Who does the author of this piece imagine he's talking to? No one's mind is going to change - not the GOP leaders or electorate who plain hate Hillary just because, nor the Bernie people who believe Hillary is part of the "evil system," nor the Hillary backers. This article seems to be nothing more than venting. We get it, Mr Lund, we got it the last (40?) times a Benghazi hearing was held. How is this a "gift" to Ms Clinton? Only in your imagination, I suspect.

It was pretty obvious that the whole point of the big grilling was to make Clinton look good. To boost both her exposure and ratings of presidential composure.

Get it straight...The elite want Clinton. The elite aren't really conservative or liberal, they just use that dichotomy to divide people. They don't care, liberal or conservative, as long as it doesn't materially affect their bottom line or continued power.

Sanders will win. He will mop the floor with Trump. Why will they be in the general?
"It's the Corruption, Stupid".

Upcoming 1 - You make it sound like a big conspiracy between the GOP and Democrats to elect Clinton all controlled by some mysterious outer space alien life. Like its all fake as in a video game. What world are you living in ? Come on the next thing I'll hear from you is "Beam me up Scotty". Even if they attempted to do something so ridiculous how long would it last before getting out . Popostruous thinking on your part for sure,
come back to earth please.

I made it very clear, it is the elite, not an outer space alien as you suggest. If you don't think the elite control the parties and congress, why do you suppose we get the legislation we have? Did the rank and file voter send Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, to Washington to weaken the CFPB and support 300%+ interest rates of the payday loan industry along with all republicans? NO, only about .01% of the voters sent her to DC to do that. And they voted with dollars. That type of story is repeated endlessly in our government. You have to willfully ignore the laws and proposed laws we have, along with the appointees to regulatory agencies, to imagine they are NOT corrupt. What wins elections? MONEY for advertising. Where does it come from? Elite .01% donors. Do they "donate" out of the kindness of their hearts? please.

It is strategic and coordinated. For example, in Washington State, there are two senators who are "liberal" on many issues, women's rights, etc. but lockstep republicans on trade policy. Basically they are owned by Boeing on issues of Corporate power and corporate welfare. They are adamantly pro TPP when voters are not. That is the game for democrats: appear to be liberal on some issues, but when the vote happens on big money interest issues, there are always enough democrats going along with republicans to make that happen.

So, what are the elite interested in? Someone who supports corporate interests first and foremost. Clinton has a long record of doing just that. The .01% don't really care if the president is "liberal" or conservative on social issues, as long as the president is corporatist when it counts. Given the republican presidential field and Sanders as alternatives, Big Business knows Clinton is reliably in their corner.

What part of that do you disagree with?

You mentioned Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her support of a bill that will weaken the CFPB. Yes, I agree she may be in bed with that industry but read the article and see who else supports less protections vs. more. Also look at the resistance she is getting from the Democrats. Doesn't that tell you something ? Like I said there is wrong on both sides of the isle and this is a good example of it, but I will stick with the party that mostly represents middle class interests.

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

The bottom line is what party mostly represents my interests vs. special interests. If you can't see that than your blind and think the system is totally corrupt. Yes, I agree there is wrong on both sides of the isle but I'll stick with the party that "mostly cares" about the working middle class. Their actions are transparent when it comes to their votes in congress. They may give reasons why they voted in favor of special interests but it's up to you to figure out if they are being bought by those interests. The GOP historically favors big business in every respect under the guise of job creation and it's proven by their votes in congress. As an example ,why do they deny global warming and environmental regulations ? Why do they support cutting entitlements in order to pay for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy when trickle down economy has never worked ? Why do they favor more spending for the military ? Have you heard of "Defense Contractors" and how much they donate to their election campaigns ? All under the guise of national defense. Have you hear them cry about how weak our military is ? It's all nonsense, we have the strongest military on earth and they hope people are stupid enough to believe their crap. Their cry for smaller government is all self serving, do away with all those regulations that are holding this country back, all for the purpose of maximizing corporate profits at the expense of the little guy. I could give you example after example, if it's not the financial industry/ consumer protection regulations they want to kill it's the health care industry abuses they want to bring back. Open your eyes it's not hard and stop believing that the sky is falling and where headed for total destruction. The elite isn't controlling everything out there like it's a big conspiracy between the GOP (Enemy of the People) and the Democrats. Just listen to what they are trying to sell, listen to the debates and compare GOP vs. Democrats. Food fights and nonsense vs. policy.

Mary, it seems you are trying to convince me not to be a republican. Not sure why you would imagine I go that direction. republican policy is simply evil as policy. It is the fact that democrats so often strategically support republican policy around business, power and money, that I have to conclude the party is corrupt. I'm perfectly aware democrats are nicer on "social issues". As long as those are not issues that affect the corporate bottom line. We are on the same team. I'm just asserting that our team needs a substantial overhaul.

No I'm not trying to convert you. What I'm saying is if you want to see who supports the wealthy elite look at the GOP. I gave you just a handful of examples where they openly support large money interests. Yes there is some of that on both sides of the isle but by far the GOP has shown time and time again they favor their special interests at the expense of the poor/middle class. They make no bones about it and make no attempt to cover it up unless of course you believe their lies and misinformation they try to sell. To make a blanket statement that both parties are corrupt is wrong especially when you see the Democrats support policies that benefit the middle class at the expense of the elite as you call them. Just look what's going on today. Do you hear the GOP talk about income inequality? Do you hear them talking about raising the minimum wage ? Do you hear them talking about doing away with all those tax loopholes the wealthy elite take advantage of ? Do you hear them talking about rescinding those tax subsidies for Big Oil ? Again just a few examples. It seems to me the corruption your talking about mostly centers around one party.

Nonsense UpComing1, it was a witch hunt and nothing more. The GOP took the chance and spent millions trying to damage her and it didn't work. The bottom line was a political game using Tax Payer money. Did it backfire ? You better believe it.

Keyword: political game. Which game? The .01% want Clinton for president. They don't care if the president comes from their left arm or right arm, as long as it is theirs. It should be obvious by now that republicans are imploding over Trump and the only plausible corporatist candidate is Clinton. The elite could see this scenario and have been working assiduously to marginalize Sanders through their "liberal" media.

You still think the fighting between the democrats and republicans is real. It is not real in any way having to do with democracy. The parties and candidates are puppets controlled by "donations" of the .01%. ON BOTH SIDES. Over time social issues will advance and retreat and never resolve. They are not meant to resolve. They are meant to keep the public divided. That way the public can't come together on issues the elite actually care about. What is always resolved is law in favor of big money interests, against the interests of citizens,

DWS, democratic party head from Florida, introduced legislation supporting the Payday Loan industry. Supporting 300%+ interest rates for poor people. It is a despicable industry that preys on the defenseless poor. What percent of voters sent her to congress to put forth that legislation? about .01%. And those voted with dollars. DWS was Clinton's campaign co-chair in 2008. Now she works for Clinton inside the DNC. The point? Establishment politics on both sides are carefully choreographed. There is nothing real nor democratic about what happens in congress.

There was never any chance the Benghazi stuff was a threat to Clinton. It was picked so republicans could have something to talk about, create a controversy, over which Clinton could ultimately look strong and presidential. If you imagine it was not actual, pure theater, your threshold for suspension of disbelief is way to high.

not likely, if reality matters to you!

Didn't even read the article. Saw the headline and thought, you know it's Rolling Stone. The mag that posted the rape article that was not even true just to push an agenda. It's who they are. It's what they do.

Democrats eager to go from YES WE CAN to NO WE CAN't in one cycle...

Actually the last 7 years of straightening out Republican screw ups from the Bush administration is quits an accomplishment!

Republicans will spend the first two years of Clinton's first term investigating e-mails.
Then, republicans will spend the last two years scheming ways to impeach her.

EITHER WAY... Democrats electing Hillary will ensure that the GOP controlled Congress will have something to do (looking up Hillary's skirt) and thus, resulting in ZERO progress.

Is this why Democrats like to think of themselves as "progressives"???

yep better to do nothing, then to do something wring in electing Republicans!

If I am not mistaken..There was no rule or Law against using private emails on Government business at that time...In fact Rumsfeld, Cheney and others had millions of them all wiped off their servers...So...next...

Seriously, this article? LMAO, hope the "reporter" has read the recent news.

Hillary for Prison 2016!!

your comment is a cry out saying you're ignorant!

More republican stupidity. Admit when you are beaten and your fantasies are proved to be just that. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Tell us, what has she done? I missed it. Don't leave me hanging......

Hillary 2016

The leaders of Russia, China, North Korea and ISIS would like to sincerely thank Trey Gowdy, Judicial Watch, and the Republican party for the public release of 45,000 State Department e-mails, which we can now use for infiltration, disruption, recruitment, and blackmail. It's good to know we've got such good friends in the USA--although if you lived in our countries, you'd have already caught a couple in the back of the head.

Hillary's age is not
necessarily the issue in a Presidential run but her health is given recent
incidents. Hillary Clinton was
hospitalized for a blood clot in December 2012, related to a concussion she
received from a fall several weeks earlier for which she failed to get hospital
treatment but was apparently serious enough to delay Benghazi hearings and to require some
treatment and monitoring by her personal Doctor. We have to wonder where the clot was and what
sort of damage it did in the intervening weeks as well as whether she is now
prone to blood clots long term. Brain
clots can cause serious damage especially if left untreated for long periods of
times. Given her outbursts at the Ben
Ghazi hearings one wonders at whether internal injuries may have made her prone
to such an uncontrolled on camera fit of rage

news.yahoo.com/hillary-clin...

Bernie and Trump are older, so next lie!!

The same concussion she was faking?

..As Benghazi compound smoldered, Hillary Clinton
couldn't remember the name of her dead ambassador to Libya

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL
EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 17:00
EST, 22 May 2015 | UPDATED: 02:40
EST, 24 May 2015

Among the nearly 900 pages of
Hillary Clinton's emails the U.S. State Department released on Friday is one
that indicates she may have been confused, exhausted or careless on the
September 2012 night when four Americans died in a Benghazi, Libya terror
attack.

As U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris
Stevens and three other personnel lay dead and America's diplomatic outpost
there lay in smoldering ruins, Clinton asked her three closest aides for advice
about how to announce the death of 'Chris Smith.'

That name – the wrong one – was
the subject line of the email Clinton sent them as night turned to day in Libya
and the full extent of the Islamist terror attack was becoming apparent.

'Cheryl told me the Libyans
confirmed his death,' Clinton, then the secretary of state, wrote. 'Should we
announce tonight or wait until morning?'

Cheryl Mills, then Clinton's
chief of staff, replied to her and others on the chain – deputy chief of staff
Jake Sullivan and agency spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

'We are awaiting formal
confirmation from our team,' she wrote. 'We are drafting a statement while we
wait.'

A total of eight emails in the
chain crisscrossed the Internet. None of Clinton's deputies corrected her or
clarified whose death they were discussing.

Among the other three American
personnel to die in the attack was Sean Smith, a foreign service information
management officer.

But it was Stevens whose death
required confirmation from Libyan authorities.

A few 'good Samaritans among the
hordes of looters and bystanders,' as a State Department review later described
them, took his lifeless body from the Benghazi compound and to a hospital,
where he was later pronounced dead from smoke inhalation.

Clinton, now a presidential
candidate and the Democratic Party's front-runner, is facing new rounds of
questions about her job performance before, during and after the attack.

Her tightly controlled campaign
schedule and movements, however, have given journalists precious few chances to
ask those questions.

On Friday in New Hampshire,
Clinton would only say she was happy the documents were being released.

She also offered to buy a
campaign pool reporter an ice cream.

'It's on me if you want
anything,' Clinton offered, but there were no takers.

The pool reporter wrote that she
told Clinton 'she would like some questions answered or an interview in place
of an ice cream.'

As reporters across the country
pored over her emails looking for smoking guns, Clinton paid no mind.

'You have to have a little
relaxing break,' she said.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...

gonna be a tough 8 years for you with President Hillary!

"Don't you think Hillary looks tired?"

looks better then older Bernie and Trump!

No, she does not look tired. She had innocence and facts on her side, so there was nothing to weigh her down except boredom with another pointless round of questioning and posturing by fools who made themselves look even more stupid than they are, maybe. That may even have cheered her up.

Hillary Clinton’s equal pay hypocrisy

By Morgan Chalfant
| February 23, 2015

Well, this
is awkward.

According
to an analysis by the Washington Free Beacon,
Hillary Clinton — a proponent of equal pay — paid her female staffers in her
U.S. Senate office 72 cents for each dollar paid to their male counterparts.

During the
time Clinton served as a New York senator, the median annual salary for her
female staffers was $40,791.55, while that for her male staffers
was $15,708.38 higher at $56,499.93.

More from
the Beacon:

The
analysis compiled the annual salaries paid to staffers for an entire fiscal
year of work from the years 2002 to 2008. Salaries of employees who were not
part of Clinton’s office for a full fiscal year were not included. Because the
Senate fiscal year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, Clinton’s first year in the
Senate, which began on Jan. 3, 2001, was also not included in the analysis.

Ironically,
Clinton herself has been a big supporter of the equal pay movement, a position that
will undoubtedly be undermined upon the discovery of the pay gap in her own
Senate office.

20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it's still
just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay
#NoCeilings

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 9, 2014

Unfortunately
for the likely Democratic presidential candidate, this is not the first
evidence of Clinton’s hypocrisy.

She has criticized Obamacare even
after supporting and defending it, pledged to help young
Americans in the job market even when her previous positions have hurt
them, complained about college
cost during a speech that she charged a university $225,000 to deliver, and slammed President Obama’s
“don’t do stupid stuff” foreign policy strategy despite having been his
former secretary of State.

Just
imagine the anti-Clinton advertisements that will be cooked up ahead of 2016.

Read more at redalertpolitics.com/2015/0...

yea another lie!

This is incorrect. They did not include all the data in their analysis.

Clinton Foundation Donors Also Got
Big State Department Awards

This isn't as damning as the Clinton story from this
morning. Or that other story from this morning. Or that one from last week. Or
that one from the week before. Or any of those Clinton stories in that book
that's coming out. But it does substantiate the argument that Hillary Clinton
wasn't completely removed from the Clinton Foundation's accounts receivable
department.

It turn out that, if you, as a corporation, wanted to get
a swanky award from the State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge,
just to commemorate your commitment to global humanitarianism, what you really
had to do, aside from the occasional global humanitarian project, was to write a nice, fat check to Hillary Clinton's foundation.
From Cisco to Coca-Cola, nearly every company nominated for or currently
polishing a State Department award, gave big bucks to the Clinton non-profit
enterprise.

Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a
prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners —
while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton
family foundation.

The published donor records of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
Foundation don't give exact dates or amounts of its contributors, but it is
possible to create a general timeline for when many of the corporations donated
and when they were either nominated or selected for the award.

Silicon Valley giant Cisco was the biggest foundation
contributor nominated in 2009, giving the Clinton charity between $1 million
and $5 million. The company then won the award in 2010 when eight of the 12
finalists and two of the three winners had donated to the foundation.

It happened literally every year of Hillary
Clinton's tenure, from 2009 through 2013. And while most of the companies are
big-name companies (besides Coke, there's also Exxon Mobil, Intel, Caterpillar
and third world production-destroying shoe company TOMs), their contributions
seem wildly coincidental.

Of course, you could chalk it up to the Clinton
Foundation's excellent fundraising skills and capacity to extort large sums of
money from multi-national coprorations, as though those multi-national
corporations received nothing of value in return, other than to see the hard
work of the Clinton Foundation continue.

By Emily Zanotti on 4.23.15 | 4:17PM The American
Spectator

but were they as big as the 'no bid' contracts the Republicans gave their friends under Bush? No, Bush's handouts to his buddies was in the hundreds of billions!

Bill clinton is a racist and should not be "first gentleman"
of this country...

Discussion in 'Current Events'
started by 2aguy,
Tuesday at 9:24
AM.

bill clinton, a violent
rapist, should not be allowed to be the first "gentleman" of the
country if we are ever going to move past the racism of the democrat
party.......his long list of actions that gave aid and comfort to know racist
segregationists should forever bar him from the public square in order for us
to move forward....

As Governor Bill Clinton Kept Confederate Star On The Arkansas Flag

The state's General Assembly reaffirmed the parameters of
the flag in a 1987 act that Clinton signed. Among other provisions detailing the
flag's features, such as its colors and shapes, there was a line that read,
“The blue star above the word 'ARKANSAS' is to commemorate the Confederate
States of America.” The act met no significant opposition at the time. In the
same legislative session, the assembly also settled on an official state song.

And as his wife...hilary is just as culpable in the racist
actions of her husband, who throughout his life has chosen racism over decent,
civilized behavior........and he is also a violent rapist....

bill clinton (also a violent sexual predator):

Dedicated a statue to his good friend and political mentor j. william
fulbright, an old school racist democrat,

And awarded this racist democrat and ally of orval faubus the Presidential
medal of freedom.....

and had orval faubus, the guy who used the Arkansas national guard to block the
9 black children from attending the white school....an honored position at his
inauguration as Governor of Arkansas.........

imagine a Repulican doing either one of those things or having either one of
those actual racists as good friends and political mentors...

At least 2 women, probably
more, Juanita Broderick and Elizabeth Ward Gracen......

+1,028

Hillary Clinton is refusing to
say whether a Clinton-Gore pin featuring a Confederate flag was part of her
husband's official campaign merchandise.

Examples of the distinctive red and blue badge, from the 1992 election, are now
being sold on Ebay.

It comes as politicians, including President Obama, called for the Confederate
battle flag to be taken down in the state capitol, a week after a white gunman
allegedly shot dead nine black worshipers at a church in South Carolina.

Scroll down for video

ww.usmessageboard.com/threa... of Form

trump's wife is a nudie commie, next!

Bill Clinton Signed Law Honoring ‘the
Confederate States of America’

06.22.2015
| Alicia Powe | 2

Controversy over the Confederate Flag, which still flies from
South Carolina’s capitol grounds, has heated up after the terrorist attack on
the Emanuel AME Church that saw nine people slaughtered because of the color of
their skin.

Pictures have
emerged of the suspected killer, Dylan Roof Dylan Roof, burning the American
flag and holding the Confederate flag.

Republican
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina called for the removal of the Confederate battle flag on
Monday. Mitt Romney went as far as saying take it down. Jeb Bush pointed to his
removal of the flag from the Florida capitol when he was
governor as a sign of his disapproval of it. President Barack Obama’s spokesman
said the flag belongs in a museum.

Nearly
all 2016 contenders have been barraged with media questions about the flag,
except the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
Hillary Clinton. Clinton keeps calling for
increased gun control, but has remained silent on the flag
controversy.

Clinton
did, however, call for the flag to be removed from the South
Carolina capitol in 2007 during her first presidential
campaign. Yet, her husband, former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, signed a
law which designated a portion of the state flag to commemorate the Confederate
States of America.

“The blue
star above the word “ARKANSAS” is to commemorate the Confederate States of
America,” Clinton’s law reads.

The
Clintons presided over the annual celebration of “Confederate Flag Day” while
they occupied the governor’s mansion, which continues to this day. This year
the event will be celebrated on April 7th.

Hillary must have forgotten about celebrating Confederate Flag Day
each year.

Two
buttons offering support for one of Bill Clinton’s presidential runs were prominent on social media over
the weekend.

The first shows the Confederate battle flag with the words
“Clinton-Gore” superimposed. See image
at image: ://3hvfzc2w6u7kruih321x50k11vq...

The
second goes a bit further, portraying Clinton and Gore in the gray uniforms of
the Confederacy. It’s currently for sale on eBay. Go to image: at //3hvfzc2w6u7kruih321x50k11vq...

It’s unclear if the Clinton-Gore Confederate flag campaign button
was an official part of their 1992 presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton
isn’t clarifying, nor is her team responding to questions about her husband
honoring the flag as Arkansas governor in 1987.

Gee, what would the media’s response be if campaign
paraphernalia was discovered that featured the names Romney and Ryan atop
the Dixie flag?

Read more at ://dailysurge.com/2015/06/flas...

and it sucks that they support equal rights for minorities, doesn't it racist!

...As Benghazi compound smoldered, Hillary Clinton
couldn't remember the name of her dead ambassador to Libya

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL
EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 17:00
EST, 22 May 2015 | UPDATED: 02:40
EST, 24 May 2015

Among the nearly 900 pages of
Hillary Clinton's emails the U.S. State Department released on Friday is one
that indicates she may have been confused, exhausted or careless on the
September 2012 night when four Americans died in a Benghazi, Libya terror
attack.

As U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris
Stevens and three other personnel lay dead and America's diplomatic outpost
there lay in smoldering ruins, Clinton asked her three closest aides for advice
about how to announce the death of 'Chris Smith.'

That name – the wrong one – was
the subject line of the email Clinton sent them as night turned to day in Libya
and the full extent of the Islamist terror attack was becoming apparent.

'Cheryl told me the Libyans
confirmed his death,' Clinton, then the secretary of state, wrote. 'Should we
announce tonight or wait until morning?'

Cheryl Mills, then Clinton's
chief of staff, replied to her and others on the chain – deputy chief of staff
Jake Sullivan and agency spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

'We are awaiting formal
confirmation from our team,' she wrote. 'We are drafting a statement while we
wait.'

A total of eight emails in the
chain crisscrossed the Internet. None of Clinton's deputies corrected her or
clarified whose death they were discussing.

Among the other three American
personnel to die in the attack was Sean Smith, a foreign service information
management officer.

But it was Stevens whose death
required confirmation from Libyan authorities.

A few 'good Samaritans among the
hordes of looters and bystanders,' as a State Department review later described
them, took his lifeless body from the Benghazi compound and to a hospital,
where he was later pronounced dead from smoke inhalation.

Clinton, now a presidential
candidate and the Democratic Party's front-runner, is facing new rounds of
questions about her job performance before, during and after the attack.

Her tightly controlled campaign
schedule and movements, however, have given journalists precious few chances to
ask those questions.

On Friday in New Hampshire,
Clinton would only say she was happy the documents were being released.

She also offered to buy a
campaign pool reporter an ice cream.

'It's on me if you want
anything,' Clinton offered, but there were no takers.

The pool reporter wrote that she
told Clinton 'she would like some questions answered or an interview in place
of an ice cream.'

As reporters across the country
pored over her emails looking for smoking guns, Clinton paid no mind.

'You have to have a little
relaxing break,' she said.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...

another lie by a retardican, the more you talk, the more you lie!

...Sandy Berger:
Inadvertent My Foot (Sandy Berger,
Clinton appointee, stuffed CIA papers in his pants to that were supposed to go
to the 9/11 commmitee.)

By Celeste on July
21, 2004 5:09 PM | 64 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Instapundit has an
excellent series of links on the Burglar affair (incl. the relevant statutes),
but I just wanted to add my two cents to the mess.

"Inadvertent"
doesn't wash with rank and file cleared employees. Even in a place like HQ CIA,
where people routinely left classified material out on their desks during my
tenure, taking a few documents home will get you fired or land you in the
slammer. Unless you're someone like John Deutch.

From emails from
folks who've actually worked in the National Archives, security procedures for
handling classified info are much tighter. And Berger didn't do this only one
time.

What we have here,
much like we did in the case of John Deutch, wasn't a lack of awareness of
security procedures, nor was it negligence; it was contempt. Berger didn't feel
like the rules should apply to him, so he stuffed documents in his pants and
left. Deutch, as the Director of Central Intelligence, knew full well he wasn't
supposed to be keeping Top Secret material on his unsecured home computer (that
his family members also had access to), but he did it anyway. For blatant
disregard of security procedures, Deutch was let off with a slap on the wrist,
and Clinton issued a last-minute pardon for him.

At some point, a
senior administration official needs to actually receive the same treatment
that a rank and file cleared employee does, when displaying such blatant
contempt for our security procedures. I don't care if they're Republicans or
Democrats, aside from the damage their security breaches cause, this behavior,
if unpunished, will only encourage future officials to behave the same way. For
so long as people make excuses for this kind of behavior, it is going to
continue, and next time it may not just be a case of removing info that was
possibly damaging to their reputation. In my opinion, Berger deserves prison
time.

adding up the lies retardican, you're on a roll!

Hillary Clinton vows to
expand Obama amnesty to more illegals

By Stephen Dinan
- The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham
Clinton vowed Tuesday that if
elected, she would try to expand President Obama’s deportation amnesty to more
illegal immigrants, saying this administration has left out a number of aliens
who deserve to be granted legal status....

Speaking in Las Vegas at a Cinco de Mayo meeting
focused on immigration, Mrs. Clinton
also called for granting attorneys to illegal immigrants facing the complex
immigration system, and said she would like to re-examine detention to ensure
more illegal immigrants are released as they await deportation.

Mrs. Clinton
delivered on just about every question from immigrant rights activists, who had
been pressing her to reject Mr. Obama’s detention policies and go beyond his
amnesty.

“We should go as far as we can to get the resources to
provide support and, particularly, representation, and change some of our
detention processes within the kind of discretion I think the president has
exercised with his executive orders,” Mrs. Clinton
told so-called Dreamers, or young illegal immigrants in the U.S. under color of
law of Mr. Obama’s initial 2012 amnesty, with whom she met during her public
roundtable discussion.

She said she wants Congress to pass a broad
immigration bill that would grant most illegal immigrants “a path to full and
equal citizenship,” but said if Capitol Hill continues to stalemate, she would
use presidential powers to the extent of the law.

Mrs. Clinton
specifically called for expanding legal status to illegal immigrant parents of
Dreamers — a category of people cut out of Mr. Obama’s latest amnesty after the
Justice Department said that would be going too far.

ww.washingtontimes.com/news...

.

and the lies continue, must be paid by the word Retardican tolls!

Commodity Futures
Modernization Act

BILL CLINTONS ROLE IN THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN

By JUSTIN FOX

.

Stephen Jaffe / AFP
/ Getty

.

Bottom of Form

If you had to pick a single
government move that did more than any other to muck things up, it was probably
this bill, signed into law by lame-duck President Bill Clinton in December
2000. It effectively banned regulators from sticking their noses into
over-the-counter derivatives like credit default swaps. There's no guarantee
that regulators would have sniffed out the dangers in time. But banning them
from even looking sent a pretty clear anything-goes message to OTC derivatives
markets.

·

and the lies continue, you must be paid by the word Retardican tolls!

Anything by real reporters?

The majority of the Repubes line of questioning was laughable. Hillary won the day-enjoy it. 25 of Comey's FBI agents are currently reviewing her testimony along with the server emails. Those are the guys she needs to worry about...