RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Hillary Clinton has been given the official all-clear by the FBI, who have said she won't have to face charges for the Clorox cleaning job she did on her email server. And with her path to power given the personal red carpet treatment by FBI director James Comey, the fact that a hundred thousand votes or so have yet to be counted in California has been swept under the high thread count rug."

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and her husband former president Bill Clinton wait to go on stage at the Story County Democratic Picnic in Ames, Iowa, November 15, 2015. (photo: Melina Mara/WP)
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and her husband former president Bill Clinton wait to go on stage at the Story County Democratic Picnic in Ames, Iowa, November 15, 2015. (photo: Melina Mara/WP)


The Clintons & a Crime Far Worse Than Missing Emails or Votes!

By Dennis J Bernstein and Greg Palast, Reader Supported News

12 July 16

 

t’s been an action-packed week in politics. Hillary Clinton has been given the official all-clear by the FBI, who have said she won’t have to face charges for the Clorox cleaning job she did on her email server. And with her path to power given the personal red carpet treatment by FBI director James Comey, the fact that a hundred thousand votes or so have yet to be counted in California has been swept under the high thread count rug — where a lot of inconvenient votes end up these days! But the missing emails and votes haven’t been forgotten by our resident sleuth, Greg Palast. In this week’s Best Democracy Money Can Buy: Election Crimes Bulletin, he gives Dennis J Bernstein the skinny on Sanders’ stolen California win, Clinton’s bleached communications — and a multi-million dollar Kazakhstan bribery and corruption scandal that got Cloroxed with them!

TRANSCRIPT (Originally broadcast on July 6, 2016)

Dennis Bernstein: There has been a lot going on. We’ve got the announcement today that Hillary Clinton will not be indicted, after a little visit that Bill had with the Attorney General. There are still some leftover results that we’re trying to figure out in terms of what happened in California. And you’ve got a big event coming up. So there’s a lot to talk about. Why don’t we start back in California?

Greg Palast: Well, I was reading something called The Washington Post, which is like the American Izvestia, and it said, “Greg Palast made a mistake.” Because I had announced on your show — we’re infamous now — that 2 million ballots were not counted when they declared Hillary Clinton the winner in California with 100% of precincts reporting. In fact, there were 2 million ballots that were uncounted, according to the Secretary of State, on the night that CNN announced that 100% of the results were in. And that doesn’t change, even if The Washington Post doubts it.

Even today, one month after the primary, over 100,000 ballots have yet to be counted — provisional ballots, what we call placebo ballots, which have a danger of not being counted at all. I was also attacked in The Washington Post — I’m not being defensive about this, I just want to correct the record — because I said on this show that the majority of the provisional ballots were, given the demographics, likely Bernie Sanders voters. And I was accused of being The Great Carnac and knowing how people voted without seeing their ballots. No, it was demographics. In fact, of the provisional ballots that have now been counted, exactly 75.0%, 3 out of 4 ballots, went for Bernie Sanders.

What is a provisional ballot? … I call them placebo ballots, because they make you think you voted when you haven’t. They let you believe you voted … There’s a one in three chance it won’t be counted. In a high risk race, a majority chance it will not be counted … There’s likely to be 3 million given out in the upcoming election — far more than the margins of victory. Supposedly Hillary Clinton initially won in California by 400,000 votes. That margin has officially shrunk substantially. But the margin is far, far less than the number of provisional ballots that have been given out, and, as I projected, 75% of those that get counted go to Sanders. If you count all the provisional ballots, all things equal, Bernie Sanders won.

DB: Well, that begs my next question: how long do you have to wait for a vote count before it becomes irrelevant? Like how long does it take them to count the votes to figure out what happened in Britain?

Palast: Let’s see, by 5 a.m. British time they’d counted 37 million ballots … In California, we were waiting one month. This is Silicon Valley country, right, and we cannot figure out how to count a bunch of pieces of paper in over a month. Part of it is, they’re not trying to figure out how to count these things — that’s easy. They’re trying to figure out how not to count them. How many they can cut out, reject, and throw in the garbage … This is the problem here. We are not counting all the ballots in the United States. That’s why it takes so long, over a month in California, as they figure out how many ballots they don’t want to count — that’s ugly. And when it gets down to the rest of the nation, the racist smell of the ballot rejection is heavy … If a ballot is thrown away as non-countable, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission says it’s 900% more likely that voter is black than white. It’s an apartheid vote-counting system. Everyone in America gets to vote, but not every color gets to have their vote counted.

DB: Well, big announcement, Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted, at least according to the FBI … But what does this have to do with voter protection? This is not about one candidate or another, but this is an important story, isn’t it?

Palast: Very. Because people know me as the guy who’s the author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Billionaires & Ballot Bandits. And there’s a direct relation between vote-rustling and billionaires buying up our politics … I’m not partisan on that. Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, they discovered that she was basically hiding them because there were Freedom of Information Act requests for her documents from journalists like me. What they wanted to do is tell us that these e-mails didn’t exist. I was interested in finding out about Hillary Clinton’s relationship to the murderous dictatorship of Kazakhstan. Follow the money here …

This is a story reported by The Times, The New Yorker … an investigator named Peter Schweizer … Seymour Hersh too. I went to Kazakhstan to check out these stories. A guy named Frank Giustra, who is a big resource magnate, gave $30 million to the Clinton Foundation … Then Giustra went to Kazakhstan and got the exclusive agreement to mine the uranium from Kazakhstan. This was when nuclear power was making an ugly little comeback, coming out of its crypt. Right after Giustra shows up, Bill Clinton shows up. This guy just got $30 million from Giustra and shows up and he meets privately with the president of Kazakhstan. Hmm, okay …

Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State, and Seymour Hersh, myself, and others discovered that there was massive bribery paid by U.S. oil companies to the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. A Mobile executive went to prison for the bribery payments, but Nazarbayev, himself, the president of Kazakhstan who received the money, about $160 million in bribes … his name was never mentioned in the indictment of the bribers who went to jail. Rather, he was listed as something called KO2, or Kazak official 2. Now, why do we care about that? Because my inside sources at the Justice Department told me that that was arranged by Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State … And, by the way, you don’t want to get on the wrong side of a dictator, because journalists tend to end up dead in Kazakhstan for doing that. Nazarbayev said that anyone in his nation who mentions that he is subject of a bribery investigation, or that he had taken bribes, goes to prison — and they are lucky if they come back out with all their fingers on. So what Hillary Clinton did was, by taking his name out of the indictment and just putting in those initials KO2, it may seem minor, but what that did is allow this guy to clamp down, imprison, and torture journalists in his nation who would bring up the question of bribery from oil companies. Did Hillary Clinton do that to favor the oil companies, to stroke a blood-thirsty oil potentate in the Caspian Sea? Or did she do that to make sure that her foundation kept getting pleasured by Mr. Giustra?

All I wanted to do was get the information in the e-mails between Hillary and her husband regarding this transaction. But according to Hillary Clinton, that’s a personal message, cause it’s to her husband. Well, it’s not really to her husband, it’s to her co-recipient of millions of dollars. They run a business together, basically, called The Clinton Foundation, a political operation called The Clinton Campaign. Hillary Clinton took it not only upon herself to withhold this information by putting it on a private server — and here’s what really disturbs me — when she was caught and told to turn over those e-mails, she took it upon herself to order the erasure of 56,000 e-mails.

If you did that, Dennis, if you were subject to a federal investigation and you erased the e-mails that were subject to that investigation, I guarantee you this broadcast would be from a federal prison. There is zero question. In fact, Comey, the FBI director, even said so. He said a lower official would be in real trouble. He almost gave a lèse majesté defense, saying, “Well, the Secretary of State can kind of make up her own rules.” No, we are a nation of rules. Those documents were the public’s documents, not hers. And she definitely erased documents of public interest to keep them out of the hands of journalists. If the standard is she’s not going to jail … is that what we want in an open administration?

By the way, it’s not all for their foundation. Bill Clinton also got $500,000 from Nazarbayev himself, for a talk — that’s pretty golden words. And I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that Nazarbayev’s name was left off the indictments? We need to know. It can’t really be up to federal officials — whether it’s Hillary Clinton or anyone else — to simply erase the e-mails in question. I don’t know what obstruction of justice means anymore if that aint it.

DB: Greg, I know that you’re excited. You’ve got a screening for the new film you’re working on, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. It’s happening in St. Louis, at the Netroots Nation gathering. What is Netroots Nation, by the way?

Palast: It’s a gathering of media and activists groups that are web-based. It’s a well known, decades-long gathering. We’re doing a sneak preview screening of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires and Ballot Bandits at 6 p.m. on Saturday, July 16. If you’re at Netroots there’s no charge, and we’re working it out so that members of the public can come … We’ve got Willie Nelson in there, and Rosario Dawson, but the main thing is to make sure that the alarm goes out that there are billionaires and ballot bandits ready to snatch the 2016 election. This is not a partisan matter, it’s a civil rights matter. So come, we’ll have some fun, eat some popcorn watching the dissolution of that thing that used to be called American democracy.



Dennis J Bernstein is the executive producer of Flashpoints, syndicated on Pacifica Radio, and is the recipient of a 2015 Pillar Award for his work as a journalist whistleblower. He is most recently the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom.

Greg Palast has been called the “most important investigative reporter of our time — up there with Woodward and Bernstein” (The Guardian). Palast has broken front-page stories for BBC Television’s Newsnight, The Guardian, The Nation Magazine, Rolling Stone, and Harper's Magazine. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Billionaires & Ballot Bandits, Armed Madhouse, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and the highly acclaimed Vultures’ Picnic, named Book of the Year 2012 on BBC’s Newsnight Review. His books have been translated into two dozen languages. Palast's investigation and production team are currently finishing the final frames of his new film on the theft of the 2016 election: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires and Ballot Bandits.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+88 # indian weaver 2016-07-12 10:44
And yet more reasons why I'll never vote for Hillary, in spite of Bernie's endorsement, and the platform drifting left. Meaningless Democratic Party Platform really, that they all are, gutless and meaningless. Hillary is the liar in chief coming soon to a White House near you, sorry to say. I'll never again vote Democratic even though I've done so my entire life (now 68 years old). Thanks Greg Palast for more ballast against the fascist liar shill, the soul mate to the fascist liar Obama the boy toy.
 
 
+84 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-07-12 11:09
It will be very hard for traditional democrats to vote for the party if they have been paying attention at all.

I have said from the beginning Hillary is the worst possible candidate the party could have put forth. And I say the party because you know they all got in a room and decided it would be Hillary this time. That is why no one but the previously independent Bernie ran against her. There are many better possible candidates. The Republicans had about 18 awful candidates but many who are still better than Clinton if for no other reason than they were not under any federal investigation at the time of the primaries.

She lied about the email thing with impunity. The lies about almost everything. The Clinton Foundation is a fraud.

http://charlesortel.com/

These things disqualify her and shame on the Democratic Party for even going there. They are so corrupt I am disgusted.
 
 
+60 # Vardoz 2016-07-12 14:22
she stole the goddamn election using wide spread fraud!!! We will be leaving the DNC, never voting for HRC. We will only vote for Progressives that support Bernie agenda or for the Green Party if it gets off the ground. Tens of millions of people are desperate for another option. With a vanishing middle class, the corporate takeover, the TPP and corporations and the rich paying little or no taxes our nation is being starved of jobs, livable wages adequate and affordable medical care and safe food, air and water. Our health, safety and welfare and our environment is being seriously threatened by corporate greed and abuse.
 
 
+52 # djnova50 2016-07-12 15:09
Vardoz, the Green Party is off the ground. The problem, though, is our two party duopoly. But, the best way to ensure its growth is to keep voting for Green candidates. The Green Party is not funded by corporations. The MSM, for the most part, also thinks about the two-party duopoly since many articles are written about the Democrats or Republicans. But, you can learn about the Green Party by going to gp.org and clicking through the links.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I will be voting for the greater good. Jill2016.com
 
 
+20 # Helga Fellay 2016-07-13 10:26
so will I, djnova50. If $hillary becomes the official nominee, I will become a member of the Green Party, after having been an activist in the Dem party for nearly half a century.
 
 
+4 # mh1224jst 2016-07-15 03:26
Yes, and yes. It's a hell of a mess. Brace yourself for the Trump administration, and the (perhaps final) collapse of democracy and (don't forget) our economy.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 17:48
Question about the green party. Look at what went on with the dnc & msm toward bernie sanders, who had power as a long term, Senator, House Rep and Mayor for decades. Still, they 'disappeared' him as much as they could.

Don't you think it would be much more difficult for the Green Party facing DNC, MSM corruption??
 
 
-73 # rocback 2016-07-12 14:39
Greg Palast has been exposed for his misleading journalism. I see he is at it again.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/26/339382/-
 
 
+50 # Ken Halt 2016-07-12 16:46
More hogwash, crock, and oops, your pants are on fire! Greg Palast is a respected and award winning investigative journalist and not to be impugned by a smarmy know-nothing such as yourself.
 
 
+36 # SMoonz 2016-07-12 17:43
Daily Kos.. you mean the Daily Clinton???
The Daily Kos, has ties to the think tank "New Democrat Network" whose founder Simon Rosenberg worked for the Bill Clinton presidential campaign.
Pretty biased source there...
 
 
+17 # RnR 2016-07-12 23:09
rumor is start up money for DailyKos came through "intelligence" channels
 
 
-15 # rocback 2016-07-13 12:56
Well, other than shooting the messenger, no one has debunked the daily Kos expose' on Palast's "reporting". Read all the comments and even when Mr. Palast was given the opportunity to respond he failed. Sorry if that conflicts with your pre conceived bias against Hillary.
 
 
+13 # RnR 2016-07-13 15:31
Regarding my preconceived bias against Hillary, I have an inherent distrust of those who refuse to take a stand. It is the ultimate betrayal perpetrated in advance of the test.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 17:51
You've been called out for spreading venom and misinformation about an award-winning journalist. More personal opinion slant??
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-16 00:30
Do you EVER post the truth? No. Think I'll try a new approach to deal with the irritation I feel about your comments.
 
 
-7 # Caliban 2016-07-12 15:33
MsAnnaNOLA -- I have just reviewed Ortel's site, and all I found were lots of accusations but no evidence of anything.

If I am wrong, I'd be glad to be corrected. But use specific "charlesortel.c om" examples please.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 17:44
Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#5F5YbZhOZp6GoZmM.99
 
 
-29 # rocback 2016-07-12 14:26
California laws allow observers at any stage in the process. This might include campaigns, but any citizen can be an observer. If voting rights groups feel something is untrustworthy about the California vote count process, have them stop on by, they're always welcome.

And if the almost-complete d count is suspect, any resident may request a recount of any precinct(s). Feel free to recount if you like, this time with whatever observers you deem necessary to meet your litmus test.
 
 
+30 # librarian1984 2016-07-12 17:38
In more than ten states the exit polls differ from the 'results' by more than 10%. The odds of that happening without tampering is 70 million to 1.

And then, in the last few weeks of the primaries, NO EXIT POLLS were taken.

Sure, brock-ack, the elections were SUPER fair.

Clinton Uber Alles!
 
 
-27 # Caliban 2016-07-12 19:02
Dubious "statistics" are not evidence of bad behavior by anybody. So far all I see is unsubstantiated -- and desperate -- effort to slander our next president (and her distinguished challenger) before she takes office.
 
 
+25 # librarian1984 2016-07-12 19:31
Exit polls were used by Sec. Clinton when she was SoS to verify fair elections. Why were exit polls cancelled?
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-07-13 10:55
Exit Polls: Why They so Often Mislead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/upshot/exit-polls-why-they-so-often-mislead.html?_r=1
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 11:41
snore. This is the same article trolls have been pawning off for weeks. SPOILER ALERT: the author doesn't say that exit polls aren't worthwhile, only that they're misused. Wow, earth shattering. And really, anybody who believes the NYT anymore is a fool.

So why did Clinton use them to verify international elections when she acted as Sec. of State?

And what -- suddenly, just before the CA primary all the MSM found religion and stopped using them? I guess that means they are never ever going to be used anywhere anymore because they're so inconvenient .. oh wait, I mean flawed. Or will everybody, including the US, use them all the time -- just not when Hillary really REALLY wants to finish the election theft on a strong note.

It seems the only real problem the DNC has is finding a way to fake the exit polls so they match the predetermined black box votes, right?

You guys don't even bother to hide the cheating anymore do you -- trusting in the stress, fear and apathy of Americans.

At least you've done your bit to chip away at American values, yeah, crock? Can't have too much truth or honesty or transparency, right? You think you're justified in cheating, stealing, lying. All criminals think their actions are justified.

Bernie Sanders should be the next president and he'd have done a lot of good -- but you and your girl stole it, and I guess that's just the way things are now -- criminals run the government.

UP WITH HILLARY!
 
 
-15 # rocback 2016-07-13 12:58
I suppose the reason one would use faulty exit polls at one time and then stop using them later is they realized they were not accurate. It may be a simple as that.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 07:48
Or even simpler. Greed and crime.
 
 
+6 # crispy 2016-07-14 00:34
the actual figure found in a study by Stanford and Berkeley statisticians was 1 in 77 Billion chances that Hilary was elected without fraud. The link to the study was posted here several times by another contributor
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 07:49
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2016-07-14 13:57
I liked the six-in-a-row winning coin toss. Mr. Spock, what are the odds? Mr. Data, what are the probabilities? (yeah, I know it is always 50/50 but...what a winning streak? almost magic!)
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-16 00:35
Posting denial says you could could care less that she stole this election--her first act as "President!"
 
 
+2 # Hooligan 2016-07-17 01:32
Quoting librarian1984:
In more than ten states the exit polls differ from the 'results' by more than 10%. The odds of that happening without tampering is 70 million to 1.

And then, in the last few weeks of the primaries, NO EXIT POLLS were taken.

Sure, brock-ack, the elections were SUPER fair.

Clinton Uber Alles!

Also Clinton won in places where the machines did not have a paper trail. Bernie won in places where there was a paper trail. Imagine that!
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-16 00:33
Voting rights groups don't 'feel' something is untrustworthy here. It's clear from the facts so far.
 
 
+2 # Hooligan 2016-07-17 01:29
Quoting rocback:
California laws allow observers at any stage in the process. This might include campaigns, but any citizen can be an observer. If voting rights groups feel something is untrustworthy about the California vote count process, have them stop on by, they're always welcome.

And if the almost-completed count is suspect, any resident may request a recount of any precinct(s). Feel free to recount if you like, this time with whatever observers you deem necessary to meet your litmus test.

Unfortunately there is a big fat truck/SHREDDING MACHINE outside of the San Diego County Voter Registar's Office where they count our votes. We do have wonderful citizen observers there & they tell us the registrar, MICHAEL VU (from BUSH'S Ohio voting fraud escapade)decide s whether a ballot will be counted or not. If not the ballot is immediately SHREDDED. (Lawsuit is pending. I only hope another criminal investigation is as well.).
 
 
+49 # lark3650 2016-07-12 14:29
Don't you think with this kind of power, Bernie may have been strong-armed by the Clintons into that endorsement. Come on. Give Bernie the credit he deserves for having the courage to do more than any other politician has. Probably the same with Elizabeth Warren's endorsement. God Bless Greg Palast and his tireless investigating to find the truth. May he be safe. This is scary as hell.
 
 
+13 # Douglas Jack 2016-07-12 15:46
lark3650, For Bernie or Obama or any other public official who claims to represent honesty about the deep-state we are subject to, the stakes are very high. To continue to work for that state as Obama has done unreservedly is to be complicit in its war & other crimes, of 10s of millions of criminal war & destabilization deaths. See Dr. Polya below ***

Dwight Eisenhower "Military-Indus trial-Complex" & a large number of other US Presidents have publicly stated that there is a hidden Finance-Media-E ducation-Milita ry-Industrial-L egislative-Comp lex. Given the stakes for so many directly, all of us in WW3 & risk to his own life, it is incumbent upon Bernie to do what Edward Snowden did in order to reveal the truth & flee to Russia or China. With stakes so high its not enough to silently play the game.

*** Dr. Gideon Polya a statistician from Australia on unnecessary death due to murder & destabilization of war calculation. calculations of mass western genocide, estimates deaths at 5.6 MILLION US Afghanistan Invasion 10th Anniversary War-related Deaths http://www.countercurrents.org/polya101011.htm Good statistical breakdowns & sourcing including invasion, destabilization , drugs, excess death, premature deaths, infant-mortalit y etc. compared with if we’re not actively creating our colonial hell there.
The Afghan war started with US funding, arming & supplying of jihad al CIAda mercenaries like Saudi Osama bin Laden in the 1970s GW Bush nightmare, with 10s of Millions dead.
 
 
+6 # lark3650 2016-07-14 12:34
Obviously you are more informed than I am.
I'm currently reading David Talbot's book, "The Devil' Chessboard about Allen Dulles and the CIA. The "deep state" has been in operation for a long time. What or how much Bernie can accomplish?.. I don't know. But, I guess, for me, it is like the old saying: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
 
 
-8 # Suzy 2016-07-12 15:28
WAKE UP!! As recently as last evening, Jeb Bush entertained the notion that the Libertarian candidate might be an interesting option to
consider. It's time for people to realize what the Libertarian Party
stands for. Do not think of liberal or liberty (except for the 1%). Think
Koch brothers, the co-founders of the Cato Institute, a libertarian
think tank. Read the 1980 platform of the Libertarian Party, developed when David Koch was running as the vice presidential candidate. Their goals are the same now as they were then. Their goals HAVE NOT changed!
The Koch brothers bankrolled the Tea Party, helping to elect all of those intransigent members of congress who have created gridlock in congress ever since the 2010 mid-term election. They may have run as Republicans, but they follow the Libertarian Party platform.
So now your saying that it doesn't matter who wins if it isn't Bernie??
I beg to differ. I supported Bernie too, and I still support him in his endorsement of Hillary. I know that he's intelligent enough to have good reasons for doing this. He has done his utmost to influence what will be in the Democrat Party's Platform, as well as who will be appointed to the Supreme Court in the future. Now you're going to abandon him?
Staying home and sitting out the election, or making a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate would be a disastrous mistake. Even Ralph Nader admits that he was wrong to have split the vote in 2000.
 
 
+8 # wrknight 2016-07-12 16:32
The only problem with Ralph Nader's run for the presidency was his timing. In that election there was a clear choice between a reasonable candidate and a real loser. Nader took the votes away from the reasonable candidate and that allowed the loser to win.

If Nader had chosen this election to run, I suspect he would win hands down.

Which reminds me to remind all of you that if everyone who is disgusted with the two leading candidates voted for the best third party candidate, he/she would win hands down.

All we need is a reasonable candidate and progressives have one in Jill Stein. So instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils" or not voting at all, vote for a third party or independent candidate.
 
 
+15 # Douglas Jack 2016-07-12 17:26
wrknight, Yes to Jill Stein! but you are not doing the math about Nader's role. In the same way Bernie brought many millions of youth & other disaffected voters back into US politics, so did Nader raise the bar of discussion so many 100s of 1000s participated, who would normally have been turned off by the regular lacklustre of moneyed candidates. Gore, at the time, couldn't seem to bridge the money-people gap. in an election dynamic regular addition & subtraction, as you are doing, does not properly measure the human dynamic equation of multiple interactions & motivations. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy

GORE's MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO WIN BY A LANDSLIDE Gore showed a lack of will when he did not contest the Florida & other stolen states as though he was vulnerable to the Powers-that-be all along. Nader made it possible for Gore to easily win even when the Bush family owns the bank.

Nader elevated the public dialogue to Gore's environmental & Climate-Change talking points, Gore as an institutionaliz ed establishment player, didn't know how to connect with Nader's important complementary talking points. Whenever 2 or more candidates talk the same policies, it is only then that; the vast majority of citizens will listen & take time to review. There was nothing to stop Gore from adopting Nader's dialogue & effecting collaboration, the way Bernie has adopted the Green Party's narrative & policies as his own. http://www.jill2016.com/
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-07-12 20:43
Thanks Douglas Jack. That's what I've been telling 'em right along, with few apparently taking note!
 
 
-3 # crispy 2016-07-14 00:40
Suzy, Thom Hartman read the 1980 Libertarian platform and it was SCARY: abolition of EPA,FDA, FAA, Transportation and education department. privatization of roads and freeways. end of medicare medicaid all social services and in the end also social security!!
The Koch 1980 platform is apparently found on Bernie's website
 
 
-15 # Robbee 2016-07-12 15:38
Quoting indian weaver:
I'll never again vote Democratic

- yet! thru another lens! -
Hillary Clinton released a debt free college plan that includes free tuition at public colleges and universities for working families.
Secretary Clinton has also publicly committed to massive investments in health care for communities across this country that will increase primary care, including mental health care, dental care, and low-cost prescription drug access for an additional 25 million people. Importantly, she has also endorsed the enactment of a so-called public option to allow everyone in this country to participate in a public insurance program.
During the Democratic platform proceedings in St. Louis and Orlando, we were victorious in including amendments to make it a clear priority of the Democratic Party to fight for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expand Social Security, abolish the death penalty, put a price on carbon, establish a path toward the legalization of marijuana, enact major criminal justice reforms, pass comprehensive immigration reform, end for-profit prisons and detention facilities, break up too-big-to-fail banks and create a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act, close loopholes that allow big companies to avoid taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens and use that revenue to rebuild America, approve the most expansive agenda ever for protecting Native American rights and so much more. - bernie
 
 
+8 # Greg Scott 2016-07-13 11:42
OK...so here's my take

I was incredibly excited to work to elect...and re-elect the 1st black man to be president of the United States.

Also probably one of the most intelligent people ever to take that office. Not sure what he could have done if he did not have the entire Republican establishment slobbering to play the race card.

Like some of what he's been doing this past year, now that he doesn't give a shit anymore. Still think if he had made an all out effort to prosecute the fraud merchants who created the crash of 2008, that he could have had working white people on his side. Instead he felt he needed the establishment. I still think THAT was his biggest mistake.

I also think that it's high time that a woman was president of the United States. If Elizabeth Warren were running, I would have been just as excited to work to get her elected.

I don't like Hillary Clinton...or Bill Clinton. They ARE the establishment. I will NOT give any money to her campaign. Every email from her that comes in I immediately delete. She will certainly get enough money from big banks.

BUT...she IS better than Donald. Her Supreme Court nominees will be better...and that IS important.

So...if Pennsylvania is in play, I will vote for her. If not, I will vote for Jill Stein or write in for Bernie...or Elizabeth.

...and work my ass off to change what I can change. We have a solar cooperative in West Philly trying to put panels on average peoples homes. I can do that.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 12:01
I'm giving you a thumbs-up because you're honest and entitled to your own strategy, but I disagree with you.

None of the things that make Sec. Clinton an unacceptable president have changed. In fact they've gotten worse. There is no way I can vote for the person who STOLE the nomination.

Trump is a wild card for sure. But he just might destroy the GOP. And there is a chance Dems and GOP will rediscover cooperation in fighting him, whereas Hillary and Bill -- I dread what they will 'accomplish'. We know she is more interventionist and militaristic. We know she is going to pass TPP. We suspect she will hand social security over to her buddies in Wall Street.

Maybe we can agree to vote for progressives down ticket. But there is no way I can pull the lever for Clinton. Besides, what does it matter? Their black boxes are going to spit out whatever numbers they're instructed to, just like in the primaries.

Until we get honest elections the rest of this is just a farce.
 
 
+6 # Greg Scott 2016-07-14 09:47
Thank you...I try to work with what tools I have.

I agree that the voting situation is outrageous. Which makes the supreme court nominees even more important. I could be wrong, but I believe it was Bush appointees, along with other Republican appointed justices, who confirmed the Citizen's United decision...and also the one gutting the voting rights act that has allowed some of the egregious voter suppression we have seen this year.

Whatever you think of Obama, I think his Supreme Court appointments... so far, at least...have been good. I really don't think Hillary's would be worse. Remember she was the target of the video in question in Citizen's United.

Trying to be fair...I think the Clinton's are pragmatists. She actually did some impressive things as a young activist. Someone on Daily Kos told me to look it up. She seemed honest and not shrill, so I did. She was right. But they have also done some really ugly things since, and Bernie has proved that getting in bed with Bankers is not "NECESSARY".

Now I live in Philly, and I really don't trust Hillary at all when it comes to TPP. I WILL go to the streets at the end of the month to show how important THAT is to the rest of us.
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2016-07-14 14:01
Bravo for your solar efforts.
 
 
+3 # tigerlillie 2016-07-14 20:41
Keep in mind that Bernie is not asking you to vote for him. He is undertaking the distasteful task of endorsing Hillary because he thinks the possibility of a Trump presidency is so dangerous, and he has good reasons for coming to that conclusion. The fact that you or I might not be able to pick which one would be the worst president doesn't invalidate his opinion. For all I know, he might be right.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 17:43
Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#UL7l53599PKkjsWh.99
 
 
-31 # ericlipps 2016-07-12 13:15
Quote:
Even today, one month after the primary, over 100,000 ballots have yet to be counted — provisional ballots, what we call placebo ballots, which have a danger of not being counted at all. I was also attacked in The Washington Post — I’m not being defensive about this, I just want to correct the record — because I said on this show that the majority of the provisional ballots were, given the demographics, likely Bernie Sanders voters. And I was accused of being The Great Carnac and knowing how people voted without seeing their ballots. No, it was demographics. In fact, of the provisional ballots that have now been counted, exactly 75.0%, 3 out of 4 ballots, went for Bernie Sanders.
But with only 100,000 votes uncounted as of July 7, INCLUDING provisional ballots, Hillary is ahead by 360,000.

Of course, that won't matter to diehard Bernouts, who will simply argue that the fact that Bernie didn't win proves the vote totals are fraudulent, and that's that.
 
 
-21 # carytucker 2016-07-12 14:06
Quoting ericlipps:

Of course, that won't matter to diehard Bernouts, who will simply argue that the fact that Bernie didn't win proves the vote totals are fraudulent, and that's that.


Yep. By their arithmetic, Sec'y Clinton's 3.7 million vote margin manifests only the enormity of the fraud committed by the Most Evil One and her minions. This means that Sen Sanders 'really' won, and by a substantial amount, otherwise, why such prodigious fraud? This is the lunatic arithmetic of the Bernie-or-Kill- Everyone-Else crowd. Mr Trump is welcome to them.
 
 
+22 # Street Level 2016-07-12 16:06
What about the 3M in New York who couldn't vote and the millions in other states?
 
 
+31 # Anonymot 2016-07-12 13:23
We are dealing with a family of very slick criminals. If you're smart you learn the basics in a generically corrupt place like Arkansas then hone it in a genetically corrupt place like DC.

Without the snakelike qualities, whole families do it like the hillbillies in Tennessee (opiods), the Ozarks (crack),
Kentucky (opiods, heroin, moonshine). Small potatoes compared to the DC crowd.

Ever ask why Hillary was so hot on Burma, land of 20% of the world's heroin production?

Did anyone but me ever point out that it was in the last years of Bill's administration that the Taliban declared heroin/opium production anti-Islamic and completely shut down the production of poppies in Afghanistan? By then Hillary and Bill were snug in the armpits of the Deep State government. Eight months after he left office a multi-national war was started against the Taliban and heroin production restarted to reach heights never before imagined - 80% of the world's heroin/opium. US taxpayers spend billions keeping control of those fields.
 
 
+5 # bardphile 2016-07-12 15:04
Not slick criminals, just slick politicians. There's a difference, I yet maintain. However, for those who persist in thinking otherwise, Hillary's smiling pic on today's facebook feed has her in dark horizontal stripes, looking more like a jailbird than ever. What were her wardrobe people thinking!
 
 
-42 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 13:53
I think we are dealing with a lot of sick trolls on here. She has not been charged with, or even accused of any crime. She has not been found guilty of any crime. What a bunch of sickos on here. No wonder no donations are coming thru. I, for one, need to see some proof of a crime, and am sick of all the hate being spewed on this site. It was once my favorite. Not so much any more.

..
 
 
-17 # JSRaleigh 2016-07-12 14:08
Quoting Barbara K:
I think we are dealing with a lot of sick trolls on here. She has not been charged with, or even accused of any crime. She has not been found guilty of any crime. What a bunch of sickos on here. No wonder no donations are coming thru. I, for one, need to see some proof of a crime, and am sick of all the hate being spewed on this site. It was once my favorite. Not so much any more.


The sad truth is that her guilt or innocence means absolutely nothing to those who suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, that fever has infected the Democratic Party as well.

Nothing less than having her drawn & quartered and burned at the stake as a witch will satisfy them.
 
 
+51 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-12 14:14
"She has not been found guilty of any crime."

Yea well the cops that kill people on live video don't get charged either, so they must have not committed any crimes.

Bush was never charged with any crimes, so he never committed any, right?

If you're not going to use your brain, no one can help you. Simply calling people "haters" when they point out repeated crimes, dishonesty and corruption is just stupid - retarded really. What an unspeakably stupid comment.

"No wonder no donations are coming thru. I, for one, need to see some proof of a crime, and am sick of all the hate being spewed on this site. It was once my favorite. Not so much any more."

So we all just became haters for no reason whatsoever, all at the same time?

We've REPEATEDLY linked to HRC's crimes and corruptions, from leaked emails showing war-mongering to shell companies showing money-launderin g to election fraud. Expecting her own system to charge her is, well, stupid.

Try logic for a change. And if you don't like it here, stick to CNN and MSNBC, both of whom love the current establishment as much as you do. In fact, they love it so much, both are on the top-10 donors list for HRC's campaign. You can get your "news" from there, where everyone agrees with you and they'll tell you exactly what you WANT to hear.

Leave this "hateful" site and go where the "love" is.

Really, very offensively stupid. I AM offended by that stupidity. You should apologize.
 
 
-41 # rocback 2016-07-12 14:29
Not one crime has been "pointed out". This site is full of delusional claims by poor losers who refuse to gracefully accept defeat.

Every single vote will be counted and Hillary will still be far ahead. One by one the bogus allegations have been debunked against her. I am so proud of her and my daughters are watching the largest glass ceiling in history being crashed into millions of peices.
 
 
+29 # Billsy 2016-07-12 14:54
Clinton's victory went down from 12% to 7% with 100k remaining uncounted. She is a weak devisive candidate with a history of corruption, facts with which the Clintonista are in denial. This piece points out the level of international corruption which puts our own nation at risk from international terrorists. Vote for her if you wish but quit attempting to cover up her shortcomings or expecting anyone on this forum to validate your feelings. It only makes you less credible. Yeah, she wasn't indicted. So what? She was secretive and careless with sensitive material solely for her own benefit. Still looks suspect. Thus far few cops have been indicted for murder nor have any wall St speculators or war criminals been indicted for the harm their fraud has done our economy or international relations and foreign lives. Doesn't mean they are innocent.
 
 
-25 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 16:09
Billsy: She is now polling at 74%. Like it or not, I don't care who any of you vote for. She has a great chance of winning. The green party is the waste of a vote. Suit yourself.
 
 
+15 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 12:32
Oh wait -- when the polls showed Sanders ahead they were meaningless but now they come from heavenly choirs?

You guys have forced through the most damaged, mistrusted, unliked 'Democrat' in history. You stole the nomination. You turned away and disillusioned millions of young new voters so HRC could have her way.

You will reap what you have sown. A lot of people are going to suffer for the Clintons, as usual, and they will sail away unscathed, toward their tax havens.

And 74%? Ha, I don't think so. Whatever the real number is, enjoy it. From here on out it is going to keep going down and down and down.

People don't like Hillary Clinton. They don't trust her. They don't want the Clintons in the WH, and you just forced the Dems to run the one person who could unite the GOP behind Donald Trump.

Brilliant. Oh wait, no, THAT's not the word I'm looking for ....
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2016-07-15 12:17
If a Sanders presence in the race is so important, then where is he?

I voted for him in the NC primary, and though he did not win I was looking forward to a truly substantive campaign from him -- one that could have changed the rules about how these things are done.

I read that he still has a significant campaign fund. So, how is it being used?
 
 
-27 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 16:07
rocback: Maybe it is because I worked as the manager of a law firm for years, but I do not judge someone as guilty without proof positive. That is completely lacking here. There is no PROOF whatsoever that she is guilty of anything. What a bunch of morons have taken over this once wonderful site. They have turned it into a RW conspiracy site.

..
 
 
+17 # Ken Halt 2016-07-12 16:52
Sorry, Barbara, but your lies on these threads brand you as a fraud and a phony.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-13 10:59
You are right Barbara. This case was not even close and Comey is a life long Republican who was originally assistant U S Atty appointed by Bush.

These perpetually aggrieved here will never gracefully accept defeat and some are actually Trump trojan horses anyway.

What amusing is the armchair lawyers here who wouldn't know the Constitution if it hit them in the face.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 12:10
No one has ever said the Clintons are stupid. They make sure they don't get caught, and they make threats and deals to make sure people like Comey go along. And then there's always the enablers, like you, who think the ends justify the means. Boss Hawg in a pantsuit with Bubba trotting along, leering at the interns, and lil Davey Brock, panting in their wake, looking for kibble and scraps.

Maybe the 'perpetually aggrieved' are tired of seeing their democracy stomped on so the elite can usurp power. Sure, brock-ack, you recognize the Constitution -- and then you use it like toilet paper. Last refuge of a scoundrel and all that what what.

It galls me to see you claim the moral high ground when you have repeatedly justified lies, theft and cheating. Well some people just aren't buying it.

You absolutely disgust me. Or do you disgust me absolutely? Let's not quibble. Let's just say BOTH.

Do you think Goebbels believed his own propaganda?
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-13 13:00
I don't know, do you believe your own bull sh+t?
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 07:53
Yes I do.

You, I suspect, shill for the highest bidder.
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-07-14 09:22
glad you finally admit its bull sh+t. Freudian slip?
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 14:26
You keep accusing us of acting like 3rd graders and this is your response?

I don't think I've ever seen a more classic case of overt projection than you. Maybe W. He did that too.

If you want to call my beliefs bullsh!t, go ahead. Whatever the label I believe it. Better than being a mercenary.

NB: Your response should be in the "I know you are but what am I?" form.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-15 18:15
RSN posters like librarian make truthful points and post facts.

For as long as you've invaded this site, YOU sling misinformation, outright lies and total Bulls**t.
 
 
-8 # Barbara K 2016-07-13 14:54
See this article by the FBI:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/never-close-indicting-hillary-20-years-ago-yesterday/?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sd&utm_medium=email

..
 
 
+6 # SMoonz 2016-07-13 23:55
Excuse me but that is not an article by the FBI. That's an article written by Gene Lyons for The National Memo. Gene Lyons is a political columnist who happens to write for Salon and the Arkansas Times. I want to add that Salon is a pro Clinton site. Also, Gene Lyons has made a career defending the Clintons. So his bias is obvious. Also, this article is an opinion piece. Again, not an article "by the FBI."

However, let me quote James Comey, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

James Comey basically admitted that Hillary Clinton was above the law or too important to jail.

Note, I am quoting right out of the statement he made and you can find that on the FBI site. Here's the link

"Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System "

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 07:56
rocback's interpretation of the Comey quote: "OMG Hillary is so awesome! She is the epitome of virtue. RUN do not walk to your voting booth! Vote early! Vote often! HRC is totally exonerated."

Apparently, in the top 1%, not being convicted is the same as virtue.

(BTW this worldview does not apply to anyone else.)
 
 
+22 # SMoonz 2016-07-12 17:31
That's a strange comment to make when you accused Bernie Sanders repeatedly of being involved in illegal campaigning and having Super Pacs. You never provided proof when many asked you to provide it. In fact, your usual response was, "HE HAS THEM!"
Glad you don't work for a law firm anymore...
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-15 18:19
doubt he ever did...or has a law degree. his posts reflect ignorance of politics and the law.
 
 
+10 # John S. Browne 2016-07-12 20:58
#

B.K., "Hitlery" deleting 65,000 emails is alone a HUGE piece of proof that she's guilty, at least of obstruction of justice. If you or I did that, we'd be arrested, jailed, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned, just on that alone. But "Hitlery" gets a free pass. You live in a la-la-land fantasy world, and in the mass-insanity that most people are part of, where you excuse and support criminals just because they haven't been indicted and/or convicted.

None of us here are saying that "(S)Hitlery" shouldn't get a fair trial, but the protection of her by the "criminal '(in)justice' system", which has proven to be systemically-cr iminal itself as well, protecting powerful criminals who mass-murder innocent people like at Waco and Ruby Ridge, is further obstruction of justice (unfortunately, to be expected of and for systemic criminals who are exploiting and running the world into the ground, and mass-murdering millions of innocent civilians, all in the name of greed and obscene profits).

(Continued below)
 
 
+8 # John S. Browne 2016-07-12 20:59
#

We here who stand up for the truth (and I'm not saying that all those who do so, have everything right), are not shill-trolls; it is the people, with a few exceptions like yourself of people who are just plain willfully-ignor ant but are not necessarily actual shill-trolls, who blindly defend evil corporate-fasci sts like "(S)Hillery", who are the shill-trolls here. [But, I could be wrong about you, perhaps you are one of the shill-trolls. You certainly sound like them, and defend their viewpoints (so, you may be one of them using multiple monikers making it look like people support their viewpoints).]

We who stand for truth here, want REAL justice, not colossal, monstrous, mass- murderous criminals getting off scot free. And that includes the "Rethug" neocons as well, of which "(S)Hitlery" is in-reality a part, the neoliberal fascist globalists who are "Pied-Pipering" all brainwashed [aka, "washed-of(-tru e)- brains"], willful-morons and lemmings like yourself right over the edge of the cliff to their destruction. You can't see the forest for the trees because you have been so successfully conditioned, dumbed-down, indoctrinated and programmed to believe and follow the lies and the liars like "(S)Hitlery" down the drain to oblivion, taking the rest of us with you to global government mass-enslavemen t and "eugenocide".

#
 
 
-10 # Barbara K 2016-07-13 14:51
rocback: She was never ever close to being indicted for anything, no crime ever existed. See this:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/never-close-indicting-hillary-20-years-ago-yesterday/?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sd&utm_medium=email

..
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 18:23
keep repeating that to yourself, over and over. go ahead, we know you can do it....convince yourself....

if you ever pull that curtain back.....what you see will change your life forever..
 
 
0 # Anarchist 23 2016-07-14 14:06
I think the distaste for Hillary is the Neo-liberal 'Politics As Usual ' stance...this country and certainly its long suffering population deserve better than Big Business and Wars, which seems to be the Clintonian focus. If she is the nominee, which all signs point to being so, I expect she will win by a large margin anyway. However, we really do need a far more progressive direction for the people and the land.
 
 
-21 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 16:37
fuzzbuzz: I owe no apology, I have not accused anyone of committing any crime. There are several here who owe apologizes, including you, but I don't. You have nothing to be offended about. So go to your chair and pout. I've been trounced on here enough and I'm speaking up. Not taking any more of the Troll-crap.

..
 
 
-19 # Suzy 2016-07-12 17:00
Barbara K., I agree with you. The last I heard, the Green Party isn't even on the ballot in every state, and it's too late for them to do anything about it. Who are these people who would rather have a Libertarian elected? This year's election may be our last chance to save our democracy. We don't have the luxury of throwing away another election like we did in 2000.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-07-13 11:02
yes, the green party is on fewer than half the states and got less than 1% of the vote last election. It would be a wasted vote by people acting like petulant children.
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 11:50
They're on enough states they could reach 270 electoral votes and they're working to be on nearly every state ballot by November.

And if they don't win at least they'll take it away from Hillary. Why should anyone be rewarded for theft and dishonesty? As a parent I think it's incredibly important NOT to reward bad behavior.

Besides if HRC is so dishonest and so lacking in confidence for her own policies, why on earth should she be given the most powerful position on the planet?

I don't look forward to a Trump presidency but it will be better than having the Clintons back in the White House, with Hillary bombing the Middle East and Russia and China while Bill molests the ripe young interns.

I am opting OUT of that scenario.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-13 13:02
Spoken like a true Trump trojan horse. And pray tell, if Jill Stein got less than 1% of the vote last election, how is she going to get 270 electoral college votes?
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 16:46
Frak off, traitor. I've voted for Dems and Greens for over 40 years. I don't need a punk like you telling me lies day after day.

I will not vote for HRC. I will never send the DNC a dime and I will work to defeat establishment Dems. The Clintons hijacked this party and turned it into the GOP. I am OUT. All that was bad enough. But this time you out and out stole it from Bernie Sanders and we needed him but you don't care. None of you care about anybody but yourselves.

There are lots of posts on social media where younger Sanders supporters are saying they'll vote for Trump or Johnson. The DNC has alienated millions of potential new voters. They've made it clear they don't need or want progressives so we need to move to the Greens or start a Populist Party. Either way I don't see the Dems winning for a long long time.

BTW did you see Trump is now leading in Florida? He's moved up 11 points since last month and is now ahead of Hill by 3 points.

So brilliant, running Hillary Clinton. Careful what you wish for. Carefuler still what you cheat and steal for. We could get Trump AND HRC could go to prison.
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-13 18:09
And Hillary is leading in every other swing state ALL of which Trump needs to win and some by double digits, like in Colorado by 13 points where Obama barely won.

Further young people are Hillary's strongest group over Trump except for the "poorly educated" that he says he loves.

As for you leaving the Democratic Party, librarian, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 07:59
We'll see, crock. We'll see.

I imagine you, with your enhanced access, know even better than me how badly things are going.

Otherwise, why are you here?
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-07-14 09:24
to expose hypocrites like you.
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 14:29
Are you some kind of torture device?
 
 
0 # RnR 2016-07-18 10:22
Or because the pay is good?
 
 
0 # CL38 2016-07-15 18:25
you're such a shameless smug creep.
 
 
+12 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-12 21:15
I find stupidity offensive, I think it's the root of all evil.

Stick to CNN and MSNBC - there are no trolls there, and they'll tell you exactly what you like to hear.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-15 18:11
great comments and points.
 
 
+38 # Hey There 2016-07-12 14:21
The point is that Hillary Clinton is a champion for laws that strongly favor the rich to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the increasing poverty of the lower class.
People with power and influence, as in the banks and Wall St. executives involved in the takedown of the economy, can and do avoid prosecution which the average person would not only be charged with but end up in prison as those involved in the S&L.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXjSbeoULk
 
 
-31 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-12 14:30
Barbara, this site has been taken over by Bernie Sanders supporters. I admit that I am one, but at the same time, I am probably one of the few who has any common sense. The Bernouts, as someone called them, I think it was ericlipps, can't handle that he's lost. I'm going to live with it. I'm not at all happy about it, but I have to face the fact that my man had a lot of baggage, especially that "Independent" moniker he placed on himself years ago. Jesus Christ could come back and make a blanket statement that Hillary is innocent and the Bernouts would attack him as having been bought. I am now embarrassed that I felt the Bern because it lumps me in with the whack jobs out there who can't accept defeat, so have set up multiple conspiracies to explain why Bernie lost, all of which were instigated by Bill and Hillary. I don't give a rat's ass if I get a zillion negatives 'cause all I have to do is look at who gave them to me. I've been a loyal liberal for years, but whenever I say something that's critical of the party, I get slammed by Left-Wing Trolls who are every bit as bad, maybe worse, than Right-Wing Trolls. Suck it up, we lost.
 
 
+14 # Billsy 2016-07-12 15:08
I agree with you that some of the opinions expressed here are over the top but it's no excuse for the Clintonista to get a free pass either. Sanders lost the primary but has had a powerful effect mobilizing support for an end to failed neo-liberal policies. Not a total loss. Fact remains the conventions have not been held and the opposition not yet been fully determined as Trump. It appears we will have before us 2 uninspiring candidates from the major parties and some of us are pretty pissed off. I expect there to be a lot of bitterness among progressives but prefer to address the incorrect statements rather than resort to name calling. I for one am dismayed at the number of progressives rallying around Clinton out of fear of Trump. She has plenty of support from neo-liberals, therefore progressives need to keep pressure on for her to support more effective policies. Otherwise no one shows up to vote in the midterms.
 
 
+23 # djnova50 2016-07-12 15:21
A Progressive will not vote for Hillary out of fear of Trump. A Progressive will vote for Jill Stein. If a voter is truly afraid of Donald Trump, then the DNC has done its job. Sad thing is that the DNC could have done a better job with promoting Bernie Sanders. The DNC could have done a better job with scheduling debates. There is just so much the DNC could have done that it didn't do. I knew from the start of her campaign that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee.

I don't hate Hillary; but, I don't like her very much. She represents the party of the 1%. I am not part of the 1%.
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2016-07-12 15:37
" I for one am dismayed at the number of progressives rallying around Clinton out of fear of Trump."

Which was exactly the plan in the DNC/HRC document from February, 2015 - months BEFORE anyone had announced they were running.

We are being played like a Strat (your choice).
 
 
-13 # Suzy 2016-07-12 17:24
Radscal---You support Bernie and Bernie has endorsed Hillary. Maybe he knows something you don't know?
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-07-12 17:49
He knows lots of things I don't know.

But I do know that she has been threatening to murder the families of people I love for decades, and I cannot willfully have their blood on my hands.
 
 
-10 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-13 16:12
What? She's been threatening your families? Give me a break. The last time I read stupid stuff like this was from right-wing trolls, now we're getting it from you. I am amazed. List all the families you know who have been threatened for decades with being murdered by Hillary? Do it, I dare you. Such crap and such garbage. Your stupidity is just amazing.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-07-13 18:43
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, I see.

She has been threatening to "obliterate" (HER choice of word) Iran for years. She even got that put into the Democratic Party Platform.

People I love are from Iran, and their families still live there. Iran is a lovely place filled with lovely people.
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2016-07-15 12:28
Obliterate Iran? She is against a nuclear bomb for Iran (as are lots of sane people) but not a threat to a peace-minded Iran.
 
 
-10 # pupdude 2016-07-12 15:44
doubt they're left wing trolls because of SCOTUS issue.

They're mostly paid Trump TROLLZ, maybe others too.

Colin Powell had an unsecured email server. So did POTUS GW Bush AND at least 88 of his top WH staff.

Oooooooh!!!
 
 
-19 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 16:15
bigkahuna671 & Billsy: I supported Hillary right from the very start. I would have voted for Bernie if he were the candidate. I am a dyed in the wool Democrat and would have voted for whichever one won; but I was and am a Hillary supporter, all the way back to 2008, then supported Obama when she dropped out.
 
 
+15 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-12 21:23
You'll just keep supporting her, regardless of her money laundering shell companies or her instigating wars or brutal neoliberal policies or pushing GMOS or trade agreements or voter fraud or anything else? You'll just keep supporting her right off that cliff, won't you, Barbara "my IQ is 178" K?

There's nothing "honorable" in never changing your opinion. That's not "loyalty".

When the facts change, smart people change their mind. What do YOU do?
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2016-07-15 12:30
Accusations without proof -- the clinton hater way.
 
 
+6 # tigerlillie 2016-07-14 14:12
Quoting Barbara K:
bigkahuna671 & Billsy: I supported Hillary right from the very start. I would have voted for Bernie if he were the candidate. I am a dyed in the wool Democrat and would have voted for whichever one won; but I was and am a Hillary supporter, all the way back to 2008, then supported Obama when she dropped out.


What you are saying, Barbara, is that you will vote for any candidate the Democratic party nominates to run for president, no questions asked. Smart.
 
 
+9 # Helga Fellay 2016-07-13 10:43
bigkahuna is one of Clinton's paid trolls. I can recognize the paid ones from the others by the language they use. they have been trained.
 
 
-7 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-13 16:14
Darn, it's been up for two days and I've only got 21 "hates" from the left-wing. What's up with that? Come on, get off your asses and give me negative votes...kind of how you DIDN'T work very hard for Bernie. How many of you donated to his campaign? I did. So easy to condemn people when you sit on your fat asses and ALLOW things to happen instead of doing something to prevent the worst from happening.
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2016-07-13 22:58
#

More than glad to oblige, "(Insignificant)Kahuna".

#
 
 
-2 # kasta626 2016-07-15 09:22
Smallkahuna671, some people like you shouldn't be permitted to write irrelevant statements in an important topic where the future of América is vital to its survival.
 
 
+4 # Farafalla 2016-07-12 21:59
Barbara K, you are a notorious Hillary troll. You've been on my list for months.
Here's my troll list:

MidwestTom, (King of Trolls.)
lnason@umassd.edu (Vice president of Trolls)
babaregi
Shades of gray matter
joejamchicago
NRESQ
bmiluski
Carlosmik
Robt Eagle
ericlipps
Poor people matter
lights
Tazio
jtatu
RMDC
bobbygoode
ShutYourLies (Trumpeter)
pagrad
RevOleson
bettysdad@yahoo.com
MadKate
turnoutthelight s
revhen
Krackonis
Robbee
Rain17
Barbara K
Cassandra2012
siva24549
skylinefirepest
nice2bgreat
rocback
elkingo
brycenuc
sgpeterc
PsychePhixer
BIg Lar
RBREDFOX
christine craft
MsAnnaNOLA
Exotikat
crzkat
ronjazz
Pickwicky
sdraymond

If elected I will send all these trolls to North Korea for re-education.
 
 
+9 # John S. Browne 2016-07-13 02:11
#

Interesting and extensive list, but a couple of people probably don't belong on it. "MsAnnaNOLA" in particular, for instance. And perhaps "RMDC".

#
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-13 18:12
Farafalla, you should get out more. Get a life.
 
 
-6 # Caliban 2016-07-13 12:05
Farafalla -- It looks like you find more "trolls" than serious commenters on RSN. Would you define "troll" for me and any others who might be puzzled?
 
 
-9 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-13 16:22
Caliban, she only has to look in the mirror to see the definition of a troll.
 
 
-4 # Barbara K 2016-07-13 14:46
Farafella: Well, shows you are not so smart after all. I have been a member here since 2008. You need to get your head screwed on right.

..
 
 
-8 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-13 16:21
Barbara, there are a lot of left-wing trolls out there like Farafalla. They love to attack and criticize, every bit as much as right-wing trolls do. I consider her and people like her to be the REAL trolls. I also consider them to be quite ignorant for NOT doing their research and relying on someone else to do their thinking for them.
 
 
+7 # Buddha 2016-07-13 14:47
Don't do troll-lists, it feels way too Nixonian Police-State, way too many liberals throughout history have been put on "lists" and some even killed for their beliefs. Let's take everyone's statements on their merit. If they are gross and offensive, I have faith they will be duly reported, deleted and blocked. And if they are just the usual ignorant conservative talking points thrown out by a troll, they will be quickly countered with our mockery.
 
 
-9 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-13 16:19
Ohmigosh, YOUR LIST!!!! Wow, just like Tricky Dick Nixon. Farafalla, you've got to be so proud of yourself, your very own list. Are you going to make sure your people will go after all of these people? Gee, maybe you can go to work for Donald Chump once you get him elected. You have a few people on your list I've had constant debates with, especially the first two, but don't go attacking everyone you disagree with, especially if you have to do it face to face. Of course, you'd never do that, you'd be too freaking chicken sh*t.
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-07-14 14:23
Farafalla, Barbara K has been saying idiotic things on RSN practically since its inception. I think that is all she is, as in, she is not a paid troll. I think it might be a mistake to be so obsessed with who is and is not a troll, no offense intended. There are people here whose sole purpose is to bait people who don't agree
with their agenda, paid or not. I just ignore them on the whole, although I occasionally succumb, and then end up feeling played. Why let these people cause you turmoil and distress? By doing that, they win. I enjoy your sense of humor, bythe way.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 18:10
More Barbara projection, calling RSM progressives 'sick trolls'.

Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#UL7l53599PKkjsWh.99

Clinton Foundation Corruption Should Be Next for the FBI

http://observer.com/2016/07/up-next-for-the-fbi-clinton-foundation-corruption/

It's also clear the FBI investigation on using her home computer for top secret, highly classified documents occurred. She was guilty but allowed her off the hook, based on her 'intentions'. A sick joke. Those like Julian Assange, Snowden and Manning were not allowed as a defense.

WHAT Presidential candidate/nomin ee has been under 3--THREE-- FBI investigations while running for President??
 
 
-25 # ericlane 2016-07-12 13:59
I understand Palast's argument. But come on folks, why are we bashing Hillary for her Realpolotik? The alternative is Donald Trump, the disaster in waiting. My greatest concern with Hillary is who she will pick for Vice President. If she goes with someone like Castro, a Texan and extremely unqualified to be a heart beat away from the presidency, then I won't vote for her, consequences be damned. If she picks someone like Warren or Sanders or Perez or Brown or some other qualified candidate, she has my vote. That simple.
 
 
-19 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 16:21
ericlane: Personally, I am hoping she chooses Tim Kaine as VP, but there are several qualified candidates to choose from, unlike on the Trump side. Yes, Hillary won, hope the trolls can get over it or just go home. The crap that runs out of their mouths is nothing but disgusting lies. They sound like psychos.


..
 
 
+13 # jimmyjames 2016-07-12 17:05
Quoting Barbara K:
ericlane: Personally, I am hoping she chooses Tim Kaine as VP, but there are several qualified candidates to choose from, unlike on the Trump side. Yes, Hillary won, hope the trolls can get over it or just go home. The crap that runs out of their mouths is nothing but disgusting lies. They sound like psychos.


..

Those who you like to call "trolls" and psychos" are the majority here. We are Progressives with a conscience, unlike the Hillary trolls and psychos...
 
 
-14 # ericlane 2016-07-12 21:18
jimmyjames, I am a Bernie supporter. He lost. Get over it. Hillary is a sht load better than most candidates out there. I am also a lifelong progressive with a conscience who has been fighting for social justice since the 60's. The Hillary bashing is complete crap. The e-mail idiocy is no different than the Benghazi made-up scandal to undermine Hillary. She wasn't my first choice but she is heads and shoulders better and more qualified than anyone else I can think of.
 
 
+6 # Helga Fellay 2016-07-13 10:48
ericlane - I recognize you as another PAID Shillary troll
 
 
-9 # ericlane 2016-07-13 11:02
And Helga, I recognize you as a walking moron.
 
 
-8 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-13 16:25
I totally agree, ericlane. You can't win for losing on this website, I think that's why RSN is having trouble getting donations. The A-holes who like to troll are the same folks who don't donate. Screw 'em. Helga is a certified left-wing troll.
 
 
+4 # tigerlillie 2016-07-14 14:47
Quoting ericlane:
jimmyjames, I am a Bernie supporter. He lost. Get over it. Hillary is a sht load better than most candidates out there. I am also a lifelong progressive with a conscience who has been fighting for social justice since the 60's. The Hillary bashing is complete crap. The e-mail idiocy is no different than the Benghazi made-up scandal to undermine Hillary. She wasn't my first choice but she is heads and shoulders better and more qualified than anyone else I can think of.


You know, I initially made the same assumptions that you seem to, that is, that the e-mail scandal was just another right wing crazy, Ken Starr ilk attempt to demonize the Clintons. Turned out I was wrong. I found out by reading thoughtful, research based articles about the Clinton's here at RSN. I started doing more research, independent of RSN. There is a lot of credible research about Clinton corruption that has never made RSN. Many of the right wing criticisms of the Clinton's is credible, they just interpret it differently than I do.

You mention Benghazi - there is credible evidence, imo, suggesting that she mishandled that entire situation, ignored warnings about inadequate security, refused to evaluate the situation or consider up grading security. Draw your own conclusions about her culpability for the embassy staff deaths.

I suggest you do some more research about Hillary's history before dismissing
criticisms of her as complete crap & made up scandals.
 
 
-5 # Barbara K 2016-07-13 14:49
See this:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/never-close-indicting-hillary-20-years-ago-yesterday/?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sd&utm_medium=email

..
 
 
-26 # pupdude 2016-07-12 14:09
RSN.

Another island of TROLLZ on the www,

HRC won. Senator Sanders endorsed her. He's all in to defeat Trump. Sorry TROLLZ.

Happily supporting HRC this Nov. IMO the SCOTUS issue supersedes all others. Trump has promised a bunch of young Scalias to fortify corporate personhood/Citi zens United, eviscerate voting rights and union rights, probably overturn Roe v. Wade. Probably overturn marriage equality. No big deal, right TROLLERZ? Also they'll overturn climate change initiatives from POTUS. A bunch of other stuff too. Who cares?
 
 
-22 # bigkahuna671 2016-07-12 14:33
I love what you're calling the Left-Wing wingnuts...the TROLLZ. Love it, and it's so, so fitting 'cause they're every bit as bad as the Right-Wing trolls.
 
 
+29 # chapdrum 2016-07-12 14:30
Kudos and thanks to the tireless Greg Palast. As he well knows, the average American simply does not give a damn about any of this (or that). I do recall that Bill C. showed in post-quake Haiti with none other than G.W. Bush in tow. That tells me most of what I need to know about all of the Clintons, abetted by the knowledge that all the Clintons give speeches (HRC may have stopped so not to appear [chuckle] unseemly) on behalf of the Peterson Foundation, he being the SecCommerce hack under (of course) Reagan, who's promoting the privatization of Social Security.
 
 
-23 # rocback 2016-07-12 14:44
Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of more than $30 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on supporting Haiti’s small and medium businesses, improving livelihoods, enhancing education and exploring the nexus of agriculture, energy and environment. Today, the Clinton Foundation focuses on creating sustainable economic growth in the five priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, environment, and artisans/manufa cturing. The Foundation also works to develop full-cycle investing, bringing together producers, investors, and markets in a way that is socially, environmentally , and economically impactful. The Clinton Foundation has helped Haitian businesses develop their skills, increase their productivity, and connect with international partners.

What have YOU done for Haiti?

Greg Palast has been exposed by his own Daily Kos for sloppy and misleading journalism.
 
 
-18 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 16:26
rocback: Absolutely! The Clinton Foundation has done much to help many peoples of the entire world. Wonder what any of these oafs have done for any country?

..
 
 
+15 # SMoonz 2016-07-12 17:26
-Millions of dollars have not been spent on relief efforts in Haiti.
-Tony Rodham, Hillary's brother, is involved in Haitian insider deals
-Jobs that were promised in Haiti did not come to fruition
-As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton placed pressure on the Haitian government to place Michel Martelly as President in a corrupt election.
-Michel Martelly is a ruthless and corrupt President
If this is what helping people looks like, I'd rather not see her help any longer...

"High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html?_r=0
 
 
+13 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-12 21:26
Sshhhhh!!! Barbara is offended by facts and logic, etc.

She calls them "hate".
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2016-07-12 21:33
#

You willfully-blind corporate-fasci sm supporters (whether you realize it or not, which you clearly DON'T realize, being the "good 'Amerikans'", like the "good Germans" of Nazi Germany, that you are), blindly believe all of the false and fraudulent propaganda lies, such as The Clinton Foundation's many lies and their huge amount of false and fraudulent propaganda. You truly are being completely mesmerized by the "piping" tunes of the leaders of the lemmings, being completely brainwashed to blindly support evil incarnate masquerading as "good people", "good politicians" (oxymoron) and "good greed- and war- and mass-murder- mongers", and to blindly follow them off the edge of the cliff to your demise.

(Continued below)
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2016-07-12 21:34
#

You think we who stand for truth "are" the "psychos"? No, it is you and all of your ilk, who are part of the mass-insane who think you're "normal", who are the "psychos". That's how effective the conditioning, dumbing-down, indoctrination and programming have been, that you are all so "psycho" that you really believe that you are the "sane" ones, and that everyone who is not part of your mass-insanity, or at least aren't as much so as you are, are supposedly "insane" and the "psychos". That is how far-gone you and all of your kind are. You literally believe that lies are "truth", the truth is "lies", insanity is "sanity", and sanity is "insanity", just as the globalist corporate-fasci st powers-that-be and brainwashers [aka, "washers-of(-tr ue)-brains"] designed; and it has worked like a charm on all of you willful-"sheople".

#
 
 
+2 # Hooligan 2016-07-17 02:11
Quoting Barbara K:
rocback: Absolutely! The Clinton Foundation has done much to help many peoples of the entire world. Wonder what any of these oafs have done for any country?

..

I forgot. How many millions did the Saudi royal family donate to the Clinton Fdn.? Why would they do that?? Oh, of course! They've always been REALLY concerned with the well being of the Haitian people. Yeah. Right!
 
 
+14 # SMoonz 2016-07-12 17:28
She hasn't done much for Haiti... she's done more harm than good.

"High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html?_r=0
 
 
+14 # economagic 2016-07-12 21:07
The US has joined with France and the rest of the colonial empires in keeping the country of one of the few successful slave revolts in history, if not the only one. NAFTA was one of the more recent 2x4s across the forehead in recent years, as Bill backhandedly acknowledged while screwing up the hurricane relief. I lost track of the US sponsored regime changes. If Radscal or Tedrey were here they could probably come up with the number.

But look who is stirring this pot (notoriously fact-challenged trolls, for those who are not regulars here).
 
 
+5 # tigerlillie 2016-07-14 14:59
Re: rocbacks lauding of the Clinton Foundation, with the idiotic support of Barbara K:

OMG. After my perhaps misguided suggestion to just ignore you, I have to bite the bait.

Have you read much recently about how the Haitians feel about the "help" they have received from the Clinton Foundation? This would require disregarding what the corrupt nationals who are in on the graft have to say.

The Clinton Foundation is a very thinly disguised con job. While functioning as SOS, Clinton signed an agreement not to accept donations from foreign countries because of the obvious conflict of interest, which she then proceeded to ignore. I forget how many millions of dollars she solicited and/or accepted from foreign country nationals or governments while in office. Her cabinet appointment and access to power proved very profitable for the Clintons.

Keep in mind, the hallowed Clinton Foundation is only required to spend 3% of their funds to maintain their charity status.

I am submitting this comment in hopes that those who are uninformed about the Clinton Foundation incredibly corrupt scam will Google the subject and educate themselves.

Note that this is yet another propensity that the Clinton's share with Trump, whose inflated claims of charitable donations that are never given ought to be criminal. Maybe they are, but I am sure that Obama's DOJ considers him untouchable, just like Hillary.
 
 
+24 # Blackjack 2016-07-12 14:41
How else was she gonna get there except to lie, cheat and steal. She could never have beaten Bernie legitimately!
 
 
-22 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 16:24
Blackjack: Hate to break it to you, but she did beat him fair and square, like it or not.

..
 
 
+19 # librarian1984 2016-07-12 17:25
Fair and square?!

hahahahaha
 
 
+12 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-12 21:32
Quoting Barbara K:
Blackjack: Hate to break it to you, but she did beat him fair and square, like it or not.

..


Sigh....must be nice in lala land.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-07-12 22:36
It's like a different world -- where Hillary is good and Trump isn't in cahoots with her, and facts are whatever you want them to be ...

Remember that song, They're coming to take me away ho ho, They're coming to take me away ha ha, Where life is beautiful all the time etc.

Except now they don't take them away, they hire them as trolls to harass people whose votes they want.

It's an odd approach, isn't it?
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-13 11:21
librarian, I bet you see black helicopters when you put on your tin foil hat too, right?
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 16:57
Well, if the black helicopters wrote me notes telling me I was 'perpetually aggrieved' I would have evidence that they were indeed present, wouldn't I?

I know it seems mind-blowingly stupid for Hillary Clinton to pay infiltrators money to harass people whose votes she wants -- but it's true! Go look in the mirror!
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-13 18:35
Hillary may want your vote but you are confusing me for someone who gives a sh+t who you vote for.

Now you can go back to your delusional alternative universe.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 22:40
You mean the delusional alternate universe where America is a functional democracy and 1% of the population aren't parasites on the rest of us? The one where crooks don't steal our elections? THAT universe?
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-07-14 09:25
put on your tin foil hat and pick any delusion you want moron.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 14:34
oh boo hoo brock-ack boo hoo you're a big meanie!

whatever happened to 'unite later'? don't you want my vote, pretend lawyer? doesn't Hillary want to be my friend anymore? Is she still going to 'get things done'?

rocback: Hillary is so awesome. She is my hero. a-yup!

Hillary: Brockwho?
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 12:36
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-22 # kalpal 2016-07-12 14:47
I am not quite sure who it is who actually believes that HRC sat down and one by one deleted about 30,000 e-mails or so with such great skill that a competent tech could not reconstruct them.

I remember that Romney bought every hard drive used in the MA government and destroyed them all. He knew he had said and done things that must never see the light of day so he took no chances.

Maybe I am wrong and HRC is digital mastermind with great computer skills unknown to the majority of Americans of her age and background. I doubt it.
This seems to originate from the same people who keep proposing that Americans cut down Congressional yearly pay. They seem to be unaware that only congress can cut its own wages and they appear to be averse to such a notion.
 
 
+16 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-12 15:22
It doesn't take much skill to delete emails. That's the WHOLE POINT of hosting a private email server - the ability to purge it whenever you want. You can't do that with a non-self-hosted server.

Your statement is invalid. Anyone that can set up an email server can EASILY purge it. It's literally a SINGLE folder that can be deleted with "right click -> delete" (that's literally how it is. Talk to someone who's set up a server, it's not magic).

And she doesn't have to do it herself. Whoever set it up for her can easily do it.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-07-12 15:44
HRC says she had her lawyers go through the emails and decide which ones to delete and which ones were "work related." Then they scrubbed the server to make retrieval essentially impossible.

The FBI still found more than 2,000 work emails.

The FBI's report noted her lawyers didn't have top security clearance, and so by giving them access, HRC had committed the same crime that got Petraeus fired from Director of CIA, and got his wrists slapped.

Of course, now HRC claims the lawyers all did have security clearance. lol
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-07-12 22:39
Bad, Radscal! You're messing up their narrative!

Hillary never does anything wrong. Her very breath is a blessing to this world. Her crimes are now sacraments. Pay no attention to Bill's hand in your pocket, Ste. Hillary is ready to ascend.

UP WITH HILLARY!

OMG it sure was nice that week they got off, very relaxing.
 
 
-14 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 17:02
kalpal & fuzzball: I guess you missed the part where her lawyers went thru her server checking for any emails that were not personal. Yes, they had clearances if you are wondering that. I watched the FBI Chief's hearing by the Rethugs desperately trying to find something, anything wrong. He said there was nothing to charge her with. He said they found 3 emails that had a little mark like this (c) on a paragraph on 3 emails that he thought were Classified. One of the Dems was smart enough to call the State Dept. and ask about the 3 emails. It turns out that they were not classified and that that mark was put on there by mistake. Hence: NO CLASSIFIED EMAILS. The AG accepted the FBI's decision and closed the case. Of course, the Rs had to grill her for that yesterday, getting nowhere. What a waste of money. Oh well, they have done nothing worthwhile for nearly 8 years now. Why is no one upset at the many Billion Dollars wasted on these witch hunts? There is much more, I watched the FBI hearing and the AG hearing, as well as the ones for her prior to those. There just isn't enough space to write it all out.

..
 
 
+9 # SMoonz 2016-07-13 11:59
Hillary Clinton's attorneys had clearances? Where did you get that from?

James Comey actually said the opposite at the hearing, "2:30 p.m. Comey tells Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, that there is "no doubt" that some of Clinton's lawyers who sifted through her emails did not have security clearance.'

"Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?" Chaffetz asked.
"Yes," Comey said."

"FBI Director James Comey testifies on decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-hillary-clinton-email/
 
 
+4 # tigerlillie 2016-07-14 15:09
Did you even bother to read what FBI director Comley said about the Clinton claim that Hillary's lawyers read those e-mails? Another Clinton lie. Comley's statement about the decision to not indict Hillary re: her e-mails is extremely damming.
 
 
-23 # mmc 2016-07-12 15:02
This article is complete crap.
 
 
+21 # BoomerZoomer 2016-07-12 15:19
I remain puzzled by the fact that there has been a complete absence of investigative reporting associated with how the Department of Homeland Security Federal Network Security failed to make sure that the State Department always adheres to all mandated policies and cyber security protocols.
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2016-07-12 15:46
Quite true. And for 6 years, the Obama Administration let HRC keep her SoS emails sequestered. The only people who had access to them were her staff and lawyers.

They were government property from the instant they were created, and yet the Obama Administration let her get away with hiding them.
 
 
-17 # Barbara K 2016-07-12 17:32
Radscal: Geez, people use some sense. Why would she want to keep government documents hidden? She didn't. I watched the FBI hearing. Just what use would she have for them?

..
 
 
+14 # SMoonz 2016-07-12 17:47
"As the New York Times noted in May about a highly incriminating report from the State Department’s own Auditor General: “Emails disclosed in the report made it clear that she worried that personal emails could be publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act.”
I don't know, you tell us what she was hiding? Apparently there was alot to hide, i.e. Clinton Foundation info
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-07-12 17:55
She did. NONE of her work emails were available to anyone in the Obama Administration until she was forced to release some, SIX YEARS AFTER she started creating them.

No doubt, most of what she wanted to keep hidden were those emails related to her quid pro quo dealings.

Although, I suppose you choose to believe it's just a coincidence that foreign governments, corporations and individuals "donated" $ hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation immediately before she, as Secretary of State gave them favorable deals (like weapons to Saudi Arabia and the uranium mining deal described in this article).
 
 
+17 # jimmyjames 2016-07-12 15:48
I still say, if Hillary Clinton shot and killed an innocent person, on video, in front of thousands of spectators, the Hillaryites would support her. She has and cannot do wrong and never will. They are so hell bent on having a woman for President and/or defeating Donald Trump, that nothing she does makes a bit of difference.

I hope and pray that predictions about her starting WW III prove to be untrue. Because then the whole world will pay the price of her psychopathic madness.
 
 
-10 # Suzy 2016-07-12 17:46
jimmyjames, I am not a Hillaryite, I am a Democrat. I've supported Bernie all the way through, and I have continued to support him by believing that he is an intelligent critically thinking person who has
found valid reasons to endorse Hillary. I'm surprised that your respect for him has evaporated so quickly.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-07-12 21:13
It has nothing to do with respect for Sanders. I know of only one RSN poster who has expressed any disrespect for Sanders, and that one partially recanted once the smoke stopped coming out of his ears.

At the same time, it is not disrespectful in the least to disagree with Sanders on principle, and slavishly following him is not in itself a sign of respect.
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2016-07-15 12:44
Bernie's positive regard for Hillary Clinton has a long history, and there is no reason I have seen for believing it to be anything but thoughtful and honest.
 
 
-8 # Citizen Mike 2016-07-12 17:12
It doesn't matter, we have had flawed presidents before and the republic has survived. The most important thing is TRUMP PREVENTION because the republic could not survive four years of this fascist nutjob.
 
 
-8 # marxsen 2016-07-12 18:04
So Greg - who would you recommend we vote for?
 
 
-6 # Suzy 2016-07-12 18:42
Marxsen, my question also.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-13 13:24
Greg Palast has never promoted any politician for as long as I've been following his investigative journalism. He's been critical of both Democratic and Republican politicians when they do really bad stuff, so I've not gotten a sense of his political leanings.

Mostly, he wants us to have our votes count. Is that a problem?
 
 
-1 # marxsen 2016-07-15 08:51
Of course its not a problem. My problem is with the timing of his remarks, not the content of them. Pieces like this AT THIS TIME help push idiots who are actually undecided into Trump's camp. Bad as Hillary is I do not want to see Trump as President.
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2016-07-15 17:47
#

"'Burnished-Fools-Gold' Sanders" is as phony as a three-dollar bill, just as "(S)Hitlery" is as well. Actually, as far as anyone like myself who is familiar with and knowledgeable about the New World Order (NWO), "(s)Trump" isn't working for them and bringing it about (though it wouldn't at all surprise me if he was, being the corporate-fasci st capitalist and "oligarchist" that he is); but "(S)Hitlery" definitely is working for them and seeking to bring it about. Thus, to vote for her is voting for at least just as much evil, and very likely worse evil. "(S)Hitlery" is already a war criminal and human rights violator, as well as a criminal against the peace, and against humanity. Voting for her is voting for all of those things. How can any of us be against all of that, and be for it, all at the same time? Answer? We can't! We're either truly, fully and completely against it, or we're truly, fully and completely for it whether we realize it or not! There is no being partly against evil, and being partly for it! Either we're COMPLETELY against evil, or we're not! And, if we're for evil AT ALL, we're evil! "(S)Hitlery" is pure evil!

(Continued below)
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2016-07-15 17:47
#

And that's what you're going to vote for!? As long as "(s)Trump" isn't a member of the NWO, even if he is (extremely?) evil regardless, you would very likely be voting for less evil if you voted for him (not that I'm at all suggesting voting for him). Vote for neither of them! This so-called, "lesser-evil" crap, which there is in-reality no such thing, has got to stop! Everyone should ONLY vote their conscience; or, if there is no candidate(s) that one could conscientiously vote for, conscience then demands not voting for anybody! Voting for (ANY) evil is absolutely and completely insane! It makes all those who do so complicit in and responsible for all of the evil(s) that those evil office-holders perpetrate while in office; and, if those people perpetrate ANY of that which leads to the death of a high number of innocent civilians, it makes all those who voted for them to also have the blood of those innocent people on their hands as well! Though it doesn't surprise me at all, it absolutely amazes me that you "lesser-evil" proponents can AT ALL live with that!

(Continued below)
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2016-07-15 17:48
#

Vote (ONLY) for the opposite of evil, or don't vote at all! In fact, not at all voting for ANY evil is in a sense a "vote" of conscience in and of itself, ONLY for what is right, which is all any of us should stand for AT ALL! To support evil IN ANY FASHION, is to BE evil! So, don't be evil, and don't vote for evil! "(S)Hitlery" is a ruthless, mass-murdering "Fourth Reich" corporate-fasci st globalist who ultimately, along with all of her many other cohorts in ultimate crime(s) and evil, wants all of us, and the earth, completely subjugated, exploited, enslaved, destroyed and mass-exterminat ed! How can anyone with a True Conscience vote for such evil?! Answer?? THEY CAN'T OR THEY DON'T TRULY HAVE A CONSCIENCE!! *Only* "vote" for what is right, AND NOTHING, AND NO ONE, ELSE!! DON'T VOTE FOR (ANY) EVIL, WHATSOEVER, BUT PARTICULARLY FOR EXTREMELY-EVIL PEOPLE LIKE "(S)HITLERY" [OR "(s)TRUMP"], PERIOD!!

#
 
 
-3 # Floridatexan 2016-07-12 18:09
Sorry, Greg Palast, but this Schweizer guy is a hack.
 
 
+9 # PCPrincess 2016-07-12 22:27
Do we still have 'Correct the Record' trolls posting here? Geezus... if people don't like us 'Left-Wingers' here, then why are you still hanging around? It should be quite obvious to many of you who consistently attempt to berate the regulars here that no amount of repeating the same drivel over and over changes minds, yet you still continue. Then, as if by magic, another comes along to magically agree with the pro-Hillary or 'anti-Bernie' brigade while denouncing the RSN readers as they enjoy a celebratory e-high-five, continuing in the back-and-forth for a few posts or so.

There can be no other logical reason for the continuance of posts that never change a mind, never bring another person to 'your way of thinking' other than for some type of financial incentive (or masochism). I mean, you can't really just be in it just for the electronic high-fiving?!
 
 
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-07-13 05:33
PCP: You put into words what I've been wondering about, too.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-07-13 13:07
I am "in it" because my hobby is exposing hypocrites.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-13 13:27
Yep. Well put PC. It's long been obvious that their goal is not to "win us over." They seem only to seek to demoralize and divert us.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 17:00
Epic fail!

Not demoralized! Not diverted!

Just very very angry.
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-07-13 18:39
That the difference between you and us, librarian. We are very happy people. You are angry and miserable people. 'perpetually aggrieved'. You need to chill out, relax, even get laid if you can.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-13 20:21
You have no reason to be angry. Your candidate and her machine managed to take the nomination from a good, honest and genuinely progressive candidate.

Now, if your candidate wins, then her followers who really do hold progressive and anti-war values are almost assuredly going to be disappointed. Whether they express that as anger, no one knows. Yet.
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-07-13 21:40
I don't have a candidate. I have a country...a country I love and raised my family in...a country that gave me opportunity and freedom. I don't waste my time whining about what other people have that I don't. When I do, I just get a better education and a better job. I don't sit around complaining all day. I am not one of the perpetually aggrieved. I am a very happy individual because I love my country more than ever and now know we have a good chance with Hillary to make it even better for me and my family. Life is too short to just whine all the time.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 22:45
Au contraire! I seem to remember you whining like a little baby when Sen. Sanders was kicking Ste. Hillary to the curb. Waa waaa!

You keep wrapping yourself in the flag and pretending you didn't just steal this nomination with election fraud and dirty tricks.

Yea, you SURE love this country. You just love $ and influence MORE.
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-07-14 09:27
still angry I see. :-)
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 14:38
You bet I am. I don't think I am making a secret of that.

Not very bright, are you?
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2016-07-13 23:28
#

You're NOT happy, liar! NO ONE who is still in the fantasy-world "matrix" mass-insanity like you are, is happy. You and your pathetic ilk may really believe you're "happy", but ONLY people who have been set free by the truth and come out of the "matrix" are truly happy. Yes, facing the real truth and what's really going on is painful, and doesn't make one happy per se, but knowing that one is no longer deceived, and has been set free, makes one very happy, even though obviously not specifically about the evil(s) that are going on in the world that we who are set free by the truth completely face.

You and your "'matrix'-brain washed" kind wouldn't know being set free by the truth if it bit you on the ass; so, please, whatever you do, referring to one of your most-idiotic earlier comments above, don't let your ass catch up with you, because then you might be truly set free by the truth, and then what would you do? You'd probably be like the traitor in the Matrix series of movies who wanted to go back into the artificial-worl d "matrix" mass-insanity, preferring to eat "great-tasting" artificial steak and drink "wonderful" artificial wine over the real thing, and instead of facing and living in reality.

(Continued below)
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2016-07-13 23:29
#

In other words, if you and your willfully-blind , liar-and-lie-lo ving-and-suppor ting ilk ever fully woke up, you would undoubtedly very soon want to "go back to 'sleep'", and rejoin the fantasy world mass-insanity; because, as Jack Nicholson so aptly said in the movie, A Few Good Men [a great example of an "al CIAduh(!)" false-propagand a movie], "You can't handle the truth!" You "(S)Hitlery"-bo ts prove that you can't handle the truth because you "have to" keep resorting to believing in and supporting more lies and liars, and/or supporting the same liars and their lies some more, like "(S)Hitlerly" and her lies. Me thinks you and your kind would have voted for Hitler.

#
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-13 17:03
And don't forget the heartfelt testaments that they were really FOR Bernie but we here ruined it and made them change their mind! That meme's always entertaining.

Oh, and I see crackedrock is telling us (again) about his hobby which is .. say it with me everybody .. EXPOSING HYPOCRITES.

yawn
 
 
-3 # Mountain Man 2016-07-13 09:54
rocback. I checked your reference, and it seems that your critique of Mr. Palast has merit. He does appear to be a little overly enthusiastic in his reporting, and should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

I learned a long time ago not to trust any politician or the news media too far. The
president's campaign slogan from 1964, "I will not send our boys to die in Viet Nam," and the MSM running wild with the so-called 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident', which sounded bogus at the time, severely dented my trust of either.

Well . . . the President was lying through his teeth. And in 2005, NSA de-classified
their Tonkin Gulf report. The North Vietnamese never fired on us, even though we fired on them to get video of them shooting back at us.

Personally, I quit trusting HRC with her narrative of an arrival in Bosnia. She stated that she and everyone else had to duck and run to the terminal, because they were being fired upon by rebels.

Cut to the six o'clock news. Apparently, she didn't notice the cameras filming this
event.

In the video, nobody was running or ducking. There was no gunfire. Her story was a total fabrication.

This article may be an hyperbolic exaggeration, but I can't trust her for high office. Another politician who will say anything to get my sympathy and support.
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-07-13 21:51
Mountain Man, This from that same reporter with two updates that did not make it into the original article:

That first story was updated by the Washington Post reporter but the updates never made it into the press by the time it became GOP fodder for years. I submit it was a simple difference of opinion of different people. Here is that reporters update. It may not change your opinion that it was not accurate but maybe it will excplain why she made tohsoe comments:

UPDATE: March 21, 6:45 p.m.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton’s chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her “vivid recollections” of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:

I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C-17 — a plane capable of steep ascents and descents — precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-07-13 21:51
UPDATE: March 22, 8:45 a.m.

Gen. Nash says that I misquoted him in saying he was unaware of any “security threat” to the first lady. While he was unaware of any “sniper threat,” he now tells me there were a couple of “security concerns” that day, which he found out about after returning to his headquarters after greeting Clinton at the airport. There was a “non-specific report” of a possible truck bomb in the area. The military also had information that “some of the communications associated with the First Lady’s visit were being monitored.”

“In both cases, we took appropriate security action,” said Nash, adding that Clinton’s visit was not disrupted.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-14 13:27
"adding that Clinton’s visit was not disrupted."

Which means that HRC lied when she said the greeting was cancelled and she ran with her head ducked straight to an armored vehicle.

That your candidate freely lies is apparent. There is a reason why exit polls found that at least 1/3 of the people who voted FOR HER do not consider her trustworthy. They're just more afraid of the Reality TV Star playing the role of boogeyman.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-14 13:24
On the other hand, CBS was with her, and the film they shot proves she was lying.

Tuzla later said that what HRC meant was that there was gunfire somewhere else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c
 
 
+3 # Mountain Man 2016-07-13 10:08
For the record, I trust Donald Trump even less. If some people thought President Nixon was a crook, what would they think of the Trumpster.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-14 13:31
I agree, but perhaps come to a different conclusion.

I am quite confident that HRC will continue her decades-long support for Wall Street and supra-national corporate interests and consistent warmongering.

With Drumpf, I really don't know what he'd really try to do. Though I do expect that much of what he says he'd do will be obstructed by Congress or the Supreme Court.
 
 
-6 # Hermit 9 2016-07-14 01:36
If you knew anything about elections in California, you would know that the number of votes outstanding is typical. You seem to see conspiracies everywhere your turn - you must see in your sleep and under your bed. I have gone through several close elections in which I had to observe the late vote-by-mail and provisionals and watch them counted almost one at a time. In a pluralistic state with so man voters from different immigrants backgrounds, even signatures on vote-by-mail and provisional ballots can be daunting. In every case, the registrar offices, I have worked with have done everything to include as many voters as possible. And, BTW- late votes are ethnic votes and as much as admired Bernie, the late votes break for Clinton.
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-07-14 20:48
Quoting librarian1984:
We'll see, crock. We'll see.

I imagine you, with your enhanced access, know even better than me how badly things are going.

Otherwise, why are you here?


rocback is here because he can't hold a normal Job.
 
 
+1 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-07-15 07:40
We really must have ann all out fight on the convention floor and do what should have been done by the Sec. Of States office and voter registration. Overturn Hilliary as presumptive nominee. I know with certainty and so do Californians, this was a rigged set up. We want this made right. People, I urge you to Demand action and recount All Votes (yes provisional too. Do not allow a Party or a government strip you of your rights. If you do, we the people are going to be in to hard times.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN