; seems like the longer and harder they attack Hillary, the more they're pushing away reasonable voters.

No, actually The Donald is able to do that all by himself...

With the crucial help of the party who created him after wasting 8 years with a legislative policy which was "if Obama is for it we're against it. Even if we used to be for it."


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

She's lied about lieing.
Too many things point to impropriety at the very least, conflict of interest and influence peddling at the middle and you can fill in the blank for the worst.

Are these two candidates the best the "major" parties can do?

Apparently in this election cycle...

Now compare that to Trump who has probably made at least three outrageous, inaccurate, or patently false statements already today, and it's not even lunch time.

And that's why I'm voting for Hillary...

She's an arrogant, cynical, lying, pocket-lining weasel...

But at least she's not a complete sociopath....

Unlike her opponent....

"Vote For Hillary...At least she's not a sociopath!"

Now there's a bumper sticker I could put on my car...

[oldr_n_wsr]

"Vote For Hillary...At least she's not a sociopath!"

There's a slogan. It'll be HHHUUUUUGGGEEE!!!!

[MajGenl.Meade]

I missed this when it came out back in June

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

Fernando's expertise appeared to be in the arena of high-frequency trading [mooo!]-- a form of computer-generated stock trading. At the time of his appointment, he headed a firm, Chopper Trading, that was a leader in that field.

Fernando's history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific -- and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.

The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show.

The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.

“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton- ... d=39710624

[Lord Jim]

The best analogy for the "quality" of the choices in this election that I can think of is the Louisiana gubernatorial race in 1991 between Edwin Edwards who was corrupt as the day is long, and former KKK Grand Dragon and American Nazi Party member David Duke:

In 1991 all elections in Louisiana—with the exception of U.S. presidential elections—followed a variation of the open primary system called the jungle primary. Candidates of any and all parties are listed on one ballot; voters need not limit themselves to the candidates of one party. Unless one candidate takes 50% or more of the vote in the first round, a run-off election is then held between the top two candidates, who may in fact be members of the same party.[ We now have this idiotic and anti-democratic primary system in California, which is forcing me to cast a write-in vote for the Senate race. No way in hell am I voting for either Kamala Harris or Loretta Sanchez. I'm going to write-in Ron Unz who would have been the GOP nominee if we'd had a normal primary system. But I digress...]

As the 1991 governor's race drew near, many of Edwards' friends encouraged him to abandon his planned comeback, believing that he had no chance to win. After Edwards' loss in 1987, a journalist for the defunct Shreveport Journal wrote that the only way Edwin Edwards could ever be elected again was to run against Adolf Hitler. These words turned out to be shockingly prophetic, since after the 1991 primary Edwards discovered his runoff opponent to be neo-Nazi David Duke. Edwards received 34 percent of the vote while Duke received 32 percent. Governor Roemer placed third, 80,000 votes behind Duke.

The runoff between an avowed white supremacist and a former governor who was corrupt but was also perceived as minority-friendly, gained national attention. Support for Edwards grew in between the primary and the runoff. Louisiana Coalition against Racism and Nazism, an interest group, appeared to challenge Duke, with its leadership including longtime Treen supporter Beth Rickey, a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee from New Orleans. The coalition revealed through a recording of Duke at a White Nationalist conference that he was still involved in neo-Nazi activities.[48]

Faced with the alternative of Duke, many who were otherwise lukewarm for Edwards found him looking ever better. Nearly the entire Republican leadership rejected Duke's candidacy. In a news conference, President George H. W. Bush condemned Duke as unfit for public office. Edwards found himself receiving endorsements from Treen and Roemer; and Republican President George H. W. Bush urged that Edwards, the Democrat, be elected over Duke :

"When someone has a long record, an ugly record, of racism and bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign. So I believe David Duke is an insincere charlatan. I believe he's attempting to hoodwink the voters of Louisiana. I believe he should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for."

A popular bumper sticker urging support for Edwards (although clearly not produced by his campaign) read "Vote For the Crook. It's Important."[49][50][51] Another read "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard." Edwards said that this would be his final term as governor and that he cared about leaving a good legacy, which made many hope that the corruption of his previous administrations would not be repeated. Edwards won by a wide margin. Continuing his artful use of humor to deflate an opponent, and referring to his considerable reputation as a ladies' man, Edwards said of Duke that "the only thing we have in common is that we both have been wizards beneath the sheets."[52]

He also feigned concern for Duke's health due to smoke inhalation "because he's around so many burning crosses"[2] and when a reporter asked Edwards what he needed to do to triumph over Duke, Edwards replied "stay alive." On Election Day, Edwards defeated Duke in a landslide, 61 to 39 percent, a margin of nearly 400,000 votes.

(I took this from two Wikipedia articles:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana ... tion,_1991

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards



"Vote For the Crook. It's Important."

Hmmm...

I wonder if there are any of those still around...

[Crackpot]

Which crook?

[MajGenl.Meade]

The Witch Crook

[BoSoxGal]

What a smoking gun, aides talking to other aides about smoothing the way for a job interview. Such shocking corruption!! You'd never see that anywhere else in public life, private life - certainly not from the Chump!



I think the Republicans should keep it up; seems like the longer and harder they attack Hillary, the more they're pushing away reasonable voters. The die hards already want to 'lock her up' and this much ado about nothing - while ignoring the reprehensible behavior of their own candidate - is backfiring, I believe.

BSG--while it's not akin to murdering someone, let's not minimize influence peddling. It's not really something that advances democracy, and just goes to show that you service those who provide the money. The question is, if she does this to a big donor to the foundation, what would she do for a big donor to her campaign--which ties in with what Bernie has said many times.

At this point in my job/life experience, I'm pragmatic enough to realise that it exists EVERYWHERE and is not a partisan thing at all. I spent three years in a county where the nearly brain dead got county jobs because they went to the same church as the sheriff and county finance officer, while intelligent applicants were turned away. On rare occasion when positions were filled by those not from the inner circle - like myself, the maintenance director, a few others - our lives were made miserable. This shit happens EVERYWHERE, on a FAR worse scale.

Meanwhile all the record shows is two aides emailing each other and ultimately nothing more, the ambassador says he was never actually contacted.

Show me a clear cut case of nepotism or whatever and then we can talk, meanwhile there is worse stuff going on in almost any American village/city/county/state you put under a microscope.