Obama&#39;s Endorsement Undercuts Clinton FBI investigation.

Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:21 PM

yeoman6987 (14,449 posts)

36. I wouldn't go that far

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:40 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

2. You cropped the title and I don't believe it was for lack of space

GOP: Obama endorsement undercuts Clinton FBI probe

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fox-news-obama-hillary-clinton-fbi-224143

SMH

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:43 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

3. Sorry. I used "investigation" instead of "probe". My mistake for being human. Doesn't change the

article one little iota.

Response to floriduck (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:46 PM

brooklynite (86,998 posts)

6. And, you left out the small bit about this being a GOP quote, not one of those newsy facts...

Could have happened to anyone.

Response to brooklynite (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:49 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

7. Chew on that part.

Earnest also told Rosen that “the president when discussing this issue in each stage has reiterated his commitment to this principle, that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference.

Response to floriduck (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:09 PM

GaYellowDawg (4,394 posts)

93. PROBE?!? That changes everything!!

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:03 PM

Lucinda (30,926 posts)

85. Wow.

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:18 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

88. Comey in a televised address said it was an "investigation"

We don't do security reviews, he mentioned, we do investigations. That word is even in our name: Federal Bureau of Investigation. (paraphrasing what he said since I do not have exact quote)

Sam

Response to Samantha (Reply #88)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:33 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

91. Well

Comey in a televised address said it was an "investigation"

What does that have to do with my noting the omission of GOP from the title?

GOP: Obama endorsement undercuts Clinton FBI probe

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fox-news-obama-hillary-clinton-fbi-224143

I will answer my own question. Nothing.

Now that we got that housekeeping out of the way.

We don't do security reviews, he mentioned, we do investigations. That word is even in our name: Federal Bureau of Investigation. (paraphrasing what he said since I do not have exact quote)

As I have said, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, I will defer to the legal opinion of the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department:

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans

and not that of random internet posters with axes to grind.

DSB

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #91)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:50 PM

Kentonio (4,377 posts)

99. So let me get this right, you felt the need to point out the GOP quote

Yet have no problem referencing the opinion of the vice presidential pick of the Libertarian party?

Response to Kentonio (Reply #99)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:54 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

101. I cited the opinion of the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #101)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:58 PM

Kentonio (4,377 posts)

105. No, you cited the opinion of the current vice Presidential pick of the Libertarian party.

Or are you going to try and pretend that isn't true?

Response to Kentonio (Reply #105)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:01 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

107. It is of no moment unless you think the two are mutually exclusive.

BTW, I have a serious question. What grade for transparency do you give me? Do I get an A for refusing to camouflage my contempt for those pushing this story?

Trump is pushing it right now. I'm watching Hardball.

Thank you in advance.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #107)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:15 PM

Kentonio (4,377 posts)

119. Oh I see, you only have a problem with people using right wing opinion pieces

When those opinions happen to run contrary to your own opinions. If they back up your own argument, then they're completely fine.

I understand completely now. As for a grade for transparency, given your complete unwillingness to admit you just quoted a right wing source, your grade is rather low.

Response to Kentonio (Reply #119)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:34 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

130. You go with John Cornyn. I will go with William Weld.

There will be no indictment. The sadness that brings you and your cohorts brings me much glee... I can only compare it to a sexual high.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #130)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:47 PM

Kentonio (4,377 posts)

135. Well that's both bizarre and deely unpleasant.

I can only hope you find something in your life that gives you genuine happiness rather than gaining pleasure through others hurt.

Response to Kentonio (Reply #135)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:51 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

136. I only gain pleasure from the misfortune of others when their pleasure is derived from the ...

I only gain pleasure from the misfortune of others when their pleasure is derived from the misfortune of others , i.e. when those they want to see fall don't.

If the righteous weren't rewarded and the unrighteous weren't punished the moral universe would not be in order.

Call it a kind of karma.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #136)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:05 AM

Kentonio (4,377 posts)

149. There is no justification for ever revelling in others pain.

Even if those people were the worst people in the world, it's still a bad sign to enjoy their suffering because it means you have that capacity inside you. Glad they don't achieve what they set out to achieve sure, and sad that they wanted something negative, but there's never an excuse for taking pleasure in pain.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #101)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:56 PM

okasha (11,573 posts)

145. Dear Ones,

I saw the Indictment Fairy yesterday, in Lady Cottingley's Pressed Fairy Book.. The remains were terribly mangled.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #91)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:44 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

144. If you have a genuine interest in this subject, look up "criminal negligence" in the penal code(eom)

Response to Samantha (Reply #88)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:56 PM

saidsimplesimon (7,881 posts)

103. Good catch Sam, thank you

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:02 PM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

108. This isn't LBN.

Response to notadmblnd (Reply #108)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:04 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

109. Did I say it was?

This is a banner day for me...All my nemeses are in one thread... I am going for a walk soon...I would literally rather get hit by a car and not return than capitulate.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #109)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:06 PM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

110. You were complaining about the title. The only place the title is required to be exact is LBN

Response to notadmblnd (Reply #110)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:09 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

112. I was complaining about the deception.

If you find such unsavory tactics appropriate there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

Again, this is great...All my nemeses in one place...I feel like the Christians of yore who were fed to the lions but in this instance the Christian is winning.

I'm bearing this crucible for our nominee and I can't feel better about what I am doing.

Hills, I'm doing this for you.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #112)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:14 PM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

117. No deception. Poster provided a link

Not his responsibility to see to it that people click on it.

Response to notadmblnd (Reply #117)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:16 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

120. Since you are part of the same cohort your witness is tainted by bias.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #120)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:25 PM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

125. You can't claim no bias either

but there's nothing hidden and that is a fact.

Response to notadmblnd (Reply #125)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:28 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

127. I readily admit my bias but I am not the one who deceptively edited a title...

I know many times the writer of an article doesn't write the headline but the seminal poster still misrepresented somebody elses work product.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #127)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:24 AM

still_one (87,989 posts)

151. Kick & Rec!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:09 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

113. Damn

Sad to see GOP talking points used on this site.

Response to bravenak (Reply #113)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:10 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

114. Sister, when all you have is animus toward our nominee the whole world looks like an indictment.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #114)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:12 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

115. The GOP has been howling and begging to find something to stop her with for years

Cannot wait until we get rid of gop plants and rightwing talking points.
I have literally been reading about her impending indictment since 1994.

Response to bravenak (Reply #115)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:14 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

116. They hate her because they ain't her.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #116)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:15 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

118. This must be killing them on the inside

Response to bravenak (Reply #118)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:17 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

121. Success is the best revenge.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #121)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:20 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

122. I cannot wait until Obama helps her resettle into the whitehouse

Response to bravenak (Reply #122)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:24 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

124. And since he's living in DC I hope they have weekly lunches.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #124)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:31 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

128. We really live in interesting times!!

Response to bravenak (Reply #128)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:36 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

131. I am on my third book about the Obamas and the Clintons.

They genuinely like each other, even after their bitter contest. I don't think the man has a vengeful bone in his body. He is almost too good for this world.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #131)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:38 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

132. Seems like they made up rather QUICKLY after the last primary

How one loses shows their mettle. That's why I had no prob voting for her regardless of the last contest and the water under the bridge.

Response to bravenak (Reply #132)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:42 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

133. I believe that is why African Americans were so quick to re-embrace her and Bill.

Even though the contest was acrimonious when it was over she did everything she did to see he was elected, even dressing down her own supporters , some of whom refused to come along...

It's like family...We fight, but at the end of the day we're still family.

BTW, did you see Bill's eulogy at the GOAT's funeral...

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #133)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:47 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

134. I missed it, I was out, but I set a recording

I plan on watching late tonight

Response to bravenak (Reply #134)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:54 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

137. He got a send off like a head of state. It was only fitting.

I am a believer so I believe I will finally get to meet him on the other side along with the martyred Kennedy brothers, Brother Malcolm, Dr, King, and Abraham Lincoln...

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:44 PM

MineralMan (145,264 posts)

4. There's not going to be an indictment nor a recommendation for one.

There never was. That was a Republican pipe dream that sent secondary smoke to some on the left.

There still won't be either. It has nothing to do with Obama's endorsement. If there were any real chance that Hillary Clinton would be indicted, she wouldn't have been a candidate. We are all just guessing about the investigation. The right is pushing the idea that she'll be indicted.

Guess what? The Administration knows the reality of that. It has always know the reality of that. It's all just a warmed over Benghazi situation. Lots of smoke, but no fire.

Get over it. It's not happening. It was never going to happen. It's all just wishful thinking by people who dislike Hillary Clinton for whatever reason.

This country is not going to indict and prosecute a Secretary of State for actions taken while serving in that capacity. It simply will not happen. It never has and never will. Nothing of the sort would ever be allowed, I guarantee.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:51 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

8. That's not for you or me to decide. But we now have confirmation it is a criminal investigation.

Response to floriduck (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:55 PM

MineralMan (145,264 posts)

12. Of course it's not. It's not for "former FBI" people

or "sources close to the investigation" to decide, either.

But, there's still not going to be any indictment.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:58 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

16. Reminds me of the song Wishin' and Hopin' by Dusty Springfield. Those were the days.

Response to floriduck (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:02 PM

MineralMan (145,264 posts)

19. Well, "thinkin' and prayin'" for an indictment also reminds me

of that song. You go right on with that. I don't care, and it won't make any difference.

I'm basing my assessment on history, actually. If indictments were likely for such cabinet officers, we'd already have seen some. I can think of several examples from other administrations where they should have been. They weren't. We don't issue criminal indictments for cabinet officers who are acting in their positions. We simply don't. It's a precedent nobody wants to set.

That's why no indictment will be issued, nor even considered seriously. Do think about it, OK? Use your sense of history and your knowledge of the past.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:08 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

26. I said you can think what you want. Have at it as it means zero.

Response to floriduck (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:23 PM

emulatorloo (41,937 posts)

40. Applies to you as well

FBI isn't leaking, so there's nothing but speculation until the report is released.

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #40)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:25 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

42. Exactly. I'm not the one in denial.

Response to floriduck (Reply #42)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:07 PM

mythology (9,527 posts)

86. More accurately

You don't perceive yourself as in denial. Which is kind of prerequisite for being in denial.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:55 PM

charlyvi (6,537 posts)

69. It's a noble effort Mineral Man

But it won't work. They clutch at the straws they have, not the straws they wish they had. They will be waiting on an indictment well into Hillary's second term.

Response to charlyvi (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:58 PM

MineralMan (145,264 posts)

74. Well, they're welcome to their bitter hopes, I guess.

I'm going to be busy, soon, working to defeat Trump and elect our first woman President. By November, I'll be 71 years old. It will do my old heart good to have helped elect both a black man and a woman as Democratic Presidents. Yes, it will.

Others can cry all the bitter tears they can muster. As David Byrne sang, "I ain't got time for that now..."

Response to floriduck (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:09 PM

scscholar (2,902 posts)

78. It wasn't confirmation. He probably misspoke

I'll believe it when I see it in writing.

Response to floriduck (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:08 PM

apcalc (4,382 posts)

111. No , we do not.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:58 PM

tallahasseedem (6,716 posts)

17. I admire you MineralMan

you have more patience for this than I do. Bravo for trying to insert some facts into this nonsense.

Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:02 PM

MineralMan (145,264 posts)

20. Thanks!

Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:12 PM

DUgosh (3,008 posts)

28. Thank you

Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:21 PM

yodermon (6,142 posts)

35. "If the Secretary does it, it's not a crime"

load & clear MM

Response to yodermon (Reply #35)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:23 PM

MineralMan (145,264 posts)

39. Please do not imply that I used the words you quoted.

They appear nowhere in my post. To imply that they did is dishonest.

Thank you for your cooperation in not putting words in my mouth.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:33 PM

yodermon (6,142 posts)

82. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing another famous quote

which i'm sure you're aware of. Here is your quote:

"This country is not going to indict and prosecute a Secretary of State for actions taken while serving in that capacity"

.. even if those actions are found to be criminal?

Because if she gets a pass just by virtue of being SoS, then yeah, it's frost/nixon 2.0, and there is one set of laws for those in power and another set of laws for the rest of us.

Response to yodermon (Reply #82)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:35 PM

MineralMan (145,264 posts)

83. Use your own words. Don't distort mine. Thanks.

I'll appreciate it if you do the right thing. If you don't, then I'll keep pointing it out. Do not fake quotes from other DUers. If they didn't say it, don't act as though they did. I choose my words carefully. I recommend that as a normal practice.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:14 PM

NWCorona (8,541 posts)

87. It's never a good thing to talk in absolutes

Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:57 PM

Kentonio (4,377 posts)

104. Nonsense, Nixon ran (and won) while Watergate was still under investigation.

The idea that someone running proves nothing is wrong is completely flawed.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:45 PM

vdogg (1,384 posts)

5. Taking our talking points directly from the RNC now are we?

The Republican National Committee jumped on Earnest’s remarks, taking advantage of his use of the word “criminal” to issue a press release characterizing the press secretary’s remark as a "major break" from Clinton’s description of the investigation as a “security inquiry.”
"The White House's admission that the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton's email server as a 'criminal' matter shreds her dishonest claim that it is a routine 'security inquiry,'" RNC spokesman Michael Short said in the statement.

But Earnest seemed to be describing the White House's practices in general terms, not characterizing the case as a "criminal" investigation. Asked to clarify, the White House noted that Earnest has previously said that he had "not talked to anybody at the Department of Justice with knowledge about this situation" -- meaning that he would have no way of knowing whether the investigation was indeed criminal.

Guess you guys have decided to abandon all pretense. "Fuck it, let's go for broke"

Response to vdogg (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:53 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

9. It's all interpretation. You spin your way and I'll quote what was said by the Press Secretary.

Response to floriduck (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:45 PM

onenote (40,068 posts)

98. Funny how you, Fox News and the repubs have the same "interpretation"

Response to vdogg (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:53 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

10. It is sad to see self proclaimed progressives carrying water for the right wing.

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:54 PM

pinebox (5,761 posts)

11. This isn't RW

The FBI only looks at criminal activity, not civil. That's a fact.

Response to pinebox (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:02 PM

TwilightZone (21,885 posts)

22. John Cornyn and Fox News are right wing.

This isn't complicated.

Response to TwilightZone (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:14 PM

pinebox (5,761 posts)

31. The FBI however isn't a RW org

and we hear this on a daily basis from many how the FBI investigation is a RW witch hunt.

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:02 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

23. Well if you do the crime, you should do the time. That's an honorable position to take rather than

"I want her so I'll just close my eyes, ears, and thought processes and hope it all goes away." Well nine or so months later, it hasn't gone away. But her supporters don't want to hear facts or use logic. They just blindly stopped considering the possibility.

Response to floriduck (Reply #23)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:07 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

25. I will defer to the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department

If you don't mind I will defer to the legal opinion of the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department and not a random internet poster with an axe to grind:

But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans

Now, about that water:

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:11 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

27. Then you are at odds with Mineral Man. He said he'd not believe any former investigator.

So he's calling you and your drivel out. Work it out with him. I'm busy.

Response to floriduck (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:13 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

29. Weld is the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department

The FBI investigates...The Justice Department prosecutes...Two different entities. Glad to be able to point that out for you.

You're welcome.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:28 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

44. But if an indictment is recommended and the DOJ declines, shit will hit the fan.

Glad to be able to point THAT out to you. Then the Democratic Party will look like ridiculous crooks. Now you don't want THAT do you?

Response to floriduck (Reply #44)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:34 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

47. Asked and answered...

If you believe you know the relevant law better than the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department:

there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

About that water:

Response to floriduck (Reply #44)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:38 PM

justiceischeap (14,040 posts)

52. And so the shit hits the fan?

The only people that'll actually give a shit are people hoping and praying for Clinton to get indicted. That would be the majority, if not all, Republicans, some Independents (which are actually Repubs) and some Sanders' supporters.

You know what else? The majority of the people that voted and helped Clinton win the Democratic Primary... they were aware of this matter (and anything else anyone wants to trot out).

You know what happens when you continually vilify someone? No one with a lick of sense believes the boy who cried wolf when the wolf has been found innocent time and again.

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:21 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

37. FBI is not rw. We want the

truth - either way it falls.

Response to 840high (Reply #37)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:32 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

46. Please see Post 25. Thank you in advance.

You and your cohorts should know by now you will never get the best of the indomitable DemocratSinceBirth. He would literally rather die.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #46)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:36 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

50. I trust Comey.

Response to 840high (Reply #50)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:39 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

54. I trust the wisdom of the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department:

But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans

I would literally rather have a cap busted in my ear than to ever give into to you and your lil cohorts.

Response to 840high (Reply #37)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:47 PM

Maru Kitteh (26,688 posts)

61. no ya don't

pretending otherwise is daft.

Response to Maru Kitteh (Reply #61)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:57 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

72. That tells me a lot about you.

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:27 PM

TheBlackAdder (26,641 posts)

43. I see it every time Dems support TPP, Fracking KXL, Wall Street, Payday Lenders, Prisons.

Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #43)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:55 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

102. .+1

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:40 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

97. I disagree. It's sad to see Democrats shilling for someone who refuses

to come clean. She could in one moment clear everything up...if it were above board. Good lord, she's got the entire Democratic Party elite, PBO included, now "carrying water for her". That doesn't change one thing...just shows the depth she is willing to go to having "supporters" shill for her.

And don't give me the VRWC BS ... She is a Democrat. We are Democrats. These are her actions. She made decisions. And a good half of us think they suck.

The problem is that now they really have some red meat. So howl away. You'll have plenty of time and opportunity.

Response to vdogg (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:56 PM

Hav (5,968 posts)

13. Credit where credit is due

Let's be fair and name the source: "Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) disagreed with Earnest's assessment, posting on Twitter that Obama's endorsement does constitute a conflict of interest. Cornyn said a special counsel is needed to properly investigate Clinton's email use."

Response to Hav (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:06 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

24. I have no issue with Obama's endorsement, nor Elizabeth Warren's, Joe Biden's or Nancy Pelosi's.

My point is the FBI IS treating this as a criminal investigation. Not like a security review that Clinton and her supporters said for months. They were wrong then and her supporters who deny a possible indictment might be wrong again.

Response to floriduck (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:22 PM

bigtree (83,357 posts)

38. you wrote the title as if she was a definite target of the inquiry instead of a witness

...something which has not been established.

Also, an investigation of criminality is not proof that criminality occurred - something that Sanders and his supporters have been asserting for months.

Response to bigtree (Reply #38)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:34 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

48. Talk about lather, rinse and repeat. The FBI just runs around

playing the foil to the Clinton Shuffle. No, that's the Democrats doing that. Pontificating with super duper hubris on the future...nice work if you can get it.

"Sander's Supporters" are not deaf and dumb (as in refusing to talk). That would be the 5th Ammendment guy and we'll see about the aides. But hey, nothing to see here.

When it's over...cleared up...she's exhonerated (which she's far from at this time), then we talk and I'll likely vote for her. Until then, it's just so much jibberish and Corporate Dem PC.

Response to libdem4life (Reply #48)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:39 PM

bigtree (83,357 posts)

53. the emails have zero to do with corporatism

...I get that it's just a way to take her down politically, but you can't credibly throw in every disagreement you have with her into the rumor mill and expect to be taken seriously.

Response to bigtree (Reply #53)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:46 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

59. Yeah, right. Talk to the FBI. I think you might rethink your definitions.

It's the "you can't touch me" that qualifies. And no, I have no desire to "take her down". Save your hyperbole. She's doing that herself. I pray she is cleared, post haste, frankly. It's making the Party look like an extention of the Clinton Shuffle....Bill's bull horn notwithstanding.

I guess now the FBI is just a rumor mill. That silly Comey...thinks he's something.

Response to libdem4life (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:58 PM

Juicy_Bellows (2,427 posts)

73. It continues.

I'd love to read one HRC supporter express even the slightest bit of hesitation or concern around this pending investigation. They all seem to be star struck.

What concerns me even more, if there is a recommendation for indictment a lot of her supporters still won't care and then we will be truly hosed.

Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #73)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:15 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

94. That's why I pray for a speedy conclusion. However, it seems there is

not the cooperation needed by the parties to enable that. And one can only believe...at least a non-cult person...that there is a lot to hide.

Truth be told, her supporters will just parrot whatever she says. This type of blind adoration skips the frontal cortex of the brain. I do feel for the real Democratic leaders and how they've been pressured into joining the Clinton Shuffle. Any form of cover is gone. All the while she's asking for Republican funds. Now the only defense is "RW Talking Points" or "Not Trump". Sad.

It's either pure incompetence and ignorance, or extreme hubris and political privilege.

Response to libdem4life (Reply #94)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:19 PM

Juicy_Bellows (2,427 posts)

95. There is a mountain to hide, of that I have no doubt.

I think the latter part is the truest part -

"It's either pure incompetence and ignorance, or extreme hubris and political privilege."

I hope we live to see this house of cards (pun, somewhat intended) come crumbling down.

Response to libdem4life (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:08 PM

bigtree (83,357 posts)

77. the FBI hasn't declared anyone the target of a criminal inquiry

...much less indicated any crime has been committed.

So, yeah, talk to the FBI, don't blame Clinton for others using the inquiry as a political cudgel.

from Fiscal Times:

...legal experts have told the Associated Press that it “appears unlikely Clinton would be formally charged with committing a crime” for using her private email server throughout her four years at the State Department, in contravention of revised rules regulating highly sensitive email transmissions. That’s because the relatively few federal laws governing the handling of classified materials were written primarily to cover spies and leakers. What’s more, prosecutors would have to prove intent to violate the law and expose classified material to hacking, which would be a stretch at best.

Response to bigtree (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:32 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

96. More parsing words. Under Investigation. Period. The end.

They don't usually "declare" anything or state a crime has been or has not been committed until the "investigation" is concluded. We are not elementary school children here.

This is a very balanced article, IMO, probably because it's really Yahoo.finance.news. Surprised you linked to it. It definitely shows the difficulty she has created in a number of federal departments...semantics aside...and the difficulty of Obama's position and the difficulty of political appointees like Loretta Lynch. Probably because it's really Yahoo News.

It's not going away anytime soon. That's for sure.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:56 PM

tallahasseedem (6,716 posts)

14. OMG

How long is this shit going to last?

I think the President might know a bit more than you on this.

Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:02 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

21. "How long is this shit going to last? "

Hopefully not after the 15th....

BTW, I lived on Blair Stone Road when I was doing post grad- work at FSU.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:43 PM

tallahasseedem (6,716 posts)

57. FSU Alum here as well!

I lived there for about 15 years in the Killearn area. Awesome to see another former TLH resident!

Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #57)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:47 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

60. Down the street from Governor's Square Mall...

Did you ever have Tom Dye as a professor? Monte Palmer?

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #60)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:52 PM

tallahasseedem (6,716 posts)

65. Unfortunately, I didn't...

I spent most of my time in Biology and Chemistry...lived at Dirac. So sad that the Koch Bros essentially took over the COSS though.

Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #65)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:54 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

68. Government...I wasn't smart enough for the "hard" sciences.

SIGH

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #68)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:56 PM

tallahasseedem (6,716 posts)

71. Me neither...

hence having to live at Dirac, LOL!

Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:36 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

49. He said he didn't. I saw the interview...he was pissed at even being asked.

You know how he clenches his jaw...that's how it was expressed. No influence or knowledge...that's what he said. Maybe you know better?

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:57 PM

LoverOfLiberty (1,438 posts)

15. Not a chance an idictment is coming

Obama, Biden and Warren are smarter than that.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:01 PM

TwilightZone (21,885 posts)

18. "GOP: Obama endorsement undercuts Clinton FBI probe" - nice editing job.

John Cornyn and Fox News.

Quite the sources ya got there.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:14 PM

geek tragedy (68,868 posts)

30. 5 days until the John Cornyn/Fox News 'progressives' enhance

DU by leaving

Response to geek tragedy (Reply #30)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:17 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

32. We're not leaving. We like to know what our primary opponents are up to. I'll read and not post.

Response to floriduck (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:20 PM

Lord Magus (1,999 posts)

33. If you use their talking points as your own, are they really your opponents? -nt-

Response to floriduck (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:49 PM

onenote (40,068 posts)

92. The primaries are over

(Except for DC which isn't going to be a good night for you). As for what your primary opponents will be doing--we will be working to defeat Donald Trump in the GE.

What will you be doing?

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:20 PM

Skwmom (12,685 posts)

34. I don't get it. With all the talk about his caring about his legacy this is one huge puzzlement.

Response to Skwmom (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:31 PM

yourpaljoey (2,166 posts)

45. Very much so.

Response to yourpaljoey (Reply #45)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:42 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

56. He's over a barrel. He's cast in with the "there they go again and we

have to cover them" crowd. Remember, first she goaded Allbright and Steinham into well-named cover, now it's gone all the way up to the President. That's freaking power. Perhaps just extreme hubris so far over that there is no way back, perhaps.

And still the investigation into Her Server and Her Emails and Her Actions with the FBI keeps going. Oh I forgot, the VRWC secretly runs the FBI. Otherwise, it would be over. Right.

And apparently it was the Benghazi Hearings that the secret server came up. I don't think even PBO can keep the lid on this. It's a long way to January...when he returns to civilian life. I learned to really like him and it really pisses me off.

Response to libdem4life (Reply #56)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:44 PM

yourpaljoey (2,166 posts)

58. Good points

Response to libdem4life (Reply #56)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:53 PM

Skink (10,122 posts)

66. Even Dems cover stuff up

I want to know who is gonna pardon who for which crime.

Response to Skink (Reply #66)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:55 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

70. Interesting point.

Response to Skink (Reply #66)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:30 PM

jamese777 (546 posts)

81. Pardon Me!

There is a legal concept known as "the presumption of innocence." You'd be surprised at how often individuals who are indicted for crimes are found to be Not Guilty by a jury of their peers.
Since there hasn't been a criminal referral to DOJ, an indictment, a trial or a conviction, no pardon is needed.
You're about a year and a half premature.

Response to jamese777 (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:37 AM

gordianot (15,024 posts)

153. Nixon got a sweet pardon and only had a Congressional investigation.

He resigned before impeachment and got a pardon before an investigation. Ford proved just about anything is possible when it comes to pardons. How many underlings from the Nixon administration got real jail time? The pardon fairy when it shows up is much more powerful than the indictment fairy ask several Governors sitting in jail today.

Response to Skwmom (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:37 PM

randome (34,845 posts)

51. 1. It isn't Obama talking about his legacy.

2. Maybe you're wrong about the investigation being something to worry about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Response to randome (Reply #51)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:51 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

63. It most definitely is about his legacy. She's been a thorn in his side

forever...and now this? It's not going away, until it goes away.

But his endorsement never goes away, either. Nor do all the other Establishment Democrats. Anyone who thinks all these lifetime politicos are having a Hillary Nomionation Party behind the scenes aren't paying attention. JMHO,

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:24 PM

TheBlackAdder (26,641 posts)

41. Jury Results

On Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Obama's Endorsement Undercuts Clinton FBI investigation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512171788

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person explicitly adopted the GOP spin on this for their thread tittle--the article notes the GOP is claiming Obama's endorsement undercuts the investigation, and all the OP did is edit out the fact that it was the GOP saying it. This is Republican troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:18 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Jesus Horatio Christ: How many of these "HURTFUL" suppressions of speech are going on today? KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF! Grow the fuck up or visit the RomperRoom site where your FeeFees won't get hurt!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Spend your energy posting your thoughts in response instead of trying to hide it. Better to know what's out there.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: DU is not the place for adopting GOP talking points.

Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #41)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:50 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

62. Juror #1 fancies himself a tough guy.

I kind of find his lil diatribe risible.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:54 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

67. I noticed the last few words of Juror 1...didn't really read it until it was

pointed out. Interesting reply.

Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #41)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:59 PM

TwilightZone (21,885 posts)

75. Juror #1 needs to be removed from jury duty

That's a pretty good example of how not to be a juror.

Response to TwilightZone (Reply #75)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:08 PM

Dem2 (8,164 posts)

76. Agreed

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:40 PM

Lil Missy (17,865 posts)

55. Nothing in that article (Fox News Source???) indicates any such thing. Wishful thinking on your part

We know you're VERY, VERY disappointed, but she's not going to be indicted. This is not a criminal investigation and there was no crime. It's not going to happen, even if you hold your breath and turn blue in the face.

Most importantly - BERNIE LOST.

HILLARY GOT MORE VOTES = MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR HILLARY THAN VOTED FOR BERNIE

HILLARY IS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

OBAMA ENDORSED HER

BIDEN ENDORSED HER

ELIZABETH WARREN ENDORSED HER

MOVE ON!

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:52 PM

onenote (40,068 posts)

64. You might have noted that you're repeating the FOX News/Repub spin

I guess that because you subscribe to that spin.

Which is interesting.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:10 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

79. There are six things the Lord hates,

There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #79)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:53 PM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

100. OMG...Quoting the Bible for Hillary. That's a new one.

Geez, I was about to misread the post through those first few...seemed pretty relevant, in a manner of speaking. Had to do a double take.

But that last one...that just whacked all the DUers that are not in the Clinton Bubble. There are a lot of us here she doesn't fool one bit.

Now, back to the post...

Response to libdem4life (Reply #100)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:01 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

138. Did you notice that every single one of those describes Hillary?

Kind of funny that a Hill fan is using it.

Response to senz (Reply #138)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:33 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

141. My thought exactly.

But I'm done with these fools. They aren't interested in how Clinton is viewed by so many. She doesn't want or need our votes. That's been made clear by her followers.

Response to floriduck (Reply #141)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:21 AM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

147. Um, yeah, she does. And it's not those in the Bubble on this board.

Long, long time until November.

Response to senz (Reply #138)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:19 AM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

146. I tried hard to avoid it...it was so obvious...thus, the double take.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:11 PM

jamese777 (546 posts)

80. Is there anyone naive enough...

to believe that a Democratic Attorney General (Loretta Lynch) appointed by Barack Obama and a Democratic U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (Channing Phillips) appointed by Barack Obama are going to indict the Democratic Party's nominee between now and November?
Even Judge Curiel in San Diego, who Donald Trump has attacked, has postponed the Trump University trial until after the election (November 28th).

Response to jamese777 (Reply #80)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:30 PM

Ferd Berfel (3,687 posts)

90. Agree, but wait till the Reich gets its hands on this shit

wait till they can like the 'foundation' some how.

We are facing a 4 year non-stop clusterfuck of: Hearings, Subpoenas, grand juries, special prosecutors, impeachment attempts,

and endless media circus

Response to Ferd Berfel (Reply #90)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:33 PM

jamese777 (546 posts)

129. That Goes On in Every Administration

Bill Clinton was even impeached and tried. It didn't stop him from completing two terms in office with the highest job approval rating of any two term president in the modern era.

Response to jamese777 (Reply #129)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:17 AM

Ferd Berfel (3,687 posts)

150. Wrong, It's exclating

It's been a neocon tag-team match

Wild BIll set the stage for what followed.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:51 PM

Ferd Berfel (3,687 posts)

84. The oligarchy WILL protect it's investment

regardless of the damage it does

Response to Ferd Berfel (Reply #84)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:19 PM

jamese777 (546 posts)

89. The Most Exclusive Club in the Political Oligarchy

is the United States Senate, only 100 members allowed. Bernard Sanders is a member in good standing and he participates in the 46 member Democratic Caucus.

Response to jamese777 (Reply #89)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:08 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

140. The oligarchs either have or serve great wealth.

Bernie is not and has never been in that club.

Hill and Bill are firmly in it, both having and serving great wealth. It's their love. It's their life.

Response to senz (Reply #140)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:43 PM

jamese777 (546 posts)

142. Wow

You mean Bernie doesn't accept the $174,000 a year salary plus fringe benefits which bring total compensation up to about $250,000 per year; he isn't ranking member on the Budget Committee and he doesn't caucus with the other Senate Dems?
ANYONE in the United States Senate is in a very exclusive club, only 100 members.

Response to jamese777 (Reply #142)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:00 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

143. Your idol makes as much in ONE HOUR as you claim Bernie makes in a YEAR.

You padded his income from $174,000/year to $250,000.

Bernie has served the people, and not the oligarchs, his entire career. He gets paid the going rate for a Senator and he doesn't take all the perks and bribes that so many others do. He's not on the take.

He doesn't live like a king/queen like your idol does. Bill and Hill are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars and that's not counting their very questionable "Foundation" which has even more money.

Your idol lives for money. She gives favors for money. She is owned by Wall Street. She is obscenely rich.

Your hypocrisy is contemptible.

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:00 PM

MFM008 (19,705 posts)

106. I find it hard to believe

a lawyer such as Barack Obama would risk everything with such an endorsement for HRC
if he wasn't sure she would be cleared of wrong doing. I find that mind boggling.

Response to MFM008 (Reply #106)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:21 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

123. William of Ockham would heartily agree.

Response to MFM008 (Reply #106)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:04 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

139. He's not risking much. If she's indicted he can just say

he acted in good faith. It's not his fault what she does.

Response to senz (Reply #139)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:27 AM

libdem4life (13,877 posts)

148. Yes. He's made it very clear he "knows nothing about it."

Definite denial of plausibility, if needed. He's no fool. But she has haunted him for 8 years, that's for sure. She got filthy rich and he's going to be an ex-president making a great living...but no wealth and grifter cash. I grew to respect him tremendously.