HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » New Hillary Scandal Check...

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:48 PM

New Hillary Scandal Checks All the Boxes on the Clinton Controversy Bingo Card

"Hillary Clinton had an undeniably great day on Thursday, but Friday brought a stark reminder that as the presumptive Democratic nominee looks ahead to the general election, there will be plenty of people justifiably looking into her past.

Thanks to a newly released batch of State Department emails, ABC News was able to revisit the story of Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy securities trader who gave heavily to both Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation—and who just so happened to land himself a plum spot on a sensitive government intelligence advisory panel after Hillary became secretary of state.

Politicos rewarding donors is sadly not uncommon but what makes this particular example stand out is Fernando’s lack of qualifications for a job that involved advising the secretary of state—and, by extension, the president of the United States—on the topic of nuclear weapons. And if that weren’t enough, the story also looks an awfully lot like a Clinton Controversy Bingo Card. In addition to the appearance of quid pro quo with a major fundraiser, we also have a clear lack of transparency, Clinton loyalists going to great lengths to protect her, questions over access to sensitive government information, and, of course, Hillary’s private email account.

You can read ABC’s full blow-by-blow here, but the short version is this: The rest of the International Security Advisory Board was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress. But the only thing Fernando had to offer the group was, in ABC’s words, “his technological know-how,” which none of his fellow panelists seemed to find all that helpful. Fernando was so out of place, in fact, that one board member told ABC that none of his colleagues could figure out why he was even there.

Days after the network started asking questions about Fernando in the summer of 2011, he promptly resigned from the panel citing a need to focus on his business interests. He and the State Department declined to make public a copy of his résumé and refused to field follow-up questions at the time. Which brings us back to the present. Via ABC:
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.

ABC was unable to follow the trail directly to Clinton herself, though the emails did suggest her staff was eager to shield her from the controversy and any potential fallout. “We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board,” her press aide wrote. “I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response.”

So just how big of a deal is this? In the big bucket of Clinton controversies (both real and imagined), this is merely a drop. Hillary and her staff had broad leeway to name pretty much whomever they wanted to the board, so while tapping Fernando was highly questionable, it wasn’t illegal. It is impossible to read the ABC report and not get a distinct whiff of favor trading, but there is no smoking gun—as there almost never is when it comes to this type of thing. In a political system where the inputs and outputs are both money and power, proof of guilt, or, really, innocence, rarely exists.

Still, it’s yet one more example of why Clinton is so fortunate that she’s set to face off against Donald Trump in the general."


http://amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/10/how_clinton_donor_rajiv_fernando_got_a_job_as_a_nuclear_expert_he_wasn_t.html


200 replies, 12496 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 200 replies Author Time Post
Reply New Hillary Scandal Checks All the Boxes on the Clinton Controversy Bingo Card (Original post)
NWCorona Jun 2016 OP
MFM008 Jun 2016 #1
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #5
tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #16
All in it together Jun 2016 #156
Qutzupalotl Jun 2016 #20
George II Jun 2016 #86
Qutzupalotl Jun 2016 #189
apcalc Jun 2016 #52
SidDithers Jun 2016 #57
still_one Jun 2016 #76
samson212 Jun 2016 #83
George II Jun 2016 #87
samson212 Jun 2016 #98
libdem4life Jun 2016 #138
samson212 Jun 2016 #147
libdem4life Jun 2016 #186
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #151
samson212 Jun 2016 #162
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #165
zenabby Jun 2016 #187
samson212 Jun 2016 #199
DesertRat Jun 2016 #92
John Poet Jun 2016 #171
Wilms Jun 2016 #2
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #27
Wilms Jun 2016 #70
George II Jun 2016 #88
Wilms Jun 2016 #97
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #122
SheilaT Jun 2016 #3
Juicy_Bellows Jun 2016 #4
reformist2 Jun 2016 #6
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #10
jwirr Jun 2016 #94
senz Jun 2016 #106
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #166
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #170
NCTraveler Jun 2016 #11
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #26
obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #31
840high Jun 2016 #34
Betty Karlson Jun 2016 #39
athena Jun 2016 #159
unc70 Jun 2016 #7
senz Jun 2016 #107
Octafish Jun 2016 #8
Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #9
arikara Jun 2016 #61
Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #62
ohheckyeah Jun 2016 #74
samson212 Jun 2016 #81
AzDar Jun 2016 #12
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #13
NWCorona Jun 2016 #14
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #15
NWCorona Jun 2016 #17
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #18
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #25
NWCorona Jun 2016 #29
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #30
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #163
DesertRat Jun 2016 #93
NWCorona Jun 2016 #99
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #120
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #164
Dustlawyer Jun 2016 #154
Lazy Daisy Jun 2016 #108
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #121
Lazy Daisy Jun 2016 #142
-none Jun 2016 #158
tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #19
840high Jun 2016 #35
Bobbie Jo Jun 2016 #190
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #58
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #80
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #95
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #119
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #124
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #139
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #137
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #140
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #141
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #143
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #145
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #146
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #148
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #160
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #169
amborin Jun 2016 #21
NWCorona Jun 2016 #22
amborin Jun 2016 #37
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #68
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #67
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #125
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #23
840high Jun 2016 #36
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #123
840high Jun 2016 #133
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #59
840high Jun 2016 #134
randome Jun 2016 #24
samson212 Jun 2016 #79
randome Jun 2016 #90
samson212 Jun 2016 #100
senz Jun 2016 #109
randome Jun 2016 #111
pottedplant Jun 2016 #144
samson212 Jun 2016 #149
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #152
pottedplant Jun 2016 #174
samson212 Jun 2016 #150
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #28
NWCorona Jun 2016 #33
mcar Jun 2016 #32
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #65
Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #38
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #60
chascarrillo Jun 2016 #40
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #41
NWCorona Jun 2016 #47
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #71
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #127
840high Jun 2016 #135
workinclasszero Jun 2016 #42
pinebox Jun 2016 #43
randome Jun 2016 #44
NWCorona Jun 2016 #48
randome Jun 2016 #49
NWCorona Jun 2016 #50
randome Jun 2016 #51
NWCorona Jun 2016 #55
samson212 Jun 2016 #82
randome Jun 2016 #89
samson212 Jun 2016 #101
Name removed Jun 2016 #53
NWCorona Jun 2016 #54
annavictorious Jun 2016 #77
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #102
senz Jun 2016 #110
840high Jun 2016 #136
think Jun 2016 #45
msanthrope Jun 2016 #46
dchill Jun 2016 #56
LuvLoogie Jun 2016 #63
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #64
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #66
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #69
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #128
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #131
SCantiGOP Jun 2016 #72
jillan Jun 2016 #73
okasha Jun 2016 #75
senz Jun 2016 #112
okasha Jun 2016 #115
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #167
riversedge Jun 2016 #78
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #84
pottedplant Jun 2016 #85
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #126
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #155
pottedplant Jun 2016 #173
pottedplant Jun 2016 #175
senz Jun 2016 #113
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #168
pnwmom Jun 2016 #91
pottedplant Jun 2016 #103
Midwestern Democrat Jun 2016 #116
kstewart33 Jun 2016 #96
senz Jun 2016 #114
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #129
John Poet Jun 2016 #172
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #183
TheDebbieDee Jun 2016 #104
pottedplant Jun 2016 #105
TheDebbieDee Jun 2016 #117
pottedplant Jun 2016 #118
TheDebbieDee Jun 2016 #188
pottedplant Jun 2016 #193
TheDebbieDee Jun 2016 #198
NanceGreggs Jun 2016 #130
LenaBaby61 Jun 2016 #182
NWCorona Jun 2016 #185
Barack_America Jun 2016 #132
peace13 Jun 2016 #153
underthematrix Jun 2016 #157
pottedplant Jun 2016 #177
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #161
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #176
NWCorona Jun 2016 #179
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #180
NWCorona Jun 2016 #181
senz Jun 2016 #184
rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #178
workinclasszero Jun 2016 #191
NWCorona Jun 2016 #192
workinclasszero Jun 2016 #194
NWCorona Jun 2016 #195
workinclasszero Jun 2016 #196
NWCorona Jun 2016 #197
Fast Walker 52 Sep 2016 #200

Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:49 PM

1. 6 days

Thursday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:59 PM

5. They're going to use every day to keep pounding at the scandal beat.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:28 PM

16. We're in this together...

6 days and counting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:25 AM

156. Except some are more equal than others

Especially the oligarchs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:37 PM

20. After that, we'll never know what will hit us. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:29 PM

86. Sure we will, you think Trump, et. al. will let anything slip past them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #86)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:12 PM

189. No, I'm saying we won't get advance notice here.

We'll find out about the next attack as it's being used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:57 AM

52. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:30 AM

57. 5, and counting...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:48 PM

76. Now 5 days and counting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:15 PM

83. What's the problem with the OP?

Also, why don't you care about this? Is cronyism not a concern of yours? If I saw a post like this about Bernie Sanders, I'd be inquisitive, not dismissive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #83)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:30 PM

87. Attacking the Democratic nominee with speculative "scandal", that's the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #87)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 05:21 PM

98. It's hardly an attack

It's called journalism. Refute the article, if you have problems with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #98)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:59 PM

138. You're new. It's practically protocal here now. This is Hillary Central.

You are not allowed to present any record of her history...video, spoken, written, etc....that is unflattering. That is strictly and officially, well in some number of days, now the job of the Republicans. The nifty one-liners will swashbuckle their way in and cut your post into a thousand pieces or it will be hidden.

LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #138)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:27 PM

147. New to posting, not to the site.

I guess I was doing a good job ignoring the insanity. Or is it relatively new? Seems like the whole internet has been a bit crazy for the past few months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #147)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:43 AM

186. Ah, yes sit is crazy. All she has to do is come clean. What a concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #151)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:09 AM

162. Thanks!

Thanks for the link! Looks like there are those that claim that he deserved the appointment.

I still think the email exchange is a bit troublesome. Check out CNN's coverage from this (saturday) morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #87)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:17 AM

165. maybe you havent heard the news. It is not speculative, and she is not yet the nominee

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #83)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:02 PM

187. I agree.

I am a strong Hillary supporter and I don't see anything wrong with this post. Are we going to just ignore any stories that are negative and live in a bubble?

That said, I think politics is an expectations game. The anti-hillary people are expecting a level of "purity" that does not exist in any politician elected to offices so far. Have you heard about the Bernie Sanders story about his wife Jane and Bernie pressurizing the bank to give a loan? Have you seen Bernie's taxes? Why do you think that is?

In order to survive in politics today, you need (1) to make and give favors (2) Fundraise, fundraise, fundraise (3) Be able to work with people who have diametrically opposite views from you and make progress. One of the main reasons women can't shatter the glass ceiling is that it's all an old boys club - it means going and playing golf together, referring friends for positions, and essentially you-help-me, I-help-you. This "purity" test is not going anywhere.

That's how the game is played. If you want to change the game, you have to be in position of power and try to change it, and in order to be in position of power, you have to play the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zenabby (Reply #187)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:14 AM

199. Thanks! Information is good!

I think the most important thing, particularly at this point in the election cycle but really all the time, is to try to get at the truth. If the people who want to represent us are doing things we don't agree with, we have to hold them accountable. That doesn't mean that we hate them, or that they haven't passed a "purity test", just that we need transparency and disclosure when possible!

I agree that politics is an expectation game, but I don't agree that the level of purity that I'm looking for doesn't exist. I'll admit that it's a pretty high bar. I don't generally think that politicians will measure up in my mind; I'm used to being disappointed. In 2008, I was very excited by the idea that we could get a candidate (Obama) that talked the right talk. Unfortunately, he wasn't the progressive I'd hoped for. That's not to say that I hate him, or that I repudiate him, just that I have been disappointed by the gap between my expectations and what he delivered.

All that said, Bernie Sanders is a candidate that lives up to my expectations. I had not heard the story about pressure on a bank to give a loan. Are you talking about the thing I with the catholic church that I just found out about from google? That article is from Heat Street, which, according to Inquisitr, is owned by News Corp. Fox News is also all over this story, as has been the Daily Caller. Without a more in-depth investigation, I'm going to assume that this is a right wing manufactured scandal. As for Bernie's taxes, yes, he released some of them, which showed that there's no there there. I have seen them. Why do you think this keeps coming up? Do you think he's hiding something?

Anyways, as you said, no politician is perfect. I can't think of anybody that comes closer to disproving your point than Bernie, but I suppose you're right, nonetheless. No one is perfect.

I, unfortunately, agree 98% with the rest of your post. It's a sad state of affairs we've got. The system we have selects for participants who can play by insane rules, and work towards goals that are completely divorced from those that a rational government should have. However, I think you're wrong that you have to play the game to get the power to change the system. The thing that I (and hopefully a whole bunch of voters) have realized over this election cycle is that we already have the power to change the system. We just have to stand up and make it happen, instead of waiting till election day to vote for a candidate who we hope will do it for us. That candidate would have to play by the rules. And that's not how you win a fixed game.

See, money only works as a cudgel in politics when individual voters aren't directly holding their elected officials accountable. If more voters were members of party committees, the platform would necessarily reflect more accurately the will of the electorate; if more people ran in local primaries, there was more choice available to the voters; if there were more citizens in each Congressman's office each day than there were corporate lobbyists, it wouldn't matter how much those lobbyists had given to the Congressman. And as for fundraising, as the Sanders campaign has demonstrated, individual voters actually have more than enough money in their collective pockets to outspend even the most determined political machine.

Wow. I got way off topic on that one. Anyway, thanks for being a rational person and wanting to have a conversation. It's refreshing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:44 PM

92. 5 more days of Republican talking points on a Democratic site. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:50 PM

2. What a mess.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:01 PM

27. You know I read the article and it is meaningless...

It amounts to nothing. June 16th...enjoy while you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #27)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:30 PM

70. Is this the "nothing" you are referring to?

 

Just so you know, this is why a lot of people don't want her in the WH.

You can read ABC’s full blow-by-blow here, but the short version is this: The rest of the International Security Advisory Board was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress. But the only thing Fernando had to offer the group was, in ABC’s words, “his technological know-how,” which none of his fellow panelists seemed to find all that helpful. Fernando was so out of place, in fact, that one board member told ABC that none of his colleagues could figure out why he was even there.

Days after the network started asking questions about Fernando in the summer of 2011, he promptly resigned from the panel citing a need to focus on his business interests. He and the State Department declined to make public a copy of his résumé and refused to field follow-up questions at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:34 PM

88. So what is the point? Lots of subjective speculation. But since you said it, looks like....

....even MORE people want her in the White House than don't. And from what we've seen over the last four months, more people want her there than any other democratic candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #88)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 05:19 PM

97. No speculation required.

 

Look at the FACTS of the matter. You're OK with that??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:52 PM

122. Supposition and innuendo...and read the last paragraph. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:52 PM

3. Oh, my.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:57 PM

4. Thank you for the post!



"For liberty, Fernando
Though I never thought that we could lose
There's no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:59 PM

6. She's a disaster. I cannot support this. We can wait another four years for our first woman prez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:15 PM

10. Sure and by then Roe v. Wade will be dismantled

as well as ACA, marriage equality, further erosion of voting rights and we'll have a conservative leaning Supreme Court for a few decades, if not longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:55 PM

94. If our SDs are doing any thinking at all, which I doubt we

do not have to have those disasters. We have been trying to tell all of you that this is what we are risking with her as our nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:48 PM

106. Clinton says she can compromise on Roe v. Wade

 

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

Again,

During a Fox News town hall on Monday night, Clinton and Sanders were asked about their position on late-term abortions. Sanders' stance was easy to discern: He opposes abortion restrictions, full stop.

Clinton replied, "No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:19 AM

166. right, like that will happen

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #166)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:17 AM

170. Okay, believe what you will.

But if you don't think this stuff can happen with a stacked court, you need a better understanding of politics relation to the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:17 PM

11. You start with "I" and the move to "we".

The "we" should also read "I".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:00 PM

26. You are so foolish

This is it kid, or wait decades for something good...as all will be gone...Here is hoping the BOB enjoy it so much less if they cause it...I still think Hillary can win in spite of you people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:59 PM

31. lolz you guys!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:58 PM

34. I can wait. I will wait.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:42 AM

39. You and me both.

 

No more votes for homophobes. Or corporatists. Or status quo. Or all three, whatever the genital composition of that horrid combination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:31 AM

159. That's what they said about GWB.

That four years of GWB wouldn't be so bad, and that staying home on election day would teach the Democratic Party a lesson.

Of course, 9/11 happened, and for the next six years, the Democratic Party, along with the media, moved so far right that it almost became indistinguishable from the Republican Party.

If progressives had not convinced so many of us that Gore was just as bad as Bush, there would have been no Iraq War; hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be alive; the environment would be in much better shape; and ISIS would probably not exist today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:01 PM

7. His specialty - high frequency trading - could benefit from insider info

I have no information that he ever benefitted from insider information in his profession doing high frequency trading of financial instruments. But it is a really strange group for him to be appointed. Why was he and at whose direction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:54 PM

107. He contributed $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

 

I suppose insider information could help in that regard.

Hillary appointed him. Who knows why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:06 PM

8. Technological Know How

$$$$ USA .... > .....$$$$ Switzerland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:12 PM

9. So fucking corrupt

Regardless of who wins now, we (the 99%) are screwed



The Hillarians can posture all they want. The Reich will be using all of this crap, and more. PReventing democrats here from commenting on the corrupt shit won't even slow it down. It wil simply allow some to stick their heads in the sand, pretend it isn't happening, and point and shout 'tin foil hats' over there.

But the media likes this shit and will not let up.

good fucking luck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferd Berfel (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:06 AM

61. This kind of stuff is really disturbing and there is so much of it

Her supporters have to know at some level that it isn't all just made up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arikara (Reply #61)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:09 AM

62. unfortunately I can't agree

with you on this one.

Look at the denial that average republicans have been deeply entrenched in for decades - suicidal levels.

Hillarians are just the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferd Berfel (Reply #62)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:34 PM

74. How old are you - 5? Obviously it's not just Trump that has to make up silly

And childish names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #74)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:04 PM

81. Do you mean "hillarians"?

Not sure how that's silly or childish, much less insulting. Weird post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:21 PM

12. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:22 PM

13. There, there, now. Let it all out.



PS: This shit stops on the 16th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:26 PM

14. Do I really seem upset to you?

Also, what rules does this article break?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:27 PM

15. You'll find out in due time.

Enjoy it while you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:28 PM

17. I guess we will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:29 PM

18. Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:58 PM

25. All of them

You think you can post attack article but you can't and will soon find out. This is a Democratic website...head over to Jack sprat or whatever it is called.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:11 PM

29. So any article that covers a wrong doing by Hillary is an attack piece?

Even if it's by a mainstream news agency?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:41 PM

30. Yes-We support our nominee...and this is a bullshit article.

It ends with saying she did nothing wrong...did you read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:12 AM

163. It is not bs, it is a serious security matter- another security infraction

 

I wonder how often donors got inside exposure(foreign donors donate for a reason, not charity)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #29)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:51 PM

93. How about an mainstream news article covering a wrong by

Jane or Bernie Sanders? Would that be considered an attack piece?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesertRat (Reply #93)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 05:44 PM

99. Nope! Check those threads here. You don't see me crying uncle in them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #29)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:46 PM

120. Absolutely...bashing the nominee is pointless and stupid. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #120)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:15 AM

164. exposing a person who is not yet the nominee makes absolute sense, and if she

 

were already in the WH, exposing her would be for the good of the country and the VP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:22 AM

154. DU will all be the Hillary Clinton Group.

I got banned from that without even knowing I was responding to something on it. I don't think I will give them the satisfaction. Objectivity is out the window!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #25)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:00 PM

108. That means ALL Democrats right?

So all the attack threads for ANY and ALL Democrats won't be allowed?

Lots of people around here better remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lazy Daisy (Reply #108)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:50 PM

121. I don't think you should attack Democrats...let the GOP do that.

However, I am specifically talking about posting shit from any source that attacks the Democratic nominee...and it is pretty clear, you all intend to post shit for 'discussion' from more mainstream sites than you usually do...Skinner is not stupid. He/she will see right through this. There are sites where you can dump on Hillary all day...don't see the point since you all are such fine upstanding Democrats and all but...hey it is a free country and if you really want to help elect Trump...I can't stop you,but don't do it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #121)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:10 PM

142. Back off the "You" stuff

Personal attacks aren't allowed here either.

My point was ALL democrats aren't to be attacked, i.e. Nina Turner posts here lately. The things said about her are shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #121)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:31 AM

158. So, if someone here brings up Debbie Wasserman Schultz campaigning for Republicans, when Democrats

are running in the same race, that will be forbidden?
If that is the case, DU will become a fact free web site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:29 PM

19. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:59 PM

35. Your shit begins in November.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:19 PM

190. What does that even mean?

Explain, if you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:38 AM

58. What shit is that?

Reality?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:03 PM

80. On June 16th, you take take your fingers out of your ears.

Trump is an evil idiot; there's no denying that. But Hillary is flawed, seriously flawed. I promise you, she talks a good game but in her first year she will be all about setting up people who helped her get elected. Cronyism maximus. She will also be all about retribution; she has a revenge list that has been in her clutches ever since some of her backers changed their allegiance from her to Obama over 8 years ago. Then, of course, there's the whole Bill back in the White House worry.

If there's any buyer's remorse years from now when we're bombing more countries and capitulating to the Republicans, I won't be listening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #80)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:58 PM

95. I look forward to your efforts in defeating Trump. Haranguing about how "flawed, seriously flawed"…

... you think she is at every fucking opportunity you have isn't helping. (But I think you know that... so it makes me question your true motives.)

Do you want to defeat Trump, or are you more interested in (and hoping for?) doing everything possible that will allow you to boast "told you so" ... which is it? I hope it's the former rather than the latter. Unfortunately, your actions and words indicate otherwise.



Hillary is our party's nominee. Deal with it and help to defeat Trump.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #95)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:41 PM

119. My actions were to nominate the candidate who has the best chance to defeat Trump, IMO.

That would be Bernie. As far as 'dealing with it'? No, I don't have to deal with it. I am an independent voter, always have been. I joined DU 10 years ago because I detested the Republicans in power. I'm now at a point where I don't see much difference between the two candidates' integrity. If I cannot be swayed to hold my nose and just vote for the person who is running against Trump (whom I'd never vote for, not even to spite Hillary), then I guess you'll have to deal with that. Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #119)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:08 PM

124. The ship has sailed Bernie will not be the nominee

so time to face reality. And bashing Clinton in order to help Trump because you are angry and bitter is a terrible thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #124)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:06 PM

139. Bashing Clinton to help Trump?

What planet are you living on? I'm not here to help Trump. This is starting to sound like the whole "You're either with us or with them' garbage. I'm not bashing Clinton, she's bashing herself. Bernie has done some things that have pissed me off so I can assure you I'm not wearing blinders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #119)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:45 PM

137. That fight is over. Cope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #137)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:06 PM

140. Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #140)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:09 PM

141. Enjoy it while it lasts. Just a few days remain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #141)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:11 PM

143. And then your bubblesphere will be closed. Got it.

That does not take away the fact that I don't trust Hillary one bit and will not be voting for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #143)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:23 PM

145. Vote or don't vote ... Do as you please. But...

...your free reign here is coming to an end very soon. June 16th = NEW RULES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #145)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:24 PM

146. Is there anything about Hillary you don't like or wish she would change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #146)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:30 PM

148. Your games bore me. Tick tock...

...time's almost up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #148)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:55 AM

160. Ditto. Welcome to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #160)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:10 AM

169. There's just one more thing I'd like to say...

...if you're still there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:43 PM

21. Didn't see your post! This is just tip of iceberg; imagine the emails that are not being released u

until after November

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:46 PM

22. The problem for Hillary is the fact that this has crossed over to the mainstream media.

This isn't fringe blogs or RW sites anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to amborin (Reply #37)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:27 PM

68. Oh no not a cell phone! -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:26 PM

67. The mainstream media has always been happy to uncritically report BS from fring RW sites. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:09 PM

125. It has been everywhere and it is still right wing Bull shit that is going nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:56 PM

23. Five days of this shites. Enjoy yourself while you can.

Consider that Hillary is the nominee...Bernie is out...and realize when you post shite like this, you are on Trump's team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #23)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:00 PM

36. She is the guilty one in this. So much baggage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #36)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:06 PM

123. She is the nominee so tough luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #123)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:38 PM

133. Yes it is tough luck

 

for a lot of us and our country. You don't care. I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:41 AM

59. Y'all use the same stupid fucking talking points...

How is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #59)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:39 PM

134. Yes - I've noticed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:57 PM

24. Once more, basic journalism questions are never even asked.

1. Who are the other members of the IAB?
2. Are all of them well-versed in nuclear science or do they represent a wide range of experience?
3. What are their salaries?

So far, all I can find is a list of current members. http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/c27632.htm

But it looks like this answers both #1 and #2. The answer to #2 is: yes, they represent a wide range of experience. Which makes the article's declaration that they are all nuclear scientists nonsense.

With that in mind, #3 seems less important.

Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:03 PM

79. Nice misdirection

Which of the people on the list you linked don't seem to have relevant experience? To me, it seems that they all have relevant experience, either in science or foreign relations. Yes, they certainly represent a wide range of experience, all of which seems, to me, totally relevant. Were you hoping no one would click the link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #79)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:40 PM

90. A hedge fund manager? The President of Ploughshares Fund?

A former Congressman from Nebraska? As I stated before, these non-scientists may have been grudgingly admitted but Fernando was considered one too many.

The article makes the specific straw-man implication that scientists are part of the board but I don't see a scientist in the bunch. A lot of former defense analysts, etc.

Big. Deal.

I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #90)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:06 PM

100. Really? OK, I'll do the due diligence for those readers who will just take you at your word.

A former Congressman from Nebraska is definitely covered by "filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress…"

You're being extremely misleading. I'll go one by one, if that helps.


  • Hon. Gary Hart: was the chairman of the Threat Reduction Advisory Council.

  • Hon. Charles B. Curtis: this one's easy. He was "Senior Advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, President Emeritus of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and former Deputy Secretary of Energy". I don't think I need to provide links for those.

  • Hon. Graham Allison: "Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs ... at the Kennedy School of Government"

  • Amb. Brooke D. Anderson: "served ... on the Iran Nuclear Negotiations"

  • Hon. Douglas Bereuter: former Republican Congressman from Nebraska (I guess Nebraska congressmen don't count as congressmen?)

  • Dr. Bruce Blair: a professor (oh look, a scientist!) and co-founder of Global Zero, an organization devoted to bringing about a "world without nuclear weapons". According to Wikipedia, he is a "nuclear security expert and a research scholar at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs"

  • Amb. Linton F. Brooks: a researcher (ooh, another scientist) and advisor "on national security issues", who worked on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (link included in case you've never heard of it)

  • BGen Stephen A. Cheney: among other things, former "Deputy Executive Secretary to the Secretary of Defense, and Inspector General of the Marine Corps". Seems like he might have relevant experience to me, though perhaps you'd like to research this one a little more.

  • Mr. Joseph Cirincione: this is one of the ones you were disdainful about. He's the president of the Ploughshares Fund. If you had googled it, you'd see that it's pretty relevant. Their landing page says, "Ploughshares Fund supports the smartest minds and most effective organizations to reduce nuclear stockpiles, prevent new nuclear states, and increase global security." I wonder if running an organization like that gives him some useful experience and perspective?

  • ...



There are quite a few more, but I'm bored now. I guess it's clear that you actually read the whole list and then decided to misrepresent it, since you referenced the only hedge fund manager, Robert Rose, "President of Robert Rose Consulting, LLC and former Senior Advisor to the Chairman of Bridgewater Associates, one of the largest hedge funds in the world". I'll concede that he seems out of place. I wonder if he had a similar deal with somebody in Clinton's administration, or if it was someone previous to her. Actually, it's possible that he's a new addition, since this is the list of current members.

If you'd like to look through the rest of that list and point out the members that you think are comparable in terms of irrelevance to a securities trader, I will gladly discuss it with you. If not, I'll assume you're just being intentionally misleading and we can leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #100)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:08 PM

109. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #100)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:34 PM

111. You're right, I didn't Google everyone on the list. You did. So...no misleading from me.

Referring to the list we're talking about, it does not have all that information in it so, in a way, you are being misleading about me being misleading. But thanks for the additional detail.

But not everyone on that list fits into the 3 categories specified by the article. And since the position is unpaid and voluntary, it hardly seems like any kind of 'quid pro quo', as the article wants us to believe.

It was some sort of political or personnel screw-up and...where is the harm?

I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #111)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:16 PM

144. Robert rose....more than a hedge fund manager

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertnrose

Yeah just an innocent screw up. A trader couldn't possibly benefit from sitting on a board where future plans are discussed. He would never take advantage of anything he heard. It was all a whacky fuckup!!! Rich folks just fall into such things don't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pottedplant (Reply #144)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:34 PM

149. Huh! Thanks for the info!

Looks like Mr. Fernando was the only one without qualifications. Also, the whole thing stinks to high hell regardless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to randome (Reply #111)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:01 AM

150. OK, we're too far down the rabbit hole for my taste.

I really didn't mean to be misleading. You posted a list of people who are on the IAB, and I felt you misrepresented the composition. I didn't Google everyone on the list either, though I think you probably should have done that work in the first place, before trying to back up obviously false conclusions.

I feel it's apparent that there is impropriety here, but I guess I'm not gonna be able to convince you. As for quid pro quo, it's very difficult in a case like this (as is mentioned in the OP and the linked article) to demonstrate that an exchange took place. However, it's pretty clear that Mr. Fernando stood to benefit from access and information, and didn't have the qualifications to sit on the board. You can take that however you like.

PS. "you are being misleading about me being misleading", based on my doing further research, is some serious olympic-level mental gymnastics. I give it an 8.7.



You are wrong. You should admit it.
Then you'll be right about having been wrong.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:04 PM

28. More BS from the Bernie of Bust crowd...June 16th can't come soon enough.

"So just how big of a deal is this? In the big bucket of Clinton controversies (both real and imagined), this is merely a drop. Hillary and her staff had broad leeway to name pretty much whomever they wanted to the board, so while tapping Fernando was highly questionable, it wasn’t illegal. It is impossible to read the ABC report and not get a distinct whiff of favor trading, but there is no smoking gun—as there almost never is when it comes to this type of thing. In a political system where the inputs and outputs are both money and power, proof of guilt, or, really, innocence, rarely exists. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:06 PM

33. Did I say it was illegal? It's hard to get busted when you right the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:04 PM

32. Sigh

6 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:18 PM

65. Not really.

Clinton bashing comes to an end in 6 days.

This article is not Clinton bashing.

Sigh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5833

What to expect

I think a lot of people have the wrong idea, and are going to be disappointed.

We have no intention of purging anyone, and we have no intention of disallowing good-faith discussion of the issues. I think most people are going to be fine with that. But there are going to be a a few people (including both Hillary and Bernie supporters) who are going to be disappointed because the massive crackdown they have been hoping for does not come to pass.

Most people think the big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing Hillary Clinton. Yes, that's part of it -- but it's not the only thing and it's definitely not the most important thing. The really big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing each other.

Throughout this primary season we have been in a death spiral of declining standards. So we are going to institute some rules, and we will expect everyone to follow those rules, and we will expect everyone to enforce those rules when they serve on juries. The rules shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone -- they are mostly common sense, and they are basically the same rules we had for years when we had moderators: No personal attacks, no broad-brush group attacks, no bigotry, no right-wing smears or sources against Democrats, no advocating for spoilers or republicans, no meta-discussion, etc.

I am just so tired of people bashing each other and bashing Democrats on this website. I know the hardcore partisans will try to paint this whole thing through the Hillary vs Bernie lens, and drive that wedge as hard as they can, but that is just so not where I am at right now. I don't care who anyone has supported in the primaries -- I really don't. As long as you treat your fellow DU members with respect, stop tearing down Democratic public figures (including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and everyone else), and don't advocate for Donald Trump or some lost-cause third-party spoiler candidate, then you'll be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:35 AM

38. Bookmarked.

For the day when Attorney General Loretta Lynch cries out "Bingo!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #38)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:43 AM

60. ..

👍

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:39 AM

40. Heckuva job, Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:07 AM

41. The search for new outrages continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #41)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:12 AM

47. Search? It comes freely to us. No searching needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:50 PM

71. True ...

... the perpetually outraged don't need a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:13 PM

127. The right wing is always willing to oblige fellow travelers

Trump has invited you to join him, and it appears many here have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #127)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:41 PM

135. rw rw rw rw polly want a cracker?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:10 AM

42. Thursday, June 16th

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:12 AM

43. The Clinton's are always in the center of bullshit

 

and all it does is hurt things.

This is a prime example of things.

How in the blue hell did Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy Clinton donor, get on the damn board of the International Security Advisory Board? Look, this screams corruption through & through you guys. I don't give a crap what anybody says but this is very wrong.

Each and every day it's something.

Have fun with THAT in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:13 AM

44. The board is an unpaid, volunteer position.

It includes a wide range of people with different skillsets. So where do you get 'corruption' from?

I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #44)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:14 AM

48. This guy's skill set wasn't applicable to the board he was appointed to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #48)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:19 AM

49. Few of the members on the board have nuclear science credentials.

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/c27632.htm

It is, as I said, composed of a wide range of talent. They aren't conducting fallout tests in a boardroom. I actually don't understand why there was any controversy in the first place since many of the board members have similar non-nuclear credentials.

I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:36 AM

50. Did any of them have to resign less than 48hrs after their credentials were questioned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:46 AM

51. I don't understand why that occurred. Obviously something was 'wrong' about the appointment.

It doesn't make sense -to me- to say he was unqualified since many of the other members were similarly unqualified. I mean, there's a hedge fund manager on the board so what's that about?

I think the article is missing something to fully explain why he resigned. It leans a bit too much on innuendo. For instance, stating that the rest of the board "...was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress..." isn't really true since other members had resumes very different from those 3 categories.

I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:08 AM

55. Point taken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:12 PM

82. Follow that link before making any claims about it!

As I said here, most of the people on that list do have relevant experience. Many are directly involved in defense or even nuclear science. None are traders or similar. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samson212 (Reply #82)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:37 PM

89. A hedge fund manager has relevant experience?

A former Congressman from Nebraska? The President of Ploughshares Fund?

Some seem to have relevant experience, others do not. But the statement from the article that the rest of the board "...was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress..." isn't really true, is it?

Unless you want to dispute the meaning of the words "was filled".

Clearly some non-relevant experience is allowed but probably grudgingly and trying to add Fernando to what was already there was likely considered going too far.

But it's an unpaid, advisory position so the implication that some kind of 'payback' was going on seems ludicrous. That combined with the false statement above makes me give little credence to the article.

I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #89)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:08 PM

101. Just stop. You're hurting the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #48)


Response to Name removed (Reply #53)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:07 AM

54. No it isn't just my opinion. ABC tried to get that answer and alarm bells went of at State Dept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:59 PM

77. You're right about the "bullshit" part.

 

Speaking of bullshit, last week the bros were decrying CNN and the WSJ as being the corrupt corporate media in the tank for Clinton. This week, they're the purveyors of solid journalism taken as gospel truth.

Aren't you dizzy from all that spinning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #77)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:30 PM

102. Speaking of bullshit...

...Sanders bashing...including bashing his supporters...ends on the 16th too. Don't believe me? Let's take a little peek:

DU General Election Season Begins on June 16: What You Need To Know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6548

Me: So "BernieBros" and "BoB" meets a welcome demise on the 16th. Thank you.

Skinner's response: Yes, disrespectful nicknames are not permitted. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miles Archer (Reply #102)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:17 PM

110. Thanks for that, Miles.

 

Bernie's female supporters, and I believe we are the majority here, have become rather tired of being called "bro" by Hillary's female supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miles Archer (Reply #102)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:42 PM

136. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:13 AM

45. He was so qualified he resigned after a few days. Hillary knows how to pick them....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:23 AM

46. Please edit to conform to the TOS. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:27 AM

56. "Clinton is so fortunate..."

As are we all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:05 PM

63. I heard she puts ketchup on her hotdogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:13 PM

64. Story is growing legs...

 

Question for HRC supporters here, this adds to her historic unfavorables, time to turn this around

Should HRC and her family divest themselves from Clinton Foundation?

&t=3m30s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #64)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:26 PM

66. The hell it does. Couldn't have less "legs."

And why on Earth should they "divest themselves from Clinton Foundation?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #66)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:41 PM

69. pay to play...

 

speaks to leadership

speaks to influence of $$

this all leads into increasing HRC historic unfavorables, if you choose to ignore or dismiss this you're part of the problem, not working to decrease HRC's unfavorables

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #64)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:14 PM

128. No, Great charity.

Helping the GOP attack the Democratic nominee is shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #128)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:22 PM

131. principle

 

when did standing for principle become 'shameful' in DEM party?

the only 'shame' I'm witnessing is attempting to suppress debate on principle regardless of candidate

I assumed DU after the 15th would be bad, would try to insulate the nominee from constructive criticism but what I see going on will be far worse than what I expected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:25 PM

72. Isn't it time to stop this kind of OP?

Needs to be soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:28 PM

73. Trump is in heaven over this story. I see him on CNN talking about this. So to answer your question

the OP will stop but the story will not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:45 PM

75. Next Thursday.

They're just trying to trash the place as they're shown the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #75)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:35 PM

112. lol, legitimate news about Hillary is "trash?"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #112)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:15 PM

115. If you ever post any legitimate news about Hillary,

I'll give it my attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #72)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:34 AM

167. no, valid discussion is always educational

 

unlike some posts that cheer the bookburning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:02 PM

78. 5 and half days and there will be no more posting VILE right wing crap on this board. Shame on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #78)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:24 PM

84. 5 and half days and there will be no more meta discussion on this board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910708

what is meta discussion

Discussion about the discussion. Or about DU. It's when people stop talking about politics and instead talk about who broke what rule and who should be banned and all that other navel-gazing stuff.


The Jury System: What's staying the same and what's changing

Next, we have made technical changes to the Jury process, implementing various improvements that people have requested over the past five years, and adding a few of our own. We also ditched a number of things that we felt were not working. With all of these changes our focus was on looking for ways to increase civility, set clear expectations, and reduce forum drama and meta-discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6548

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #78)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:29 PM

85. How is this right wing?

Defend what she did. Show me just how qualified Fernando was. Better yet link to herself being transparent and clearing up any misconceptions about her involvement in placing a commodities trader slash huge donor on a panel dealing w national secutity and nukes. What was fernando's reaction when he was confronted by a veteran abc journalist? Oh yeah, he threatened to have him arrested. A real standup guy who is representing democrats as a super delegate. A joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pottedplant (Reply #85)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:11 PM

126. It doesn't matter

Bernie has lost, and she is the nominee. Thus, she has to defeat Trump...and bashing her with right wing bull shit talking points only helps Trump...it is disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #155)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:51 AM

173. Brock?

Are you serious? Show me something independent that absolves her. Also all these accolades and his association with a security panel all took place AFTER he got busted. Too funny. Called cya and reputation management.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #155)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:08 AM

175. See #174

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #78)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:38 PM

113. Too bad you can't stop the media from reporting news about Hill.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #113)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:37 AM

168. its just the first chapter of her defrocking. RICO is in her driveway

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:42 PM

91. Oh yes, a "plum" spot on a board that doesn't pay anything. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #91)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:31 PM

103. It's inside information

Or has that escaped you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #91)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:15 PM

116. He was a big donor who wanted to play "Policy Big Shot" by sitting on a prestigious board as a peer

to the likes of Brent Scowcroft, William Perry, David Kay, etc and evidently someone was oafish enough to think that people at that level - who are donating their time and expertise free of charge in the name of public service - would be willing to be used as props to grease a donor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:58 PM

96. The time to post every alleged Clinton scandal that man has ever invented, is over.

Hillary kicks dogs. She spits in other people's iced tea when they're not looking. She can't stand kids. She dresses in burlap sacks.

This is getting so old.

The only thing standing between this country and President Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton. You may loathe her and think she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth, but that really does not matter at this point.

What matters is making sure she beats Trump. Because if she does not, heaven help this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #96)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:39 PM

114. So all she has going for her is Trump?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #96)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:15 PM

129. Exactly right...the primary is over. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #96)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:41 AM

172. The Clinton scandals were "getting old" in fucking 1993.

 

That's why so many of us didn't want to have to live through a re-run of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #96)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:40 AM

183. So she beats Trump, and we have her, but a lot of people want more.

And yes, I read your "scandals" post, which is basically a retread of your "Hillary kicks dogs. She spits in other people's iced tea when they're not looking. She can't stand kids. She dresses in burlap sacks" comment above.

It's not getting "so old" for some people.

And I do understand that injecting a sense of fatigue and sarcasm into the conversation might seem like a way to shut down the conversation, but it's not. The "new rules" on DU that go "live" on the 16th will go a long way toward that goal, perhaps end the conversation completely, and that will effectively end it on DU but nowhere else.

You say "You may loathe her and think she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth"...more bitter sarcasm, more fatigue. Truth is, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I do not "loathe" her. I do not think that "she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth." But then you cap it off with "but that really does not matter at this point." You actually said that...in your belief system, what other people think "really does not matter." It's coming across loud and clear in your posts, and it is your right to feel that way...I am not attacking you or trying to take that right away from you.

I am, instead, encouraging you to take a step outside of yourself for a moment and have an appreciation for your telling other people that their opinion "really does not matter."

I don't know you. I don't know what motivates you, how you think, all I know is that I do understand "words" and how they are used. The sarcasm, strictly from what i see in your posts, appears to be used in a way to marginalize concerns that people have about Hillary Clinton, to make them somehow seem foolish or petty or devoid of any value past their "hatred" of her.

It's just not that easy. You can't just wrap everyone who is not "on board" with Clinton into a neat little package, tie it off with a pretty bow, and write them off as "haters" or "dissenters." You can attempt to do that, and you can feel that you are "right" or "vindicated" or whatever these kinds of posts make you feel, but you've solved nothing.

Maybe I've pissed you off at this point. Maybe I did it a few paragraphs ago. And that was not my intent. If I wanted to flip your "off" switch, I could have simply tossed you onto my ignore list. I didn't do that. I'm trying to communicate with you and let you know what comes across on the screen when you craft this kind of message.

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people on this site, right now, who are "all in" for Trump. That's nothing new. We went through it during Bush v. Kerry, Obama v. McCain, and Obama v. Romney. They come, they go, they aren't DU.

Some of the people who have been around here that long, as well as some of the new people who have joined during this election cycle, are "real" Democrats. In this election, that term has become vague at best. If a person is 100% behind the DNC, Wassserman Shultz, and Clinton, does that make them a "real" Democrat? If they are critics of all three, does that make them "not real?"

In my opinion...and this is just my opinion...on the list of whatever accomplishments people believe Sanders did or did not achieve during the primaries, he accomplished one core feat...he splintered off the Democrats who believe themselves to be "true progressives" from the people who believe that Clinton is "progressive." I don't believe she is. I'm not going to throw more "right wing talking points" at you. Am I concerned about Goldman Sachs and her relationship with "the big banks?" Better believe it. Am I concerned about her stance on war, and do I believe that she will not only keep us mired in the wars we are in now and send us into new ones? Yes, I do. And you have the right to dismiss me with comments about how I hate her and how I think she dresses in burlap sacks, but...even though I do not know you...I want to believe that you are smarter than that, better than that, and when you use those words it is the voice of frustration and not of reason.

On the 16th, you'll get your wish...on DU, and nowhere else...the conversation will shrink dramatically, and whether it actually rises back to the level of a civil "conversation" or simply becomes an exchange of thoughts between very like-minded individuals, I can't tell you.

People have legitimate concerns about your candidate of choice. If I do vote for her in November, it will be for no other reason than to cast a vote against Trump. Is that "enough" for me? No, it's not, and it's the best I'm going to get out of this equation, and it's the best a lot of people are going to get out of it. You can paint a picture of these people as clueless, ignorant, not "real" Democrats, whatever you'd like. It won't reflect reality. It will make you "feel right," and if that's enough for you, I guess that it's enough for you, and it will provide closure for you.

You can alienate and dismiss the people who disagree with you, or you can make an attempt to understand why they do. So far I'm seeing the first option in your posts, and not the second, and that is your right.

I think we deserve better, and I think you deserve better. I'm not talking about a "better candidate." I'm talking about a better level of discourse. And if this is what you want, you already have it, and I have nothing left that I can say to you that will make you see things differently. All I can do is wish you luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:35 PM

104. This guy/donor, Rajiv Fernando was some kind of financial whiz, right?

Terrorists need financing, too, don't they? Maybe this guy was following money trails or tracking investment strategies to figure out where terrorist groups were investing their money - or which investors were funneling money to terrorists...

Maybe when they started asking questions about Mr. Fernando, he figured he couldn't track money/terrorists without a lot of attention. Maybe some other finance whiz took his place? Anything is possible...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #104)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:47 PM

105. You are being sarcastic, right?

Did you read the article? All the other members were asking who he was and why he was there. Plus old Fernando could've answered Brian Ross's question without acting like the jackass he is and threatening arrest. Moreover, if they wanted to know how terrorist financing works they could have appointed someone from hsbc. That's their business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pottedplant (Reply #105)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:29 PM

117. Nope. I always try to deduce another reason to explain a situation.

I have an active imagination....

And I'm not concerned that Hillary engaged in suspected cronyism in 2011 either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #117)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:24 PM

118. that's really pathetic

And you might want to read up on the foundation. It didn't end in 2011. https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pottedplant (Reply #118)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:07 PM

188. No, you read up on it. In fact, make it your Bible....

I'm a realist - I don't expect politicians or leaders to be infallible. They are people and they have lapses in judgement, too. But I don't think Hillary is going to use the nuclear football because somebody hurt her feewiiiiiings....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #188)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:26 PM

193. You set a very low bar

This was no mistake. The Iraq war vote was no mistake. Regime change in Libya was no mistake. Legitimizing the Honduran coup was no mistake. Setting up an office to promote fracking worldwide was no mistake. Hiding your email from public records requests was no mistake. Shall I continue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pottedplant (Reply #193)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:17 PM

198. You just don't get it, do you? I don't care what she may have done,

what's being speculated, what's being investigated - I DON'T WANT TRUMP for President and that's that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:17 PM

130. New so-called "Hillary scandal" ...

... checks all the boxes on the RW talking points bingo card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #130)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:35 AM

182. Is Benghazi still checked too?

Yeah or Naw?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #130)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:41 AM

185. Does that make it easier to deal with this story?

There's a reason this guy resigned with the quickness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:35 PM

132. Not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:19 AM

153. Love the Hill post that can't wait for us to go.

 

They can swim in denial as we float down the river of fire! Life is about to get very complicated for all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:29 AM

157. This is nothing. I imagine he was added because he had a relationship with someone on the council

that would feel comfortable with him on the council. it sounds like power broker relationship stuff which happens all the time.

Remember Halliburton and one of their officers Dick Cheney?

Or Snowden who was hired by an NSA contractor even though he was unqualified and not properly vetted. Of course he turned out to be a Russian spy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #157)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:11 AM

177. Now you're just making shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:09 AM

161. I'm sure Fernando was one of many pay to play

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:11 AM

176. tick tock..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #176)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:12 AM

179. I'm not worried at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #179)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:17 AM

180. 4 days and counting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #180)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:20 AM

181. Like I said I'll be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #180)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:36 AM

184. Until you go into your darkness.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:29 PM

191. 4 days until RW lies and propaganda are banned from DU

I can't wait!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #191)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:33 PM

192. Gotta love the thought police

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #192)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:27 PM

194. Taking out all the right wing trash that would fit right in at Freak Republic

is just house cleaning at a democratic discussion board.

YMMV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #194)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:36 PM

195. So CNN, ABC, NBC are RW trash now?

Or is it the fact that they are covering something negative about Hillary that of course the RW would cover as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #195)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:39 PM

196. You will find out in 4 days I guess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #196)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:45 PM

197. That we will!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Tue Sep 6, 2016, 07:41 PM

200. I hope this doesn't get me into trouble but I only heard about this case today

 

I'm wondering if there's been any update on this case?

I haven't heard anything about it before today and googled around but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. Nonetheless, it actually seems to be one of the more solid cases of Clinton donor influence trading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread