Poor Jane thought she was going to the White House.

Hillary doesn't have a lock either.

nt

Means that we do not know how many millions Jane and her hubby have. Poor Jane can't be bothered to follow the financial disclosures expected of Senators and presidential candidates, simply because she is worried that people might go through their papers and ask questions.

or honest about their responsibilities here. Slinging mud is what Jane and Bernie and their supporters have been doing. Attacking me personally for pointing out that they have NOT released their financial disclosures in an open or honest manner is actual mud slinging.

You don't know anything about the Sander's financial status because they refuse to tell you the truth, i know that you don't seem to be able to acknowledge that.

and Bernie have even cracked a single million that would be news to me. If that's the sole argument, then we'd all better just stay home, because there's not a candidate in the race that fits those restrictions. ?

records, they've cracked a few millions, just in their real estate holdings, the 200k salaries and the financial nepotism they practice.

The sole argument here is that they are deliberately dishonest and fail to keep their word or follow the rules, about financial disclosures. Bernie is a hypocrite, Jane is outright lying. Stay home if your purity tests matter so much because Bernie and Jane fail their own purity tests. Or you can vote for the candidate that's actually been honest and transparent here, in the manner that ALL candidates for office have been asked to be.

Bernie won't follow the rules, but he makes up new ones for Hillary. Jane has said that she's worried that people will do what they have done with Hillary, look into their records and ask questions, which is why she refuses to do what she promised to do, and which presidential candidates are expected to do, release their tax records, ALL of them.

For their entire political history? I'm curious what Bernie was saying to the Irish Republican Army, Oretga etc.

But since that's something that literally no one has EVER asked ANY candidate for EVER, how about we get the tax records out first, you know those things we actually ask of elected offiicials and presidential candidates?

That way, we can see which things Bernie got paid for over the years, and can do what Bernie has done and ask specifically how his contributions relate to his votes.

Why are you guys so eager to let him continue violating his own standards on transparency and honesty? Is it okay to lie and conceal his own financial interests because he's the great Bernie?

Must be some powerful international figure - oh wait, doesn't he have zero foreign experience? Which was it again? Getting dizzy. I'd put you on ignore, but enjoying the free drugs

there is probably quite a bit more that we haven't seen yet. There is no conceivable explanation for their failure to 1) release their taxes and 2) complete the FEC Financial Disclosure form. Yet they keep stalling on both.

vs 1 percent.

That is a whisle as well. Keep it up

Since Bernie lost the primary

and ending fracking, returning Glass Steagall, and a few more things. Like single payer healthcare.

This is what we cling to.

If your statement is correct, then if it's a dead end, what do we cling to? Your hate? Your non substance and lack of issues? It's all about her experience and I don't think she did so well.

Convince me to vote for Hillary, and no fair injecting the shit and shittier argument.

Go.....tick...tick....

If you don't vote for Hillary in the GE, you hate your family, your friends and your country.

Why?

Because you willing hand them all over to a demagogue/madman and his fascist party.

into some kind of a situation where our use of force was required. He's cranky, doesn't listen well and hates to be told he's wrong. Plus, I haven't seen much evidence of his 'expertise' in foreign affairs, except for wanting to disconnect from the rest of the world as much as Trump says he wants to.

and Hillary is such a dove. Just look at all the good she's done in the Middle East with Syria and Libya. A regular Garden of Eden over there- she has made it.

then you're more naive than I think. He doesn't have to be a 'war hawk' to bumble his way into a situation where we're obliged to use military force. God protect us from well-meaning ideologues.

sounds awfully similar to the garbage regularly posted over there.

But apparently you do.

exactly as you do. Sure you're posting on the right site?

No ability to deal with issues

whatever that means

I always thought that Abigail Adams was one of our best first ladies. Abigail Fillmore's years in the WH were not memorable. Her husband had been Zachary Taylor's VP and became president when Taylor died. Abigail had been a teacher and spent much of her time reading. She entrusted most of her first lady's duties to her daughter. She died from pneumonia shortly after leaving the WH.

Why would Jane want to be a first lady in Abigail's mold?

It could be huge it could be nothing but in the meantime our future is at stake.

I happen to agree with Jane on this tho. The sooner the better!

about 'finding' anything, or what was or wasn't classified. It's about the basic finding of a server in her basement, un-tethered to anything in our government. Like a terrorist, with a server, working with those, the president actually said he did not want advice taken from

It doesn't matter who was using it. The matter is 'espionage'. Pure, as the exit polling. That is the problem. It's Obama's DOJ pussyfooting around.

To do with CSPAN but which unscrupulous people have been using to shill silly and ridiculous conspiracy theories, as they have done before. Insane nonsense that cannot beep substantiated by facts is usually not reported by anyone who pretends to aspire to credibility, that is why you have only seen it in places where no one is fact checking.

But what was the cspan report you mentioned? I don't have cable so I know I haven't seen that yet.

Quick - indict Hillary for TREASON! (Sorry - it's already been posted on Free Republic).

Talking points day in and day out. I sure will be glad when we get rid of those who spew that shit all the time! I wonder how much Karl Rove is paying these days?

Dragging it out only plays into the GOP's hands.

Even if there are no charges filed, the suspicion will linger that Obama improperly intervened to squelch the investigation or at least to keep the results from being made public before the convention.

But you're right, the longer this thing is kept under wraps, the wilder the speculation will become about what is really going on. By the time of the convention, Clinton will be rumored to be about to be charged with treason and hanged. And a lot of people will believe it.

the rails

And while we're at "getting the lead out", she PROMISED Andrea Mitchell on the air two weeks ago that she'd release Sanders' tax returns "WHEN they're due". They were due 12 days ago, where are they.

They put up that irrelevant "transcripts" argument when confronted with the tax return questions. Two separate subjects.

Where are the tax returns? Why are they requesting an extension to file Sanders' PERSONAL finance disclosure report until after the last primary?

Seems curious.

Even the Chinese hacker kids

hey you Chinese kids, stay offa my cloud !!

Well, I'm certainly persuaded. I had no idea that 'everybody knows' anything.

Most of us get this having watched for a couple decades. As I said.....

Pathetic Sanders and his supporters play in this game then expect support from Democrats.

Perhaps she should learn various ways of saying no comment if that is really the intention.

to take into account that their leading candidate is under criminal investigation by the FBI.

I kinda thought the President should say no comment. I'm sure he had his reasons like perhaps it was the agreed upon price to promote a Supreme Court nominee.

A candidates wife I think has less of a duty to say no comment IMO.

and she speaks for many of us

spent by Burlington College to the benefit of her daughter and son-in-law. But not to worry - she's honest.

it must be that everyone else just doesn't get it.

All she ever says in interview after interview are rote regurgitation of Bernie talking points. I am heartily glad she has no chance of becoming First Lady.

Yep, that's about it. A "yes man" for Bernie...ideologues generally have a hard time with ideas that contradict their strident beliefs.

I want a president who can bend, pivot, adjust, etc. like Obama does. Unfortunately, that is NOT Bernie.

I don't think they granted immunity just because of a few classified emails. But, speaking of Gruccifer the biggest problem I see with him is he wasn't an actual hacker, it was a hobby and he used different methods than hackers do. He got Sid's emails. Now if a hobbyist can get emails that far up into the chain what could an actual hacker have gotten?

Those were the emails about Libya that Hillary told congress didn't exist.
Also, they contained HER email address. Of course it wasn't that hard to figure out. 4 days before her SoS job started she registered her domain name "ClintonEmail.com". So if you were a hacker and you saw that name you might think" Hey, maybe this has something to do with Clinton and her emails." Just sayin' . . . . . . .

That I had not read about. It's comical even more comical than an ACME Road Runner trapping kit.

If they want another shot at the presidency, both of them need start healing this divide within the party.

I wonder what your comment has to do with that? Besides nothing, that is.
I would like to see this serious issue discussed seriously, instead of the denial and deflection.

it 'should be' is irrelevant.

If your thoughts on anything are irrelevant. Are your thoughts relevant about anything?

And, got a silly answer.

She will either be indicted or she will not. The rest is just mental masturbation.

Or, is your answer(?) a sort of Zen koan pointing out that all life is an illusion and irrelevant?

I think that many voters would find an indictment/no indictment of Hillary relevant when they vote.

Is winning/losing an election relevant to what you think?

would be indicative that the FBI and AG persuaded a Grand Jury that there was sufficient evidence to charge her with a violation. Some people would find this relevant. Professionally I don't place a whole lot of credence in merely getting a Grand Jury to indict. Prosecutors do it all the time, whether the person indicted is actually guilty or not.

In my mind, if this was a simple open and shut investigation, it would have been over long ago. Since it's dragging on and on, it makes me fear something really bad is going to happen at a really bad time.

think May.

After all the Clintons were the victims in that scam so in a matter of hours, days, weeks, or years it got cleared up.

Do you want to drag this out until she's in office? Wouldn't it be nice if they wrapped this up before we elected her?

being deliberately obtuse.

Ignoring bad things won't make them go away.

Imagine Slick Willy in the White House, yet again, with nothing to do and HRC out doing the governing. He'll need a full time MALE nanny.

And speaking of firsts...the first spousal White House residents, to have impeachment travails. Hers will likely be served on Day 2.

they now know she lied to them in the Benghazi hearings. . . .And you know to them at least, lying to congress is a high crime or something like that. . . . I can hear the posturing now.

"Well what does it matter?" Perhaps even more than we thought?

Oh they are ready, all right. The white hot 2 decade hatred (which is overblown, but still a reality) between the two factions is legendary.

That a large portion of Establishment Democrats think their denial about this highly flawed candidate with some new ones thrown in for good measure, aka, Foundation...which will likely create her to be our nominee...will be honored by the Republicans is in the category of science fiction.

if the FBI are going to press charges, regardless of merit, you don't want that bomb being dropped in the GE.

I doubt Clinton has ever concerned herself with the minutiae of IT policy.

how to remove the classification markings so he can fax her some classified talking points on a non-secure line.

Is that what you'd call "minutiae of IT policy?"


PS. It really isn't about how you "think" about the email controversy. What matters are the facts. And a lot of very damning facts have come out. Best read up and see if your "thinking" changes.

We have democratic senators proposing that we make it illegal to use encryption that can't be broken, ffs.

If there were a coherent system in place, implemented to secure state secrets or whatever, that she bypassed, that would be damning. But I don't think that's what happened, because there was no coherent system.

and someone Obama did not want anywhere near his administration.

That is what she has staff for. They should have known better.

There is a line between "us" and "them" and it depends on who "them" is and how embarrassing it is to whom.

At Burlington College?

get on this case of fraud.

First, we know that she had her own personal server so that she had control over her email and not the government. Talk about 'transparency'.

Well, I just heard that after she left her job as a Senator, ALL of her email from that time were "lost". Hmmmmm. Look like a pattern of non-transparency to you?

I would not leave a paper trail...first the GOP attacks and now the BS folks are helping them by attacking.

That is something that would be looked at I imagine. Where did you hear that?

I guess she's keeping her fingers crossed.

This is not helping her husband nor his cause.

No mercy on the Indictment-Wishers.

They are the lowest scum in this election, both parties.

no true Democrat would ever insist on equal justice when the stakes are so high.

She didn't do it, nobody saw her do it, and there's no way they can prove anything!

Get it done and over with so, that the very predictable nightmare of a significant scandal isn't THE cause of a failed campaign in the G.E.

The Right Wing Media isn't going to dismiss this easily, but HRC's media (CNN/MSNBC/ABC/PBS) may be forced to report on the findings, no matter the outcome.

They may only give a whisper of a mention or not report on it at all, UNLESS the findings go to the level of a grand jury I suppose. Seems to me, the party establishment would rather avoid the prospect of that kind of spectur during the G.E.

But then the judgement of the party establishment has been rather baffling to me in many respects.

Lacking foresight is not exactly a winning strategy, imo.



.

It's not cute anymore.

Jane did NOT say, "get the lead out." Answering questions, she said the Sanders campaign did not want to politicize it , but "it would be nice if the FBI moved it along." And she said it with a laugh.

In putting false phrases like "get the lead out" in her mouth, you misrepresent Jane Sanders and you feed into the lies and scorn of the ugliest, nastiest commenters.