What Reince Would Have to Do to Get Invited Sunday

Is it any wonder that several candidates - Trump, Carson, Jindal, Graham, Huckabee, & Santorum - are planning to have their campaign teams get together this Sunday to discuss organizing the next debate? With no RNC members in sight, according to the story. Reince Priebus has already “suspended” the Republican Party’s relationship with NBC, but candidates (Fiorina and Rubio’s teams might also attend) are rebelling against their very party, and how it has involved itself with structuring the debates.

The anger displayed by the public at Boulder Colorado has been visible for years, but has tended to be written off by insiders and experts as so much statistical noise that must not distract a well-run campaign. That only they - the beltway insiders and experts - know how to run. It can no longer be written off, and one of the blessings of this unruly GOP field is that assumptions are being blown up real good, one by one. Assumptions on how to run a campaign, who can be a contender for president, and how voters will react to the issues, and what the issues themselves are.

When Nixon got all sweaty in front of the cameras in 1960, campaigns changed and television began to make and unmake candidates. And those who understood how to ride the beast were the magic shamans, and remained so for decades to come. The ones doing the listening were the voters, and the options were basically binomial. One quick yes or no, and then go away and shut up please.

Now it's the campaign teams and the candidates themselves who have to do the listening. Polling has been around forever, but now voters can see who really is listening and also have a wider range of options. Could Carson have put together anywhere near as successful a run without social media? Would he have gained enduring prominence if he had had to rely on mainstream media, after his criticism of Obama was no longer a news story? Would he have even been convinced to run? Even a relative insider like Rubio would surely have patiently waited his turn under the watchful sponsorship of his padron, Don Jeb.

No longer. And now it's the party structure itself - already implicitly criticized by many teams - that has become the target. Not of voters, that's already been happening for at least a few years. But that the candidates themselves are about to set their own rules is a remarkable fact. Who is going to have to do the listening now? Who already is listening, whether he's comfortable doing it or not? It will be up to Reince Priebus to show he's now willing to negotiate in order to regain the candidates trust and earn a seat back at the table.

It's also time to look at the big money players who take their pot shots mostly from behind their trimmed hedges. If it's fitting - and it surely is - to point out the big money from Wall Street and Hollywood that fund Hillary's campaign, then a certain amount of light should be shone by Republicans themselves on who is willing to invest in a candidate's ideas. Freedom of speech grants them the right to place their own money where they want to, and freedom of speech should allow the frank sharing of such information. Rather than having it continue to be the treasured target of progressive media wonks.

Posted by Keeley at October 30, 2015 3:56 PM
Comments
Comment #400143

We want soft ball questions. Period.

Posted by: Rich at October 30, 2015 7:35 PM
Comment #400147

We already know you’re a Hillbilly supporter, Rich.

Don’t go running with your head down, across the tarmac, and into your bulletproof limo. Leaving a little girl, holding flowers, to take the sniper fire all by herself.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2015 11:43 PM
Comment #400150

Hey Weary how many of the potential candiates on you rteam have ever been in the position to go running with their heads down to avoid sniper fire?

While we are at it riddle me this, do you think the sniper or snipers were targeting a little girl with flowers or targeting the SoS of the USA?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 31, 2015 12:34 AM
Comment #400166

How about, “NEITHER”. It’s another Hillbilly lie. That’s one of the reasons nobody trusts her.

Get with the program, j2t2. Hillbilly is a liar.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 31, 2015 7:21 PM
Comment #400177

So Weary it is liars that upset you so much. Trump, enough said, Carson tells us he don’t know anything about the miracle cancer cure he fronted for, liar, right? Therefore discounted forever as a candidate. Rubio lied about his families emigration from Cuba. Liar, right? Therefore discounted forever as a candidate. Cruz defends Duggars molestation of his sisters with a lie which of couirse makes him a liar,right? Therefore discounted forever as a candidate. The list goes on but the question is who you gonna vote for if you don’t vote for liars?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2015 1:04 AM
Comment #400179

Well Hillary sure has the experience in that arena, She has and will continue to out-lie the whole R team. The only time she has told the truth is, um, um, um I don’t recall.

Posted by: tom humes at November 1, 2015 7:17 AM
Comment #400184

WW & Tom,
J2 makes a great point. Both of you regularly aim all kinds of vile accusations at Hillary Clinton, repeatedly calling her a liar. Can you give an example of a politician who does not lie?

Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2015 10:33 AM
Comment #400185

Here is the first question from the Democratic debate:
“Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency… You defended President Obama’s immigration policies. Now you say they’re too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the “gold standard”. Now, suddenly, last week, you’re against it.

Will you say anything to get elected?”

And yet, HRC answered the question coolly and professionally. She never denounced the MSM for asking a “gotcha” question. No Democrats demanded the debate format be reformed or that CNN be excluded from future debates. Instead, the Democratic front-runner made her case, exhibited her knowledge and command of the issues, and demonstrated why she would be a great choice for president.

Contrast this performance with the GOP. Only Kasich was satisfied with the last GOP debate. The rest of the candidates could not deal with questions about taxes and the economy. When they tried, they showed a poor understanding of issues, they presented bad ideas, while others seem to have no knowledge of their own platforms. Some of the ideas sounded like fantasies. Several times candidates outright lied.

And in contrast with the Democrats, conservatives are now outraged that their pathetic slate of presidential candidates should be exposed in a national debate. They blame the moderators. They blamed the MSM. They blame everyone but themselves.

Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2015 10:34 AM
Comment #400188
Well Hillary sure has the experience in that arena, She has and will continue to out-lie the whole R team.

Don’t bet on that Tom. In fact >a href=”http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/”>why not take a look at the candidates to see how well your guys fare when they open their mouths.

It’s funny how so many conservatives fall for these myths they self perpetuate.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2015 12:47 PM
Comment #400194

j2t2,
As I have pointed out in the past, this is the problem for conservatives. They are so steeped in conspiracy theories and a basic denial of reality that they can no longer deal with it. Each time they are faced with reality or hard evidence they become outraged. It results in accusations that everything is a hoax, or fixed, or a fraud, or that so-and-so is a liar. When confronted with it on a national stage, the whole thing falls apart for them. They are left with nothing to do but to attack the media for being biased.

Hillary crushed it in the first debate despite some confrontational and even insulting questions. She went in front of that Benghazi Committee and crushed it again, testifying in an 11 hour session! These poor, poor conservatives are left with nothing- I mean, nothing- other than to call her names.

They would never DARE to hold their own to the same standards. NEVER.

Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2015 2:00 PM
Comment #400196

Sorry messed the link up,This is the link

Bobby Jindal admits to lying about a Katrina incident that never happened, So that is one more Weary and Tom won’t vote for, right guys?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jindal-admits-katrina-story-was-false

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2015 10:13 PM
Comment #400197

Ouch once again here is thelink

I know,I know, Mike Huckabee couldn’t possibly be a serial liar, could he? Well yes he could, time to knock another one off the vote for list right Weary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/mike-huckabee-lies_n_7216436.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2015 10:37 PM
Comment #400217

j2t2

“do you think the sniper or snipers were targeting a little girl with flowers or targeting the SoS of the USA?”

Neither, that story was a lie.

Posted by: dbs at November 3, 2015 5:29 AM
Comment #400218

phx8

“J2 makes a great point. Both of you regularly aim all kinds of vile accusations at Hillary Clinton, repeatedly calling her a liar”

She is a liar.

Posted by: dbs at November 3, 2015 5:33 AM
Comment #400221

dbs,

Is Bobby Jindal a liar? How about Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump or Ben Carson? Are they liars? The latter bunch all lied during the CNBC debate:

Rubio is a liar:

(Rubio claimed that Harwood corrected an article, which is wrong). It’s true that the Tax Foundation, the right-wing think tank he’s citing, found that the poor gained the most. But that wasn’t what Harwood’s question was about. Harwood was asking about the middle class, and on that point he was completely right.

Ben Carson is a liar:

His declarations that “I didn’t have an involvement with them” and “absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them” are just bald-faced lies.
Jim Geraghty is by no means a liberal.

Things don’t look any better for Carson when we subject his tax plan to the most basic of accounting:

Carson says his proposed tax would not increase the budget deficit because he would tax the entire economic output of the U.S. — the gross domestic product — plus corporate income and capital gains.

Carson has not laid out a detailed plan, so it is difficult to measure how it would affect revenues or the economy. But based on what he said, he’s double counting because corporate revenues are part of the GDP.

US GDP is about $18 Trillion. Thus, Carson’s tax plan can generate at most $2.7 in federal revenue, whereas last year’s total federal government spending totaled $3.5 Trillion, the result would be a $0.8 Trillion dollar deficit. This is 65% larger than our current $483 Billion Dollar deficit. Carson’s claim that he will not increase the deficit is demonstrably a lie.

Let’s be generous and grant Carson a 10% across the board reduction in federal spending, which gives us a budget of $3.15 Trillion. In order to pay for that with a 15% flat tax, GDP needs to be $21 Trillion. Thus, in order to avoid having a budget deficit, Carson needs to grow the economy by 11% while keeping spending constant at levels 10% less than today. Even 4 years of 4% annual GDP growth (a very optimistic assumption) falls shy of achieving that before 2020. Therefore, any claim by Dr. Carson that he plans to balance the budget is false.

And need I remind Carson that his plan eliminates sacred cows like the home mortgage interest deduction, the charity deduction and a whole host of tax expenditures with a sizable and loyal support among the electorate. If Dr. Carson truly wishes to eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction, then I will commend him for that. I may even consider supporting him, but my gut tells me that the chance of that happening is smaller than the chance of “glyconutrients” improving my health.

I also remind Carson that the above analysis includes things like a 10% cut in entitlement spending (including SS). Good luck getting that through Congress. Again, I’d support him if here were actually serious about reducing SS spending rather than just shifting the burden, but again, I would put more faith in glyconutrients than Ben Carson’s word at this rate.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2015 9:27 AM
Comment #400222

Run away, dbs, before you’re asked to name a politician you believe does not lie. You will NEVER hold conservatives and Tea Partiers to the same standard.

The worst you can say about Hillary is that, while she did actually fly to a dangerous place- Bosnia- and she did actually fly there in a helicopter, but when she recalled events on the tarmac 12 years later, she got it wrong. It was pointed out to her that she was wrong, and when it was proven to her, she admitted she was wrong.

And that’s the best conservatives can do. On that basis, Hillary is a liar, yet when asked to name a conservative politician who is not a liar- just one-

Run, run, run, run, run away.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2015 9:27 AM
Comment #400224

Donald Trump is a liar (and Rubio too!):

But exposing Rubio’s falsehoods would have required Trump to have actually read his own policy on immigration. He has not. Further proof that he hasn’t done so came when Becky Quick asked him about the line in his policy paper that attacks the I-Squared bill by referring to Rubio as “Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator.” Trump’s response was “I never said that” and “I have [said] nothing at all critical of him,” meaning Zuckerberg. Only later did Quick mention that the criticism appeared on Trump’s own website, though Quick oddly apologized for bringing it up.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2015 9:45 AM
Comment #400227

With all this back and forth with who or who doesn’t lie. Why don’t you all admit there isn’t a politician on either side of the fence that doesn’t lie. They lie to get elected, they lie after they get elected.

Posted by: Rch KAPitan at November 3, 2015 10:35 AM
Comment #400228

KAP,
We all do it to some extent. But there are all lots of ways of doing it, and there are degrees. There are harmless lies, white lies, and lies told to protect someone’s feelings, or to protect them from a harmful truth. There are exaggerations. And then there are those that intentionally mislead, and the worst of those are the ones that benefit the liar at the expense of others.

For example, WW, tom humes, and dbs call Hillary a liar over an exaggeration of an incident in 1996 that was inaccurately recalled by HRC in 2008. It was harmless. Hillary was painting herself as being brave under fire, and she gained virtually nothing from her fanciful account. Yet WW, tom humes, and dbs routinely engage in the most vile kinds of accusations directed at her.

Comparing what HRC said with virtually any of the current crop of presidential candidates reveals HRC is actually a pretty normal person who does not lie any more than most people. She has been in the public eye for decades, yet a few WB conservatives can do no better than cite that one trivial example.

I think you know that j2t2, WP, and I can all find much more significant and egregious examples of lying among the current crop of conservative presidential candidates, and those lies are damning compared to recalling an event from 12 years ago and making it seem more dangerous than it really was.

So you make the point that all politicians lie, and I would also extend that to the rest of humanity. That does not justify the kind of vicious name-calling that routinely spews from some conservative haters.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2015 11:16 AM
Comment #400233

phx8, A lie is a lie. Stop with the BULLS**T!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 3, 2015 3:17 PM
Comment #400235

There are lies “that intentionally mislead, and the worst of those are the ones that benefit the liar at the expense of others.”

Why does she say she uses a personal e-mail address for official business as SoS?

“I thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work.”
“Looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices.”

-Clinton used multiple electronic devices, including an iPad and a BlackBerry, to send e-mail.

“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me.”

-Thousands of work related emails and hundreds of emails containing classified info was found on her private server.

“I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

-Classified material was found on her unsecured private server. She was either aware of it, or she lied about being “well aware of classification requirements.”

Are you going to write those off as a simple mistake in recalling events? Let me guess, she was tired when she said these things also. LOL!

“I think you know that j2t2, WP, and I can all find much more significant and egregious examples of lying among the current crop of conservative presidential candidates”

We all also know that you could also find very “significant and egregious examples” of Clinton lying, IF she wasn’t a liberal democrat.
Maybe then you wouldn’t look quite so silly trying to defend her at all costs.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2015 3:58 PM
Comment #400236

Oh, good grief, everyone is a liar. Warren Porter is obsessed with calling people liars. He’s even called me a liar on several occasions. But, while working today, I got to thinking about WP’s claims of conservative people being liars, and my conclusion was that WP is the greatest liar on WB. He’s even gone to college and majored in lies, and no doubt wants the taxpayers gravy train to further his economic and scientific career. And the lie is global warming. To continue to promote a falsehood is a lie. GW is probably the biggest scam ever attempted on America and the world.

Posted by: Blaine at November 3, 2015 4:29 PM
Comment #400237

A week or so ago, Charlie Rose was after Rubio with a “gotcha” moment, and just couldn’t believe that Rubio had called Hillary a liar. Rose’s limited knowledge of the news, based on watching the liberal MSM; by he couldn’t believe anyone would call Hillary a liar. He had no idea that Hillary had told her family and certain foreign governments the Bhengazi was the result of terrorism, and then told the American people it was the result of a video. Hillary lied, and no amount of spin can change that. Then we have the server/email lies…you just can’t make this stuff up. And yet, here are the leftist talking heads on WB, trying to defend her once again. The left is always on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: Blaine at November 3, 2015 4:42 PM
Comment #400238
Clinton used multiple electronic devices, including an iPad and a BlackBerry, to send e-mail.

The decision to use the clintonmail server rather than State Department’s unsecured server was made in 2008-2009 when Clinton was first nominated to be SoS. At that time, she only had one device. For instance, the iPad did not exist until 2010. Later on when HRC acquired additional devices the die had already been cast.

Classified material was found on her unsecured private server. She was either aware of it, or she lied about being “well aware of classification requirements.”

Tim, you left out one possibility: that the material was unclassified at the time and had no indication that it would become classified in the future. It is absolutely ludicrous to expect Hillary to predict the future and know which unclassified material would become classified down the road.

“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me.”
Did the server not contain personal emails in addition to work related ones?
We all also know that you could also find very “significant and egregious examples” of Clinton lying, IF she wasn’t a liberal democrat. Maybe then you wouldn’t look quite so silly trying to defend her at all costs.

I think I am already on the record for denouncing HRC as a “uniquely vile combination of arrogance, dullness and mediocrity”. I don’t think I am in the business of defending her at all costs. HRC’s sins are many, but significantly and egregiously lying isn’t one of them.

I grant you, that this assessment may change. If contemporaneously classified material is ever discovered on the private server, then HRC is indeed a lying scoundrel. If HRC changes her excuse from convenience to paranoia, then she is indeed a lying scoundrel (but no longer a pompous twit).

Warren Porter is obsessed with calling people liars.
I brought up a few illustrative examples from last week’s debate. Clearly, conservatives have no problem supporting and voting for liars. So why do they continue to demonize HRC as a liar when her greatest fib is an exaggeration of her trip into war-torn Bosnia?

By the way, regarding the trip to Bosnia, we should heed Sharyl Atkinson, who reported on the trip at the time:

Due to the possibility of sniper fire, our pilots used what we were told are “assault take-offs and landings.” In short, the climb and descent are very fast, and very steep to minimize exposure to hostile fire on the ground.

It’s exciting and frightening and, in the midst of it all, wearing our helmets and bulletproof vests, it’s easy to imagine we may be narrowly escaping enemy bullets.

To be sure, it was not the “safest” trip for a First Lady to take: there were serious risks in traveling to Bosnia, even for the President’s wife under the vigilant protection of the U.S. military. It took some guts for her to go. But I don’t recall, and did not note, any close calls on this trip with sniper fire or any other dangers.

Despite the exaggerations, HRC’s trip to Bosnia is a demonstration of her bravery.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2015 7:34 PM
Comment #400240

Woops! Sorry that I forgot to close the HTML tag on my final linklink text.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2015 8:14 PM
Comment #400242

Well, here’s what we have after yesterday’s elections:

1. Tea Party Bevin is now the Governor of Kentucky. Only the second Republican to hold the office in the past 4 decades.

2. Marijuana is shot down in Ohio by 2/3’s of the voters.

3. The sheriff of San Francisco, responsible for releasing an illegal, was voted out.

4. LGBT equal rights in Houston, TX., after being shot down by the Texas SC, was shot down by the voters, by a wide margin.

5. And lastly, the latest Quinnipiac Poll shows virtually every Republican candidate beating Clinton, with Trump within margin of error.

This is the elections of 2015 and it shows the mood of the American voters; the vitriol and agenda being spewed by the left on WB means nothing. It is the talking points of the left. It does not represent the attitude of the American voters.

Posted by: Blaine at November 4, 2015 7:30 AM
Comment #400243

Are the people who voted yesterday the exact same people who will vote 1 year? Or will there be substantially more people voting next year who didn’t vote yesterday than the other way around. Is someone who votes next year, but not yesterday more likely to be a Republican or a Democrat.

Also, Quinnipiac isn’t the only recent poll

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2015 8:32 AM
Comment #400244

Not much to take away from the elections yesterday. The Tea Party governor in KY poses the most interesting situation. Will Bevin shut down KYNECT and take away insurance from 400,000 in that state? Bevin said he would not do that, and instead slightly change KY health care to make it more like IA. We’ll see.

Marijuana is legal in my state (OR), as well as WA and CO. As much as I favor legalization, the initiative in OH to legalize it deserved to be rejected. It would have limited growers to just ten, essentially creating a very profitable monopoly for a small number of wealthy people. Because OH initiatives require a lot of financial backing, it is understandable how some wealthy backers would want to take over the growing industry right from its inception, but eventually people in that state will figure out a better way, and let the free market determine who will become successful commercial growers. In OR, legalization will generate tax revenues, but it only puts in the open what was always happening anyway. Legalization is not nearly as big a deal as some might imagine. It just recognizes what was already there.

Don’t think there’s much to conclude from the elections, especially in terms of nationwide trends.

And as WP points out, another presidential poll shows HRC and even Sanders beating most of the GOP contenders by a comfortable margin. Some of these polls have pretty large margins of error, so it might actually be closer, but it also might be even more of a blowout. GOP voters being polled show very little commitment to any one candidate. I predicted Cruz from the get go. Rubio has improved as a candidate, and Trump seems strong enough to hold onto most of his lead. Carson is one of the most ridiculous, preposterous candidates in modern times. The biggest threat for the Democrats remains Kasich, but he does have vulnerabilities, as Trump pointed out in the recent debate. Being a Managing Director for Lehman Brothers- the firm that failed and set off the economic crash- will be a millstone around his neck.

Posted by: phx8 at November 4, 2015 10:06 AM
Comment #400245

Correction- KY health care may be modeled after changes made in Indiana.

Posted by: phx8 at November 4, 2015 10:08 AM
Comment #400246

Elections have winners and losers. I was particularly pleased to see the recall of the Jefferson County school board, they were the ones that tried to rewrite history the way they wanted. Not every election can predict a future election outcome. Remember, Romney will win in a landslide because of 2010!!

HRC held an official position as SOS and was told what to present to the public regarding the attack in Benghazi being related to a video. She did this while expressing a different sentiment on a personal level, seems like she performed as a valuable public servant should. But inside the right wing bubble the “liar meme” is being pushed really hard. Trouble is most people don’t exist in the right wing bubble, but those that do are crazy adamant about their propaganda and will continue to be that way no matter what the truth of the matter is. Wow, I am really surprised that right wing crazy people will continue to be right wing crazy people.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2015 10:57 AM
Comment #400247

Warren

There are lies “that intentionally mislead, and the worst of those are the ones that benefit the liar at the expense of others.”

Do you really believe that the SoS of the most powerful nation on earth chose to use her unsecured private server instead of a secure government server, simply because of ease? That she chose an unsecured private server that she has total control of, over a secure government server that somebody else has control of, because she only wanted to carry one device? That one year she wanted to carry only one device, but the next year she was fine with carrying 4 or 5?
Come on man.

“Tim, you left out one possibility: that the material was unclassified at the time and had no indication that it would become classified in the future.”

Warren, if she is “well aware of classification requirements,” she is well aware that this happens. She would also be “well aware” of knowing how to notice possible sensitive information and of the proper procedures for reporting it.

“Did the server not contain personal emails in addition to work related ones?”

That doesn’t matter. She was intentionally trying to lead people into believing her private server was only being used for personal business.

“I think I am already on the record for denouncing HRC as a “uniquely vile combination of arrogance, dullness and mediocrity”.”

Yes, you have, and I should have been more careful with my copy and paste. You have not been an ‘at all costs’ person in the past, but on this thread it does seem that you are ignoring the importance of classified information and how it’s handled.

“HRC’s sins are many, but significantly and egregiously lying isn’t one of them.”

In a way, this is all kind of funny for me. Hillary has never really bothered me. I always looked at her as a strong individual who I simply disagreed with on some positions and who would say the occasional dumb thing. I never really got into the Whitewater Benghazi kind of stuff, either. Heck, up until this obvious attempt to cover her a$$ over classified information, her ridiculous pandering to special interest groups, and now the anti 2nd Amendment position she has adopted, I actually thought we could do a lot worse.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2015 11:01 AM
Comment #400250

My but we have some self-proclaimed experts on security clearances and security protocols here at WB. I find it interesting that someone who I wouldn’t consider able to withstand a Confidential level security clearance scrutiny are able to espouse such an in depth knowledge of these things. Truly amazing! They must have read a book or something, huh? If you have ever experienced a debriefing at a Top Secret level you might be able to understand what I am saying, sometimes the person or persons conducting the debriefing do not have direct knowledge of the classified material, especially if it is related to an “Eyes Only” designation, they follow protocols and that is it. The investigation into the HRC email server is meant more to find better guidelines for handling sensitive classified information than it is to find a scapegoat, this is how it should be and will be determined in the final outcome.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2015 11:41 AM
Comment #400251

Speaks, While in the Navy I was cleared Secret because of my job and the spaces on the ships I had to enter, so I may not be an expert but I do know something about how to handle sensitive materials better then some here at WB that don’t know their A** from a hole in the ground about how to handle sensitive materials or E-Mails.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 1:13 PM
Comment #400252

KAP, thank you for your service. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who receives a Top Secret clearance is viewed as a patriot and a valuable asset to this country, unless and until they are determined to have caused a voluntary infraction of their clearance. Aside from being caught red-handed selling or passing classified materials they and their actions are considered egregious only if there is a profitability from their actions. If they are coerced into doing so via blackmail or threats there is a different set of protocols that deal with the infraction. Handling of sensitive materials, while part of the obligation of the clearance holder, have a different set of protocols. Typically those protocols come under scrutiny rather than the the clearance holder themselves if there is an infraction determined, as well they should. The unreasonable and outlandish claims about HRC and sensitive classified information being her responsibility is utter foolishness. This investigation will lead to additional guidelines for protocol determination, that is all.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2015 1:45 PM
Comment #400253

Speaks, I agree with everything you said up to the HRC part, She was the SoS the buck stopped with her. She was responsible for her Department and all the goings on in that department, if all she gets is a slap on the wrist then I lose all faith in our Justice System. She is no different then all the rest of the people that have had sensitive material infractions such as Petraus.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 1:56 PM
Comment #400254

It would appear that you didn’t start with much faith in our Justice System from what I have read from you over the years. You and your concerns have no credibility when it comes to this investigation, especially as it concerns someone who holds or has held the office of Secretary of State. Although you are a citizen of this country your only avenue towards any action towards HRC could be your possible decision to not vote for her if she is nominated to run for President, that is all. This investigation is not about HRC but it is about classified information and the handling of that material. Your dislike of Clinton and the pain you feel from that is not part of the equation and is not considered in any way or form. And yes she is a patriot and a valuable asset to this country to this day as anyone who has served her country as she has should be considered. Oh and also, I don’t need you to agree with me and would be surprised if you did.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2015 2:09 PM
Comment #400258

Speaks, You have your opinion of HRC, I have mine. You think she is a patriot, I think she is nothing but a lying piece of S**T.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 3:02 PM
Comment #400259

KAP, then you don’t deserve my thanks for your service. It is your type of people that are contributing to the overall disrespect for public servants, government and our country as a whole. That you use your bastardized bad word nonsense is even more proof of your inability to act like a decent human being and a citizen of the greatest country in this world, it is also a reflection of the mentality that you possess. You just dropped several pegs in my estimation of your value to this blog. You can disagree with my opinions but when you degrade a public servant and act like you have the ability to judge someone when you have no grounds to do so, you are scum.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2015 3:14 PM
Comment #400260

KAP

“While in the Navy I was cleared Secret because of my job”

Um, don’t you mean when you read that book or something about being in the Navy.

LOL!!!

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #400261

tim, You mean like MM3-2 or MM1-Chief or the Blue jackets manual or books like most of the Tech manuals for the things that I had to repair. Yea I read the books from 1964-1979 served on 2 WW2 class Destroyers, 1 DE, 1 Nuc DLGN/CGN and 1 Air Craft Carrier. 2 trips to Nam, YEA I read the books tim.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 3:45 PM
Comment #400262

She’s an X public servant, Speaks and just a candidate now. I just call it like it is Speaks, you don’t like it Tough S**T. It’s people like you who defend those lying pieces of S**T just like the Democrats protecting HRC in the investigations, I have NO respect for anyone from Congressman, Senator, or President, or citizen who would protect and defend a LIER.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 3:53 PM
Comment #400263

phx8


“The worst you can say about Hillary is that, while she did actually fly to a dangerous place- Bosnia- and she did actually fly there in a helicopter, but when she recalled events on the tarmac 12 years later, she got it wrong.”

Ahhhh ha ha ha ha ha !!!! That’s damn funny.

Let’s see……ya I could see myself going somewhere, and not being shot at, but then 12 years later not remember that no one shot at me when I was there. Gee Last time I landed at LAX, I don’t remember whether someone shot at me. Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2015 4:05 PM
Comment #400265

warren

If you can’t see the bias in the questions, which had nothing to do with actual election issues, I really don’t know what to tell you. Compared to the softball BS that was asked of the dems. I think Ted Cruz confronting them for the hacks they are on national TV was a long time coming, and they deserved every shot that the candidates took at them. I’d like to see the dems do a debate on Fox and get asked the same type of chicken shit questions asked of them. Guess what? It’ll never happen. If I were the reps I wouldn’t agree to another debate on ABC, NBC, CNN, or CBS, unless the dems agree to debate on Fox, and it would be a one for one split.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2015 4:17 PM
Comment #400266

KAP, as a fellow Navy man, 1966-1970 served on the Wahkiakum County LST-1162; I must say must say you have climbed several pegs in my book… cancelling out any peg droppage you might have suffered at the hand of speaks. I have complete confidence in your ability to judge people, especially a lying POS like the old hag Hillary Clinton. What must it be like in that pea brain of speaks, who heaps accolades upon you from one side of his mouth and calling you scum from the other.

But I would like to thank speaks for allowing you to disagree with his opinions; I myself, disagree with 99.999% of speaks opinions. Regarding Hillary and public servant, the only person she has ever served is herself… even Bill has had to seek many other avenues to be serviced.

But,putting that aside and becoming more serious, the investigation of Hillary and lying is far from over.

Lastly, WP, phx8, and speaks have completely missed the point of the election results. They are trying to say that next year, when Hillary is on the ticket, things will be different. That is assuming Hillary is popular. But her trustworthy polls show a different result. I might also ask, which of the polls link to by the local leftist, show Hillary with a lead of over 45% or less? The election in Ohio was a record turnout for pot, and a record turnout against. The goal of the left is to try to fire up the base, in order to get them to the polls. This is why racism and the war on women are the talking points of the day.

I would like the left to research an see how many governorships, senate seats, house seats, and state legislatures have been lost to republicans since Obama took office. Hundreds and hundreds… What do suppose is going on in the minds of voters?

Posted by: Blaine at November 4, 2015 4:31 PM
Comment #400267

Blaine, I was on Shore Duty at Little Creek Amphib Base, Va. at AMSU. Did work on much of the equipment on them Gator Freighters. As far as Speaks goes, he’s just a grumpy old liberal.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 4:42 PM
Comment #400268

It’s hilarious to observe several old men quake in their collective boots over some lady that has served her country in a fashion that would out shine their service if they cared to compare. You guys are really tough guys, calling a lady names. Oh now I know you do it because an uneducated, misinformed and just plain dumb idiot did it to Bush sometime ago. But you see you stooped to their level by doing that. Welcome to the club of uneducated, misinformed and just plain dumb idiot commenters. It always makes me laugh when I see two bit commenters on a blog trying to denigrate someone that they couldn’t hold a candle to. It doesn’t seem to me that the right wing “Hillary’s a liar” meme is getting anywhere fast except with the uneducated, misinformed and just plain dumb idiots.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2015 4:52 PM
Comment #400269

The only IDIOTS, Speaks are the ones who defend and coddle a known LIER. If the shoe fits Speaks!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #400270

It doesn’t seem to me that the right wing “Hillary’s a liar” meme is getting anywhere fast except with the uneducated, misinformed and just plain dumb idiots.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2015 4:52 PM


I believe I now understand why Speaks resorts to hyperbole and hyper-spin so much. Alcohol induced psychosis.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2015 5:09 PM
Comment #400271

KAP, I was poking fun at post #400250.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2015 5:24 PM
Comment #400272

tim, Sorry for my being touchy about my service.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2015 5:28 PM
Comment #400273

KAP, yes, Little Creek was our home port. I was an Engineman, and worked on GM’s. Also spent 36 years on CSX Railroad, working on the same engines.

Speaks sounds like Obama’s latest rant on the republican candidates who complained that left wing media, who have never voted for a republican, are the ones asking the questions. Carson wanted to know when Obama was last on Fox News for an interview?

Speaks is just like Obama. His quote, “You guys are really tough guys, calling a lady names”. Could we go back in the archives and see what speaks has called conservative women? I guarantee it is a whole lot worse than what HRC has been called. So for speaks to act outraged is outrageous. The typical double standards. Of course we coul always argue the fact of whether Hillary is a lady. I’ve heard that the “F” word is a regular in her vocabulary…. doesn’t sound like a lady to me.

Speaks uses the typical leftist words when confronted with unanswerable questions , ” you guys are uneducated, misinformed and just plain dumb idiots “. I didn’t realize speaks had a drinking problem, the would explain his irrational behavior. Of course, if it’s not a drinking problem, then his adjectives would have to be leveled at himself. Speaks is arguing tha Hillary is not a liar, based on his love of her. The facts show a completely different story.

Posted by: Blaine at November 4, 2015 6:06 PM
Comment #400274

Blaine…Speaks understands that I kid him a lot including referencing heavy drinking which is not true. I do it because his thinking is so fuzzy and unpredictable like some true alcoholics I know.

How is it possible for any informed person to not know that the majority of American voters believe Hillary is untrustworthy and a known liar? Not long ago I posted on WB ten well-documented lies told by Hillary.

The latest polling I read today has Dr. Carson beating Hillary for the woman’s vote. That’s outstanding.

Should Dr. Carson win the nomination how will the average black voter respond in the voting booth. Can Dr. Carson break the ties of the democrat party with black people?


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2015 6:23 PM
Comment #400275

Is it not remarkable that Trump, Carson and Cruz are all more skilled at what they have done outside of politics than either Clinton or Sanders have done in politics?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2015 6:26 PM
Comment #400276
Do you really believe that the SoS of the most powerful nation on earth chose to use her unsecured private server instead of a secure government server, simply because of ease? That she chose an unsecured private server that she has total control of, over a secure government server that somebody else has control of, because she only wanted to carry one device? Come on man.

You are fundamentally misinformed about this controversy. The choice presented to HRC in 2009 was to use a private unsecured server or a public unsecured server. Ordinary @state.gov email addresses are not suitable for classified information. Classified information is supposed to be transmitted using secure diplomatic cables. Ironically, Julian Assage leaked those very cables back 5 years ago.

Now, the question regarding what I think. I do not know the truth behind HRC’s motivations. Personally, I hope she is lying when she says she chose the private server as a matter of convenience. Jeopardizing the national interest because one cannot be bothered by the inconvenience of multiple accounts is intolerable. Doing the same in order to keep prying Republican eyes away is something I can understand. It’s craven, but given the history of Whitewater, Starr, etc, I can understand the paranoia.

That one year she wanted to carry only one device, but the next year she was fine with carrying 4 or 5?
In 2009, HRC had a Blackberry and no other devices. Admittedly, the proper solution to her situation should have been to carry two Blackberries, but for whatever reason that was not the solution she chose. It was not until 2010 that the iPad came out. Personally, I think carrying an iPad and a Blackberry is different than carrying two Blackberries. The iPad is a completely different type of device. The Blackberry goes in HRC’s pocket, the iPad goes in her bag. As above, the acquisition of the iPad in 2010 gave HRC to split her previously unified account. A more prudent HRC might have kept the private, personal email on the iPad and reverted the Blackberry for use with an @state.gov account. However, it takes a lot of mental attentiveness to change a system that does not appear to be broken. It isn’t surprising that inertia took over and HRC continued the same system she had established in 2009 (the private served was actually created in the early 2000s when she was Senator).

You say she was fine carrying 4 or 5 devices. I cannot find any evidence for her using more than 2 devices (Blackberry + iPad) at the same time when she was SoS.

Warren, if she is “well aware of classification requirements,” she is well aware that this happens. She would also be “well aware” of knowing how to notice possible sensitive information and of the proper procedures for reporting it.

I think you are well aware that plenty of things get classified frivolously. Now, I am not advocating that someone with a security clearance ought to judge the frivolousness of any document they encounter that is marked classified. The classification needs to be respected because it is impossible for any individual to make that judgement. However, I do not expect someone to anticipate a future frivolous classification of a currently unclassified document.
Read More.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2015 7:28 PM
Comment #400278

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals look at the actions of democrats through the prism of they can do no wrong; or they are innocent even if absolute proof is provided. On the other hand, democrats condemn republicans based on how they feel, not on evidence. Conservatives base their conclusions on facts.

Example; WP has no use for Clinton for a plethora of reasons; but even though there is abundant evidence of Hillary’s lies, he cannot bring himself to accepting the facts based on his love of her leftist ideological agend. Ideology trumps truth. WP is ready and eager to call conservatives liars for the slightest infraction, whether true or not, yet demands overwhelming proof before calling Hillary a liar. Proof that is readily known and accepted by all those outside of the WB liberals.

Posted by: Blaine at November 4, 2015 10:51 PM
Comment #400279

Never did see a conservative name a Republican presidential candidate who does not lie.

More lunacy from Ben Carson: the pyramids in Egypt were built on the advice of the biblical figure Joseph in order to store grain. Now THAT is presidential material! Throwing out modern archaeology because the Bible says. Or not. Given the chance to correct his idiocy, Carson naturally doubled down.

WP, kctim presented similar false statements about the so-called e-mail scandal some time ago, and they were refuted. He will present the exact same misinformation in the future. Doesn’t matter what you write. Btw, the DOJ informed the judge they found nothing wrong whatsoever, not even a policy violation.

Blaine,
Keep living in that fantasy world. Yes, yes, Hillary lies, the economy is actually terrible, statistics that show otherwise are fixed, Obama is Muslim/socialist/communist, the scientists of the world are engaged in an international conspiracy to promote global warming-

Oh wait! You actually believe Obama is a Muslim, don’t you?! That’s pretty funny. Sad. But funny.

Anyway, feel free to take a crack at it. Name a conservative presidential candidate who is not a liar. There’s something like 14 of them. Should be easy, right?

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 12:46 AM
Comment #400281

Phx8, it doesn’t Matt if you call republican candidates liars or not; Hillary is loosing. And it doesn’t matter which of the republicans are running against her, again, she is loosing. She is untrustworthy and people believe she is a liar. WP is a liberal and yet he has a list of reasons he doesn’t like her as president. You can multiply that times the majority of Americans and then add the untrustworthiness, and you have a flawed candidate.

Regarding Obama, whatever I claim to believe about Obama, it is based upon his actions. Let’s take “Obama is a Muslim ” for example. Besides the fact the he was born and raised a Muslim, we have his claims to be a Christian with 20+ years under the radical Wright, who is best friends and has allowed Louis Farakan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, to preach from his pulpit. Then we have the ongoing attacks of Obama and his administration against Christians in America, the alienation of the nation of Israel, the failed support of the Muslim Brotherhood (which has led to many of the problems in th middleast), and the withdrawal of troops from the middleast, failure to listen to his own military leaders, and the author of events that have allowed ISIS to expand. Obama on numerous occasions has condoned Islam and attacked Christianity in the same speech. These are historical facts.

Regarding Carson, much like you leader, your problem is not what he says, your problem is what he claims to be… a Christian.

Posted by: Blaine at November 5, 2015 8:10 AM
Comment #400282
they are innocent even if absolute proof is provided

Where is the proof? Show me that one of the following is true:

—Any email on Clinton’s server contained information that was marked classified at the time it was sent or received
—Clinton used more than one mobile device to check her email in late 2008/early 2009
—Clinton violated any laws or rules

You can’t. You are advancing an argument based upon emotion. You have a prejudice against Clinton because you abhor the policies she advocates and refuse to evaluate any possibility other than the one most damning to Clinton.

Conservatives base their conclusions on facts.

Where does this garbage come from? Has anyone here made any attempt to refute the allegations I made above that Trump/Carson/Rubio lied in the debate? Here are the facts:

—Rubio’s tax plan benefits the top 10% and the bottom 10% almost twice as much as someone at the median
—Rubio’s tax plan includes a universal guaranteed income of $2000/yr in order to make it appear the poor benefit the most.

—Trump’s website clearly condemns Rubio for working with tech leaders like Mark Zuckerburg in order to increase the number of H1-B visas.

—In order for Carson’s tax plan to decrease the deficit, government spending must be reduced at an unprecedented pace (Becky Quick said 40% cuts).
—Carson has had a long relationship as a snakeoil salesmen for Mannatech glyconutrients. Mannatech endowed his chair at Johns Hopkins and has paid Carson in order to use Carson’s likeness to endorse the product.

—Fiorina said 92% of the jobs lost in Obama’s 1st term belonged to women. The fact is that when Obama’s 1st term ended, more women had jobs than when his term began.

is ready and eager to call conservatives liars for the slightest infraction, whether true or not, yet demands overwhelming proof before calling Hillary a liar.
“Slightest infraction”? Sorry bud, but lying about one’s position is not a “slight infraction” when your true position is 180 degrees from what you present. Flat out dismissing a close business relationship as “propaganda” is not a “slight infraction”.

Again, I ask for proof regarding HRC that matches what I have provided for Rubio/Trump/Carson/Fiorina. I still haven’t gotten it. Instead, I get arguments based upon emotions and feelings, “I don’t trust HRC so I don’t feel she is telling the truth”. That is not the way to win a debate. Where is the beef? Where is the proof that HRC mishandled a document that was marked classified?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 5, 2015 8:29 AM
Comment #400284

Warren, as this deals with classified government information, it is one of the few Hillary scandals I care enough about to inform myself on.

.gov servers are not unsecured, they are less secure than what is required for classified information. A private server not set up and maintained as per government regulations, is an unsecured server.

That there is no difference between the the two servers is nothing but a meaningless talking-point targeted at people who know nothing about servers. It is even more meaningless when you take into account that just eight months after she became SoS, the US Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records was updated.

‘Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic-mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.’ The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to ‘the head of each federal agency.’”

Also under Hillary, a cable went out under her signature warning employees to ‘avoid conducting official department business from your personal e-mail accounts.’

Yet she continued to use her personal e-mail account on her unsecured private server to conduct official department business.

It is not hard to see that she has been in CYA mode from the beginning, Warren.

“Personally, I hope she is lying when she says she chose the private server as a matter of convenience.”

Personally, I would rather she had told the truth from the very beginning so that the problems could have been properly addressed and future incidents prevented.

“I cannot find any evidence for her using more than 2 devices (Blackberry + iPad) at the same time when she was SoS.”

Feb. 2010 at some conference, she stated that she is “like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and a Blackberry.”

“I do not expect someone to anticipate a future frivolous classification of a currently unclassified document.”

If you and I are well aware that plenty of things get retroactively classified, even if frivolously, shouldn’t the SoS also be aware of that? Shouldn’t the SoS expect to receive such emails at some point?
So why would a SoS take such risks with it?

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2015 10:28 AM
Comment #400285

“presented similar false statements about the so-called e-mail scandal some time ago, and they were refuted.”

I see you have gone from false claims of hoaxes, ignoring facts, and dismissing lies for being too old, to just the typical babbling of BS.

Opinion does not refute fact my friend.

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2015 10:40 AM
Comment #400286
.gov servers are not unsecured, they are less secure than what is required for classified information. A private server not set up and maintained as per government regulations, is an unsecured server.

Fair description. I will add that the same person (Bryan Pagliano) maintained the secuirty of both servers. Obviously, this does not necessarily mean the two had the same security protocols, but I believe it is a salient point.

I think we need to divide the scandal into two parts. There is the issue of using the private server for unclassified work-related business would agree with faulting HRC for her wanton recklessness in using the private server instead of the public one for unclassified, work related correspondence. This is a genuine scandal in my opinion. It demonstrates a serious lack of judgement as well as contempt for the public she ostensibly served. As far as I know, Clinton has never denied that she had the private server so that means she never lied on this issue (she came clean once things were unearthed).

The other scandal is the accusation that HRC mishandled classified materials. This scandal would be identical if it involved an @state.gov email account rather than an @clintonmail.com email account. Up until this point, this scandal’s allegation has no proof, but the jury is still out as intelligence agencies continue to comb through her server. If those agencies do discover material on the server that was marked as classified at the time it was sent or received, then the “Clinton is a liar” label will finally have meaning.

‘Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic-mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.’ The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to ‘the head of each federal agency.’”

HRC’s defense is that all her work related emails were indeed preserved in the appropriate system because she was always emailing her subordinates on their @state.gov address. Obviously, this is a CYA moment for her, but for the time being it rings true. There is no evidence that HRC habitually emailed people on their personal email address. It is only a violation of that provision if both parties of an email correspondence are on nongovernmental servers.

Personally, I would rather she had told the truth from the very beginning so that the problems could have been properly addressed and future incidents prevented.

Whether she used the server because it was more convenient or because she wanted to keep her private business out of the prying eyes of wayward Republicans is important for assessing HRC’s character, but it is entirely unimportant when it comes to addressing potential problems or preventing future incidents. The way to prevent future incidents is to make sure the law clearly states that conducting government business on such servers is prohibited. That is all. Establish norms of good practices and they will be followed.

Feb. 2010 at some conference, she stated that she is “like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and a Blackberry.”
I’m sorry, but your source has deliberately misinformed you. Those statements were made in February 2015, well after HRC resigned as Secretary of State. FYI, the iPad Mini was not released until 2012. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 5, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #400288

One more thing: HRC resigned just 3 months after the iPad mini was released. Clearly, she could not have owned one for most of her tenure as SoS.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 5, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #400289

Name a conservative presidential candidate who is not a liar. There’s something like 14 of them. Should be easy, right?
Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 12:46 AM

What? Fourteen “conservative candidates”? For certain phx8’s idea of conservative is different than mine.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #400290

Blaine,
Hillary is losing? The election is not until a year from now. She is the strongest candidate anyone has seen in a long time. No one else will even run against her other than Sanders & O’Malley.

Another chance- name a Republican candidate who is not a liar. Why is this such a struggle for you?

Obama is a Muslim. I see. Please proceed, governor.

“Regarding Carson… your problem is not what he says, your problem is what he claims to be… a Christian.”

Really? Because I’m pretty sure almost all of the presidential candidates, Democratic & Republican alike, are Christians. (Sanders is Jewish).

Face it. Carson is a dunderhead. He grew up poor and became a great neurosurgeon. That’s great! He is soft spoken and has a nice demeanor. But take him outside his area of expertise and the man is a dunderhead. Being a Christian is no excuse.

Wait. I’d better check for understanding.

Blaine, you do realize the pyramids were NOT built for storing grain, right?

Egyptologists can read the hieroglyphics. We know the dates the various pyramids were constructed and the Pharaohs who ordered them built. They were built in only a few locations, and NOT all over the country. Furthermore, they are mostly rock. They are NOT big warehouses. Some have even been discovered intact, most famously the tomb of King Tut, and they were NOT filled with grain. Carson is apparently referring to a passage in Genesis where Joseph told a Pharaoh a period of plenty would be followed by crop failures, and so they should store up grain. This is pretty ridiculous in itself. Periods of feast and famine were common occurrences in many civilizations- not just Egypt- and storing grain was just common sense and widely practiced. The ancient world did not consist of a bunch of happy little grasshoppers squandering their resources, and a Pharaoh did NOT need Joseph’s prediction in the first place to know storing food was a good idea.

And this guy Carson is leading the GOP field.

OMG.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 12:36 PM
Comment #400291

Records set during the Clinton presidency. A Hillary presidency could set new records.

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- Second president accused of rape**
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O’Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

Hillary learned from Bill. In President Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition, that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times.

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 1:09 PM
Comment #400292

Correction. Tut was buried in the Valley of the Kings.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 1:12 PM
Comment #400294

RF,
Sigh. First you link the bogus list of lies supposedly told by Hillary Clinton. The first one was never even said by HRC. It was said by Dick Morris. What Hillary (and Chelsea) actually said was true. The list includes the accusation that Hillary was fingerprinted! What that has to do with lying, no one will ever know.

This latest list is even more ridiculous. For example, take illegal campaign contributions. Bill Clinton was accused by some Republicans of being targeted by the Chinese for illegal campaign contributions, but other Republicans and Democrats stated the Chinese efforts were directed at Congressmen. At no time was Clinton indicted for anything illegal involving this, never mind tried.

Republicans make lots of charges. That’s what they do. But evidence counts. Proof counts. And whenever it comes time for Republicans to pony up, POOF! There’s nothing there.

And the most corrupt administration in American history, as measured by convictions- by finding people guilty- was the Reagan administration. You can make up all sorts of things- indeed, you have- but nothing can change the hard, cold truth that when it comes to evidence and proof, Reagan’s people set the record corruption.

Funny quote about Reagan. Margaret Thatcher said “Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears.”

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 1:33 PM
Comment #400295

Thanks for the spin phx8. This is really funny.

“You may have seen some of your liberal friends buying into a serious revision of history in the wake of the death of the great Margaret Thatcher. Many from the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd are pointing to a quote, allegedly from Thatcher, insulting former President Ronald Reagan.

The “alleged” quote comes from the “alleged” journalist Peter Jenkins, who quoted Thatcher as saying of Reagan, ”Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears.” My first reaction was to demand context. The left wing sites don’t offer that. My second thought was, “That’s all the extreme left wing has, a 2nd hand alleged quote?” So instead of relying on hearsay, I thought I’d quote the late Prime Minister directly to gauge her feelings for our 40th president. In a 1997 speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Thatcher said, “As soon as I met Governor Reagan, I knew that we were of like mind, and manifestly so did he. We shared a rather unusual philosophy and we shared something else rather unusual as well: We were in politics because we wanted to put our philosophy into practice.” At Reagan’s funeral in 2004 Thatcher said, “We have lost a great president, a great American and a great man. And I have lost a dear friend.” And as if predicting the left wing extremists attempt to revise history upon her death, Thatcher said, “After all, so many people have been proved wrong by Ronald Reagan that they simply daren’t acknowledge his achievement. Forests have already been pulped to print the revisionist analyses of the ’80s.” Committed left-wingers are funny when they try to re-write history. They are funny because their assertions demonstrate they in fact have “nothing between the ears.”

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/18/poor-dear-theres-nothing-between-his-ears/

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 2:45 PM
Comment #400296

Peter Jenkins was one of the most respected political journalists of his time, and his columns were published in several major British papers.

“Clearly Mrs. Thatcher likes Ronald Reagan a lot. The funny part is that a man like Ronald Reagan, of limited intellect and limited capacity for work, wouldn’t last six weeks in a Thatcher Government, would he? The two, in that sense, are temperamentally at odds with one another. I think the affection is genuine, but as in many marriages, she is very consciously trying to use Ronald Reagan to serve Britain’s purposes.”
Anthony King, professor of government at the University of Essex

It is only right that Thatcher would say kind things about Reagan at his funeral. While being televised, one journalist went so far as to point out that Reagan enriched himself more while in office than any other president. While true, it was crass to bring that up at the funeral, and the journalist was widely criticized.

I don’t think Reagan was stupid. I don’t think anyone can make it to the Oval Office without some ability. But I do think it would be fair to say Reagan was not the smartest president. He was intellectually lazy, to put it kindly, and his reputation for being physically lazy was well known. By the end of his second term in 1989 he probably suffered from the early onset of Alzheimer’s, which is NOT the same as being stupid. Reagan died of it in 1994. It is a terrible affliction.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment #400297

“Peter Jenkins was one of the most respected political journalists of his time, and his columns were published in several major British papers.”

It is quite apparent that phx8 did not bother to do a Google search on Jenkins; but rather, just blew smoke out his azz.

Even Wikipedia only has a single page on this “most respected political journalists of his time…”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #400298

Anthony King, professor of government at the University of Essex

Another barely known liberal university professor who wouldn’t qualify to bring Ronald Reagan his morning coffee.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 4:22 PM
Comment #400299

More coffee might have helped Reagan. He was notorious for taking naps.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #400300

More coffee might have helped Reagan. He was notorious for taking naps.
Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 5:10 PM

So was Winston Churchill, JFK, Napoleon, LBJ, Edison, Stonewall Jackson, Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, and…ME.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 5:24 PM
Comment #400301

Looks like right wing pundits can’t decide about RR either:

George Willfully Ignorant and Bill’O the clown go at it over Ronaldus Maximus

Posted by: Speak4all at November 5, 2015 5:30 PM
Comment #400302

Thanks for the O’Rielly link Warren. He is a blowhard and his books, from excerpts I have read, read like children’s stories. Follow the money to understand Bill O’.

I can imagine how he fantasized in his “Killing Jesus” effort.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 5:44 PM
Comment #400303

RF, don’t tell me, we all look the same to you?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 5, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #400304

Please explain the question Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #400305

Re-read the comment handle.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 5, 2015 5:52 PM
Comment #400306

Now who has been hitting the sauce?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 5, 2015 5:54 PM
Comment #400307

Huh?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 5, 2015 5:58 PM
Comment #400308

HUH? LOL

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 5:59 PM
Comment #400310

I found this very interesting Warren. Comments please.

“According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number — bear with me; yes, they will be talking about only four one-hundredths of that three one-hundredths of a percent in Paris. Never has so much been spent on so little. And the Democrats are just getting started. What are we willing to sacrifice in terms of economy and the human quality of life to make a tiny fraction of a small number slightly smaller? Given what we know so far, it is fair to ask if it is possible to make an impact, or if it is even measurable.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/11/04/the-insiders-inconvenient-numbers-for-the-global-warming-crowd/

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2015 7:26 PM
Comment #400311

Here is a pretty basic explanation about atmospheric CO2, and why small amounts make such a big difference:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2015 8:36 PM
Comment #400313

Phx8, thank you for sharing the link.

RF,

the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 of the total atmosphere

I am certain that this was not a revelation to you. We have already discussed that CO2 is a trace gas. 80% of the Earth’s atmosphere is nitrogen, but we will never worry about nitrogen because it is an inert gas under normal circumstances.

Also, Ed Rogers claims the CO2 concentration is 300 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 has not been that low since the 1950s. Today’s concentrations is roughly 400 ppm. Rogers appears to be confusing today’s concentration with the preindustrial concentration, which was 280 ppm. The 120 ppm increase in CO2 over the past 200 years represents a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (not .04%, Rogers is off by 3 orders of magnitude). 100% of that increase can be attributed to humans (natural sinks exceed natural sources, but anthropogenic emissions exceed that deficit, which means the total budget for atmospheric carbon dioxide is running a surplus).

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2015 12:57 AM
Comment #400324
If you and I are well aware that plenty of things get retroactively classified, even if frivolously, shouldn’t the SoS also be aware of that? Shouldn’t the SoS expect to receive such emails at some point? So why would a SoS take such risks with it?

If the classified document is classified frivolously, there is no risk taken. Mind you, the situation would be no different if Clinton used a @state.gov account. Look, everyone agrees that HRC’s decision to use the private server demonstrated a lack of judgement. Discussing it further is just beating over a dead horse. I totally understand if you think that lack of judgement means HRC doesn’t deserve your vote, and I would even agree. But, having a lack of judgement is not the same thing as lying. HRC said that none of the documents on her server were classified at the time they were sent or received. So far, we have no evidence to discount that claim.

Why don’t we take a moment to slow down and let the proper people make their determination.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2015 4:17 PM
Post a comment