--Democratic primary voters.

dshe has firmly held convictions, many of them extremely disturbing to any actual Democrat.

Lying again

She fails miserably at being trustworthy, yet some here think she's still qualified to be president.
Amazing.

But wear a Bernie facemask at the same time. All these little games to fool the public will backfire. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

...and those who campaigned with him in 08 must be rolling their eyes at Hillary.

They know what her campaign tactics are. Lies, lies and a few more lies.

.


This is really a toss up for me.



On one hand, she could have taken a sneak peek at the executive overview, or the document. Which would have conflicted with the supposed lock-down of the information by the Obama administration, giving her a competitive edge over any other campaigner.


On the other hand, she could have fabricated the story, on the fly, not foreseeing the ramifications.


===


Either way, it shows some level of gaming the campaign and dishonesty.


.

...and willing to say anything to be President for her corporate OWNERS that don't care anything about US!

Hillary is a top level player...

I often bring up her sniper and someone earlier brought up some bullshit about her claiming to be named after Edmund Hillary (Clinton was born in 1947 and Hillary was unknown until he climbed Everest in 1953). Now we've got a flat out lie about TPP with the White House calling her on it.

policies, however there does seem to be a pattern of fantasizing. Definitely not a good trait for a President to have.

she persisted in telling a ridiculous lie repeatedly from 1996 until 2006 when a staffer made up a bullshit story to put it to bed. She's God Damned lucky I'm not debating her-I'm nowhere near the nice man Bernie is...

First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State. What does it take to fill her up?

Queen? Snark snark.

off the hook. She and her nasty smear campaigners will not let his incredible generosity of spirit deter them from trying to destroy him.

I had not heard that story before, btw.

Like you, I don't think I could be as decent as Bernie was.

speaks directly to secrecy in government. Those emails MATTER. I want to read those emails. I want to know what my government is doing when it thinks nobody's watching.

And it WAS intentional.Hillary is a brilliant attorney. She knew exactly what she was doing.

To paraphrase Edward Snowden: Had underlings done what Hillary did, not only would they lose her jobs, they almost certainly would be prosecuted.

I am deeply disappointed with Bernie for saying what he did.

Deeply, deeply disappointed.

.


Sure, there was a lapse of judgment in using a private server, when corporations have multiple firewalls installed.

But, to put this in perspective, unless you are sending fully encrypted payloads in your email, there are thousands of people, across the Internet's infrastructure that can scope and capture that information. In addition, folks at Google have full access to view your emails, as I found out when I used their Ad-Words system and called their helpdesk... including my password in clear text.


===


MSM is focusing most of their attention on a few issues that, while important, are giving a false weighting.

There are serious active issues that are killing Americans each and every day!



Sanders didn't give Clinton a pass on those emails--he said he's sick of hearing just about them, like there are a boatload of other things going on in this country. That's my beef too. There are so many things going on, and all you'll hear about is some girl in a well for 3 days, or a missing plane for 3 months!


Scary Movie 3 - White girl in a well:

By Dan Metcalfe:

"The official availability of official email communications is not just a matter of concern for purposes of the Federal Records Act only. It also makes an enormous (and highly foreseeable) difference to the proper implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (known as the “FOIA” to its friends, a group that evidently does not include Secretary Clinton).

"In this case,no matter what Secretary Clinton would have one believe, she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it—perhaps forever."

"And I say that as someone who … will nevertheless vote for her next year."

So much for the "witch hunt."


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-defense-laughable-foia-116116

the issue. IF and when they find a problem we will know it.

Until then we want her out of the closet she has been hiding in and talking issues. That is what he was saying - lets talk issues.

However I don't think he thought that she would so blatantly usurp his positions as her own and lie about things like TPP. This is where I distrust her. When you believe in triangulation you can lie your way out of anything.

Regardless of what's in those email does NOT excuse her for using a private server for government business.

Why would she do that in the first place?

She CHOSE to do that. That speaks directly to her judgment.

THAT MATTERS.

to me a question of judgement. And not just in this issue. There is a pattern of poor judgement: welfare reform, Glass-Steagall, Iraq war, TPP until it became important to be against it, etc.

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story, eh?

It seemed to move every week.

Illinois, Connecticut, Arkansas, New York, and Washington DC (when convenient). She spoke in the Carolinas with a southern accent and in a puff piece today it was claimed she had ties to Pennsylvania. I don't think we should elect the woman president-I believe we should jail her as a vagrant...

....she lived in Massachusetts when she attended Wellsley, Connecticut when she attended Yale Law School (and met her eventual husband), Washington when she was a Congressional Counsel, Arkansas after she married Bill Clinton, Washington again as First Lady, then New York where she and her husband settled after Bill Clinton left office. She's been a resident of New York for the last 15 years or so.

I don't know why people have such an issue with where she lived.

By the way, saying she should be jailed as a vagrant is just downright offensive.

and so is just about every post on that hate-filled site you were boasting on.

You have no room to talk.

...if you guys want to dwell on it, enjoy!

I've got more important things to do with my life.

Inquiring minds want to know.

I think that's tripe too.

not what the original poster sited. Where she lived. Meh, tripe!

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:48 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

So is being "proud" of alert stalking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=695946

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is nothing but stalking a DU member to other places on the internet. This is not what DU is about. Please hide this.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:54 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I wish a link to the other site had been provided and some links to the bragging to make a better decision.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert, get some thicker skin for godsakes
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is the internet in 2015. Grow up a little.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attacks USED to be a violation of DU rules. I wonder if they have been changed without me knowing it and if it has been changed to it depends on who is being attacked and who is doing the attacking.

The same poster accused me of being a stalker for a similar reason earlier today (Sunday) and used the same phrasing almost verbatim. Then tried to bait me again so I would get a hide.

...of Pander.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

...because believing her lies really is a giant leap--and also very painful and exhausting.

If she told it straight it would be news.

that "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements ..."

See: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/hillary-clinton-misquotes-herself-on-trans-pacific-partnersh#.ap6vj2NPWp

We cant prove she was lying at the debate. Maybe what she said at the debate was true and she had misspoken earlier when she said it sets the standard when she was actually just thinking she hoped it would.

When you say you said something that you never actually said, that's lying.

How could that possibly have been a misspeak earlier? And when did she correct it?

Hoping no one was listening to her.

have felt free to comment on?

Wikileaks has leaked parts of it that people here are CLAIMING are the real thing. Does this mean those leaked documents are fake?

It seems that many people here want to have it both ways. If the leaked parts are real, then Hillary isn't lying to say she has "looked at it." (Which is a very vague phrase in any case.) She could have looked at the parts that are out there and seen things that were unacceptable to her.

said regarding Snowden, would be as damning as her lying (not to mention extremely ironic!).

documents, to make their judgments against the TPP.

So why is it only wrong if Hillary does the same thing?

the TPP. Why were the leaks not enough for her to oppose it also? Until days before he debate? You're right, WE all opposed it because of those leaks.

But Hillary didn't. She says she changed her mind because of seeing the final draft. WH says 'no, no one has seen that yet'.

.



I am almost certain she will pass TPP and KXL if she gets into office.



.

her so long?

They do think we are all stupid. I really think they do actually.

There's something wrong with her. It's unsettling.

Assange didn't put an embargo on it applying only to her, as far as I know.

Nobody seems to be answering this question. I guess it's only OK to use "leaks" to prove things if you are one of the anti Obama, anti democratic party, anti Hillary, and just plain anti everything gang.

.


Anyone who criticizes Snowden or Assange should not rely on 'leaked' documents, ones that could contain fraudulent or misleading information in them. as a basis for decision--that level of hypocrisy would be astonishing. If that were true, it would just reinforce the need for such people to leak those documents.

Besides, Hillary, mentioned something about reading the final draft.


.

People that do this leave a little path of destruction in their wake as they go through life.

We cannot settle for that kind of president.

Or do you think she doesn't know how to Google...?

But if she did, what it says is she still SUPPORTED IT. Because there has been NO NEW INFO as she claimed, to explain why she suddenly opposed it just days before the Debate.

Someone isn't being truthful. Take your pick.

that do that for them and then tell then what to think. I as a low level telephone peon, was once asked my my CEO about something that I had knowledge of. He valued my opinion on a lot of stuff, just because I did my job well. It surprised the hell out of me when he told the managers that he had decided to do certain thing.

So most of the upper level people I think have people they listen to and tell them what to think about a subject. I think there are very few politicians out there that have any real opinions on things. Right or wrong. Because once they get in the big boys chair they can't go by their own opinion any more, they have to go by what the "experts" have to say. Again right or wrong.

Please allow me to introduce you to just such a rare politician: US Senator Bernie Sanders.

Or maybe you've heard of him.

advisors to do the thinking for them. That is why so many politicians and upper managers have a hard time giving a straight answer to a difficult question. They really don't know. I have no problem with someone saying let me get back with you on that. I do have a problem when they just start blowing out bullshit just to be able to give an answer i.e. Trump.

I liked how Bernie really said nothing one way or the other about the "Black Lives Matter" thing. He had people check on them and gave him their thoughts and ideas and he took it from there. Unlike some other people who just put out more bullshit about it.

As others have pointed out, the leaks have been available for a while. If Clinton's comment was based on those leaks, she should explain why she came to this conclusion only after anti-TPP sentiment swelled and an anti-TPP candidate gained in the polls.

If she thought the drafts were bad, she should have lent her weight to the fight against fast track. We almost stopped it. She might have made the difference.

She announced her opposition when final agreement had been reached but when, as the White House has now confirmed, she hadn't seen the final agreement.

What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

documentation in advance of the debate.

That seems to piss a few people off for some reason.

I don't know if she looked at that stuff that was leaked while she was still on the payroll, though. While she was SECSTATE, her Job One was to be LOYAL to her boss, and not go bigfooting him on HIS decisions and prerogatives. Even after she left office, I think she was trying to stay loyal to BHO for as long as she could manage.

Some might fault her for that--I think it's a point in her favor.

As for what she knew, she knew what was out there on the internet. When did she know it? When one of her staffers downloaded it, read it, highlighted the shit-bits, and handed it to her.

People who want this to be a game-changer aren't going to get their wish. People who haven't been enamoured of this deal based on the few things they've heard about it (as opposed to the few detail freaks who know everything about it) will still vote for HRC if they've supported her to this point. And people making a stink about this, like it's the end of the world, had absolutely ZERO intention of voting for her anyway.

so yeah, she probably knows how to do the google too.

server operates?





Amazing how those people at Google can make any money, since using their site now requires IT server maintenance skills...and most people don't have those!

She never speaks an unscripted word in public.

so thanks I have some good information for our next conversation.

Last edited Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)

...and her dirty tricks and manipulation of the media. Obama felt the full brunt of the Clinton dynasty during his campaign.

My favorite was when she was asked if Obama was a Christian. She didn't say yes. She said she took him at his word that he was being honest. That came at a time when he was fighting the Muslim stereotypes/questions. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Bob Kerrey, one of Clinton's biggest supporters, while campaigning for Hillary, referred to Obama as, "Barack Hussein Obama." One last-ditch effort to help Hillary taint Obama as a Muslim terrorist.

My guess is that Obama sees Hillary playing the same nonsense on Sanders.

She's a blatant liar and will say anything to get elected. No one knows that better than Obama.

They're just calling her out on her lies about the TPP. She called it "the gold standard", then never fought against it or stood up to rally against it, like Elizabeth Edwards did. Then she comes out against it, days before it becomes law--when her weak criticism of it is meaningless.

She only came out against it to better position herself in the debate. She had to make sure that She neutralized any legitimate ammunition that could be used against her, and make her look worse than Bernie.

She lied. What's new?

"I take him at his word." That was the last straw for me. I have never looked at Hillary or Bill Clinton the same since.

really trying to outdo each other with inane posts...what are you all going to come up with next? I can't wait....

Hard to understand, right?

Imagine that!!!

What's next, is she going to run in the Boston marathon next year?

aren't telling whoppers?

You can't have it both ways -- either Hillary was caught lying after claiming she had read the TPP agreement or she is basing her position on TPP after having read versions leaked by Wikileaks.
Either way, it is not the correct thing to be claiming if you want to be considered seriously to ever become the President.

I think this is just another one of those Alice in Wonderland stories.
Hillary doesn't want us to think that she is confused about this issue.
Yet, if we do think she is confused, she will complain that it isn't fair that we judge her that way because she is a little girl (woman) like Alice.

which centers on not understanding the meaning of "not publicly made available" ... which translates to "members of the public haven't seen it."

Hillary and Bill may very well have demanded an advance copy because she is the leading contender and she was probably shown an advance copy.

However, in a world where Bernie is going to win all 50 states, such nuances are not seen because there is an urgent need to jump to "Hillary is a liar" meme.

if Hillary is able to get an advanced look at things like the TPP then isn't she getting preferential treatment?

So which is it? Is she getting help that other candidates don't get or is she lying (besides the lie about hoping it would be the gold standard, that one is not debatable) ?

She is not stupid enough to tell an easily verifiable lie.

Especially a lie that "Bernie is winning all 50 states" type people could catch.

Start with running from snipers.

End with her misquote of herself about the gold standard and TPP.

Thousands of lies that are easily verified.

Thousands

know stuff?

This is a tiny snippet. the rest is here:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clinton_says_she_did_not_work_on_the_trans-pacific_partnership_2015

Meanwhile, in a January 2010 cable, State Department embassy officials in Kuala Lumpur advised Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis on strategies to negotiate the TPP with the Malaysian government.

The involvement of the Clinton-led State Department in the TPP is hardly surprising: In June, CBS News reported that “a senior administration official told CBS News Correspondent Julianna Goldman that Clinton was one of the biggest backers of TPP.” In a Bloomberg News interview that same month, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice disputed the idea that Clinton was not involved in the TPP.

“She was integrally involved in all of the major initiatives of the first term of the administration,” said Rice, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations when Clinton was Secretary of State. “She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the rebalance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part.”

Considering all the evidence, Clinton nonetheless pretending she had nothing to do with TPP is clearly a strategic calculation: She is betting that few voters will notice the gap between her rhetoric and her own record. It is certainly a cynical tactic. Time will tell if it is a politically shrewd one.

If your politically convenient speculation were actually true, then someone with knowledge could readily confirm it, right? Unless we have some statement like that, this appears to be no more than desperation.

Furthermore, the agreement is hundreds of pages long. I think she announced her opposition the day after it was finalized. Did the White House scramble to get her a copy, whereupon she pulled an all-nighter reading it and discussing it with experts in the many different fields that are covered, and thus arrive at her conclusion?

I'm going with Occam's Razor here. She was for the TPP but then, facing a significant challenge from her left in her quest for the nomination, she flip-flopped.

We do know that she was not honest in the debate when it came to the TPP. On Tuesday night she said that she "hoped it would be the gold standard" (implying a wait-and-see attitude). But here's what she actually said as Secretary of State (November 15, 2012, in Adelaide, Australia) -- giving you the whole paragraph so you can see it's not out of context, but adding emphasis to the actual "gold standard" passage:

Hillary is not going to do the job of Bernie supporters for them. That is just as bad as the Bengazi committee or Larry Klayman.

It's in my post #90: two clips of the White House Press Secretary saying that the text has not been released.

Now, he didn't say, "The text has not been publicly released, nor have we sent Secretary Clinton her own private advance copy." Nevertheless, his statements came in responses to two questions that specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton's comment. It would be absolutely astounding if she had been sent an advance copy and Josh Earnest didn't mention it in this context. The natural reading of his statements, to any fair-minded person not engaged in special pleading on behalf of a candidate, is that Clinton is among those who don't have the final text.

There's also the matter that she publicly came out in opposition within a day after the finalization of the proposed agreement. It's simply not credible to think that the White House rushed her an advance copy AND she immediately mastered hundreds of pages of highly specialized text, immediately assessed how it would assess the U.S. economy over an enormous range of issues, and made a decision.

I can't prove she didn't do it. You probably can't prove she wasn't waiting outside the Watergate, keeping the engine running in the getaway car, and saved her own hide when she realized McCord had been busted. But no sensible person would believe either of these stories, at least without good evidence.

You can claim that we are all Larry Klayman fans, or even Republican Benghazi cheerleaders, but it isn't going to help Hillary get in to the White House.

They are going to revoke Hillary's secret clearance before the end of the month.

Naw, Hillary never lied.
Not her!

Remember when just before Obama got elected the first time that was all the RW could come up with also?

I consider it a good sign when that is all that is left for ammunition....common fodder.

Clinton will continue the evolution began by Obama, so detested by the RW, so revolution can wait a bit.

It's so weird, ya know, I have to get deprogramming or something.
But, I'm going to have to postpone that for later because I just received my blue Bernie "Feel the Bern" cheer leading pom-pons in the mail yesterday.

Who famously said "Enough of the damn emails!"?

And then congenially shook hands with "the evil one"?


Take the hint.

Take a hint, but don't respond, eh?
Verlly clever, but it won't work!

Isn't she still dodging sniper bullets ?