When is the court date for Hillary?

Guccifer2 claims to have hacked the DNC's Officiial “Dossier on Hillary Clinton"

http://theralphretort.com/guccifer2-hits-paydirt-6021016/

 

That's my beef with this. So the IG says it's inconclusive that what she did was illegal but it certainly was unethical.

 

If only the GOP hadn't chosen someone with the maturity and discipline of Pee Wee Herman. . .

 

Yep. They had an adult in the crowd in Kasich that was a proven reformer but he wasn't brash enough. For all the talk of Trump bringing new voters to the Republican party, these new voters seem to be as immature as the generic black voter who looks only at the "D" when determining who to vote for.

When the story of the 2016 election is written, it will be the influence of the low information voter (Trump and Sanders supporters, primarily).

 

So you think the HRC supporters are the most-informed? If they are, then they do not care, which is worse IMO.

 

Hillary actions not illegal? Why? Because her moronic "not marked classified". Maybe that is construed as brilliant because it works but come on, a Secretary of State NOT recognizing material as 'classified' is absurd to a fault, and it is documented that she then sent it (or forwarded). And you know what? As much respect as I have for Deez, and it is plenty, I am getting a bit disgruntled with his degrading remarks on anyone that is not antiTrump. As Hillary goes on the offense I see many Trump voters coming out that are NOT fitting Mr Deez's unflattering assessments.

 

Kasich was my first choice, but to be honest, I would have voted for any of the GOP candidates over Hillary, even Ted Cruz, whom I despise. I wouldn't even be considering a third-party option. The party had to lower the bar a long, long, long way to get me not to vote against Hillary.

 

Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano invoked the Fifth more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition Wednesday with the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, a source with the group told Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...es-5th-more-than-125-times-in-deposition.html

 

While I still predict she will skate thru unscathed I nevertheless do not understand how she does it. How can anyone see this crap and NOT be disgusted with all of Washington.

 

It seems that most Republicans are disgusted with business as usual. However, the solution being selected is "unusual". Democrats would vote for a rotted corpse as long as a (D) were attached to it.

 

Nash, I'm sorry if I've gone too far bashing the Trumpsters. However, I'm very upset about this election. I'm facing a horrifically bad choice of two candidates I thoroughly detest and for whom I have absolutely no trust. I've never been in that situation before.

Even worse, I'm seeing my party destroyed and my ideology forced into exile. It's going to be an ideology without a party, and it hurts to see that happen. I just turned 40 last week, so I grew up with a GOP modeled after Reagan and went through "political puberty" under Newt Gingrich. The party I grew up in had constructed a national coalition built around conservative principles, and it had an army of activists and officeholders who were intellectual persuaders. Of course there was smack talk and confrontational rhetoric (and sometimes appropriately so), but the people involved were intelligent and could debate issues on the merits and persuade others to embrace the ideology. For example, a guy like Phil Gramm could walk around and smack talk with rednecks one day and then go on Meet the Press the next day and argue the merits of supply side economics against Paul Krugman (and discredit Krugman). What happened to that? It's gone, and sure enough, educated voters have fled the GOP in droves in the last 20 years.

Intellectually our party has lost its way, and its conservative principles and disciplined rhetoric have been replaced with ideologically incoherent trash talk and belligerence. Our people don't know what conservatism is anymore. All they know is the aggressive persona, and Trump has stepped right in and exploited it. Trump is a symptom, not cause, and that's scary to me.

 

To be fair, the Dems didn't have a choice. Debbie Wasserman Schultz picked the candidate, and the majority of Dem voters just goose stepped in unison. It had to be unsettling for the party to have Hillary being smacked around by a socialist, however.

 

Informed is relative but looking at the polls you need only compare the high % of voters (Dem, Rep and Independent) that believe HRC did something illegal and her support. One poll had the % that believe she did nothing wrong in the 30% range yet had her polling at North of 40% against Trump. That means at least 25% of Hillary's support believe she did something wrong yet will vote for her. I may be in that group if Trump is close heading into November.

 

And there you have it.

 

Newsflash: it was never the Conservative Party.

 

Deez,
Don't disagree. Being significantly older my anguish runs a more intense anguish I believe, perhaps because for my earlier years I was a staunch independent. I voted regardless of party. Then, as I became more and more burdened by tax liabilities and more involved in the business arena I found myself more in line with the GOP mantra. But no more, not because I have changed my views but I feel they changed into a talk the talk but never walk the walk. This is not to say I align with the Dems but more to say I just don't see (in action) the difference. Nor do I see either party less corrupt than the other (although I do believe with all my being HRC is a new standard bearer).

This is what I believe wholeheartedly but what I do not believe is that those who he exploits are necessarily fools, just mad and VERY 'anyone but Hillary blind.' How bad that is for the country we may disagree.

 

This is simply not true. If the Republicans had put up a credible, centrist candidate, millions of Sanders supporters would be staying home and millions of centrist Democrats would be crossing over to vote Republican. By nominating Trump, the a Republican Party has managed to galvanize the Democrats around a candidate whom many would otherwise never support.

 

Sure NJ. The typical democrats and some of the socialists will vote for her despite her many flaws, but galvanized is an overstatement. She was handed the nomination win on day one via magical "super delegates", but managed to look like a loser for at least nine months. I don't see the fanatical support of her that we saw with The Chosen One. The independents have yet to cast their votes, and it is likely that a portion of Bernie's crowd will still be upset that the fix was in. I do agree that the Republican nominee is no prize, but I would bet that he has struck a major chord with the blue collar workers that have been stiffed for years. Time will tell.

 

Ooops....looks like the galvanizing theory may have some rust:

A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...f-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton

 

I'm not sure how you can say there's no difference. I'm not saying they're perfect. However, and I know many scoff when I say this, you have to consider context. If you don't completely run the show, then you have to make concessions. You're not going to get everything you want. "Running the show" means having the Presidency, having 218 reliable votes in the House, and 60 reliable votes in the Senate. How big those concessions are depend on how close you are to "running the show," the political realities of the day, and your ability to influence the public. I've heard a lot of people saying the GOP should have gotten rid of Obamacare, stopped his executive actions, etc., but procedurally and politically there's only so much they can do. I've never heard any of their critics offer any specific options that they should have followed but didn't.

And the bottom line is that if Democrats had held control of Congress for the last eight years, things would be very, very different. We would almost surely have single payer now, cap and trade, a more liberal judiciary, higher taxes, and MUCH higher spending levels by hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The GOP has made a difference. You may not recognize it, because they haven't been able to bludgeon a President into signing a repeal of his signature legislative achievement, but they have made a major difference.

Being angry is fine, but that doesn't mean any course of action is fine. Instead of doing something bellyaching and then doing something foolish, they should act rationally, and that means looking inward rather than lashing out.

First, they should learn conservative principles, and yes, that means they need to turn off talk radio and pick up a book. They need more William F. Buckley and Friedrich Hayek and less Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. In terms of officeholders, they should favor people like Dick Armey over people like Sarah Palin.

Second, they should educate themselves on how the separation of powers actually work, which means perusing the Constitution. If you don't understand the separation of powers, then you can't know what your expectations reasonably should be.

Third, they need to take what they learn about conservative principles, and use it to convince others to accept conservatism, because the public isn't very conservative right now. The most powerful weapon that conservatism has is that it's right, but its adherents need to know what conservatism is and how to advocate it in a consistent and disciplined manner. The Left owns public education and the media. You're not going to counter that with incoherent babbling.

Finally, they should stop acting like ******** and calm the hell down, and they need to stop rewarding politicians who act like ********. Conservatives should advocate their ideology in a measured, intelligent, and disciplined manner. Apocalyptic and vitriolic rhetoric don't make a position look strong. They make it look dangerous, stupid, and weak.

 

Dude had 14 lawyers present for his depo.
If Hillary is paying his legal bills (to make sure he invokes the 5th), that's obstruction under federal law.

 

Good luck proving that she's paying his lawyers as part of a deal for him to plead the 5th.

 

Want to keep a grand jury from indicting your ham sammich?


Name it Clinton.

 

My Dad has been a fanatic left wing voter all of his life. We wouldn't even speak about politics because it could get heated and wasn't good for our relationship. So we both just didn't speak politics around each other. The first time he brought politics up again was during the 2012 Presidential election when he said he just couldn't vote for the worst President ever in Barrack Obama (so he didn't vote). I was stunned I must admit. To this day he still defends Jimmy Carter's record. That tells you right there how far left he is. So he called me the other day and told me he is voting Trump. He likes how he tells it like it is. He believes strongly that he has what it takes to turn the economy around. This is the first time ever that he will vote for a Republican. Trump wasn't my first four choices. But no way in hell would I vote for the most corrupt person we all know over Trump. I never thought I'd see the day that my dad will like a Republican nominee more than I.

 

I35
Your Dad's opinion and decision are good to read. Like you Trump was not in my top 5 plus all the crap Trump supporters are taking from every angle gets old.
but when someone like your Dad considers and then chooses Trump maybe he isn't such a whacked out choice. Does that make sense?

 

It's not a surprise that an older (and therefore less PC and likely more nationalistic) liberal would vote for Trump. His message is very similar to what a union-friendly Democrat would have been advocating 30-40 years ago.

 

I am so old, I remember when HRC used to howl about big money in politics
And oy ve that Citizens United !

 

Vol is lower right

 

"Hillary Clinton’s official schedule from her days as Secretary of State was scrubbed of at least 75 entries listing names and meetings with political donors and State Department outsiders, according to an investigation carried out by the Associated Press.

Many of those donors and peddlers of influence had interests and business involving the State Department .....

After suing the government in federal court to receive the omitted details in March 2015, the AP began comparing Clinton’s 1,500-page official calendar with the records kept in planning schedules by the former Secretary of State’s aides. The investigation showed that at least 114 names of visitors who met with her were omitted from Clinton’s official calendar records. These discrepancies between official and unofficial records prompted Clinton’s critics to further question her transparency and honesty in the midst of her ongoing private email server scandal.

“It’s clear that any outside influence needs to be clearly identified in some way to at least guarantee transparency. That didn’t happen,” Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, told the AP....."

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer