That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Well, yes and no. If your second in command can handle him, you can ignore him as not worth your time. Maybe. Who freakin' knows how people will react this election.Chrisoc13 wrote:Yeah but it wouldn't matter of she can confront trump. It's Hillary that has to, period. The VP doing it isn't going to help much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you are correct. And yet I'd still be disappointed in Warren. It would be selling her soul for an assured democratic white-house in '16, when that seat is already all but assured.Holman wrote:Warren signing on as the VP basically ends the Sanders-Clinton feud (or, more importantly, the feud between their supporters). She's as popular with Berners as Bernie is, and it brings their issues directly into the administration.
Plus the VP does traditionally serve as an attack dog, and Warren excels at that while remaining brilliant at all times.
Rule 34?GreenGoo wrote:I'd love to see 2 women in the white house.
except she won't be there in debates. It will be interesting to see if trump can get under hillary's skin.GreenGoo wrote:Well, yes and no. If your second in command can handle him, you can ignore him as not worth your time. Maybe. Who freakin' knows how people will react this election.Chrisoc13 wrote:Yeah but it wouldn't matter of she can confront trump. It's Hillary that has to, period. The VP doing it isn't going to help much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If she's going to ally with Clinton, I think she'd hold out for a cabinet position. She can continue attacking Trump without being the VP nominee in the meantime.Fitzy wrote:Warren is 66 years old. She has little chance of rising to the top spot in the senate.
She could see the VP spot as a great way to finish her short political career.
Especially if she could negotiate for some important roles in the new administration.
Possibly. One can dream.Max Peck wrote:Rule 34?GreenGoo wrote:I'd love to see 2 women in the white house.
Me too, but I'm willing to bet no. Assuming exasperated huffs and rollyeyes don't constitute "under hillary's skin". She will absolutely convey her contempt through body language. Just watch her getting grilled over Benghazi (that I can even spell that place now without looking it up pisses me off).Chrisoc13 wrote:except she won't be there in debates. It will be interesting to see if trump can get under hillary's skin.GreenGoo wrote:Well, yes and no. If your second in command can handle him, you can ignore him as not worth your time. Maybe. Who freakin' knows how people will react this election.Chrisoc13 wrote:Yeah but it wouldn't matter of she can confront trump. It's Hillary that has to, period. The VP doing it isn't going to help much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
....Sorry Im a huge Bill Clinton fanboi. Picked him in the early runnings. I think she was for someone else but came over Still have my buttons somewhere. Im so geek. But that was the last time I super cared. This time Im just scared 
GreenGoo wrote: Me too, but I'm willing to bet no. Assuming exasperated huffs and rollyeyes don't constitute "under hillary's skin". She will absolutely convey her contempt through body language. Just watch her getting grilled over Benghazi (that I can even spell that place now without looking it up pisses me off).
Further details, courtesy of Zerohedge, here.NYPost.com wrote:In most cases, news that a major presidential candidate’s family charity doled out millions to a for-profit company controlled by the candidate’s longtime friends would be raising lots of eyebrows.
But this is Bill and Hillary we’re talking about. So it’s just the latest in a long list of disclosures about the slush fund that operates publicly as the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation is deeply intertwined with the massive wealth they’ve accumulated in the past 15 years — even as its donors have themselves reaped enormous benefits.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the foundation in 2010 committed $2 million to Energy Pioneer Solutions, despite IRS rules that say a charity is not “supposed to act in anyone’s private interests.” The ex-president even personally arranged a US Energy Department grant to the company.
Among the firm’s owners are several longtime Clinton friends — including a wealthy blond divorcée from Chappaqua whose relationship with Bill has long been the subject of speculation. The Journal reports that the foundation even removed the fiscal link from its website to avoid calling attention to Bill’s “friendship.”
So we’re back to that again.
You might be in luck. It appears that Hillary has some chores for Bill, if she wins.Daehawk wrote:In truth Im not sure how Bill could ever be in the white house...well other than First Gentleman.
The Democratic frontrunner in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton, says she will enlist her husband Bill to revitalise the economy. She has previously hinted that the former president would "have to come out of retirement" if she won. Outlining her plans at a campaign rally in southern state of Kentucky, she pointed out the economic success of Bill Clinton's presidency. Kentucky will vote in a Democratic primary on Tuesday, along with Oregon. Campaigning at a rally ahead of the primary, Ms Clinton made her case why she thought he could help. "My husband I'm going to put in charge of revitalising the economy because, you know, he knows how to do it," she told the crowd. "And especially in places like coal country and inner cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out."
Full report here.Washington Examiner wrote:After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation's books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of "fraud."
Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric's financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.
The financial whistleblower said his 15 months of research revealed gaps in the amount of money donors claim to have given and the amount of money the foundation claims to have received.
(just for Moliere)How do you throw stones if you are Trump supporter though, where he said he was going to release his taxes last Christmas and then, never-mind, his tax people said not to.Anonymous Bosch wrote:Financial analyst alleges major holes in Clinton Foundation records:
Full report here.Washington Examiner wrote:After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation's books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of "fraud."
Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric's financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.
The financial whistleblower said his 15 months of research revealed gaps in the amount of money donors claim to have given and the amount of money the foundation claims to have received.
Right, because Trump and his supporters are renowned for their measured appraisals and restraint.LordMortis wrote:How do you throw stones if you are Trump supporter though, where he said he was going to release his taxes last Christmas and then, never-mind, his tax people said not to.Anonymous Bosch wrote:Financial analyst alleges major holes in Clinton Foundation records:
Full report here.Washington Examiner wrote:After more than a year of research, a Wall Street analyst is arguing the Clinton Foundation's books are riddled with financial inconsistencies that rise to the level of "fraud."
Charles Ortel, who gained recognition for correctly identifying problems with General Electric's financial statements in 2008, has prepared 40 reports highlighting discrepancies that he said proves the Clinton Foundation has covered up cash flow since 1997.
The financial whistleblower said his 15 months of research revealed gaps in the amount of money donors claim to have given and the amount of money the foundation claims to have received.
"Magic" is the right word; Clinton's administration coincided with a long expansion, but how much credit his economic policies deserve is questionable. The economy always does better under Democratic administrations.Daehawk wrote:Saw online news that says Hillary will make Bill the economy czar if elected. He could do his 1990's magic again.
What a coup for Selena!Daehawk wrote:Saw online news that says Hillary will make Bill the economy czar if elected. He could do his 1990's magic again.
A debate between him and Trump would be priceless.Zarathud wrote:Lewis Black once had a bit about Bill Clinton and the economy. He called it blowjob economics. The President gets a hummer, and the economy goes up! Lewis Black promised to be the best...President...ever.
And I believe him.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton did not comply with State Department policies on records in her use of private email while U.S. secretary of state and she declined to be interviewed for the inspector general's investigation, U.S. media outlets reported on Wednesday. Clinton's use of private email, held on a private server at her Chappaqua, New York, home, for government purposes has come up in various investigations, and the controversy over it has hung over her campaign for months.
The report by the department's inspector general cited "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" with State Department records that predated Clinton's tenure, but criticized her for using private email for government business and for failing to turn over records promptly, media reports said. "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act," the report read.
The inspector general's report, released to lawmakers on Wednesday, said Secretary of State John Kerry and predecessors Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright were interviewed in the investigation, said Politico, which first reported the report's conclusions. The report said Clinton and her deputies, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, declined to be interviewed for the inspector general's investigation, Politico said.
Clinton, who is campaigning to become the Democratic nominee in the Nov. 8 presidential election, has been criticized for her use of the private email address and server in handling government business while secretary of state from 2009-2013. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating whether any laws were broken as a result of the server kept in her home.
I thought that was the contention. Shows what I know.GreenGoo wrote:Huh. From day one I assumed she violated policy. This was news when the "scandal" first broke.
What am I missing? Are they just reiterating year old news because "election cycle"?
So the IG statement today is why it's news today.A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday.
Exactly, this isn't about politically-motivated claims or bald-faced assumptions that she did something wrong (because CLINTON!), it's about the release of the State Department Inspector General's audit report. It establishes that she didn't follow policies in place, but also that neither did her predecessors. It certainly doesn't help her, but it probably isn't terribly damaging given that it confirms what most people already assumed. The thing that could still sink her would be if the FBI investigation finds that there was actual criminal violations, as opposed to mere poor judgement.LordMortis wrote:So the IG statement today is why it's news today.GreenGoo wrote:Huh. From day one I assumed she violated policy. This was news when the "scandal" first broke.
What am I missing? Are they just reiterating year old news because "election cycle"?
BTW, I mostly posted the initial article as a joke, since I fully expected that Rip would be trumpeting it as confirmation that Clinton is going down. I thought the bit about him slacking off was enough of a hint in that regard.The Clinton email story has been at a steady drip for over a year now, as new revelations are unearthed and her electronic correspondence is released. This critical State Department report is bigger than that - more akin to a deluge of bad news for the candidate.
It will have a political toll, but it may be the first step in her putting the issue behind her. It comes when she is least politically vulnerable, near the end of a primary campaign she comfortably leads and before July's political conventions.
Mrs Clinton's critics will point to the findings that she did not get permission from the State Department to set up her email server, her recordkeeping was inadequate, the information she disclosed was incomplete, and she and her aides were not always co-operative in the investigation.
The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, has been quick to point out that the actions of previous secretaries of state were also highlighted in the report - although the inspector general noted that the guidelines were more detailed by the time Mrs Clinton took office. She was was also not directly told by the State Department to stop using her system.
With this report now public, the last remaining key piece of the story is also the potentially most damaging - the FBI's investigation into whether her handling of classified information constituted criminal conduct.
Although early indications are that it did not, an adverse ruling there would amount to a flood that could sweep away her presidential hopes.
I'm not sure if I caught your tone earlier, but I think I did. My comments are directed at this being reported as news. I understand the IG published its report finally and the media is simply reporting on the conclusions of that report, but I can't help but feel "duh" about the whole thing.Max Peck wrote: BTW, I mostly posted the initial article as a joke, since I fully expected that Rip would be trumpeting it as confirmation that Clinton is going down. I thought the bit about him slacking off was enough of a hint in that regard.
The report concluded that Clinton violated the agency’s email rules when she chose to exclusively use a private email server during her four years at State Department and did not promptly turn over records after she departed the agency.
The document also included some details of an exchange between Clinton and Abedin, who both chose not to cooperate with the IG’s investigation.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/h ... rry-223559“In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not being received,” the report said. “The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
One thing that's new, if I understand this correctly, is that while Clinton has said that she requested authorization to use a private e-mail server, they couldn't find any evidence of such a request.GreenGoo wrote:I'm not sure if I caught your tone earlier, but I think I did. My comments are directed at this being reported as news. I understand the IG published its report finally and the media is simply reporting on the conclusions of that report.Max Peck wrote: BTW, I mostly posted the initial article as a joke, since I fully expected that Rip would be trumpeting it as confirmation that Clinton is going down. I thought the bit about him slacking off was enough of a hint in that regard.
I guess I just expected more. Couldn't they have gotten an intern or something to skim the policies and identify the violations? That would have taken a tenth of the time and zero cost. I'm being facetious and have only read the blurbs on the report. I don't know what else is in it.
That's exactly what she should have done. I'm not sure what your issue is here. Business from state address. Personal from personal address.Rip wrote:The report concluded that Clinton violated the agency’s email rules when she chose to exclusively use a private email server during her four years at State Department and did not promptly turn over records after she departed the agency.
The document also included some details of an exchange between Clinton and Abedin, who both chose not to cooperate with the IG’s investigation.http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/h ... rry-223559“In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not being received,” the report said. “The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
At least we know where her priorities were.
For the record, given the back and forth at the time, I never believed that she asked or received authorization to do what she did (because it's hard to imagine that authorization would have been given). I'm not surprised to hear others have used personal email, although I'd like to know the scope and magnitude. It's one thing to send a text to your assistant to meet you at the car with the file on Brazil once in a blue moon. It's quite another thing to set up your own IT shop and never touch the government infrastructure.El Guapo wrote: One thing that's new, if I understand this correctly, is that while Clinton has said that she requested authorization to use a private e-mail server, they couldn't find any evidence of such a request.
One other thing that's helpful for Clinton is that the report confirms that other Secretaries of State also used private e-mail, though I gather she's the first Secretary of State to use private e-mail exclusively.