Politics Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen

I noticed them, including the one who claims not to be a lesbian. Anyway, what about them?

barfo

 

Hiliar cackles with glee about getting a child rapist off scott free.

 

They have good signs, too.

 

Libertarians oppose this kind of thing. And Democracy Now calls the democratic front runner a liar.

 

Hand grenade or nuke?

 

Meanwhile, Trump held a rally today.

 

Someone completely unqualified, or someone you have an irrational and possibly misogynistic hatred for?

barfo

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/05/u...ore-of-travel-office-case.html?pagewanted=all

Memo Places Hillary Clinton At Core of Travel Office Case

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/23/news/mn-44043

Travelgate Inquiry Suggests Signs of Lies by First Lady

WASHINGTON — There is "substantial evidence" that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that she played a role in the 1993 White House travel office firings, independent counsel Robert W. Ray reported Thursday.

But Ray, summing up his findings in the so-called Travelgate scandal for a panel of appeals court judges, said that he will not seek to indict Mrs. Clinton because he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of her testimony was false.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/25/inspector-general-report-makes-clear-tha

What the report makes clear, then, is that contrary to what her campaign says, her email practices were both risky and not allowed by State Department guidelines. Indeed, Clinton appears to have made no significant attempt to hold the sort of conversations that might have led to compliance with those guidelines, and she resisted efforts to move any part of her communications into the official system.

Overall, the report comes across as sharply critical of Clinton. It makes clear that she refused to play by the rules while acting as Secretary of State—ignoring them as a point of personal privilege, and creating both security vulnerabilities and transparency and accountability problems in the process.

And then, while running for president, she falsely insisted that she’d done all that was required of her. So she didn’t just break the rules; she refused to admit that she had done so, and pretended that she’d gone the extra mile to ensure compliance.

That’s a troubling story to hear about any former public servant—and it's even more worrying when that person is seeking even more power and authority.

(Her web site still is full of lies. The lies have been updated though, as previous ones proven to be lies:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Pants on fire. Obstruction of justice.)

 

One as qualified as the current president, the other shouldn't be qualified because of numerous crimes.

Misogyny? You're kidding. Let's hear another comment about Palin.

 

For someone who did the 'community organizer' schtick last time, I think you are on thin ice here.

Trump has literally zero qualifications to be president. Obama, at least, was a US senator for a brief time and a constitutional law professor. Those are actual qualifications.

Trump is a huckster and a real estate developer. Those are not qualifications for president. No one has ever considered those qualifications for the job.

Alleged crimes, which the Republicans have spent years and millions of your tax dollars investigating and as of yet, have proven... zero crimes.

Ok. Sarah Palin would be an excellent choice for Donald Trump's VP. Happy now?

barfo

 

Alleged crimes.



Those are actual qualifications.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/clinton-sanders-california-poll.html?_r=0

California Up for Grabs, Poll Finds, as Clinton and Sanders Battle

 

The Washington Post alleges "Clinton's inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...89e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

On March 11, 2011, an assistant secretary sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Ms. Clinton, noting a “dramatic increase” in attempts to compromise personal email accounts of senior department officials, possibly for spying or blackmail. That didn’t stop Ms. Clinton either. There were also numerous notifications that some emails (but not all) are considered federal records under the law and that she should print and file those in her office and, before leaving office, surrender all emails dealing with department business. She did so only about two years later, in December 2014.

Starting in 2009, there was a new, electronic system, known as SMART, to properly archive department emails without having to print and file them, but Ms. Clinton opted not to use it, out of concern that there was “overly broad access to sensitive materials.” According to the report, after a staff member “raised concerns” with another official about Ms. Clinton’s personal email server, the staff was instructed “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

...there is no excuse for the way Ms. Clinton breezed through all the warnings and notifications...

 

The New York Times has kind words for Hiliar:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/u...on-emails-campaign-trust.html?ref=todayspaper

It is not just that the inspector general found fault with her email practices. The report speaks directly to a wounding perception that Mrs. Clinton is not forthright or transparent.

After months of Mrs. Clinton’s saying she used a private email for convenience, and that she was willing to cooperate fully with investigations into her handling of official business at the State Department, the report, delivered to Congress on Wednesday, undermined both claims.

Mrs. Clinton, through her lawyers, declined to be interviewed by the inspector general as part of the review. And when staff members raised concerns about the wisdom of her using a nongovernment email address, they were hushed by State Department officials, who instructed them “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”

...

“Crooked Hillary, crooked Hillary, she’s as crooked as they come,’’ Mr. Trump said at a rally in Anaheim, Calif.

His attacks came as Mrs. Clinton tried to break through with her own criticism that Mr. Trump had profited from the 2008 housing crisis.

But the Clinton campaign’s new effort to define Mr. Trump as a con man who rips off the little guy for his own gain will be met with the trickle of new developments related to Mrs. Clinton’s private email. The F.B.I. is separately investigating whether Mrs. Clinton and her aides exposed sensitive national security information in their email correspondence. She has already turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department.