That is (Shameless)(Shameless)

You conspiracy folks crack me up. I guess you'd have her walk to the restroom/dressing room by herself.

And let's just say for a moment they did confer in some way, you think the Prez ever makes a decision without talking to all kinds of experts. In any event, that photo shows her abiding by the rules.

...she has 24/7 SS protection. And just to be clear, they are not considered part of her staff, so having them accompany her would not break any rules.

Fail.

did you just rationalize it by saying other candidates do it. Finally, do you have a photo of Sanders walking by himself?

In any event, Clinton does not appear to be conferring with her staff -- because no one is talking. I think that is the intent of the rules.

...to bring up talking over the time limit, which Clinton did much more than Sanders but was not cut off nearly as often. In fact she spoke 36% longer than he did. So yes, in this case, I am quite comfortable saying "other candidates do it"... since it was in the exact same event. Had he not occasionally talked longer, she probably would have spoken 50% longer than he did, or even more.

Whether or not Clinton appears to be conferring with staff in the photo is 100% irrelevant. The rules say candidates are not to confer with them on break. You can parse what "confer" means all you want, but common sense says that means you do not contact them during breaks.

Furthermore, her aide's response that she "did not know there was a picture" really speaks volumes.

Sanders supporter Alan Grayson owns a hedge fund.

She is not conferring with anyone. Confer actually means have a discussion with. Does she look like she is discussing anything. Again, do you have a photo of Sanders standing alone in the service Hallway?

...you do not know that she is not conferring with her staff. The picture does show them together. She could have gone down the hall with just her SS detail, but she did not. Therefore at the very least, she is unconcerned with the appearance of impropriety. But if you really think they did not talk... well all I can say is, hope I don't see you calling Sanders supporters naive, because that would be projection, big time.

YOU are the one who is trying to justify Clinton's bad behavior in talking over the allotted time, by jumping up and down and saying "Bernie talked over time! Bernie talked over time! They kept calling him on it!!!" -- apparently, completely oblivious to the fact that their calling time on him more often is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the reality you are trying so hard to promote. They called time on him much more often than they called it on her, and that shows they did not apply the rules even-handedly.

What you are doing is the very definition of swift-boatinbg, albeit on a much less consequential scale. If you have a big flaw (e.g., AWOL in the military a la GWB), and your opponent is strong in that area, then accuse them of your big flaw. If you repeat the lie often enough, people start to believe it.

Although in this case I doubt anyone is taken in by your pathetic attempts.

TTFN.

Clinton.? Heck, I don't care if Sanders had a direct wireless connection to his staff while on stage. The President isn't going to make any decision, or say hardly anything, without conferring with staff.

What I do find irritating is people trying to make something out of Clinton "breaking a rule' and acting like Sanders did not too. Heck, I don't expect either one of them to go to the restroom without staff, if for no other reason than to make sure they don't walk out with a big trail of toilet paper stuck to their shoe or sticking out of their pants.

This whole thread, and ones like it, are absurd and add nothing to the campaign or discussion. That is my point.

You really want that line

If nothing else this is lousy optics

Now that was funny. Switching keyboards from one language to the next

That they took a photo? That they posted a photo? That she wore blue?

their staff.

nt

Maybe they just go to the bathroom in groups?

Is subjected to this rule. It matters little if this is dog catcher or the presidency. In the case of security details... They are allowed of course.

Both Trump and her jab been caught doing this.it looks well, bad

to candidates have to walk through the deserted service hallways without staff or Secret Service protection.

wrong.

I'm sure Clinton did too, just as I am sure Sanders didn't walk through that service hallway by himself.

about the same old junk without one viable suggestion of how he'd change anything.

How about proof of your claim that he was with staff despite the rules.
It is what the thread is about.

through service hallways by themselves. Logic tells me Sanders' supporters are just flinging more junk like the coin-tosses, super delegates biased against Sanders even though that process was started decades ago, and similar conspiracy BS.

That is a common tactic in the HRC camp.

And none of them appear to be speaking, either, so...proof? Or just more hoping against hope that you can throw another dart at a fellow Democrat?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

...they were not supposed to have contact. Do you suppose they just strolled silently down the hall together? Is there a reason that the SS detail was not enough company for Hillary?

This single photograph is evidence of nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

...and so representative of the entitled attitude of the great majority of politicians in DC.

She could have strolled to the restroom with her SS detail. Instead she strolled down the hallway with a whole entourage. At the very least, knowing the rules, she should have known that this gives an appearance of impropriety.

Anyone who thinks she strolled down that hallway without talking to anyone in the group is IMO being ridiculously naive. But even if she did not (which I do not believe for a minute), it was still improper.

Where did you find that?

What does it refer to?

Thank you for pointing that out to me.

...quite often. Much more often, in fact, than they did to Clinton, who ended up speaking 36% longer than he did.

Funny that you see this as proof that Sanders broke the speaking time rules, while ignoring the fact that Clinton broke them more often.

...Clinton had about 36% MORE "talk time" than Sanders did. She was allowed to go on and on and he was cut off more. Not that it did her much good, but still.

I am also sure Sanders did not walk through that service hallway by himself, as he now also has SS protection. SS would not be considered "staff" in context of the DNC rules. They do not advise the candidates on policy and debate tactics.

photo of Sanders totally by himself during breaks?

Truly.

folks get away with posting such insignificant accusations?

...you are an ass, in the classical meaning: a stupid, foolish, or stubborn person.

And I say it not as an insult per se, but as a description of your behavior in this thread:

Stupid -- because you keep insisting that Bernie was the one breaking the talk rules when Clinton broke them more, and more effectively.

Foolish -- because you think this sort of distortion is helpful to your candidate.

Stubborn -- because you continue to double down on your distortions.

TTFN.

was not with anyone during breaks? If not, he too may have broken the rules and you are a hypocrite for singling out Clinton for breaking rules. Sanders can do no wrong, either.

If this gets out, NO ONE will vote for her!
Wow!

"She walked in front of her staff? NO WAY! GET OUT OF HERE!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

I could not care less if she talks with her staff during potty breaks at a debate. What's she going to strategize in five minutes that she hasn't had months and months to come up with? It's a dumb rule and an even dumber "scandal." smh.

..."What's she going to strategize in five minutes that she hasn't had months and months to come up with?"

Answer: halfway into the debate, you have a lot more information than you did at the beginning. Of course you can come up with last minute strategies and tactics that apply to the situation at hand. That is exactly why the candidates are banned from conferring with staff. Duh.

She's her own worst enemy. Every time she tries to strategize against his message she just screws herself further.

I assume the tall guy is a Secret Service agent. The two women walking with her (a step or two behind her in the photo) may be her staff members, or other agents.

This seems much ado about nothing, to me. As determined as she might be, HRC probably was more concerned about getting to the head than anything anyone might mumble to her along the way.

I do wonder how she was so quick on the reply when that video was shown. First, did she somehow know the thing existed, let alone being shown during the debate? Second, is she that fast on the uptake that she could have a whole string of comments pop into her head if that was the first time she saw it?

Or did someone tell her folks this was going to happen?

The Republican candidates are not allowed to have contact with their staff during the debates. But when they got to a commercial break, one of Trump's advisors walked up to him on stage to discuss tactics. So the RNC or whoever was running the debate told the other candidates they could also talk to their staffs and some of them came on the stage to talk with the other candidates.

Rules? We don' need no stinkin' rules!

For debates. Even at the dog catcher level