Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Hillary Clinton continues to be her own worst enemy...

Unlike every other person who works for the federal government, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thought she was exempt from establishing and using a government e-mail account to conduct federal business. To make matters worse, her aides failed to preserve any of her e-mails (in violation of federal law), thereby destroying federal records.

Nobody--not Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax, or FoxNews--fuels the Clinton conspiracy machine more than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The latter will continue to have her cheerleaders who want her to run in 2016. However, I expect her political career to die a death from 1,000 cuts when all is said and done (with the Clinton Global Initiative rendering the most damage.)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 227February 11, 2022 9:38 PM

Techi contracted to the federal government, even middle management feds have almost nothing in their email. They have no documentation either, no Word docs, no Excel spreadsheets. Their administrative admins handle all of that. There is nothing unusual in this.

They do meetings, all damn day. They take no notes, they exchange very little email. Just meetings. I work on their computers, they couldn't care less if their laptop dies, they have nothing on it.

by Anonymousreply 1March 3, 2015 2:07 AM

Wow, you're already running a campaign against her and she hasn't even been nominated.

by Anonymousreply 2March 3, 2015 2:09 AM

OP-

You're shocked a murderous cunt married to a sociopath could do this?

Babs Bush could take lessons from Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 3March 3, 2015 2:12 AM

You worked for Clinton, r1?

by Anonymousreply 4March 3, 2015 2:14 AM

Who gives a fuck!

by Anonymousreply 5March 3, 2015 2:18 AM

R1 here, no just regional adminstrators and GS 14'sand 15's. The higher you go the more likely you will have someone handling all of your coorespondence and all documents.

by Anonymousreply 6March 3, 2015 2:20 AM

Yawn.k

by Anonymousreply 7March 3, 2015 2:21 AM

R5-

Would you seriously consider this cunt a viable president?

Why not vote for Jeb Bush? Same difference.

by Anonymousreply 8March 3, 2015 2:22 AM

R1-

So, it's worse. They use forums where there is zero paper trail so they can lie, cheat and steal without any chance of being caught.

This is government at best.

by Anonymousreply 9March 3, 2015 2:25 AM

R1 here, they see themselves as George Bush did, they're "deciders". But yeah they don't do much.

by Anonymousreply 10March 3, 2015 2:28 AM

R9 I think what he means is they themselves don't use forums, their underlings do it all for them.

by Anonymousreply 11March 3, 2015 2:31 AM

R1 [quote]They take no notes.

Really? So they store everything "up there" (ie. in their heads)

Do they do any actual work or do they just sit and listen in meetings?

by Anonymousreply 12March 3, 2015 2:34 AM

You and I can't write a letter or make a phone call that the US government doesn't feel privileged to listen in on, record, and share with the governments of other nations.

But our federal public servants have the freedom to operate without leaving a permanent record of their dealings?

This is bullshit and absolutely backwards. We should have our privacy and our public servants should be monitored 24/7 with universal access to everything they say and do.

Didn't Obama promise greater transparency in government?

by Anonymousreply 13March 3, 2015 2:37 AM

I think they're just lazy. Would you bring your lunch to work if it was someone elses job to bring it for you? I wouldn't. It might take a few days but in no time I would be saying "what have you got for me today Bob?"

by Anonymousreply 14March 3, 2015 2:44 AM

[quote]This is bullshit and absolutely backwards. We should have our privacy and our public servants should be monitored 24/7 with universal access to everything they say and do.

Exactly. Every conversation a Public Servant has should be recorded, and archived forever. That would reduce the graft, lying, murdering and propagandizing.

That way libertarians could expose their bullshit in real time.

by Anonymousreply 15March 3, 2015 2:46 AM

Why am I supposed to care about this? I work for the NYS government and our email is purged every 90 days. It's no biggie.

If Hillary doesn't have anything more explosive than this nonsense then she'll be fine. I just hope she doesn't say something stupid about it tomorrow. and or arrogant. or tone-deaf.

by Anonymousreply 16March 3, 2015 3:29 AM

This serves to remind people how scandal dogged her and Bill throughout his administration. Despite the actual severity, it's blood in the water.

by Anonymousreply 17March 3, 2015 3:40 AM

BTW, this is exactly what Sarah Palin did with her emails as Governor that caused such an uproar. Absolutely foolish.

by Anonymousreply 18March 3, 2015 3:42 AM

This will present a problem for Clinton. Especially with the major donor base.

The Clinton's political history is a lot of smoke but not much fire.

I think people are tired of this.

Why the hell wouldn't she use her government email account?

My own guess would be not legitimate reason. She probably didn't do anything illegal or unethical but just didn't want her emails to be part of the public record.

by Anonymousreply 19March 3, 2015 3:44 AM

R11 is right. She didn't take notes, she had aides who did that for her. If she wanted something sent out, she had a staff member send it.

Do we really think when Clinton was SOS she had nothing better to do than sit around typing and sending emails?

by Anonymousreply 20March 3, 2015 3:55 AM

R18-

Exactly. I wouldn't trust Palin to dog sit. She is no better than Obama or Kerry or Bush or Romney– they are ALL criminals.

by Anonymousreply 21March 3, 2015 3:58 AM

Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton's enabler. Surely, the US deserves far better leadership.

by Anonymousreply 22March 3, 2015 4:01 AM

[quote]DOD told @JasonLeopold Hagel had "no official email account" too in response to #FOIA req.

Ok, that's what I thought. Hillary's no mastermind-- she was just doing what others have done. No biggie.

by Anonymousreply 23March 3, 2015 4:32 AM

Wel, I'd like to say that we all saw the expositions in Dick Cheney's emails, but we can't because those mysteriously disappeared, too.

by Anonymousreply 24March 3, 2015 4:52 AM

Didn't some members of GWB's administration do this too? I seem to remember something with Harriet Miers or some other white house staff doing the same thing Hilary Clinton is accused of

by Anonymousreply 25March 3, 2015 4:53 AM

Her initial statement is going to be nothing but trouble as well - she "complied with the letter and the spirit of the rules?"

by Anonymousreply 26March 3, 2015 5:32 AM

This is the NYT's equivalent of click-baiting. If Schmidt thinks she's violated a law, he didn't mention what specific law she violated.

The law that required state officials to use official email was passed in Nov. 2014, long after she left State.

If it's the archiving requirement, she's already released 55K emails during her time as SOS.

There's nothing there there. Anything relating to HRC or Bill and you have the village idiots coming out with their torch without really any substance behind it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27March 3, 2015 5:53 AM

[quote]There's nothing there there. Anything relating to HRC or Bill and you have the village idiots coming out with their torch without really any substance behind it.

With the NYT playing the part of the village idiots this time around, R27.

by Anonymousreply 28March 3, 2015 5:57 AM

r28 claims HRC violated a law but failed to mention which law it was. Like I said, she's alreased 55K emails from her time as SOS. If it's the Nov. 2014 law, then it didn't apply to when she served.

Why do you mention NYT as if it was ever a Clinton apologist?

by Anonymousreply 29March 3, 2015 6:03 AM

Much ado about nothing it seems the further you read into it.

by Anonymousreply 30March 3, 2015 6:07 AM

this is just freeper fodder. Her personal account is encrypted by the secret service. And, her involvement isn't relevant because the rule didn't apply until after she left the position!

Crackin' Ice, I say look at W's Military records, or Cheny's involvemt in this Bibi debacle.

by Anonymousreply 31March 3, 2015 6:14 AM

r30 that's how I felt, too. I read my feedback and ask, "what is Hillary accused of doing now?" and as the hours past and more information coming out, the NYT article is falling apart.

The reason we don't elect good politicians is because no one cares about the substance of the issues that the candidates support/against. It's all about gotchas and the cult of personality.

As much as I dislike Walker, that gotcha question about evolution was silly. Ask him why he thinks union busting makes him more prepare to face ISIS or why right-to-work will help the middle class.

by Anonymousreply 32March 3, 2015 6:16 AM

While both are conservative, records show Republicans loot the country, giving it to the fat cats and leaves a deficit for the taxpayers to pay for. Democrats come and wipe out the deficit. Then the Republicans raid it again. Happens each time.

by Anonymousreply 33March 3, 2015 6:27 AM

BREAKING NEWS: HILLARY CLINTON LIED and STARTED TWO WARS! OH WAIT THAT WAS GEORGE W. BUSH. Hillary Had A Private E-Mail Account.

by Anonymousreply 34March 3, 2015 6:32 AM

Much ado about nothing.

The contemptible conservatives' fabrication and lies.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35March 3, 2015 6:37 AM

Jeb Bush conducted all communication on private account and turned over hand selected batch to the state when he left office.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36March 3, 2015 6:46 AM

To my dearest OP in all sincerity:

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE YOU DUMBFUCK!

Yours truly, HRC.

by Anonymousreply 37March 3, 2015 6:50 AM

The State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38March 3, 2015 12:27 PM

But that's not what happened with Palin's email. There were a couple of instances when she wrote a personal email to someone on her staff and included a line or two about government business. Here's the press gleefully loading up Palin's emails once they were release after she left office. This is now something that can't be done to Hillary.

Papers like WAPO and the NYT "crowd sourced" the Palin emails. They posted PDF versions of all the emails and encourage the public to read as many as they could and report anything "interesting". When it was found that Palin was an ethical, involved governor they dropped her email story immediately. Again something that wouldn't and now can't be done to Hillary.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39March 3, 2015 12:34 PM

This story has already blown over. How long did that last? 4 hours? Another fake scandal.

NYT? EPIC FAIL

by Anonymousreply 40March 3, 2015 12:37 PM

I cannot WAIT for Hillary Clinton to be President. I CANNOT WAIT!

Those Rethugs will lose their minds, first the Black guy, then HILLARY! Ha!

by Anonymousreply 41March 3, 2015 1:26 PM

Hillary's emails are a media enabled weapon of mass distraction.

GOP loves to throw shit around. F'ing losers.

by Anonymousreply 42March 3, 2015 1:32 PM

OP, there is absolutely nothing unusual about this.

Do you imagine the Secretary of State in front of her computer sending emails all day?

Also, the Clinton Global Initiative is not new. It was around during her last campaign and it has been vetted.

Stop concern trolling.

by Anonymousreply 43March 3, 2015 1:37 PM

I noticed Jeb Bush threw his two cents in - I wonder how he felt about the millions of White House emails that went missing during his brother's presidency?

by Anonymousreply 44March 3, 2015 1:38 PM

R8, you're the "cunt" if you want Jeb Bush to be president

Go away, Republican assholes. This is a gay board

by Anonymousreply 45March 3, 2015 1:50 PM

Fox News will celebrate with this but actually this is a minor issue.

by Anonymousreply 46March 3, 2015 1:52 PM

No laws were apparently broken, as far as we know, and the article completely fails to show hard evidence of irresponsible email transmissions by Clinton. Should she have used a government email account? Probably. But does this warrant what’s surely going to be 20 months of indignation and investigations from both the right — and the anti-Hillary left? No way.

It’s the internet and it’s social media, so facts and reality are irrelevant in the face of mob justice. Along those lines, it’s circulating all around Twitter that Clinton used Gmail. Wrong. Not in the article, just Twitter snark morphing into Twitter fact. Still, I’m constantly amazed at the quaint and uncritical acceptance of every news article as 100 percent accurate, even in the age of clickbait and even among readers who don’t actually read what they’re outraged about

by Anonymousreply 47March 3, 2015 2:07 PM

[quote] This serves to remind people how scandal dogged her and Bill throughout his administration

Oh yeah, I'm going to be persuaded by someone like you who cannot properly speak or write the English language.

by Anonymousreply 48March 3, 2015 2:14 PM

Actually, I hope the Republicans latch on to this hard. Yes, of course we know it's petty and a non-issue - but really, if this is all the canon fodder they have...let them run with it until they are hyperventilating and blue in the face. They will look like complete imbeciles. Yet again.

by Anonymousreply 49March 3, 2015 2:17 PM

So she may have broken a law that has existed since November 2014, two years after she stepped down?

by Anonymousreply 50March 3, 2015 2:44 PM

Who gives a fuck? As the that great philosopher Taylor swift (!) says haters will hate! See you in November'16 Replug bitches!

by Anonymousreply 51March 3, 2015 5:47 PM

r44 and during his time as FL Gov., he also used a private email that he selectively released.

by Anonymousreply 52March 3, 2015 5:53 PM

I don't know a single person, Republican or Democrat, who gives a hoot if Clinton didn't have a government email address.

Hilarious to think some are banking on this to defeat her for President.

by Anonymousreply 53March 3, 2015 6:38 PM

So now, the two most likely contenders, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, BOTH used private email addresses.

Next.

by Anonymousreply 54March 3, 2015 6:39 PM

Curious what the agenda of the NYT writer was if he failed to mention what specific law as violated. If it's the law everyone is talking about, why fail to mention that it was enacted 2 years after she left State? It's noted that John Kerry was the first SOS to use the gov't email. Colin Powell also used a personal email.

by Anonymousreply 55March 3, 2015 6:41 PM

mountain out of a molehill.

next.

by Anonymousreply 56March 3, 2015 6:44 PM

I'm often critical of Clinton, but this is another in a series of complete bullshit masquerading as substance.

And it's not at all the same thing as Palin's email scandal. Palin destroyed emails. No one is accusing Clinton of doing that, and, as has been said, she has already turned over tens of thousands of emails.

by Anonymousreply 57March 3, 2015 6:59 PM

She's our next President rethug fucktards. Eat it.

by Anonymousreply 58March 3, 2015 7:07 PM

Obama gave her the SOS job to get her out of the country.

Hillary conveniently was never in a location where a crisis occurred. When asked what she accomplished as SOS, she stumbled, then gave a two-minute response of double-talk. Her only accomplishments in four years was adding up air miles traveling around the world.

by Anonymousreply 59March 3, 2015 7:13 PM

People like r59 amuse me. How much did you pay attention during HRC's tenure at State? Pretty sure you didn't. Foreign policy experts say that foreign policy was closely held by Obama. She disagreed with him on many, many issues -- including Russia and Syria -- but as his SOS she was the face of the Admin foreign policy.

People forget the turmoil the Bush left abroad. Her job was to mend the relationships strained by 8 years of Bush. She also spoke against the treatment of women in oppressive. People like r59 are know-nothings who repeat the same meme without having read her book or following her time as SOS and what people have written about.

You want to know what she did? Here:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 60March 3, 2015 7:28 PM

Hillary's response to everything she's accused of .. "What difference does it make?"

by Anonymousreply 61March 3, 2015 7:31 PM

Time for Hill to take on her most important role - Grandma. Move in with Chelsea, and her Hebraic husband to become the baby's Nanny. This way she won't have to know about Bill's continued dalliances.

by Anonymousreply 62March 3, 2015 7:34 PM

Ha, Ha!! NY Times had to change their lying headline. She didn't any rules or laws. Now shut up you stupid thing!

by Anonymousreply 63March 3, 2015 7:45 PM

OP, the NYT article has been exposed almost immediately to be almost complete bullshit, and that this isn't even remotely a 'scandal' or indicating any wrong-doing on Hillary's part.

Please stop spreading right-wing propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 64March 3, 2015 7:56 PM

[quote] Hillary's response to everything she's accused of .. "What difference does it make?"

If indeed she said this, then I have this to say:

*

*

*

*

*

*

I totally agree

by Anonymousreply 65March 3, 2015 8:00 PM

[bold]Why You Should Ignore The Latest Fake Hillary Clinton Scandal[/bold]

As if there was any doubt, 2016 presidential politics are here – front and center. The New York Times broke a story last night about Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department and her use of a personal email account.

She did not have an official government email address during her four-year term as secretary of state, and according to the Times her aides made no effort to preserve her emails on department servers, as required by the Federal Records Act.

I can already hear the cries of “Benghazi!”

However, two months ago Clinton advisers turned over 55,000 pages of the former secretary’s personal emails – this is an effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices. Yes, they were reviewed, and not all were turned over.

(more at the link)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 66March 3, 2015 9:09 PM

Hilarious that when everyone pointed out that Hillary didn't break any laws and only did something contrary to a rule implemented 2 years after she was gone from the position, The New York Times had to change its headline.

by Anonymousreply 67March 3, 2015 9:47 PM

There was nothing illegal or scandalous about Clinton using a personal email account *at the time she was using it.* Although such a thing is forbidden now, it was perfectly legal at the time.

Anyone who would otherwise vote for Clinton - or any other Democrat - and changes his vote based on this trumped up "revelation," is a complete idiot. It's like a committed Libertarian voting against Rand Paul because of his ill-fitting hairpiece or an Establishment Republican voting against Romney because he is a Mormon.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons themselves gave this story to the Times to get it out of the way early.

by Anonymousreply 68March 3, 2015 9:56 PM

indeed.

by Anonymousreply 69March 3, 2015 11:27 PM

The media is going to tire us out with all these click-bait scandals...and it's only March!

The NY Times cooked this up to try and force her to announce sooner. They're bored with all the waiting for the candidates...they want the red meat.

by Anonymousreply 70March 3, 2015 11:47 PM

It's the continuation of the kind of specious attacks that the Right flung at Bill & Hillary for 8 years. After all that and $10s of millions or more that the investigations cost, all they found was that Bill Clinton was a hound dog, which we all knew anyway.

The problem lies with the Right insisting on wasting tax dollars on witch hunt after witch hunt. And yes, that includes the Benghazi non-scandal, too.

by Anonymousreply 71March 4, 2015 12:05 AM

I saw Hillary attempting to use an expired coupon at Kroger last week.

by Anonymousreply 72March 4, 2015 12:09 AM

Colin Powell is already speaking out about the fact that HE used personal email when he was SOS.

by Anonymousreply 73March 4, 2015 12:11 AM

Faux scandal. Next, please.

by Anonymousreply 74March 4, 2015 12:14 AM

She ignored it at Emily List celebration speech. Good.

by Anonymousreply 75March 4, 2015 12:27 PM

If she only used her own personal email account, and not her business account, the implication is that she didn't want her correspondence easily tracked by the government. Hence the further implication that her correspondence was of an illegal or borderline illegal nature. Don't laugh or scoff. I knew a guy who used only his personal email account and was prosecuted because his company could not track the lines of communication about certain large transactions.

by Anonymousreply 76March 4, 2015 12:34 PM

I knew it! The Republicans knew about this last summer! Jeb Bush releasing his emails with all that fanfare was some sort of setup for attacking Hillary Clinton!

Only the press care about this crap. But having the press turn on her so soon may hurt Clinton's ability to spin her campaign into a wholesome buzzword like "change" or "hope".

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 77March 4, 2015 12:43 PM

The republicans were very smart to use this line of attack. The mainstream media and liberals HATE lack of TRANSPARENCY. Both groups turned on her instantly. The general public doesn't care but that wasn't their audience anyway. Republicans were/are terrified that Clinton might get the "Obama treatment." Those republicans are so devious. Score 1.

by Anonymousreply 78March 4, 2015 12:52 PM

no

by Anonymousreply 79March 4, 2015 1:12 PM

You must have been living off-planet to not know that the government can get into any personal correspondence that it wants. The retags must be petrified of her if they're trying to drum up a lame, faux scandal like this.

by Anonymousreply 80March 4, 2015 1:31 PM

"Hence the further implication that her correspondence was of an illegal or borderline illegal nature"

Yeah, it's how she hid her human trafficking, heroin manufacturing/distribution and baby-smuggling businesses from prying eyes. Girl was broke!

by Anonymousreply 81March 4, 2015 1:32 PM

manufactured outrage.

classic attack from the right.

by Anonymousreply 82March 4, 2015 1:41 PM

Yup, kkkarl rove is probably behind this non-story. He's really good at hurling his own excrement.

by Anonymousreply 83March 4, 2015 5:19 PM

I love how Colin Powell is not having any of it.

by Anonymousreply 84March 4, 2015 5:24 PM

So does every cabinet member have a private server IN THEIR HOUSE? Or only her highness?

by Anonymousreply 85March 4, 2015 11:04 PM

Would you rather have that ancient scandal ridden throwback to the 90's dyke hag, or this sexy DILF?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86March 4, 2015 11:17 PM

R85 - in all the coverage I haven't heard a single mention that security is an issue.

I can't imagine anyone would argue the Feds can provide more security than the private sector.

by Anonymousreply 87March 4, 2015 11:35 PM

Hillary Clinton is not her own worst enemy.

by Anonymousreply 88March 4, 2015 11:38 PM

[quote] The republicans were very smart to use this line of attack.

Oh, my sides!

by Anonymousreply 89March 4, 2015 11:39 PM

[quote]Yup, kkkarl rove is probably behind this non-story. [bold]He's really good at hurling his own excrement.[/bold]

When he isn't eating it instead.

by Anonymousreply 90March 4, 2015 11:51 PM

Really r85?

How many businesses or other government agencies allow their employees to conduct all their communications off of private servers that can't be controlled by the organization?

Typical Clinton sleaziness. Dems need to find someone else pronto.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 91March 4, 2015 11:57 PM

R91 - did you even bother to read the article in your post?

Here is a quote:

[quote] There’s no evidence, of course, that Clintonemail.com was ever actually compromised. University of Pennsylvania computer science professor Matt Blaze says judging its security versus the State Department’s own email servers would require more information.

Then the article goes on to elaborate on the problems the State Department has had with email security.

Of course there is the obvious point - if anyone had hacked into HRC's email - do you honestly think it would be kept secret?

by Anonymousreply 92March 5, 2015 12:18 AM

Yes I read it and realize there is no evidence of a breach at this point but security is definitely an issue. Lots of articles talk about that potential and you can bet Republicans will ask questions and make hay of the issue. It's very careless.

Again, is it standard procedure for cabinet members to have their own servers under their own control like she did? Does Kerry do this too?

by Anonymousreply 93March 5, 2015 12:51 AM

Fox News Channel are suggesting that the laws Hillary's actions broke [italic]could[/italic] send her to jail for 20 years and disqualify her from running for public office.

by Anonymousreply 94March 5, 2015 1:47 AM

"manufactured outrage.

classic attack from the right."

Even Rachel Madcow is shitting on HRC.

by Anonymousreply 95March 5, 2015 1:51 AM

Rachel is a radical leftist who thinks Bernie Sanders should be the nominee.

by Anonymousreply 96March 5, 2015 2:03 AM

How any gay person can defend the Clintons is beyond me. Hillary's speech on the senate floor, against gay marriage, was one of the most disgusting, pandering events in senate history. She's disgusting. She actually too "umbrage" when it came to gay marriage. Fat old cunt.

by Anonymousreply 97March 5, 2015 2:11 AM

Hilary has evolved on gay marriage which more than I can say for any republican

by Anonymousreply 98March 5, 2015 2:23 AM

Sorry folks.

The New York Timea had to change its article's title three times as it was discovered that:

1) Hillary did exactly what every other Sec of State did before her-- like Condi and Powell. 2) She was never even given a government email acct

3) The rule she broke was created two years AFTER she left the position.

Where's the outrage about Jeb Bush who did exactly the same when he was governor???

by Anonymousreply 99March 5, 2015 2:26 AM

This is the best the GOP can do?

President Hillary.

Get used to it

by Anonymousreply 100March 5, 2015 2:30 AM

She is pathetic and you are too if you are gullible enough to vote for this deceptive sociopath!

by Anonymousreply 101March 5, 2015 2:49 AM

You have to be a anencephalic idiot to think that she isn't hiding something. Just ask the Whitewater partners of the Clintons who ALL went to jail,or the family of Vince Foster ( Hillary's BFF in the White House) who died under very suspicious circumstances. Of course they claimed it was just a suicide. All evidence was "conveniently" destroyed.

by Anonymousreply 102March 5, 2015 3:01 AM

Hillary will be our next President, and the world will know how awesome we are to have her.

Why is it so hard for teabaggers to understand that?

She will be the next best president after Obama....maybe better, but at least as good.

No doubt about it.

by Anonymousreply 103March 5, 2015 3:06 AM

Well, we'll always have Benghazi!!!

by Anonymousreply 104March 5, 2015 3:22 AM

I want some real dirt on Hillary, or just to know what's gone on behind closed doors and what she's done to get ahead. She and Bill are real politicians. They've been in this game far too long, they have very dubious backgrounds and dealings.

That said, Hillary has potential to be a great president. What she isn't is a great campaigner. She's horrible at selling herself and everything she does is so forced. I've also learned from Charlie Rose specials that she has a terrible relationship with the media and thinks every time they criticize her ideas they are attacking her. Bill is so much more effortless at being in front of people and selling his ideas to the public. She is much better face to face and leading experts or panels than selling herself. I just hope she can differentiate herself from Obama. She needs a harder stance on Iran and Ukraine and to definitively call ISIS Islamic extremists, for starters.

by Anonymousreply 105March 5, 2015 3:30 AM

It like the debutante ball of the tinfoil heiresses in here.

by Anonymousreply 106March 5, 2015 3:32 AM

Is Chelsea any help as far as campaigning goes?

by Anonymousreply 107March 5, 2015 3:32 AM

Reply[103] She would horrific as a president! She would add to the demise of America following president Obama's regime.

by Anonymousreply 108March 5, 2015 3:37 AM

[quote]Is Chelsea any help as far as campaigning goes?

not really. The kids never are.

by Anonymousreply 109March 5, 2015 3:54 AM

There is no scandal here. Get over it. lol

by Anonymousreply 110March 5, 2015 4:17 AM

"The actual law for email and federal records changed in 2014 by way of the Federal Records Act, which required government agencies to preserve records—including email—documenting the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions.” What’s more, the fact of its comprehensiveness serves as an incentive for officials to use government email—if you’re in the system, you don’t have to work hard to keep records.

All of this should help Clinton; she didn’t break the law, she had precedent, and at most, she was slow to comply with 2009-era rules about storage and archiving. But it won’t. Not because journalists are all out for the presumptive Democratic nominee, but because even if she didn’t break the letter of the law, she certainly ignored its spirit.

Look at this story again. Clinton didn’t just use a private email account because it was convenient, she specifically registered a new email domain—clintonemail.com—a week before her confirmation hearings. Rules or not, odds are good she wanted to avoid as much transparency as possible, hence her slow move to comply with guidance from five years ago. As one conservative analyst said on Twitter (in somewhat uncharitable terms), “[Clinton] simply valued total and complete control over her image and information with such paranoid fervor that the law was [a] secondary issue.”

The problem is that this doesn’t work. Far from protecting her fortunes, Clinton’s secrecy will harm them. By refusing to share information, even when it’s innocuous, Clinton loses the benefit of the doubt. And instead of stopping scandals, she makes them worse, turning small issues into frenzies of comment and condemnation. If, from 2009 to the end of 2012, Clinton had her eye on the presidency, then she should have been more open with her communications; she should have worked harder to comply with the rules as they stood.

No, the heightened scrutiny isn’t fair: Together, the Clintons have dealt with a lifetime’s worth of bogus scandals. Despite this, the political world is loath to give either a chance before assuming the worst. But deserved or not, those are the breaks.

For as long as she’s a national figure—and especially when she runs for president—Hillary Clinton will get more scrutiny than anyone else in the field. The best response—the only response—is to do better: to be more open and transparent than all of her competitors. From here on, Clinton has to be twice as good, lest she end her career as just another presidential also-ran."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111March 5, 2015 8:43 AM

The ONLY way Hilary Clinton can win the trust and confidence of the American people is to do what no other US leader has done. Honestly tell them that they have been at war with Islam for the past 35 years, that successive America administrations have been playing a double game of supporting and fighting Muslim terror groups for years. That the US has no answer to Muslim terror because it is far too invested in those regimes that sponsor and promote it.

She'd get my vote!

by Anonymousreply 112March 5, 2015 9:03 AM

Leave Hillary alone. Focus your anger and disgust on the lousy work ethic and conservative agenda (ban gay marriage) of Congress.

by Anonymousreply 113March 5, 2015 10:35 AM

hmmm

by Anonymousreply 114March 5, 2015 10:55 AM

Eating all that pussy has made her stupid.

by Anonymousreply 115March 5, 2015 11:02 AM

Here's Hillary, you have to imagine a real butch voice and a dyke attitude:

I am above the law.

by Anonymousreply 116March 5, 2015 11:26 AM

Hillary at the press confernece:

Leave me alone, I'm an old woman, I don't know about how to operate these fancy newfangled gadgets. It took me hours to figure out how to "dial" a phone with buttons on it.

by Anonymousreply 117March 5, 2015 11:37 AM

She is the devil! The devil I say!

by Anonymousreply 118March 5, 2015 3:53 PM

The entire time she was in office there was no email requirement. Not one SOS had ever been under that law because there was no law or requirement. But she had the AUDACITY to be a women and work in Obama's administration - guilty when working with Pres Obama. Don't get me wrong - she's no progressive savior but she sure isn't a nefarious Walker, Paul, Bush, Cheney, Palin, or any of the nutjobs on the GOP roster.

by Anonymousreply 119March 5, 2015 5:47 PM

Hillary. I don't know if I can take 4 or 8 more years of Republican vitriol and stalemating, rifling through garbage cans and nitpicking.

Just let Jebbie win, start WWIII and end the world already.

by Anonymousreply 120March 5, 2015 5:52 PM

Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!

by Anonymousreply 121March 6, 2015 1:34 AM

As much as the Republicans try to claim that since Obama has been in office as long as he has, Bush can no longer be blamed, Americans actually blame Bush for the mess we're in. From the war to the jobs situation. The thing of it is, it's so obvious, even most of the stupids can't avoid knowing this, no matter how the Republicans try. Hillary will win.

by Anonymousreply 122March 6, 2015 1:38 AM

I do not care. I would rather we have no preident than have a republicunt.

by Anonymousreply 123March 6, 2015 1:19 PM

I'm sorry r123. What's a preident?

Psst! Spell check can be your friend! Tell a friend.

by Anonymousreply 124March 7, 2015 8:09 AM

R123 is losing his teeth, R124.

by Anonymousreply 125March 7, 2015 10:08 AM

The Clinton campaign is secretly hoping that Bill will die during the campaign and Hillary will play the grieving widow card all the way to the White House.

by Anonymousreply 126March 7, 2015 10:32 AM

Emails obtained through a federal lawsuit show that two top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

The aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton’s principal gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton's side for decades.

The emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened, Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead.

Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.

The effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video – but that was never updated that night.

"Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch obtained the State Department emails through legal action. "What's notable thus far is we received no emails from or to [Hillary Clinton],” he said. “You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about Benghazi attack."

The emails emerged as Clinton fields criticism over revelations that she used personal email during her tenure as secretary. She is now asking the department to make public thousands of emails she has turned over.

On Friday, the State Department spokeswoman was pushed to explain how they will review the Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and what will be made public.

"We will use FOIA standards for the review," spokeswoman Marie Harf said. "What we determine is appropriate under those FOIA standards will be public."

Harf also was questioned on a State Department unclassified cable, obtained exclusively by Fox News. The cable shows in 2011, Clinton's office told employees not to use personal email for government business, citing security reasons -- while she carried out government business exclusively on private accounts.

"This isn't her best practice guidance,” Harf said. “Her name is at the bottom of the cable, as is practiced for cables coming from Washington … some think she wrote it, which is not accurate."

Nevertheless, cables sent under Clinton's electronic signature carry her authority.

Mills, meanwhile, is a focus of the select congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. During congressional testimony, retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who helped lead the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attacks, confirmed under cross-examination that he personally warned Mills that a witness would be damaging to the department.

Critics say it is more evidence the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, was deeply flawed.

by Anonymousreply 127March 7, 2015 1:51 PM

So bengazi rolled off her back, and no one talks about it now because she out-"foxed" them. And now that media is using this shit about a gmail account? Fuck them. They are dumb twats.

by Anonymousreply 128March 7, 2015 2:11 PM

Her staff fired the Ambassador to Kenya for using personal email. So, one rule for her and another for everyone else?

She's in major trouble. I'm a big Hilary supporter, but this is an incredibly stupid mistake that makes no sense, and I think it mystifies her base, people like me. Obama speaking out about it is also a huge problem.

Why did she do this? There were a million points along the way where this could have been stopped. SHE should have stopped it. The optics are terrible. It's something that the Republicans can glom on to bash her with. Dishonest Clintons strike again. And unlike Whitewater and Benghazi it's something the public can easily understand and parse.

by Anonymousreply 129March 8, 2015 1:29 PM

Anyone remember how Bill Clinton's ratings went up during the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment?

If Hillary enabled Bill, that's a plus.

I can't wait til Walker is nominated and the NYT tells us not to underestimate him, that he's surprisingly sophisticated and canny, while they try to tell us that Hillary is too inexperienced what with having served as Senator from New York and SoS - while Obama had plenty of experience being a one term senator from Illinois, spending most of that term running for President. And IMO he's been pretty damn good, especially his appointments. He's been good for the wimmins.

by Anonymousreply 130March 8, 2015 5:35 PM

Don't the email addresses she sent email TOO have the emails she sent? Especially .gov addresses?

This is such bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 131March 8, 2015 5:36 PM

R129: "It's something that the Republicans can glom on to bash her with." Correct - they glom onto every nothing and bash her with it.

"Dishonest Clintons strike again." Predictable hysterical Rethug witch hunting strikes again. 8 years of bullshit witch hunting doesn't = 8 years of Clinton lying. It's 8 years of bullshit witchhunting - it doesn't transform into something just because the Rethugs keep at it.

"And unlike Whitewater and Benghazi it's something the public can easily understand and parse." Oh, the public "parsed" Whitewater and Benghazi just fine, that's why neither got traction and Clinton's approval ratings rose during Whitewater, and nobody but the Republicans care about Benghazi. People are parsing this email the same way - desperate is desparate.

I love the cry of Benghazi but nobody wants to talk about two useless wars destroying the economy and killing thousands of people.

by Anonymousreply 132March 8, 2015 5:40 PM

[quote]Why did she do this?

Because what's the point of being Sec. of State if you can't use the power of the office to do a little wheeling and dealing on the side? Tax-free foundations don't just stuff themselves with cash, you know.

by Anonymousreply 133March 8, 2015 6:01 PM

Aside from this obvious demonstration of arrogance and corruption, I can't wait for this NeoCon hag to hit the campaign trail and have to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the guest at Chelsea's wedding! Befriending child sex slave traffickers is beyond the pale, even for the uber-scuzzy Clintons.

You can hide, but you can't run, Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 134March 8, 2015 6:17 PM

r129 says he's a big Hillary supporter, but doesn't know how to spell her first name. He then goes on to refer to the Clintons as dishonest. I smell freeper. As for the fired ambassador, it's clear his use of commercial email wasn't the main factor in his firing.

by Anonymousreply 135March 8, 2015 7:30 PM

I just wish Hill were more enthusiastic, but she already know the hell that awaits her

by Anonymousreply 136March 8, 2015 7:55 PM

I had to actually LOL today, watching Lanny Davis being interviewed. I had the sound down and was reading the paper. Looked up once and turned the sound up, only to hear, "Bush White House." Turned it back down. Ignored it for awhile then looked up - it was still going on. Listened again. Yep, "Bush White House," again

As long as it works, which it will. Forever.

by Anonymousreply 137March 8, 2015 8:32 PM

R126. I think they are too, but not for that reason. Having Bill around will POISON Hillary's presidency. Mark my words.

by Anonymousreply 138March 8, 2015 8:35 PM

Why is the administation just noticing, and requesting the emails? Is anyone minding the store in DC? No system of checks and balances? Shameful, just shameful?

And all this coming from the administration that's going to obliterate the ISIS Junior Varsity Team?

by Anonymousreply 139March 8, 2015 8:39 PM

I agree r135. All these tedious threads about HRC are just freeper fodder. Jeb or Scott is going to be the nominee on the right. They already said they can't stand gays. What is the alternative? Not to vote?

These trolls need to get back under the bridge with Coulter, Paul and the rest of the flying monkeys.

by Anonymousreply 140March 8, 2015 11:12 PM

R138, ha ha HA! The Big Dog is still hugely popular and is nothing but a plus.

by Anonymousreply 141March 8, 2015 11:26 PM

And why didn't Obama say something? Surely he received emails from her server and asked someone in his admin why she didn't have a .gov address? This was all just realized now? Please.

And why isn't she saying anything about it? Ugh. She is so clueless sometimes.

by Anonymousreply 142March 9, 2015 11:11 AM

HRC finally addresses the eMail situation and only creates more questions with her remarks. Amazing how her supporters in the media are all shitting on her, almost everyone on MSNBC. Do they really want Liz Warren to run instead?

by Anonymousreply 143March 11, 2015 12:00 PM

It sure will be fun reading about how Hillary can't get elected, all the way up until she's elected.

by Anonymousreply 144March 11, 2015 12:01 PM

Unlike every other person, OP?

What about Colin Powell?

by Anonymousreply 145March 11, 2015 12:03 PM

That press conference was a mess. I just continue to fail to understand why she gives anyone fuel to attack her.

by Anonymousreply 146March 11, 2015 12:05 PM

[quote] Amazing how her supporters in the media are all shitting on her, almost everyone on MSNBC.

Who are her supporters in the media?

by Anonymousreply 147March 14, 2015 3:33 PM

No surprise to see in the NYT today that Jebbie took seven years to release his emails. Where are the demands that he turn over his email server?

They're all hypocrites and obfuscators on this issue.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 148March 14, 2015 3:36 PM

I hate her even more after learning she signed a bill that will not allow radiation testing of teas imported to the US that were produced in the area of the Fukushima Daiishi plant! In order to keep the business going, they mix radiation-soaked tea leaves with cleaner leaves, then bring them here.

They won't test the leaves and Americans - particularly Japanese-Americans who love tea - are being poisoned. Hillary's a fucking psychopath and I'm tired of queens admiring her. Get real.

by Anonymousreply 149March 14, 2015 3:38 PM

R149- You are going to have to provide some more details.

You know considering Hillary Clinton has never held an office which required or allowed her to sign bills.

by Anonymousreply 150March 14, 2015 3:46 PM

"Clinton Foundation Donors Backed Sterilization Of 2-3 Million Kenyan Women":

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 151March 14, 2015 3:47 PM

R150, you have to talk down to R149. I don't think he'll understand your response.

by Anonymousreply 152March 14, 2015 3:50 PM

R150 and ignorant cunt at R152:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 153March 14, 2015 3:52 PM

It just never ends with the Clintons. They act as if they have something to hide all the time. They lie about everything, even when they don't need to lie.

by Anonymousreply 154March 14, 2015 3:53 PM

no, that's your perception because you believe the spin.

by Anonymousreply 155March 14, 2015 4:03 PM

r150, go to the Fukushima thread on this board.

Among the most recent posts, you'll find a link to a New Zealand radio news broadcast--which you can listen to/and or download.

The report includes information about then-SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON assuring the Govt. of Japan that NONE of their foodstuffs set for export to the US (including tea), would be subject to radiation testing, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

At some point you sycophants will have to admit that HRC has given more than sufficient reasons for people to mistrust her--and to refuse to vote for her.

This is an ugly truth that you probably wish would go away. It won't.

Hillary's "inevitability" as nominee, as President in 2016, seems about as likely as it was in 2008.

by Anonymousreply 156March 14, 2015 4:04 PM

Thank you r153--you beat me to it.

by Anonymousreply 157March 14, 2015 4:05 PM

I'm very worried that Hillary may end up in jail. I had such high hopes for her.

by Anonymousreply 158March 14, 2015 4:07 PM

Datalounge is systematically shutting down all the Fukushima threads. They close them out before 600 posts. You will have to search "datalounge + fukushima" on Google.

The fact that the moderator has been instructed to do this is blood chilling.

The same act was done with all five of the Jeffrey Epstein threads.

by Anonymousreply 159March 14, 2015 4:13 PM

Is Hillary the moderator? If the press finds out they ever went on vacation and put Chelsea on top of the car in a carrier she's DONE!

by Anonymousreply 160March 14, 2015 4:20 PM

Note r151's source. It's a wingnut, conspiratorial site. Never heard of it.

If the story is true, give us the context and a cite a credible source.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 161March 14, 2015 4:25 PM

correction: not r151. It's r151's post.

by Anonymousreply 162March 14, 2015 4:26 PM

wakey wakey, R161.

Define credible? Rachel Maddow?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

by Anonymousreply 163March 14, 2015 4:26 PM

r151 source is run by a single person. Basically a blog.

Looks like the loons are out so early in the day.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 164March 14, 2015 4:28 PM

Shift Frequency is a news aggregator run by a woman overseas. Big deal. Read the article or don't read the article. Or keep worshipping a lying, sociopathic traitor who doesn't give a shit about you.

by Anonymousreply 165March 14, 2015 4:32 PM

Well, in Hillary's defense (and I'll gladly cross the party lines to offer it), that fish looked perfectly safe to eat!

by Anonymousreply 166March 14, 2015 4:33 PM

r163 are you admitting defeat? Site another source that isn't some sort of wingnut conspiratorial site no one has ever heard of but desperate assholes such as yourself. Honestly, you sound like a mental patient.

If Rachel's story is wrong, she has countless of mainstream "fact-checkers" and legitimate journalist who will challenge her. On CNN, there's reliable sources; at the Washington Post, there's Erik Wemple, and then there's Polifact.

by Anonymousreply 167March 14, 2015 4:33 PM

r165 so now you're relying on a "news aggregator run by a woman overseas?" Gotcha. Next.

by Anonymousreply 168March 14, 2015 4:35 PM

Rachel Maddow is the daughter of a general! Sleep on, sheep.

by Anonymousreply 169March 14, 2015 4:36 PM

by the way, that same story from r165 is one of those chain letter you get in an email.

r165 you are stupid little person.

by Anonymousreply 170March 14, 2015 4:39 PM

Hillary for prez! Go Hillary, girl! Represent our needs! Get it, Hill! Gay vote for Hillary! She's the best! Goddess!

by Anonymousreply 171March 14, 2015 4:41 PM

r169 as a big fan of Rachel, I have to correct you. Her father was an Air Force Captain who is now an attorney for the East Bay utility where Rachel was raised.

by Anonymousreply 172March 14, 2015 4:42 PM

MAYDAY! MAYDAY! CANKLES IS DOWN!

by Anonymousreply 173March 14, 2015 5:06 PM

R149 claimed she signed a bill. Which as everyone knows just isn't true.

Then all the links go back to one source claiming she signed or made a secret pact with Japan not to test food.

To review no bill as originally stated.

No evidence Hillary signed any pact secret or otherwise with Japan.

If anyone were to actually bother to read the link in R151 posts you would see how crazy it is - and how his post doesn't even accurately represent the article.

by Anonymousreply 174March 14, 2015 9:01 PM

r174, Search:

clinton secretary of state japan fukushima food radiation

You'll find all the information you need.

by Anonymousreply 175March 14, 2015 9:11 PM

R175 - I did. Maybe you should do the same.

One source about a secret pact. No actual copy of the pact.

by Anonymousreply 176March 14, 2015 9:19 PM

More paid trolls courtesy of the RNC

Too much stupid on DL now.

by Anonymousreply 177March 14, 2015 9:25 PM

r176, I did--before I passed on the advice on to you.

You seem fixated on direct evidence of a "secret pact." Why?

Isn't it more effective to ask whether the US ever embargoed food imported from Japan--in the wake of the most catastrophic nuclear accident in history?

Answer: no, the US, whose Secretary of State at the time was Hillary Clinton--DID NOT cease the importation of food from Japan--because the US position is that food imported from Japan is safe, despite Fukushima.

And how did the US (and Japan, by the way) come to that conclusion?

By NOT testing said food for unacceptable levels of radiation.

See how that works? The "official" gives the all clear (and most likely never goes near Japan-sourced food again), while the rest of us muddle along in a state of profound ignorance--until the consequences become too dire--and too obvious--to ignore.

Very presidential, indeed.

We've been down this road before, at Ground Zero: yes, that was my snarky comment above referencing Christine Whitman--and her lies that the air quality in lower Manhattan was "perfectly safe."

Tell that to the First Responders, whose cancer clusters are now well-documented.

by Anonymousreply 178March 14, 2015 9:51 PM

PS: If your following comment was directed at me, no, I'm not a paid shill for the RNC or anyone else.

I'm just interested in getting at the truth--about Clinton, and about Fukushima--especially about Fukushima, given that virtual western news media blackout that continues to surround it.

And for the record, I consider Democrats and Republicans merely different wings of the same buzzard.

Beyond the personalities and propaganda, there is no functional difference between them.

by Anonymousreply 179March 14, 2015 10:04 PM

R178 - You assertion was that the search you suggested would provide evidence of a secret pact signed by HRC when she was Secretary of State.

That is an entirely different assertion from the one you are making now - which is the US refused to test food from Japan knowingly putting the nation at risk. Although you don't state clearly all branches of government at the state and federal level would have to have been involved.

As I have repeatedly pointed out there is no evidence of a secret pact signed by Hillary Clinton. The pact is not in evidence. All stories go back to the same single source. A source who has no evidence.

Perhaps your concern about radiation poisoning from food imported from Japan is legitimate.

The fact you want to blame this on Hillary Clinton supports the conclusion you are a RNC troll.

by Anonymousreply 180March 14, 2015 10:15 PM

No, I did not. You are simply wrong. I never wrote anything of the kind; as I indicated above, it is you who seem fixated on some secret pact.

Lastly, I don't care whether you believe I am not a shill.

But I can offer this: someone in one of the other threads mentioned the book "Game Change," which I'm now reading; it's pretty good stuff, so far.

Early on there is the scene in the Clinton's hotel suite, where, despite the countless polls that showed she was untouchable, the huge media buys, the platinum name-recognition, Bill campaigning, etc., Hillary has just learned that she has been trounced in the 2008 Iowa Caucuses.

Her squadron of experts is mortified (especially about the fact that she lost the women's vote); her husband is pissed (he thinks the Obama camp cheated); Hillary herself is rendered practically speechless, other than concluding, finally, "Maybe they just don't like me."

by Anonymousreply 181March 14, 2015 10:46 PM

R181 - Follow the thread.

The contention from the beginning of this idiotic discussion was HRC signing a secret pact with Japan.

You jumped in and suggested a search - which leads to the same single source without documentation repeated over and over - that HRC signed a secret pact.

In R178 you wrote:

[quote] Answer: no, the US, whose Secretary of State at the time was Hillary Clinton--DID NOT cease the importation of food from Japan--because the US position is that food imported from Japan is safe, despite Fukushima.

Singling out HRC.

You've fabricated a concern and refuse to acknowledge you actually have no evidence to back-up your concern.

That reads like a RNC troll to me.

by Anonymousreply 182March 15, 2015 4:25 AM

The good news r182 is that anyone who is truly interested in this subject will conduct their own search--and realize right away that reading your responses is a complete waste of time.

by Anonymousreply 183March 15, 2015 5:17 AM

R183 - really show us the results of your search that verify HRC signed a secret pact with the Japanese.

Please don't link to one of the few articles quoting the same guy who has no evidence.

Really - do you know what research is?

by Anonymousreply 184March 15, 2015 5:34 AM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 185March 15, 2015 9:49 AM

Also, wingnut R181, even if there were an issue with improperly allowing the import of tainted food, the responsible department is Health and Human Services (who runs the FDA), not State.

by Anonymousreply 186March 15, 2015 10:15 AM

"Wingnut?" Easy with the salty names there, miss.

Why are you getting so upset?

Is it the menopause?

No worries. If Old Pussy fails (again) to put one over intelligent people in 2016, it won't be the end of the world.

She can come back and give it another shot in 2024.

by Anonymousreply 187March 15, 2015 10:01 PM

it's already forgotten.

by Anonymousreply 188March 15, 2015 10:07 PM

At this rate, she will completely crash & burn before next year.

Question is, who could be the Dem nominee in her stead?

She seems to be the only potential candidate out there & the only one being somewhat "groomed" for the Presidency.

And please, no one say Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. We may as well pack up & move to Canada now. That's how little of a shot either of them has at winning.

by Anonymousreply 189March 15, 2015 10:08 PM

You wish, R188. HRC's emails were the topic of discussion on all the news shows.

by Anonymousreply 190March 15, 2015 10:14 PM

Echoing what R190 said.

And the plot is thickening, as it's being reported that the White House (Valerie Jarrett, I believe) itself, is who ratted on Hillary about the email shit.

by Anonymousreply 191March 15, 2015 10:17 PM

[191], that "report" comes from Ed Klein from the NY Post. In other words, not from any reputable sources.

by Anonymousreply 192March 15, 2015 10:19 PM

If it came from the White House, it probably came from Biden's camp.

People don't realize how much he wants a chance at running, and he has a lot of friends, too.

by Anonymousreply 193March 15, 2015 10:23 PM

If Biden runs, I think that will guarantee a Republican win.

He's an old fool who speaks & acts before he thinks, then apologizes for it later. Not a great presidential quality.

Poor judgment & impulsive. He's the McCain of the Democratic party.

by Anonymousreply 194March 15, 2015 10:44 PM

Carville just turned on Hillary. I wonder who is paying him.

by Anonymousreply 195March 15, 2015 10:59 PM

Obama did this to her. He will not let her win.

by Anonymousreply 196March 15, 2015 11:11 PM

Maybe they know something else is going to break and they are just trying to knock her out before it's too deep in the primaries.

by Anonymousreply 197March 15, 2015 11:27 PM

Maybe they leaked the emails to get it out of the way so it's not an issue come election time.

by Anonymousreply 198March 15, 2015 11:36 PM

They're just making her work for it. She can handle it.

The problem is, every time she has to open her mouth to defend herself, a preposterous lie comes gushing out.

That's how she's her own worst enemy. Without morons and amnesiacs, her support would be paltry.

She'll have to plead a chronic case of laryngitis at some point--in order to limit her own ability to fuck herself over.

by Anonymousreply 199March 16, 2015 12:02 AM

And the grand-baby bounce she was hoping for was non-existent.

Does the kid look like Hillary and her Mini-Me?--ì.e., is she ugly?

by Anonymousreply 200March 16, 2015 12:16 AM

I don't follow politics as closely as a lot of people here. I only noticed Hillary's lack of finesse when she talked of being poor.

I was thinking how easy it would be to spin her fortune. All she had to do was say up front how she and Bill earned much of their money by doing actual work like speaking engagement and selling books. THEN point out that they didn't do it by buying U.S. companies then sending American jobs overseas like Romney.

It seemed so obvious to me at the time.

by Anonymousreply 201March 16, 2015 12:30 AM

R201 point out the problem I have with Hillary and Bill Clinton.

The post makes no sense - and is probably picked up from some right-wing website or newsletter.

But we aren't discussing issues we are hearing idiotic opinions like R201 because the Clintons are so fucking shady.

by Anonymousreply 202March 20, 2015 4:56 AM

[quote]. Question is, who could be the Dem nominee in her stead?

Who cares as long as that cow is sent packing and she has to spend the rest of her days knowing she couldn't be president. Add insult to injury, Palin actually got closer than she did.

by Anonymousreply 203March 20, 2015 5:09 AM

R202, it sounds like R201 is trying to be pro-Hillary to me.

by Anonymousreply 204March 20, 2015 5:14 AM

R204 - Not really.

Re-read R201 post and consider the Clinton history.

The redirect is always about what the Clinton's didn't say or do - ignoring what they have done.

The reason why this redirect is so easy is because Bill and Hillary are never clear on what they have done.

by Anonymousreply 205March 23, 2015 4:05 AM

Never seen a thread so full of GOP-paid posters in my life. Never opening up another Hillary thread on DL again, except to gently chide after she wins the election. I have no wish to read reich-wing ageist, misogynist talking points. Spin on, stupid freepers and fake liberals, spin on.

by Anonymousreply 206March 23, 2015 4:23 AM

Soon as she's elected they'll start the impeachment campaign and we'll hear her administration is doomed, doomed, doomed.

Really think it's just one anti-Hillary freak assigned to datalounge, as they have that sort of whack-a-mole approach going on. Or the troll volunteered themselves.

by Anonymousreply 207March 24, 2015 1:29 AM

Who indeed, R5.

by Anonymousreply 208January 17, 2020 3:21 AM

[quote] Soon as she's elected they'll start the impeachment campaign

Oh, the irony.

by Anonymousreply 209January 17, 2020 3:31 AM

This thread has not aged well.

by Anonymousreply 210January 17, 2020 3:32 AM

Good to know I already have the Trumpian shitstain who bumped this thread blocked.

by Anonymousreply 211January 17, 2020 3:56 AM

Refuse to read your fucking thread asshole OP, I simply flew down to this spot just to say FUCK YOURSELF. Ooo! And the thread bumper, you FUCK YOURSELF.

by Anonymousreply 212January 17, 2020 5:05 AM

Why are you bringing up this old thread. Hillary is done. She's terrible at campaining.

by Anonymousreply 213January 17, 2020 6:25 AM

You should ask yourself why this thread is so embarrassing to you, R211.

by Anonymousreply 214January 17, 2020 12:45 PM

Never, r214. At least when Romney lost, the Republicans put out a whole post-mortem report of reasons why and recommendations. They went on to completely ignore it, but at least they tried.

When Hillary lost, all we ever got was this mass hysteria that gets worse and worse, because people like r211 are so determined not to have been proven wrong.

by Anonymousreply 215January 17, 2020 12:54 PM

The Justice Department is corrupt from top to bottom if they let her or Pelosi off the hook for anything..

by Anonymousreply 216January 17, 2020 2:56 PM

The lunatic fringes (both right and left) are still convinced that Hillary wants the 2020 nomination.

by Anonymousreply 217January 17, 2020 10:32 PM

R215 the mass hysteria is because Hillary was supposed to win. That's why all the pundits were left with their mouths hanging open on election night. Whatever plans they had for the country have been put on hold, for now.

by Anonymousreply 218January 17, 2020 10:38 PM

R218 For now. The left never crosses anything off its "to-do" list.

by Anonymousreply 219January 17, 2020 10:51 PM

[QUOTE] aids

OH DEAR!

by Anonymousreply 220January 17, 2020 10:52 PM

[quote] The lunatic fringes (and Datalounge's many, many Hillary Stans) are still convinced that Hillary wants the 2020 nomination.

FIXED

by Anonymousreply 221January 17, 2020 10:53 PM

Hillary needs to get a clear message

by Anonymousreply 222February 20, 2021 10:10 PM

Stop bumping threads, R222. You're a fucking cunt and should be banned for bumping all these old threads. Go get your head kicked in, Republicunt troll.

by Anonymousreply 223February 20, 2021 11:03 PM

R222 I agree

by Anonymousreply 224March 16, 2021 12:17 AM

Omg

by Anonymousreply 225April 13, 2021 2:47 PM

R223 Sorry

by Anonymousreply 226February 11, 2022 9:38 PM

Oh, I actually didn't bump this one. idk who 5835 is.

by Anonymousreply 227February 11, 2022 9:38 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!