The Weapons of Mass Destruction and the FBI investigation

[nadinbrzezinski]

Back in 2003, some people from that era are still here, we had the increasing clarity that the country went to war on false pretenses. I remember Republicans back then. A few were embarrassed. Yes, that did happen. A few I personally know left the Republican Party. But then there was this core. They were resistant to facts. It did not matter even after the President all but admitted the fraud (and war crime) when he joked about it three years later. Incidentally, we expected Pelosi to put impeachment on the table, that is one of the things they ran on.

If you understand war crime law, there is a reason why Dems shied from it (cowards) and it is because under International law every member of Congress and the Senate who voted for it could be held accountable. So could the Joint Chiefs, and fleet and army officers of high rank, and some lower ranks that followed those orders. Incidentally, they proved what the Germans have always believed, Nuremberg was victor's justice.

But I digress, a core number of Republicans still believe the media lied and they did find WMDs. They rely on the 20 year old crap that would irritate the living day lights out of your skin if you were close to it. We knew where it was, because the UN noted that on maps.

Fast forwards to today. Like 2003 there were people who a year ago knew this email issue was serious. Some of us did more than just due diligence. We downloaded emails and started reading. I knew it was a scandal when one of the early one who were later classified had the name of a foreign leader with a message to the President. I know from my training as a historian, that this message would not normally be seen in any archive before at least 10, likely 25 years have passed. But I went further. I asked somebody who held a clearance...he was blunt, in the business this is what is known as born classified. It does not matter how they are marked or not marked. They are classified the moment they are typed

It turns out the Reuters experts told the exact same thing to Reuters editors about about a series of 22 early emails. This is back 9 months ago. I was willing to go sure, Right Wing conspiracy. But no. As more and more information comes out, and this must be human nature, the denial from core supporters becomes far more strident.

You know why I developed a contempt for core Republicans? My husband was on the lines, and they were willing to accuse me of fantasy thinking, just like you are, and being un-American. Ok, I am developing the same kind of contempt and I expect this scandal to continue to roll on, and you to become even more allergic to facts. And in this allergy, your party will hand over the Country to a madman. Don't Sanders me, he has yet to touch this. But now I consider both deep partisans to be exactly that: Beyond contempt.

And yes, I am angry, ok, pissed off. Because you are risking, by defending the indefensible, nothing short than your future. I know that when Trump is elected, yes, I used the when, because the scandal will continue and she is beyond wounded and many millions will stay home, I might have to find out where to request asylum. You think I am kidding. I am sure. Oh and like Republicans who blame the liberal traitorous left for not supporting the Iraq war, you will also blame the liberal traitorous left. Well guess what? Republicans are guilty of blind loyalty, but so are you.

Oh and finally, the Democratic Party is now a neoliberal right wing party. So don't try the but they...with me. It will get zero play.

Enjoy the scandal

[LexVegas]

1. I don't think it's a big deal exactly because you think it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It is not me you have to worry about

But I can say I am not blinded by that H you have by your handle.

[Jitter65]

134. What you have to worry about is Dems trying to be purists. GOP doesn't do that. They stick

together no matter what. That is why they can maintain the Congress and good chances for the Presidency. They are pragmatic. Sure, they are scoundrels and even evil but they hang in there together...they don't pretend their candidates are or even should be perfect. They just want them to win...and win they do just look at the governors and the Sheriffs and the judges and the police chiefs and the state legislatures.

Wailing for the "perfect" instead of working for the good is a loser.

Like Trump said, he could go out and shoot someone and still be elected.

If the e-mail issue were a GOP problem they would be out in the streets challenging the DOJ, the courts, and Judicial Watch (which actually wouldn't have filed suit had it been a GOP issue). They would be lining up people to take the fall and daring anyone to stand in their way.

But we Democrats. We are better than they are. We are just proud moral losers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. Actually you are wrong about JW, they did during the Bush the lesser reigh

You might not remember this, as a good partisan I don't expect you to. But the maps from the Iraq War fields, that Cheney produced... who do you think got them?

They are willing to do that, in my mind, to anybody in power. Whether you love them or hate them, they are the kinds of burs in the saddle that keep things interesting. So if we have a Trump presidency. I expect them to sue sooner or later. That's what they do.

Of course if I linked to that you could have a problem since it is JW after all. But I will anyway. It is in their press room and everything... nor that I expect you to go there, and be proven wrong, but this is for the rest of the class.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/cheney-energy-task-force-documents-feature-map-of-iraqi-oilfields/

[sufrommich]

3. +1000. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It is not me who you have to worry about

But you are acting the same way as Republicans in 2003. The OIG is just the beginning

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. "Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it is."

..................


"I'm not gonna discuss this story about a third rate burglary''

[treestar]

146. lol

[Number23]

154. Good LORD you nailed that.

[democrank]

5. I`m absolutely certain that

if any Republican at the top of their party`s food chain was being investigated by the FBI for the same exact reason Hillary is, her supporters would be having a field day with it.

Back in the George W. Bush era, many DUers constantly hammered Republicans who didn`t think for themselves but instead obeyed establishment proclamations and walked their party line.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Yup

It is that situational ethics

[Yurovsky]

22. I expect Republicans to break the law and get away with it...

or at least think they'll get away with it. They're by definition elitist.

But I expect more from Democrats. Maybe that's not fair, but if we want the nation to hand the levers of power over to our party every election cycle, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

If she broke the law, she needs to speak to the FBI. If she didn't break the law, she needs to speak to the FBI. Politicians are judged by the court of public opinion, regardless of whether they've been convicted of anything. Right now, Hillary is either (1) needlessly making it worse for herself or (2) guilty as hell and knows speaking with the FBI will only hasten her demise.

[mindwalker_i]

37. Yes, that is what would happen

Hill supporters would crow about "teh rulez" if it were a republican, just like republicans crow about "teh rules" when it suits them. However, both groups ignore teh rulez when it doesn't support the position they have and want to keep. That blows all their arguments away. Worse, when those same arguments are applied, by anyone, in real cases, people roll their eyes and ignore it. Applying principles selectively damages our collective ability to analyze and respond to problems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. And that is the crux

There is also an element of deep entitlement that people can see on the other side, but not their own.

[mindwalker_i]

109. I see it more as people twisting their minds to support who they've decided to support

all along. I can kind of see it in myself and in Sanders supporters, but I definitely see it in Hillary supporters. We notice the things that are different from us more, just because there's a contrast between their positions and our own minds. I'm not sure whether it's entitlement, but perhaps so.

What's really interesting is that by nominating Hillary, Trump will be president. There's data to back that up, plus it's painfully obvious just how much serious material there is for Hillary. Then there's the whole anti-establishment sentiment. Yet even though Hillary supporters try to scare us with the threat of Trump, they avoid the most obvious conclusion like the plague - nominate the one who has a far better chance of beating Trump. That clearly shows that they don't actually care about Trump other than as a bludgeon to use on non-Hillary supporters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Slightly disagree

(And for the record the last time I fell in love was 2008)

Trump is a threat. They know it. It is a grave threat. So when they bludgeon supporters of the other side. It could be Warren, it could be the man on the moon, they mean it.

They see their candidate as, excuse the pun, pure as fallen snow. And here is where we jump into bizarro human psychology. The story line has been built in their mind, just like Nixon, best parallel, that the world is against her.

If by whatever miracle or maneuvering Sanders wins the nomination, a large group will stay home. Never mind that a large group will stay home regardless. So one of the balancing acts for those in charge, is how to prevent Trump from winning.

The other reality is that most voters are not following any of this shit. Yet they are already rejecting her in larger numbers than Trump she is already been treated as the nominee.

I guess I can see this because I can perfectly see how the DNC will solve this with a dark horse at the convention, and frankly, I don't care if they do that

[mindwalker_i]

113. Could be

That dark horse thing would piss a lot of people off.

[840high]

91. Yes.

[Doctor_J]

158. But, let's face it, our presumptive nominee is a de facto republican in many ways

So it makes sense that her supporters will excuse and even embrace the grotesque things that republicans do, on the policy side and wrt ethics. We've seen for months now the cheers for dark money and voter suppression. Should she get elected president, du will be marked by vocal support for more war (that's already started), social security cuts, replacement of public schools with private schools, and so on.

A much different party and web site than in 2003.

[Scuba]

160. ^^ This ^^

[NCTraveler]

6. "If HRC gets indicted that will be fun to watch." Nadine.

"The site(DU) was set to prepare for her eventual run" Nadine

You have to be kidding. You are like a bull in a China shop bullying people and attempting to assert your superiority over them. That is highlighted in your "zero play" ending.

It's clear that you are angry and pissed off. It's because you aren't getting your "fun" indictment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. And I stand by it

Unlike most of you. The reaction here will be a joke on you guys.

My ethics are far from situational

But as I said above, it is not me who you got to worry about.

And you are acting like tje other side did. Some of those idiots said tje same about me not getting that fun, because tne WMDs were going to be found...they never were. I was not blinded

[NCTraveler]

19. "The reaction here will be a joke on you guys. "

You have amazing crystal balls.

"My ethics are far from situational"

I really just proved that wrong. Your ethics change completely dependent on your perceived audience. Very strange indeed.

"But as I said above, it is not me who you got to worry about. "

I have never been worried about you. That's more of your superiority that I mentioned about.

"And you are acting like tje other side did. Some of those idiots said tje same about me not getting that fun, because tne WMDs were going to be found...they never were. I was not blinded "

Editor? Beyond that what "other side" are you talking about? You are all over the place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. I am not the one screaming from the rafters nothing burger

Like in 2003 I was not insisting that WMDs would be found. Those were a different set of partisans

Sorry, I have seen this scandal rolling in for 10 months. Some of us tried to warn you. For the record, too well connected. I expect a pardon carrot to be dangled...less politically damaged, and my goodness, she does know where a lot of the bodies are buried. Also this kind of a trial is very hard to do, and she'd be nuts to accept a bench trial.

[NCTraveler]

55. "I am not the one screaming from the rafters nothing burger"

One of the funniest lines I have ever read here. Says a lot. I appreciate the smile.

"Some of us tried to warn you"

How gracious and superior of you. I have no warning for you. lol

"I expect a pardon carrot to be dangled...less politically damaged, and my goodness, she does know where a lot of the bodies are buried."

Just when I thought it couldn't get any better. Well done again.

"Also this kind of a trial is very hard to do, and she'd be nuts to accept a bench trial. "

What fucking trial? I can't make this shit up. Well, you are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Continue to laugh.

You do remember that third rate burglary. People like you, a few, they are dying off, still continue to claim it was the Lib'ral press. Amazing how we have come full circle.


I expect nothing but denial that there might be a problem, even a minor one, from blind partisans

[NCTraveler]

71. Now you are flat out lying.

"People like you, a few, they are dying off, still continue to claim it was the Lib'ral press."

Where have you ever seen me claim anything was the "Lib'ral press"? You haven't.

And who are people like me who are "dying off"? That seems like a very ignorant statement that truly means everything and nothing at the same time.

"Amazing how we have come full circle." Full circle from what? Another meaningless cliché.

I have been polite up until now but you have decided to go from deception and dishonesty about the issues, to directly lying about me with your foolish "Lib'ral press" comment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Problems reading? Third rate burglary = watergate

Lib'ral press was the excuse used by hard core Republicans...leading to the formation of fox. Unsaid in that post. People like you blame the VRWC for her troubles We have indeed come full circle. You continue to be a blind partisan, like Nixon fans were, or Bushbots. It is the same dynamic at play.

Good partisan. Now I think you are hard trying to get a hide so have a good or bad, could not care less, ones and zeroes after all, day.

[NCTraveler]

75. "People like you, a few, they are dying off, still continue to claim it was the Lib'ral press"

There it is.

Maybe the confusion is in your writing.

On top of that, there is no connection to Watergate. The attempt to make one is nothing short of extreme desperation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. The connection to watergate

And Iran contra, and the Iraq War, is how hyper partisans react and get into the denial bunkers. Some never leave them. You are telling me that young people, worst middle age, during watergate, who are going to their graves believing this was the liberal press persecuting the President, who mind you in their minds did nothing, are not dying off? I want to know where they found ever lasting life.

I know, I know, they are Republicans therefore evil, and likely vampires



I get it, why this is hard to understand for you by the way.

[NCTraveler]

81. I appreciate your understanding and compassion.

How does this keep getting better?

[ieoeja]

118. I understood it perfectly the first time I read it.

"People like you" = blind partisans. In 1973 that would have been partisan Republicans. In 2016 she is referring to partisan Democrats. But they are "like" in their allowing partisanship to blind them.

I did not find her post in the least bit confusing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. I get it why that poster did though

[Maru Kitteh]

51. I don't know about you but I get a big 'ol belly laugh every time I see how much

this person who asserts that they "don't care" and doesn't have a favorite - flails madly but always somehow in one particular direction.

I've known people like this, the ones convinced somehow that they are actually smarter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Like 2003 and WMDs yes I am not blinded

[NCTraveler]

56. "don't care" "aren't bothered" "no need to respond to me" "I warned you"

It just keeps coming.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Don't worry about me

In fact put me on ignore. Try that trick with tje FBI

[NCTraveler]

62. I have zero intentions of putting you on igore.

That isn't for you to decide. Once again, it goes to your feelings of superiority. You have repeatedly attempted to bully me into doing things on this board. Things that I don't want to do and won't. I don't back down from bullies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Good I know I don't decide

I don't put people on ignore either. But I do not ignore inconvenient facts either

[Maru Kitteh]

63. lol - it is very amusing - but . . .

You really wanna see fumes and smoke? Try responding about someone like that, but not to them. They run around in little circles, waving their arms, kicking up little rocks and clouds of dust. It's a hoot!

[PeaceNikki]

68. IKR?

[PeaceNikki]

16. Well said!

[demtenjeep]

167. very spot on

sad but true


wish the reigns were tightened

[YouDig]

9. The emails are exactly like the war in Iraq. I can't think of a single difference. Not one!

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Actually people's lives were out at risk

And Libya has turned into a disaster. But I am referring to the blind loyalty...that is exactly the same.

[YouDig]

14. Because of the emails, people's lives were at risk. You really believe that, don't you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Sources and methods were exposed.

You are blinded by blind loyalty. I expect you in ten years, to continue to hammer on how this was a nothing thing.

[randome]

28. Exposed to whom?

What you really mean is that you find it convenient to imagine sources and methods were exposed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. By Hillary Rotham Clinton

Who lost control of classified information including special access program, SAP, near the top of the Crown Jewels of national intelligence.

[randome]

32. Exposed TO whom? You have no evidence that any data was stolen or intercepted.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. But Guccifer does

And the statue requires you to loose control, which she did for two years when the server was stored at a facility with no clearance. So the agencies are going to assume that every last piece of data was exposed. That is how it works.

If you got no clue how this works, start with the wiki pages...they are generic, but are ok. Then continue with things like the Reuters story I referenced above.

[randome]

40. Guccifer. Right. Just like Assange said he would release the banking 'poison pill' files.

Guccifer is not a credible source of information. Just like Assange (just like Trump, even) he talks big and delivers nothing. Anyone can claim stuff and not provide evidence. There is no reason to believe he has any info to add to this. If it turns out differently, I'm fine with letting the chips fall where they may. But why would anyone think he has any credibility?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. So like Bryan Paggliano you think the plea deal

Was for well shits and giggles? If he had nada, why did DOJ bother with extradition and an extremely generous plea deal? If you have ever followed a RICO case, this is exactly how those play as well. Small fish get great deals, even immunity, in exchange for evidence, state evidence.

You are not neutral, you are quite blind.

[randome]

48. I don't know why he received a plea deal. Neither do you.

To assume it was to 'get' Clinton is unwarranted, to say the least. The guy is a hacker, he may have all sorts of info to divulge on how he hacked into systems. But there is no evidence he hacked into Clinton's server. In fact, there is evidence that he did not.

So it's been many months now and still nothing of import has come of this. At what point does self-reflection lead one to believe one might have made a wrong turn somewhere?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. It could be anybody.

But he did not get it for shits and giggles. You think he did. The DOJ is not going to go through the effort to extradite and give a plea deal, so he can be just housed at a US facility. You will ignore that, but that is besides the point

[randome]

90. I never said he was given immunity for "shits and grins".

I said I don't know. And neither do you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. For the record

So you at least can't say you did not know

Bryan Paggliano got immunity

Guciffer got a very good plea deal

[libdem4life]

85. Well, it surely wasn't to give him a picnic to take to the park.

Could be he had something to do with said server? Just guessing, of course, since he were her IT Manager or whatever.

And deposing aides...Abedin and others? Yeah, they do that all the time just for fun and to put the fear of the Federal Government into random civilians. Just the small matter, easily provable, co-employment makes Abedin at even more risk.

But, I digress. Follow the bouncing ball.. Everything...is...OK...don't...panic...rinse...repeat...

[Matt_R]

161. Are you paid by the post or by the hour?

Or are you just one of the right wing infiltrators trying to stir things up and start fights with democrats.

[YouDig]

162. The OP is comparing Hillary's emails to the war in Iraq, and you're asking me that?

[Matt_R]

165. Thats not how I read it, but I have seen your handle pop up...

in so many threads about Clinton's email scandal and every time I see 10+ posts by you, I wonder if the Clinton campaign got their monies worth.

But I'm in it to win it with regards to the Presidential campaign. And its going to take a lot to convince me to vote for a republican-light email scandal candidate. And I sure as hell will NOT vote for any republican candidate.

[randome]

24. I don't think there is as much 'blind loyalty' as you want to believe in.

Speaking only for myself, I've said many times that I don't even like Clinton. I try to be as impartial as possible. And I think it's ludicrous to a galactic degree that anyone thinks the email 'issue' is of importance.

In fact, it's hard to get my mind around why some want to make it out to be more than it is. It's not even loyalty to Sanders anymore, it's like 'blind disloyalty' to Clinton. Whatever happens, we must destroy her!

So much wasted time. If she ends up dropping out, we can deal with that when it occurs. Until then, trash-talking our likely nominee serves no purpose. At all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. If you understand national security, FOIA, and other issues at play

You will get it. If you don't. We were talking about it. The blue dress, as ridiculous as it was, well was an easy story to explain. This is not. This is highly technical, and serious.

[randome]

31. First, there is no evidence national security was compromised.

Secondly, the big loophole in FOIA is that a user gets to decide on his/her own which emails are personal and which are public. Thirdly, clearly no one cares because Clinton continues to rack up votes. So, as PeaceNikki says...pffft!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Third you do not understand any of this.

Fourth, you are truly in denial.

Fifth, the depositions already coming are incredibly damaging.

Sixth, the OIG report confirmed in broad strokes the fears including systematic violations of cyber security.

Seventh, you need to do a lot of reading.

Eight, you claim neutrality, you are not fooling anyone.

Ninth, I will be the first to say it, your party is comiiting political suicide if they run this extremely wounded candidate and I will personally hold your party, and people like you accountable.

[randome]

42. Yes, only nadinbrzenzinski is capable of understanding stuff like this.

Please share the contents of these depositions with us. The OIG report went over like a lead balloon.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[zappaman]

57. !!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Actually those with a clue, not you

Don't think that was minor.

And we have tried, a few of us, to explain the issue. Now I realize we wasted our time. This is classic bunker mentality. Like 2003 in fact. You guys cannot and will not understand the facts.

And I now have the same level of contempt I developed for hyper partisan republicans. It is the willful ignorance. The information is out there...Reuters, AP, even CNN, have explained these issues. So it is not just me who gets it. I suspect what I have in common with the rest who understand it, is a willingness to explore the facts, understand them, and not being invested in the election.

[PeaceNikki]

76. tje election? tje rest?

[LiberalLovinLug]

92. Someone alerted this post

On Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Actually those with a clue, not you
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2102325

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:32 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hideable but the Indictment Fairy is a chimera, lol, lol, lol...lol
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Should have alerted on calling Dems. a right wing party. THAT was really offensive!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter sounds like they'd rather keep themselves in their bubble. This is hardly offensive.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

..........

Someone doesn't like being informed how clueless they are.

[randome]

96. Ha! I have never alerted on anyone and I doubt I ever will.

Of course you have no way of knowing if that's true or not so...

Although I would not mind if Skinner chimed in to verify that I have never alerted on anyone. If such statistics are even available.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Not surprised

[Maru Kitteh]

73. It's very technical and SERIOUS, and you don't understand, ok?

/sarcasm off

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Well my dear it is

And your lady is in real jeopardy at this point.

[libdem4life]

83. I think the personal attacks are childish, at best. I'd consider delete.

Add to that snark...she must really get to you.

[randome]

89. Annoying sense of superiority, sure.

At least I'm 'wise' enough to admit I don't know everything. And my posts and threads don't invariably end with my laughing at other DUers. Other than that...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[libdem4life]

93. Everyone has their specialty...ask me how to teach a first grader to read,

and I'm an expert. Ask me how to fix an auto, I'm a dumbell.

In the political realm, it's not much different. Republicans are experts at the demolition of Democrats. It comes with the territory, and vice versa. Same is true during Primary season for both parties. I'm clearly one-sided on the primary issue, but I do try to acknowledge the other party candidate and supporters, without hysteria-prone defense/offense.

So, she's much further into the political structure than I'll ever be. That being said, what she says carries more weight for me. I believe there is another political journalist who posts here often in HRCs favor, but I listen to him as well.

To me, that's what a real liberal is. Someone who constantly listens to both sides and will shift position when it makes personal sense.

My way or the high way, or childish retorts, to me, is the Conservative Right, Republican mantra.

And I could be wrong or misinformed. But I'll keep reading listening and watching and occasionally responding online and altering my opinion as it seems appropriate.

[randome]

95. That seems like the wise course to take in just about every debate.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[St Aug girl]

106. I liked your definition of a liberal.

Someone who continually seeks out facts and information and adjusts their views based on the current information. Well done.

[libdem4life]

114. Thank you. It's served me well and kept me out of a lot of family drama.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. The DU'ers who tend To laught

Also tends to be wrong, often. They also tend to be a crew of dedicated bullies with an incredible lack of self awareness.

As to knowing stuff. I made an effort to actually read the material, ask experts, and think critically. Not laugh at people. Though they are quite funny in that lack of self awareness

[emulatorloo]

10. Booking marking for later when I have more time to read it.

First impression is that something about your analogy is off.

Second impression is you don't seem to take into account the right-wing noise machine in promoting disinformation in both instances.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Third is that humans act in contemptible ways when blinded by loyalty

[PeaceNikki]

13. pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. It is not me you got to worry about

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I know that. I am sorry I worried about you during Wisconsin by the way

But that is the way I roll. Now you are a collection of ones and zeroes, just like the true believers in 2003.

But if you believe she is above all suspicion, worry about the FBI

[PeaceNikki]

25. Roll on.

[zappaman]

59. The person who once said about the hundreds on their ignore list..

"I don't care whether they live or die" cares about you!!!

[PeaceNikki]

64. She did. Now she's sorry she did.

[PeaceNikki]

82. Awww.

[libdem4life]

84. What a masterful and well-thought out reply.

[BillZBubb]

115. Change your name to WarNikki, you support the hawk candidate.

[PeaceNikki]

117. Lol. No.

[elleng]

20. 'this must be human nature, the denial from core supporters becomes far more strident.'

Sure is human nature.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Good image. So why is it that some of us can see this shit?

[elleng]

26. Damned if I know, nadin.

[mmonk]

41. Too emotionally connected.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. i make a point of not investing myself

But I cover politics. They are all quite slimey at times

[Lurks Often]

29. The denial from a small group of Clinton supporters is disturbing

The FBI & DOJ did not give immunity to Pagliano unless they first have proof that Pagliano committed one or more felonies AND feel Pagliano's testimony can get them a felony conviction of someone higher up then him.

The FBI & DOJ did not extradite "Guccifer" from Romania and apparently give him a plea deal in exchange for testimony unless they feel "Guccifer's" testimony will lead to a felony conviction of someone involved in the server investigation, whether that is Hillary, Blumenthal or a senior Clinton aide remains to be seen. A felony conviction of Blumenthal or a senior Clinton aide would be very damaging to her campaign.

The FBI/DOJ investigation has been going on since August of 2015, the FBI & DOJ are NOT going to waste roughly 10 months of time, money and personnel resources if there was nothing there.

I do believe there is something this investigation. I don't think Sanders can win a general election and no Clinton supporter who refuses to even consider there could be something to this investigation is in denial and is not going to change my mind or get an answer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. They are acting tne way true believers act

It is very disturbing at many levels.

As to Sanders...this is not about him. Personally I think a fairly competent pol, him Biden the man on the moon, can beat Trump...she cannot.

[G_j]

35. and Trump is supposed to appear in court on fraud charges

shortly after the election in November. It's quite insane!

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Yup, and that one I gotta download court documents and start reading.

I need to go to the bank, so after that.

The hearing is here in San Diego

[2banon]

127. omg, you get to go to the hearing? Can't wait for your report back.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. I will try

[G_j]

152. that would be something!

should be a circus

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. It will be a media circus... ah the trolley stop is near. Because parking will be crazee

[G_j]

159. From what I understand

he is has 4 separate fraud charges pending.
And Hillary under investigation by the FBI..

just dandy..,

[Uncle Joe]

43. Here is a blatant example of the denial taking, Bernstein can't help but laugh.

Beginning at about the 1:24 mark.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512100882

Jeffrey's statement of "it was a confusing time" reminds me of the rocket science memes put out by the corporate media conglomerates when it came to determining the voters' intent by actually looking at their ballots during the coup of 2000.


Thanks for the thread, nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. You welcome

And locally it is the same way. The OIG report was seen as a literal shot across the bow

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. She's gonna be a wartime president too.

Just a different kind of war.

DU today is like having conversations with Brittney Spears

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. It is the neocon...

[Tarc]

49. Is there a viable suggestion somewhere in that novel?

Is this another plea-to-the-superdelegates-to-pick-Bernie?

Why do we even hold primaries at all if they can just go "whoops! sorry voters! we know better than you!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Sorry Charlie this has nada to do with Bernie Sanders

For all I care run the man on the moon. I think he is available

[SidDithers]

61. Wut?...

Sid

[LiberalLovinLug]

87. This ladies and gentlemen

sums up the collective willful ignorance of many Hillary supporters.

thanks Sid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. It is the lack of self awareness

That is stunning.

[G_j]

99. Well I'll be!!

is that you sid?

[gordianot]

66. Someday DU will become an interesting place once again.

Reality will creep in once more. An establishment Democrat will eventually voice alarm and a few true believers will lose their faith. DU will be fascinating

I will watch try not to say I told you so but will compromise and vote for her. We will know the screw has turned when Clintonistas lament that Sanders was not aggressive enough with Hillary. Attempts to say at any point that Sanders is responsible for Hillary's election problems are ludicrous. I am hoping for two things a decent Vice Presidental nominee when denial leaves no choice and a non fascist Supreme Court Justice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. The problem is that this was going to be low turnout already

Two really unpopular folks...now I don't expect her to win. This will only accelerate. I know I am not the only one seeing this. Local party leaders got it after the OIG report. They are starting to panic, so perhaps they will get this before the convention. They will surely get it if the FBI releases. After the convention it will get too complicated

[mmonk]

98. What indicated to you that some were starting to get it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Conversations

And the dems did not endorse either

[EndElectoral]

70. K&R

[felix_numinous]

86. K&R Neo cons and neo liberals

have a destain for the anti war crowd, so the contempt is mutual. This is an old fight, over the value of life itself, and the wounds are deep.

[nolabels]

97. I think that would be the anti-imperial crowd they hold in mutual disdain

In years past they used the bully much more than real war to get their way. Nowadays the ones running for national office are just carpetbaggers needing control so they can get the best price for their wares. That whole crowd has also been playing the good cop - bad cop stuff off quite nicely too.

I wouldn't even say it's contempt for those pulling the strings of their puppets, but more of race to see how fast they can get the rest of us to capitulation. Sociopaths mostly don't give one shit how you or i feel, they just want the military junta in places like Honduras, or the stock market in Singapore to do their bidding without question.

The sell out from Nixon till this point in time is still not complete. It's a fight to get to decide what value is. What they would like to win the ability to tell you what to think about in all that is in any value you could conceive. Truly the idea of sociopath

On edit; Hillary or Trump will be installed by the aforementioned, after all the average casual observer has not got a clue how they operate

[libdem4life]

102. Sad, but true.

[felix_numinous]

104. Good insight

yes sociopaths don't care about how people feel, absolutely true. People are going against their program worldwide, it is global.

[Juicy_Bellows]

100. KICK

Thank you for posting.

[Maedhros]

101. Thank you, Nadin.

The parallels in behavior are striking.

[2banon]

108. small quibble with an important point... (to me)

Incidentally, we expected Pelosi to put impeachment on the table, that is one of the things they ran on.

During the 2004 DP "platform convention" held months before the DNC in Hollywood Florida, the party bosses would NOT allow impeachment on the party platform, they wouldn't even ALLOW it to be brought to a Vote!!!!!!

Despite the MAJORITY of delegates in attendance demanding that it be brought to a vote. Astonishingly, a very jaw dropping moment when the rep from the Northern California chapter of the ACLU insisted it should be taken off the roster of issues to be voted on for the party platform.

I can't tell you what that did to my head. What that moment revealed to me, regarding the DP elites, and representatives of organizations who I actually supported with small but steady financial support. (never again after that)

I watched this entire debacle play out live on C-Span.

As far as Pelosi is concerned on this issue, she held "townhall" meet ups in San Francisco with anti-war progressives in full dominate attendance, giving full throated demands for impeachment to which she talked over and pretended those demands were not being made.

It was absolutely f**king disgusting to watch. Again on C-Span. I never looked at her in the same light again, and it brought to mind how it is we elected Women like her, like Boxer, like Feinstein, like so many others in Congress. I'm so certain there were and are Women we can elect that actually are intelligent, articulate, honest and can fight (like Warren) but instead we get these clowns.

Forgive me while I feign surprise at whatever happens from this point on.

Don't mean to detract from your excellent op, just had to bring this up. couldn't help myself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Not a minor point

And betrays high...complicity

[2banon]

122. that moment confirmed what I had come to suspect, but others long before had known

during the 90's. I wasn't paying attention then.

Just so damned relieved a Dem was in the WH after 12 long years of Republican rule.

That we had finally elected Democratic party Women in Congress and the Senate. who were going to lead a courageous and triumphant revolution in the entire construct of war & peace and socio-economic equality and justice issues.

Nafta, East Timor, Iraq, Environment, Predator lending, Bank Deregulations, Telecommunications deregulations, Scandals following Scandals, following Scandals. I started paying attention and didn't want to believe or understand what people were trying to tell me.

Partly in denial, partly confused.

I started paying attention, especially in 2004 election campaign.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. For me it was 2000

[2banon]

129. yep. but "nader"

[Matt_R]

163. Unfortunatly if Al Gore had been a stronger candidate, Naderites would not have mattered. n/t

[geek tragedy]

111. 15 more days nt

[basselope]

116. 15 more days until we can live in denial.

If fifteen days no one has to face reality... everyone will stick their collective heads in the sand and only say nice things.

Sadly 5 months from then, everyone will say "What happened"? "How did we lose?"

Everyone who warned you will have moved on and you will be left with a husk of what once was, telling each other it wasn't YOUR fault. It was Sanders, it was the media, it was THEM who did it.. when you did it to yourselves by refusing to be willing to face criticism and isolated yourself in a bubble.

That is exactly how this whole e-mail thing started. Clinton isolated herself in a bubble and didn't allow anyone around her who would speak up and say.. "Uh, this doesn't look like a good idea".

GG WP

[geek tragedy]

119. we're not going to lose, and those whose only contribution is to say " it's not worth it to win" and

"you're just going to lose, give up" are harmful to that effort

[basselope]

121. Hillary Clinton has no viable path to the presidency

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

If the democrats go with Clinton.. they lose.

It's really that simple.

[geek tragedy]

123. Lol wut? She won the voting with solid majorities of votes and all categories of pledged delegates.

She has the nomination sewn up. Bernie's the one who has no path to the nomination, and hasn't had one at the very latest since April 26.

At worst she's tied with Trump, so it's really foolhardy and overwrought to say she can't win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. She meant the presidential election in Nov

[geek tragedy]

126. that's still an emotional reading of the current political landscape rather than one supported

by thoughtful analysis, let alone data and demographics.

It's possible that Clinton could lose, but it's completely stupid to say she can't win. Obviously she can. Obviously.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. My read is that she will not

based on currently polling information, and her numbers.

I expect an incredibly low turnout election. That is not emotional, Unlike you and Basselope, I am not invested... but given how weak she is... don't primary data me. and how wounded she is, and the legal cloud. I will utterly blame your party and you, for this impending disaster. Best case, pay attention to the VEEP, because her legal troubles are not going away. So you might be electing the next President via the Vice President, Well, reality neither is of us is voting for president, but for Electors, but let's not get too technical about it

Nor do I expect my vote to count either way. I have given up on the ghost that any of this goes the way the mere peons would it to go. But hey... whatever, You want to nominated a candidate under such a legal cloud, your party can commit political suicide. I am not going to stop you, but I will not let you blame those who warned you for the results.

[geek tragedy]

132. where'd you get your law degree? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. So the FBI is doing all this for shits and gigles

and running a 10 month investigation.

As I said, you are invested psychologically. Soon you will get your safe space, with the same kind of contempt i have for safe spaces in colleges by the way. You will have it, and then wonder what the fuck happened here?

[geek tragedy]

135. so in your opinion every FBI investigation results in a prosecution. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. In my opinion investigatuisn of this type

where immunity is granted, where good plea deals are granted, do. This is running the way a classic RICO case runs. I don't know if they are going for that, but they are not giving immunity to Pagriano for fun, and they did not bring Guciffer for a picnic either. And remember, she was going to talk to the FBI during their interviews (DOJ is sitting along, that is unusual) but now she is not. Oh and I forgot, they are interviewing her staff, in a few cases multiple times due to parallel civil and criminal investigations.

Hey she has all the rights not to, but the optics will add to her bad numbers.

[geek tragedy]

139. what plea deals have been granted?

Guccifer was arrested because he committed a crime. Go figure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. Here you go, the actual plea deal

not the news blathering around it

https://cryptome.wikileaks.org/2016/05/lazar-guccifer-028-031.pdf

Do yourself an favor and start looking for this crap. It is online.

Then again... I guess the surprise will be more fun.

[geek tragedy]

145. wait, you think the only reason they took a plea deal from Guccifer

was to get him to testify against Clinton?

Hoo boy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. I did not say that, *YOU DID*

None knows exactly who is the target of all of this. It could be Clinton, It could be Sidney Blumenthal, it could be Huma, it could be all three. And I am just using the best known names here as examples. Let's say for the sake of argument, they decide to charge Huma... sure. now think politically, I know you can. How bad do you think that would look for her campaign? I mean the adds do write themselves.

But they did offer both Paggliano and Guccifer nice little deals, That is where the classic RICO comes from. This is how those are built... and building a case they are... against whom, well, it is so far a good question. I suspect from the OIG report, some of it is national intelligence. That offered a backbone of a case. And the DOJ likes it that way. They do not want or like to give the game plan away. But there you have the actual plea deal,

For the record, most of the reporting on this, are not happening on the left wing press, Just like most of the reporting in 2003 over the WMDs did not happen in the RW press. There is a danger, a real danger, to a democracy, in that. But since we live in the age of the internet, I can do more than just read the partisan papers. My mind that this was serious did not come from breathless reporting, It came from reading actual emails. The information is out there. A citizen, these days, can chose to be as well informed,, or not, as they chose to be.

My opinion, you guys have chosen to remain ignorant of the issues. It is partisan thinking at heart.

Oh and further, I do not expect her to face an actual court, like EVER, My goodness the well connected don't do that. Plus she knows where a lot of the skeletons are buried. I expect her to get a pardon if indeed she is charged.

[still_one]

130. that's exactly right. Bookmarking this thread to revisit to see if the great oracle is correct

[basselope]

143. I am.

I have never missed a presidential prediction yet.. even telling people in 2000 that bush would "keep it close enough to steal" and left this board in 2004 warning that Kerry could not defeat bush.

If I tell you someone is going to lose the presidency, you can bet ever last dollar you have on it.

[basselope]

141. Actually, it is a very thoughtful analysis based on the current political landscape.

She has no viable path.

I'll explain it to you.

#1) In most of the key swing states, the GOP has been in control and spent the last 8 years working on strategies to suppress democratic voter turnout. Clinton would need an overwhelming large turnout to overcome this, which given her ceiling of support, even in the democratic primary, suggests she has no chance to mobilize the GOTV effort towards the plurality of voters (the independents). States like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and likely Wisconsin will wind out being out of reach for her just due to lower voter participation.

#2) Polls have been consistently wrong this entire election cycle against Trump and Sanders (the anti-establishment candidates). This is because polls use "likely voters" as their measure. If you look at the vast majority of states in RCP you will find that both Trump and Sanders consistently beat polling expectations. Sometimes this involved not losing by as much as expect or other times they pulled out victories were losses were expected. Most recently in Indiana Bernie was supposed to lose by 6 and won by 6 and Trump was expected to win by 10 and won by 17. Polls that show Clinton and Trump tied or very close are likely actually leaning in Trumps direction, since his vote count has been consistently underestimated due to the "unlikely voter" turning out.

The race is already perilously close, even not included the unlikely voter bias in the polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

You combine these two and you see that Clinton has no clear path to the presidency.

[geek tragedy]

142. bookmarking nt

[basselope]

144. Please do. But don't cry to me when I turn out to be right.

I won't be around to taste those tears.

[senz]

120. Those who come into a thread to taunt, ridicule, and feign superiority

are the low ones, the filth, the underfoot.

As always, thanks for your analysis, nadin. I enjoy reading your thoughts.

[sadoldgirl]

148. Nobody can convince them that the facts go against

HRC. At this point their belief in her has reached
an almost religious stubbornness.

However, even if she should win in November, they
must realize that an immediate impeachment will
follow. Perhaps they look forward to a second
Clinton impeachment; I don't know.

As far as I am concerned all of her supporters, whether
in high or low places, insist on keeping the status quo.

If she has to be replaced, I wished for them to choose
Kerry, since he is more in favor of diplomacy than
military action, imo.

Thanks for your OP anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Critical point

However, even if she should win in November, they
must realize that an immediate impeachment will
follow. Perhaps they look forward to a second
Clinton impeachment; I don't know.

No, they don't believe she would ever face that horror. You said religious stubbornness. politics is not unlike religion. Good essays here
http://righteousmind.com/

[Mnpaul]

150. Back when this was an important issue on DU

My, how times have changed

An 18 day gap of missing emails? Explain that Mr. Bush!(trumad)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x462018

Hey, Rebublicans don't do anything wrong, it all those Democrats asking for information which will
Prove the wrong doings and they ain't going to give it up(Thinkingabout)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5132655

Just how far did the Bush White House go to hide its actions from the American people? A new report released today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), "The Untold Story of the Bush White House Emails," attempts to answer the question by providing a wealth of details regarding the Bush White House's failure to prevent millions of emails from vanishing forever. (Bill USA)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016131873

I imagine that I could find a ton of them if I really searched. Of course there were those who were always against it

Do we turn a blind eye? Hell yes.
Depressingly, that's exactly what this "forward-looking" administration is all about. I think the Bushies pioneered some options that this crowd doesn't want to give up. Never know when ya might need to cover the ass of a subordinate who's threatening to take you want to give up. Never know when ya might need to cover the ass of a subordinate who's threatening to take you with him if he goes to the Federal Tennis Camp.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7261174

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. My my some of those posters are familiar

[G_j]

156. yes, we "forward thinked" through it all

Stolen election, 9-11, WMDs, Iraq Invasion,
Torture, Corruption, you name it.

[BillZBubb]

157. Like Her Majesty, they've evolved on the issue. If she does it, it's OK. Simple right?

[Matt_R]

166. Thanks for the links.

It's all in the context, such as when your guy does it its bad but when my guy does it, meh.

[ContinentalOp]

168. Here's what I think