Yes, in mundane but still dirty ways, the nomination WAS stolen from Bernie
I'm sure he regrets now taking the emails off the table in the first debate. And never touching the Foundation, which obviously was always an egregious conflict of interest for a Secretary of State, dovetailing completely with his dominant campaign theme about the role of money in politics. So, as much as I love Bernie, and will be part of Our Revolution, he blew it on one level--although for the ironic but still laudable reason of wanting to have the battle for the nomination and the general election be on the issues that directly affect the lives of Americans and the other billions of human beings on planet Earth.
But now we see, drip drip drip, that the delayed timing of the release of the emails, coupled with the initial mass deletion, was the only way she could get the nomination.
Please read every line of this MSM article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/politics/hillary-clintons-new-em...
As we say down heah, this is going to get UHG---leah.
P.S. There is a lot of sad tonight at TOP, although Kos's edict is keeping repression mostly firmly in place. What a bunch of SHEAH---it. I dare not raise my digits over the keyboard when venturing to those parts tonight.
Comments
I had forgotten this bit!
From the Times article:
There have been other links to this Casey guy, and I haven't been able to figure out if this is Debbie's family of origin or not. At any rate, here's some info on Casey from the Wasserman Foundation website:
Casey Wasserman Tops List of 50 Most Powerful in LA Sports Scene
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Below comment was meant to be a
reply (clever even) to your comment.
It gives me quivers to think that so much
chuckling capitalist ingenuity will be in that ballroom.
I had an involuntary eye roll
Not at your statement exactly, but at the ironic truth of it.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip---
It's the Clinton email torture--more subtle than waterboarding but effective anyway. Drip, drip, drip, drip, drop....
Not all that rough on me, but I am not a Clinton or worse,
a Clinton-contact. Start taking names, we do not want any of those people on our island unless they are in gaol.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
If you mean the diary on DK written by Frank Vyan Walton
I agree that they are having a sad.
I read the diary and as usual, the people there are cherry picking the facts about the Clinton foundation.
I find it funny how people can see the same evidence or facts about something and come up with different conclusions.
Even if Hillary wasn't involved in the Clinton foundation during her time as SOS, we know that Chelsea was because from Huma Abedin's deposition she stated that Chelsea had access to the private email server Clintonone.
Why else would she have access to the server unless she was helping Bill get paid speeches before Hillary's state department would do business with the same organizations that Bill gave speeches to and then after the business was done, the foundation would receive millions in donations?
And what happened to Hillary's appointment schedules that might show who Hillary was meeting with or how Bill's schedules aligned with Hillary's and the state department when she was doing business in foreign countries?
Frank states that Saudi Arabia didn't donate any money to the foundation during Hillary's time as SOS, which we have seen is not true.
He goes on to tell us how magnanimous Bill is going to be when he gives up his chance of making money if Hillary is president.
He then goes on about how Hillary stopped giving paid speeches after she decided to run for president (as if she hadn't decided to run for president after she lost to Obama in 2008
How many people believe that she only decided to run for president in 2015?
While she was giving paid speeches, she was involved with the DNC and DWS to start lining up the 34 delegates and some other activities that would be ready to be put into operation when she made her declaration to run for president which means that she broke the election rules that state that a person can't be paid for anything if they are running for president. But who is going to go after her for breaking that rule? Anyone? Bueller?
Frank then tells us again how magnanimous Bill is going to be while he is the First Gentleman of the United States (FGOTUNS) when he reduces his income by giving up the speaking fees which he will have to do if he is part of the presidential team when he is in charge of the economy if I recall the rules.
If Trump is just nuts, then why are many people in the FBI asking both Comey and Lynch to look into the pay for play that Hillary, Bill and the state department were involved in white Hillary was SOS?
I guess it's just another right wing witch hunt, right? Right?
Except he has ignored how people who wanted to talk to Hillary first had to give a donation to the Clinton foundation first according to the emails that JW got from Huma Abedin's emails.
I have already commented on the Clinton's pay to play in Haiti and how during Hillary's time running the state department anyone wanting in on the reconstruction had to go through the Clinton foundation first and how Hillary made sure who got to be elected president and how she made sure that the minimum wage wasn't raised from $.31-$.64 per hour.
If anyone wants more information about the corruption in Haiti after the earthquake, do a search for The Clintons Haiti scandals.
We tried to have this debate before the nomination,
but the brilliant (i.e., shill enabler) Kos said no, she's got this, inevitable even.
Hillary wasn't involved with the foundation
While she was at state? That's news to me. She certainly participated in the big annual shindig while at state.
And she certainly did things that cough benefited cough the foundation. When the Swiss govt reached out to her she got involved in the irs/ubs case. Instead of turning over the 52,000 names the irs was after, Hillary helped ubs only turn over 4,450 names. (Remind me who paid Hillary's salary again?).
And then, totally unconnected I'm sure, ubs paid bill $1.5m to take part in some q&as. And donations to the foundation increased from $60k through 2008 to $600k by the end of 2014. And ubs & the foundation launched a loan program thru which it loaned $32m.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bank...
About Bill Clinton's personal revenue stream.
The quote from the article:
From what I read, Clinton is not paid any salary by the Foundation. The only payments were for travel which he under-took for the Foundation. He isn't losing any money. His "revenue stream" was for speeches and appointments to board of directors outside the Foundation.
And didn't they walk back which parts
Of the foundation would and wouldn't be accepting donations?
Hey, the foundation is moving into the White House....
Now taxpayers will pick up the tab for all of them.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
The foundation is why Trump ran for prez.
He couldn't stand to see someone making such a killing off a government grift that he had to get his hands into it. I can imagine the conversation:
B Clinton: "and that's how we made a killing off the stupid plebes."
D Trump: "I need to get in on some of that action."
B Clinton: "You should run, I encourage you to."
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
drip, drip, drip
Drip, drip, drip.
Our poor country has an affliction.....
[video:https://youtu.be/QFl3T9Asw7Q width:560 height:315]
(My apologies; the temptation was just too great..... and in my regular twisted way, even appropriate....)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
That is hideously beautiful.
Reminds me of this masters degree thesis in photography that involved photos of VD sores.
But srsly.....
..... what happened to Bernie was that he wasn't enough of a dick to play the kind of game he needed to in order to beat Hillary Clinton.
Excellent Essay, by the way, G......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Yes, and the little organ running against her
has enough problems of his own that they will try to run out the clock pointing them out over and over.
"I will build a [Chinese] wall, a Great Wall. And whose gonna
pay for it?" Us.
Now, now.
Hillary voted for the fence.
And now this after the attacks on Bernie and his supporters
I tried to buy into the lesser of two evils, but after Clintonites (both paid and unpaid) attacked Bernie and in particular his supporters as if we were KKK infiltrators, and now revelations of voter abuse, the argument is basic bullshit.
I'm still separating matters.
I believe in being forthright and speaking up about the BS that the Clintons have engaged in and are. They are the walking definitions of dishonesty and neoliberals who have stabbed and will stab the left in the back at every turn. They are awful, and I've been saying it for decades. But what I do when I go into the voting booth is a separate issue and my own decision. I do often vote the lesser of two evils for reasons I won't try to summarize in a comment thread. Michael Harrington voted for Carter. I twice voted for and opposed the impeachment of Clinton even though he did all manner of bad things on policy. I'm still likely to hold my nose and vote for Clinton.
If polls show she has Trump beat, I see no harm in voting for
Jill. If it turns out the polls are wrong, if it turns out her swing to the right doesn't garner her enough Repug votes to beat Trump, well, that's on her.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Everyone always should vote their conscience.
For me, because I live in a swing state, and because I believe Clinton is LOTE, I will probably vote for her. This is something Noam Chomsky recommends. But again, I think everyone should always do what they think is the right thing.
I agree that Hill is the LOTE, but only by a smidgen.
I think Jill is head and shoulders above both. I think I will have to vote my hopes rather than my fears; and if I'm wrong, it's not a huge difference.
I haven't decided 100% yet It's Jill or Hill. But I also respect whatever each individual decides. I think it may become clear, though, that Trump will only get about 10% of the vote, so I'm not too concerned because it's not easy for him to run with his foot in his mouth like that.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.