All Topics Hillary Clinton MERGED

[karen77]

51 minutes ago, Howl said:

Uh, Kellyanne, I wish you could be more specific about exactly WHAT Drumpf is offering.  As far as I can tell, he's already going totally scorched earth, so maybe he really is going to blow up the planet????? 

IT was satire

[GreyhoundFan]

Well, Hillary and Tim have one more vote. Now to settle down and get some work done before watching the returns this evening.

[AmazonGrace]

We don't have enough graphics in this thread. 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-1?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Famericannewspapersresoundinglyrejectdonaldtrump&%3Ffsrc%3Dscn%2F=tw%2Fdc

[kpmom]

Hopefully this is not old news to anyone here;

The good news is Guam went overwhelmingly for Hillary.

The bad news is Guam does not have any electoral votes (darn it).

The good news is as Guam goes so goes the election (well, at least since 1980 anyway).

[Cartmann99]

19 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I was thinking the same thing. If only it wasn't an 8+ hour drive on a work day...

If you are on social media, you could print out a picture of her tombstone, put your sticker on it, and post it on your account(s).

[JMarie]

Because dogs make everything better:

 

[smittykins]

I voted(for Hillary!)but didn't get a sticker...

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, Cartmann99 said:

If you are on social media, you could print out a picture of her tombstone, put your sticker on it, and post it on your account(s).

Unfortunately, FJ is about as social as I get...

[louisa05]

Voted! Handed in my ballot for the first woman president at 4:19pm. Unexpectedly overwhelmed by that. 

No line in our red town at that time which is actually unusual. I hope that means a lack of enthusiasm to get out and vote for Trump 

[candygirl200413]

God Bless this Nation. I'm just overwhelming sad right now.

[Toothfairy]

So what happens now? No more health insurance? No more abortion, ssi, welfare? Pence as VP makes my skin crawl. 

[candygirl200413]

So I was on twitter and saw this article and I would be lying if I sobbed a tear or two.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-night-clinton-said-what-she-never-expected-to-say-congratulations-donald/2017/04/17/bc640772-2066-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html?utm_term=.034668df4065

It's a summary of a book that the author is writing an opinion piece on but it gave an insight on what happened on that dreaded day.

Quote

Around 7:45 on election night, when Hillary Clinton and her aides still thought they were headed to the White House, troubling news emerged from Florida. Steve Schale, the best vote-counter the Democrats had in the state, told campaign officials they were going to lose the biggest battleground in the country. Yes, Clinton was doing well in some places, but Donald Trump’s numbers in Republican areas were inconceivably big.

“You’re going to come up short,” Schale said, stunning aides in Brooklyn who were, until that moment, comfortably cradled in the security of their own faulty analytics.

The call with Schale marks the beginning of a riveting account of the final, dreadful hours of Clinton’s long pursuit of the presidency, as told by reporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in their insidery new book, “Shattered.”

As fear gave over to dread in the Peninsula Hotel, the Clinton campaign reacted as you might expect: Bill became furious, Hillary turned stoic, and their cocksure aides started to blame one another. It wasn’t long into the night before Bill Clinton called his old pal, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, and told him not to bother coming to New York. There would be no victory to celebrate.

Shortly after 11:00 p.m., after Wisconsin was called by Fox News, Allen and Parnes report that the campaign fielded a series of calls from the White House pushing Hillary Clinton to concede, even though the margins in many states were extraordinarily close. President Barack Obama thought it was over and did not want a messy recount.

First came a call from White House political director David Simas to Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook. “POTUS doesn’t think it’s wise to drag this out,” Simas said.

ADVERTISING

But Clinton was dragging it out.

So then she got a call from POTUS. “You need to concede,” urged Obama, who repeated the message in a follow-up call to Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

At last, Clinton said, “Give me the phone.” And then the first woman who was going to be president got her opponent on the line and said two words she never expected to say: “Congratulations, Donald.”

Moments later, Obama was back on the phone, this time making a consolation call. “Mr. President,” Clinton said softly. “I’m sorry.”

The dire scene in the Peninsula unearths a bit of history that was mostly left unreported in the madness that followed that night, as the country and the world focused almost entirely on the emerging reality of Trump’s victory. Thanks to Allen and Parnes, we now know how Clinton reacted, at the moment she was supposed to become the first female president. And we know how the Clintons responded, at the moment when the country told them: No more.

But as revealing as those moments are, they inexplicably come in the book’s final pages and largely stand apart from the rest, which is mostly a dutiful recitation of every to and fro of the so-very-long, joyless, ugh-filled Clinton campaign. Who wants to relive the Democratic primary debates? Or read 20 pages each about the Iowa caucuses (she won, barely) and the New Hampshire primary (she lost, bigly)?

“Shattered” is essentially a sequel to “HRC,” a 2014 book by Allen and Parnes that chronicled Clinton’s time at the State Department. It’s also the first offering of what will surely be many books about what really happened inside the 2016 campaigns. Going first has its advantages — perhaps in sales and attention — but in this case the quick-fire version proves too limiting.

Does it really matter who was pissy at whom in Brooklyn when we still don’t know what role the Russians played in the election or why FBI Director James Comey publicly announced a reopening of the email investigation in late October? Those questions are largely left unexplored here, other than as targets of Clinton’s post-election ire.

Staying inside Clinton’s inner circle also keeps the story oddly away from Trump, who is absent from much of the book even though he was the dominant force throughout the election. By contrast, Clinton’s primary fight against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont consumes much of the first half of the book. The authors provide plenty of details, but their takeaway is familiar: Sanders was unexpectedly popular; Clinton could never quite figure him out but nonetheless managed to outlast him.

As we dive into the Clinton apparatus in Brooklyn, we discover a somewhat different picture of Mook, who was largely portrayed as an affable, modern-age data whiz during the campaign. In “Shattered,” he is depicted as a “professional political assassin” who pushes aside anyone who threatens his control-freak grip on power. He fights with Podesta. There’s tension with chief strategist Joel Benenson (who appears to have been almost completely sidelined months before Election Day). Mook has little regard for communications director Jennifer Palmieri. He thinks the old-style politics of Bill Clinton are relics of a bygone time.

Some of the criticism of Mook rings true — his celebrated voter modeling, for instance, turned out to be catastrophically off — but his portrait also carries the stench of bitter co-workers conveniently tossing after-the-fact blame his way.

“Shattered” leaves open the question of how Clinton lost. She and her campaign are convinced that Comey was the pivotal factor — and there is evidence to support that view. But the Comey episode doesn’t address why the race in the reliably blue Rust Belt was so close to begin with or what Clinton could have done to alter it.

Much of the post-election analysis has criticized Clinton and her campaign for focusing on “reach” states such as North Carolina instead of putting more resources in the upper Midwest. That view is both echoed and called into question in “Shattered,” which depicts a vexing Goldilocks-style problem for Clinton across the region.

In Wisconsin, she didn’t show up enough. In Michigan, local organizers thought it was best that she stayed away. In Pennsylvania, she campaigned as aggressively as anywhere in the nation. In all three, she lost by less than 1 percent of the vote. So what should she have done?

The answer often comes back to Mook’s model, which, we are reminded again and again, was wrong. But let’s say he had the right model — would Clinton have had a winning strategy, or would she have known she was going to lose? We’re never told.

 

What we do know is that Clinton based her entire campaign on the notion that Trump was socially unacceptable and dangerously unqualified. We also know that that strategy proved to be insufficient, but we gain little insight into how it came to be or whether any alternative was discussed. Also left uninvestigated is the extent to which Clinton’s “deplorable” remark, which became a rallying cry for her opponents, hurt her among white working-class voters.

The world does not often clamor for a book about the losing presidential candidate, though Clinton may be the exception, given her celebrity and all the weighty questions for Democrats that still shroud her devastating loss. Those who have been fascinated with Hillary Clinton for the past quarter-century may want to add “Shattered” to their libraries. But those looking for some of those answers will want to look elsewhere.

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

So GOP was tweeting snarkily suggesting that HRC has no healthcare plan: 

(do you think they know she isn't President?) 

Anyway she responded

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by AmazonGrace

[candygirl200413]

I like to live in my alternative world where I'd be enjoying life without nightmares or wanting to cry for the state of our nation because she's president.

[Childless]

20 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

So GOP was tweeting snarkily suggesting that HRC has no healthcare plan: 

(do you think they know she isn't President?) 

Anyway she responded

 

Ha!  HRC rocks.  Imagine.  We could have had a classy, intelligent president with a plan instead of being stuck with a sophomoric imbecile who can't find a big ass black limo parked in front of his face.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh, FFS: "Judge orders new searches for Clinton Benghazi emails"

Spoiler

Nine months after the presidential election was decided, a federal judge is ordering the State Department to try again to find emails Hillary Clinton wrote about the Benghazi attack.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the State Department had not done enough to try to track down messages Clinton may have sent about the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound on Sept. 11, 2012 — an attack that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

In response to Freedom of Information Act requests, State searched the roughly 30,000 messages Clinton turned over to her former agency at its request in December 2014 after officials searching for Benghazi-related records realized she had used a personal email account during her four-year tenure as secretary.

State later searched tens of thousands of emails handed over to the agency by three former top aides to Clinton: Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan. Finally, State searched a collection of emails the FBI assembled when it was investigating Clinton's use of the private account and server.

In all, State found 348 Benghazi-related messages or documents that were sent to or from Clinton in a period of nearly five months after the attack.

However, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch argued that the search wasn't good enough because State never tried to search its own systems for relevant messages in the official email accounts of Clinton's top aides.

In a 10-page ruling issued Tuesday, Mehta — an Obama appointee — agreed.

"To date, State has searched only data compilations originating from outside sources — Secretary Clinton, her former aides, and the FBI. ... It has not, however, searched 8 the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov e-mail server," Mehta wrote.

"If Secretary Clinton sent an e-mail about Benghazi to Abedin, Mills, or Sullivan at his or her state.gov e-mail address, or if one of them sent an e-mail to Secretary Clinton using his or her state.gov account, then State’s server presumably would have captured and stored such an e-mail. Therefore, State has an obligation to search its own server for responsive records."

Justice Department lawyers representing State argued that making them search other employees' accounts for Clinton's emails would set a bad precedent that would belabor other FOIA searches.

But Mehta said the circumstances surrounding Clinton's email represented "a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future."

A central premise of Mehta's ruling is that the State Department's servers archived emails from Clinton's top aides. However, it's not clear that happened regularly or reliably.

State Department officials have said there was no routine, automated archiving of official email during Clinton's tenure. Some officials did copy their mailboxes from time to time and put archived message folders on desktop computers or servers, so State may still have some messages from the aides, but the FBI may already have acquired some of those messages during its inquiry.

A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the judge's decision. A Justice Department spokesman said: "We are reviewing the judge's opinion and order."

SMDH

[candygirl200413]

Because instead of spending 7 million dollars of tax payers money, we need to double that price to distract people from orange fuckface!

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492 About the Clinton Cash book, and the strange reluctance of NYT and Wapo to report its errors

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus! They are never going to let this rest, ever. No matter how many times they look and find nothing, the GOP will remain fixated on it. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money, but it serves to deflect from the presidunce and discredits the FBI at the same time, so yeah, let's do the "Butter-emaaaailz" thing again.

House Judiciary Chair expected to issue DOJ subpoena over Clinton emails as soon as this week

Quote

The head of the House Judiciary Committee is expected to subpoena the Department of Justice (DOJ) as soon as this week to obtain documents related to how the FBI handled its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, The Hill has learned.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) have been leading a joint probe into what the two lawmakers say may be evidence of political bias in the highest levels at the Justice Department.

While one source with direct knowledge of the matter cautioned that the exact timeline was still murky, multiple sources told The Hill that they expect the summons to go out Wednesday or Thursday.

The chairman on Monday notified the ranking Democrat, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), that a subpoena is forthcoming, a spokesperson separately confirmed.

Under Judiciary committee rules, the chairman must consult the ranking member two business days “before issuing any subpoena” — suggesting that the move is imminent.

Republicans have become increasingly frustrated over the past couple months at what they say is the lagging pace in which the DOJ has turned over documents from the inspector general’s concurrent probe into the 2016 presidential election. GOP lawmakers say they’ve received only a small fraction of the records they want to obtain — approximately 3,000 out of 1.2 million documents.

Goodlatte has been under tremendous pressure from conservatives in his own committee to pick up the pace of the investigation. On Sunday, he threatened to subpoena the law enforcement agency “soon” if it did not turn over the documents the committee is seeking.

“We need to have those documents,” Goodlatte told host Maria Bartiromo on Fox News's “Sunday Morning Futures.”

“We've had communications with the Department of Justice about this and they know that not just myself and Chairman Gowdy, but many other members of the House are very concerned about the slow nature of those documents being produced. And as I say, actions are going to have to take a new level here very soon,” he said.

It remains unclear which officials the subpoena will target. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

Lawmakers have privately buzzed since last week that the chairman was preparing a subpoena, suggesting they have no other choice but to issue a summons for the records that they say they want to review before interviewing additional witnesses.

“I would hope that we wouldn’t have to compel them to comply, but more and more evidence would suggest that compelling them to deliver documents may be our only recourse,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told The Hill.

“He’s a cautious guy, so to get to this point ought to tell you something,” Gowdy said Tuesday, referring to Goodlatte.

A spokesperson for the chairman declined to comment on the timeline.

“No news yet,” Goodlatte said Tuesday, before heading into the House chamber.

Since launching the investigation in late October, the committee has interviewed two FBI officials as part of the probe.

Gowdy insisted Monday that the subpoena decision was up to Goodlatte, saying that he has allowed the veteran lawmaker to take the lead.

“In my judgment, he’s the chairman of the Judiciary. He has primary jurisdiction. I’ll let him take the lead. I mean, I support them 1000 percent, but they shouldn’t need to hear from both of us,” he told The Hill.

Democrats have dismissed the joint investigation as nothing more than political theater, accusing their Republican colleagues of seeking to distract from or undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia's election meddling and President Trump's campaign.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has separately been examining the FBI and DOJ’s actions in the Clinton probe since January 2017. While Horowitz has floated March or April for his report's release date, it's unclear whether he's committed to that timeline.

But GOP lawmakers are chomping at the bit to learn more about what Horowitz has uncovered regarding the private text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who disparaged then-candidate Donald Trump and other political figures during the 2016 presidential election.

The messages have become a flash point for Republicans because Strzok and Page were involved in two high-profile probes: the Clinton email investigation and the beginnings of Mueller’s Russia probe.

Strzok served as the No. 2 in the Clinton investigation, and his reported role in drafting the Clinton exoneration letter ignited an explosion of GOP scrutiny.

Both FBI officials served on Mueller’s team before an internal investigation uncovered their text messages, leading to their prompt removal from the high-profile probe that is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin, as well as other potential crimes.

But their involvement in the federal investigation sparked a new wave of Republican attacks, with GOP lawmakers accusing Mueller — who is a Republican — of assembling a team of Democrats with connections to Clinton.

Republicans have also seized on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's role in the Clinton investigation. 

Horowitz found the former top FBI official was not forthcoming about his contacts with the media and made inappropriate disclosures to the press, reportedly about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe on Friday night, just two days before his scheduled retirement, under the advisement of an internal FBI office that handles disciplinary matters.

McCabe has strongly maintained he did nothing wrong.

McCabe has long been a GOP target, partly because of his wife’s ties to Clinton allies as well as his relationship with former FBI Director James Comey.

Trump on Twitter celebrated McCabe's firing, calling it "a great day” for officials who work at the FBI.

Earlier this month, Goodlatte and Gowdy called for a second special counsel to investigate the bureau’s handling of the Clinton probe. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has publicly pushed back on those demands.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Sweet Rufus! They are never going to let this rest, ever. No matter how many times they look and find nothing, the GOP will remain fixated on it. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money, but it serves to deflect from the presidunce and discredits the FBI at the same time, so yeah, let's do the "Butter-emaaaailz" thing again.

Both Goodlatte and Gowdy are not running again. I guess they need to waste more taxpayer money before they go. Distracting from the real issue -- Agent Orange's multitude of sins -- is only a bonus in their view.

[candygirl200413]

Some people were saying Gowdy was turning a new leaf, nah he's still the same POS that will forever keep wasting tax payer money for an issue exhausted to death.

[AmazonGrace]

Don't tell Trump but Hillary is literate 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[Cartmann99]

I just finished reading a couple of pages of this thread from before the 2016 election.