scandals.

Carrying water for the right wing is not honorable.

isn't exactly honorable either.

permitted for the very reason I posted what I did.

nt

will hold the a highest office on the land.

Don't put your money on the scandals.

Buy a clue. People in power always get asked for things by their constituents and anyone for that matter. She forwarded an email basically. If you don't want to be accused of carrying teabagger water, don't carry teabagger water.

on and on .She does it all by herself

I am sure the baggers agree, but I do not. What mistakes are you babbling about?

She did it all by herself, I guess.

I posted an AP story. Should I hide it so it looks like the DU is flying wingman for her? IF Hillary has nothing to worry about on this YOU don't either.

The right wing nuts just got lots of ammo from YOUR comment! Great job.

candidate could withstand this right wing crap. Probably not.

Yes, she told an underling to take care of it...and he did. That's plausible deniability? Hmmm.

So, let's say I tell my son to go and TP the house of this neighbor who just, say, flipped me off. Who's responsible? Sorry, son.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust....................and is a "volunteer" for another...................

http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=2246556 and then what's really classic is that they file under the auspices of being a Educational N.E.C foundation 501C, that's clever in my opinion

http://blog.libertyinstitute.org/2014/09/interview-with-volunteer-attorney.html

I guess the first Amendment and its reading and what was voted on and installed in the Constitution is wrong in the opinion of this firms program's and organization (Liberty), which basically says that religion should be injected in the military, schools, ect........ for example, ---------------------it ( the amendment ) does not say military, schools should have religion, because the amendment first words says, Congress shall not make any laws to establish religion (paraphrase), so I think in my opinion, that this is some accountability and civic trust


Honk------------------------for a political revolution it is about the U.S. Supreme Court and it is about getting a progressive Congress

Bernie 2016

This guy from Neptune emailed his friend Mezvinsky about getting a meeting with Clinton or someone at the State Department. A few months later, Clinton sent that same email to one of the people working for her in the State Department and asked him to look into it and he said "I'll get on it". There's no evidence that any meeting between executives or investors from Neptune and Clinton or anyone from State ever occurred.

I think if they want to show there was preferential treatment, there would first have to be some proof of actual contact between Neptune and State, right? Or do I just not have the info correct?

more than just a meeting, which may or may not have actually taken place. There would have to be proof of some type of benefit for the party in question for it to have any significance at all.

Yet another crock of poo from the bullsh*t industry.

just paying for access (the ability to get a meeting you wouldn't get through normal channels and make your pitch) SHOULD be an issue. It doesn't sound like they even got that, though.

brought out over and over till the GE is over.

Judicial Watch Sues State Department for Top Clinton Aides’ Ethics Documents DECEMBER 16, 2015
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-state-department-for-top-clinton-aides-ethics-documents/


Intelligence agencies say 2 Clinton emails were 'top secret,' but one is no longer
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-emails-top-secret-216802#ixzz3uXQqZQ00

The intelligence community is standing by its conclusion that two emails sent to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contained information classified "Top Secret" at the time it was sent

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2015/12/16/end-year

Now Republicans demand the IRS audit the Clinton Foundation. Where are the guardrails here? "When did conservatives go from wanting to abolish the IRS to wanting to use it to punish rivals?"

Recent Dec 11th:
JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/another-benghazi-smoking-gun-2/

Also at that Dec 11th link:
Another Benghazi Smoking Gun

Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.

That’s what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:

While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.

Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration’s many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)

There's still 1/3 of her 55,000 pages of emails to come ...

Of course, reporting what is floating around in the news is "smearing" poor Hillary.
In fact, I think it's just a sampling of what is to come in the general election.

The same group (Larry Klayman) who was suing Obama over his college transcripts and, wait for it, his birth certificate!

Yes, Obama should resign and Hillary should end her campaign to spare us all the indignity I guess.

He is an asshole's asshole.

According to some here, apparently.

Judicial Watch are the ones who caught Clinton using a private email server. Some might feel that has caused her problems (sarcastic understatement - it might cost her the White House).

No question they're often sympathetic to Republican causes. But they're going to court and winning many FOIA cases and publishing what they obtain. I would also quickly concede many times it is a fishing expedition - like the examples you mention above and often, they don't catch anything. But in this case, they've bitten and taken hold of Hillary's pantsuit leg and they're not letting go. Hillary has a problem here and they're leaving no stone unturned.

Every time they win another lawsuit, more information comes out. That information is scrutinized and often leads to more stuff. They started with Benghazi and it's mushroomed. It led to the email scandal. Now the son-in-law is stirring another awkward question as is the uranium deal for a Clinton foundation donor and now they're looking at State Department hiring, etc.

While Hillary is trying to get news coverage for her policies, that is going to get overshadowed by this crap.

Sept 2015 Poll: 20% believe Barack Obama was born outside U.S.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/09/14/barack-obama-cnnorc-poll-hawaii-muslim/72246866/

And while Obama has repeatedly said he is Christian, 29% of poll respondents said the still believe he is Muslim -- including 43% of Republicans.

Even with one of your examples of Judicial Watch failure, the larger effort cost Obama votes.

LOL, "sympathetic"?????

Enjoy having right-wing racist jackoffs make your choices for you.

Have a nice day.

But they may be making choices for all of us by exposing stuff going on with Hillary

I have not seen anything racist done by them.

They did sue Bush's administration and they did sue Haliburton over what was going on with Cheney - it hasn't been 100% right wing.

They're coming after Hillary by going to court via lawsuit, getting court orders and disseminating what information they dig up that often doesn't reflect well on the target of their lawsuit. It contributes to the mushrooming of the Benghazi scandal.

And they're still after her and show no sign of slowing down. In case you didn't notice, that's not a good thing for a person trying to run for President.

Which is what they want. They want a Republican in office. They will smear any Democrat they can to get what they want.

If they called Bernie a child molester tomorrow, would you wave the white flag?

"Oh shit guys, this isn't good.....oh woe is me! LARRY KLAYMAN, a man with ZERO credibility has spoken!!!!"

As far as racism, anyone who accuses President Obama of not being an American citizen is a fucking racist. Full stop. Deal with it.

Fuck Larry Klayman and fuck anyone who supports him. I will vote for the best candidate, which is certainly not anyone he or his bigoted cabal get behind.

Got it?

By the way, "mushrooming" Benghazi scandal??

Your slip is showing.

I do agree they've got a conservative/GOP slant (slope might be better) or currently heavy bias. I supports Dems so on that level, I'm not too excited about what they're doing either.

Larry Klayman, who started them, is no longer with them and is an extremist.

Judicial Watch on Obama's birth certificate
:http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/28-judicial-watch-investigates-obamas-mortgage-deal/

July 11, 2008

"Our legal team reviewed the argument and provided some useful analysis that I thought I should share with you. Under 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), anyone born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., is a U.S. citizen at birth. In addition, under 8 U.S.C. 1405, anyone born in Hawaii after April 30, 1900 is a U.S. citizen at birth. (Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.) The argument questioning Obama’s legal eligibility is wrong and apparently confuses persons born inside the U.S. with persons born outside the U.S., one of whose parents is a U.S. citizen and the other is a non-U.S. citizen (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)).

I know there are concerns about whether the birth certificate distributed by the Obama campaign is truly an official copy. The Obama camp will have to put to rest that question on its own. In the meantime, I haven’t seen any reliable information yet to suggest Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, so he’s a United States citizen and eligible to serve as our nation’s president.

Tom Fitton
President

Looks like you're the one doing the smearing of Judicial Watch (hate to defend them but the facts are the facts).

What Judicial Watch is doing is different than merely smearing with garbage accusations/labels, etc like your lame "Bernie is a child molester" example.

They're digging up evidence. Real indisputable hard copy or facts for everyone to see. That's much harder to dispute. And it's something the media can latch on to and run with.

In terms of the "mushrooming Benghazi scandal", it did mushroom. It started with Benghazi. Then it morphed into Clinton's email server trying to find the Benghazi emails when they started doing FOIAs for her emails. Now that has all kinds of folks looking at all kinds of things. I wrote about some of them here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251858165#post12
and here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=894929

I've been hearing this email thing is "nothing" for quite some time

The House originally requested these emails more than a year ago
"nothing" has the GOP controlled Senate Judiciary Committee still looking into it
"nothing" has the GOP controlled House still looking over their shoulder
"nothing" has the FBI still looking into it
"nothing" still has a third of 55,000 pages of Clinton's emails to go through and publish in the next couple of months
"nothing" still has the judgement of the AP FOIA request of the State Department to be satisfied over the next four plus months to provide additional information beyond the 55,000 pages of emails
"nothing" has spread to "mysteriously" missing emails belonging to Clinton's IT guy
"nothing" has Clinton's IT guy lawyering up and pleading the 5th
"nothing" has the Senate Judiciary Committee evaluating immunity for Clinton's IT guy
"nothing" has spread to them looking at the involvement of Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and at least 9 others
"nothing" has already fed the GOP more Clinton lies to be used against her in the general election
http://nypost.com/2015/09/30/hillarys-e-mail-lies-seven-months-and-counting/
http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/

Can't say I feel comfortable describing the above as "nothing" for a candidate for President.

"nothing" has developed a life of it's own with no end in sight, has spread and could be a real cancer on her candidacy.

Forgot Inspector General on the above list as someone pointed out.

Since then, we have them looking at the emails for
- Hillary helping her son-in-law while Secretary of State
- arms deals for Clinton Foundation/campaign donors
- mining deals for the Canadian wing of the Clinton Foundation
- at least two emails recently confirmed as "top secret" on her server at home
etc

All of those started with or got fueled in some way by the little Benghazi investigation. It's like a cancerous tumor, mushrooming, growing tentacles. And it's a lot worse than the verbal smears because it starts with hard copy emails sent or received by Hillary. And here we are more than a couple of years past the start of Benghazi, less than 11 months away from the election and this mess is branching out and still going strong.

As Democrats, that's not very good news for the front runner or us. Hillary carries significant risk that folks like this are going to bury her with this stuff.

It's hard to trust the candidate to tell us how vulnerable she is because she's been a chronic liar much of her career.

Judicial Watch, the Kochs, the GOP and the media are going chow down on Hillary. They're going to do it whether we like it or not and they've got volumes of material to do it with.


Bernie, who I support, doesn't have this baggage. I think he's honest, has better truly progressive policies and because of the mess above, is a better bet. More than my slip is showing. You know where my heart is.

If anyone on the right doesn't like the candidate, Democrats should abandon them?

While the network is built around nonprofits with vague names and grassroots slogans that imply the participation of many ordinary Americans, it’s primarily the handiwork of one man: Howard Rich. A real gem........

Rich, 72, made his fortune in Manhattan real estate, but since at least the early 1970s, his passion has been libertarian politics. He decamped from the Libertarian Party in the 1980s to establish his own network of like-minded think-tanks and publishing companies.

Rich is also prominently attached to leading national libertarian groups — he sits on the boards of directors of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. Yet he remains a mysterious figure, rarely interviewed and almost always several steps removed from any direct action.

According to Internal Revenue Service records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, from the early 2000s at least through 2010 Rich was the linchpin holding together a confusing, swirling array of political organizations — all of them nondisclosing nonprofit groups — that spent heavily to influence state and federal politics around the country. The constellation of organizations that operate out of a handful of Rich-related addresses is constantly changing, but some of them are well-known: Rich, in his role as chairman of U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(4) group under tax rules, has for years been the driving force of the movement to curtail how long elected officials can stay in office. He’s also the chairman of a 501(c)(4) group called Americans for Limited Government, which spent $1.02 million in 2010 targeting Democrats running for Congress and distributed millions more to other groups.

He sounds like a real winner., and it get worse more at the link. Ethics is far from their radar screen.....

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/06/rich-rewards-one-mans-shadow-money-network/

They probably think Republicans can do whatever they want.