Segami
Segami's JournalBernie Sanders Calls MEETING at His Home in Vermont Sunday to Discuss Campaign’s Future
Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to get together Sunday night in his hometown of Burlington, Vt., with a couple of dozen of his closest supporters, an aide announced Friday.Sanders is spending the weekend in his Vermont home-base but is booked to appear on several Washington-based TV news shows on Sunday morning.
Kathryn Morse (@auntkatsattic) June 11, 2016
He and Jane invited a couple dozen key supporters from around the country to come to Burlington to get their input and advice and talk about how to move forward, said Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs. It will be a broad-ranging discussion.
Briggs said he expected "a lot of thoughtful discussion among smart people and good friends."
CNN reports:
Hes seeking our advice after meeting with others here and wants to meet with supporters, said Grijalva, who added that he wanted to push to influence the platform and party rules at the Democratic convention in July.
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley said Friday on CNNs New Day that Sanders will bring a group together this coming Sunday to discuss kind of the path forward.
Briggs said that Sanders will remain in the race at least through Tuesday, when Washington, D.C., will hold the final contest of the primary season.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/11/bernie-sanders-calls-meeting-his-home-vermont-sunday-discuss-campaigns-future
Progressives Hope to Influence DNC From Within. WILL IT WORK?
vimeo.com/170226004
BACKGROUND: As we continue our election coverage at this pivotal time in American history, the all-important question arises: can progressives really influence the centrist Democratic Party that has worked so hard to woo conservative white voters? The only indication that party establishment has made to Bernie Sanders has been to allow him to choose five people to help craft the DNC platform. Clinton was given six. Sanders picked an array of influential figures including Cornel West and Bill McKibben. The question is, can progressives actually influence the corporate-friendly Democratic party from within?
Jimmy Dore: Google Manipulates Search Results To FAVOR Hillary Clinton
Did the New York Times SINK Bernie Sanders?
Payback or not, Sanders and his supporters are justified in saying the mainstream media have not been entirely fair to him. But that isnt because Sanders was anti-establishment or because he has attacked the medias monopolistic practices or because he claimed to be leading a revolution or even because he was impatient with reporters who asked idiotic questions though he had done all of those things. Sanders was the victim of something else: the script. The media have a script for elections, and in that script the presumed losers are always marginalized and even dismissed. The script, then, dictated that Sanders wasnt going to get favorable coverage. Or, put more starkly, the MSM pick the losers and then vindicate that judgment. From the moment he announced his candidacy in April 2015, the media treated Sanders as if he were unlikely to win. In The New York Times, that announcement was printed on page A-21, calling him a long shot but saying that his candidacy could force Hillary Clinton to address his issues more deeply. The article ended with a quote from Sanders: I think people should be a little bit careful underestimating me, which is exactly what The Times seemed to be doing.
-snip-
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote a scathing takedown of The Times most egregious offense: a March article by Jennifer Steinhauer on how Sanders functioned as a legislator. Headlined Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss" target="_blank">as originally published, the article recounted how effective Sanders was at attaching amendments to pieces of legislation, both Republican and Democratic, and forging coalitions to achieve his ends. The piece was bandwagon stuff. But then something happened. The original article, already published, underwent a transformation in which Sanders suddenly wasnt so effective a legislator. Even the headline was changed to Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories. And this paragraph was added: But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed. Responding to angry Sanders supporters, The Times own public editor, Margaret Sullivan, asked why the changes were made and wrote, Matt Purdy, a deputy executive editor, said that when senior editors read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about whether Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president. Yeah, right.
-snip-
Now that Sanders has played his part juicing up the nominating drama, the media seem as eager to dispose of him as the Democratic establishment does. Theyre ready to relegate him to his next role: confirmed sore loser. A front-page story in Thursdays edition of The New York Times griped, Hillary Clinton Made History, but Bernie Sanders Stubbornly Ignored it, opening with the line, Revolutions rarely give way to gracious expressions of defeat. No, they dont, and I dont think it is the business of the press to tell candidates when to or how to concede, much less complain about it. The article went on to call Sanders address after Tuesday nights primaries a speech of striking stubbornness, as if The Times and its barely pent-up exasperation with Sanders finally broke the dam. But again, this isnt just what the MSM think of Bernie Sanders. It is what the media think of losers. They dont like them very much, and they seem determined to make sure that you dont like them either unless they beat the presss own odds and become winners.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/did-the-new-york-times-sink-bernie-sanders/
How Hillary Clinton DONOR Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the departments professional staff. The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to protect the name of the Secretary, stall the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government. A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernandos only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
We had no idea who he was, one board member told ABC News.
Fernandos lack of any known background in nuclear security caught the attention of several board members, and when ABC News first contacted the State Department in August 2011 seeking a copy of his resume, the emails show that confusion ensued among the career government officials who work with the advisory panel.
As you can see from the attached, its natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members, Mannina wrote, referring to an attachment that was not included in the recent document release.
Fernando himself would not answer questions from ABC News in 2011 about what qualified him for a seat on the board or led to his appointment. When ABC News finally caught up with Fernando at the 2012 Democratic convention, he became upset and said he was "not at liberty" to speak about it. Security threatened to have the ABC News reporter arrested. Fernando's expertise appeared to be in the arena of high-frequency trading -- a form of computer-generated stock trading. At the time of his appointment, he headed a firm, Chopper Trading, that was a leader in that field.
Fernando's history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific -- and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barak Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list. The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show. Among those with whom Fernando served on the International Security Advisory Board was David A. Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and former Sen. Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel.
cont'
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
Obama White House Denies Endorsement Will INTIMIDATE FBI Investigators
vimeo.com/170085138
Has the FBI spoken to Hillary Clinton yet?
The reason I ask is because I'm seeing a lot of Hillary quotes throughout media stories where she is claiming that there is 'zero chance' of being indicted in the email/server scandal.
How can Hillary make such an absolute, 100% sure claim that there is absolutely 'zero chance' that she will be indicted by the FBI especially if they haven't spoken or deposed her yet and the fact that the FBI are still investigating the email/server evidence?
Anyone know how she can be so sure?
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923