« Sara, the cops, Liberman, and Israel's future | Main | Erdogan's Red Line... Not! - TTG »

01 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Cvillereader And others, HRC's use of an illegal private servers if proved, is grounds for failure as a candidate for at least Two reasons:

1. The illegal handling and storing of classified material. This is a felony.

2. The establishment of secret communications with the intent of avoiding freedom of information. legislation. This is typical of narcissists who will only communicate with "special people" and not allow "little people" to scrutinise their actions. In other words Hilary does not wish to ever be held accountable as a public office holder - as is required by law.

To put it another way, it IS a big deal.

What would happen if she became President is that the left hand (unprivileged officials) would never know what the right hand (Hilary and her secret inner circle) was doing. This is a recipe for United States domestic and foreign policy disaster. I have had a taste of this behaviour in a large institution managed by a creature like Hilary.

Peter Reichard

Bernie would likely have dropped out by now but for the cloud of corruption hanging over Hillary. He has gone easy on her because he lacks the killer instinct but wants to be waiting in the wings if lightning strikes in the form of an FBI recommendation to indict or some other bombshell that causes her candidacy to become unviable. Maybe he knows something we don't.


A Harvard MBA Guy Is Out to Bring Down the Clintons by Pam Martens and Russ Martens.

There’s a new Markopolos in town with that same brand of leave-no-stone-unturned tenacity and he has his sights set on the charity operations of Hillary and Bill Clinton, known as the Clinton Foundation and its myriad tentacles. Ortel’s actions come just as Hillary Clinton makes her final sprint for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States with Bill in tow as her economic czar. Like Markopolos, Charles Ortel does not mince words.

In a 9-page letter dated yesterday and posted to his blog, Ortel calls the Clintons’ charity the “largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted,” adding for good measure that the Clinton Foundation is part of an “international charity fraud network whose entire cumulative scale (counting inflows and outflows) approaches and may even exceed $100 billion, measured from 1997 forward.” Ortel lists 40 potential areas of fraud or wrongdoing that he plans to expose over the coming days.

Like Markopolos, Ortel has an impressive resume. Ortel’s LinkedIn profile shows that he received his B.A. from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He previously worked as a Managing Director at investment bank Dillon Read and later as a Managing Director at the financial research firm, Newport Value Partners. In more recent years, Ortel has been a contributor to a number of news outlets including the Washington Times and TheStreet.com.

Seamus Padraig

Interestingly, HuffPo had the racketeering charges story posted on their site too ... for about a split-second! But long enough for a copy of it to be archived here: https://archive.is/bERJ6

Farmer Don

The Bernie and Hillary situation would make a perfect Bed time story/novel/Greek tragedy/holly wood movie.

This story has:

Good against evil
Weak against strong
Rich against poor
Hope against impossible odds
The last chance before doom
Popular against mistrusted
The village (USA) against the outsider (multinationalism)
The hero against the empire's gladiator

The reality may be more mundane, but the drama has me hooked!



HuffPo has a wonderfully ethnically cleansed, ah make that "diverse", executive board. One would almost think they were trying to prove Voxday's point for him.

The Beaver


That's what I was saying to hubby last evening. Since she would be surrounded by clueless advisers or "well-intentioned" aides with their own agendas and "loyalties", it could be bonanza.


I think she had a hand in wrecking the economies of Libya and Syria. I'm not sure that that counts of course, outside of the small numbers of affected individuals.


I think Sanders pulling punches as you say has to do with the fact that he is running in a democratic primary process and is seeking to pull votes from at least some democratic voters who, in fact, do view the emails as a partisan issue and do happen to like Obama. He apparently is in it to win. It doesn't mean he agrees with or is ignorant of those issues with the emails or Obama.

That may not be the majority of his democratic voters by any means, but definitely includes some of them.

Jimmy the Fish

Here's the kicker:




I disagree with your analysis of what Sanders is doing or not doing in the email scandal. I think him sitting back and letting it play out through all the other active parties will enable him to claim that he always took the higher ground on this issue. Thus, if and when it becomes something that the DNC has to deal with (like Clinton dropping out) Sanders can claim that he did the right thing in the view of the DNC and push them to nominate him. If they choose another candidate over him (Biden seems to be the one most talked about) Sanders will scream and fight bloody murder over the issue and can use his silence on the email scandal to his credit with the DNC.

Nor is Sanders a sheepdog to the DNC. Contrary to being a sheepdog, he has already been fighting them over the platform representation and won, and choose some very atypical democrats to be on the committee who are raising some havoc already (Palestinian issue so far). He apparently has threatened to start a big fight at the convention if they do not remove the partisan bias in the rules and platform committees with the Clinton supporters as the head (Frank and Malloy). He has used the Democratic primary process very adroitly to bring him national prominence that he never would have gotten as an independent.

"'Third-Way' Centrists, conservative 'blue-dog' Democrats, and DNC contributors" who will not support Sanders in your view are actually a small percentage of the voting population. And will this group mostly vote for Trump? They have big clout among the establishment Dems but Sanders has much support among independents to overcome this factor. The national polls are showing this I think.

In terms of the black vote, Sanders does have the segment of younger voters who recognize the factors that you correctly identify as being important. However, the older more prosperous black population are inveterate Clinton supporters and have been since Bill brought them to his side in 1992. He was the first candidate to court the black vote in a serious way and the older population remembers this and loves him for it. I canvassed for Sanders in black neighborhoods and came across this view many times after it had been brought to my attention by an academic friend of mine who made me aware of this strong support among older blacks. This population would not be swayed like the younger with the evidence of Clinton's policies, but they will shift to Sanders should he be nominated.

I think the big battle for sanders will be to get the DNC to back him if/when Clinton goes down. I think he is positioning himself to make that argument in strong way.

different clue


Hillary's motivation was to go down in history as being the First Woman President in American history. She was going to be THE singular and first Feminist Of Privilege to break the Tiffany Glass Ceiling.

different clue


I have also thought about that when people say this is just as much nothing as all the other cardboard replica scandals that the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy tried and failed to get the Clintons on.

This all reminds me of the Nixon Administration during my late childhood and pre-teenhood. Some people just hated Nixon. Some people worshiped Nixon and/or projected their own class and style identification-resentments onto Nixon. So whenever anyone criticized Nixon for anything, even if totally well founded; his cult worshipers and bitter-end backers would call such critics "Nixon-haters". The Clintons have the same sort of supporters and have a more sophisticated way to dismiss any criticism however well founded. They call it Clinton Derangement Syndrome ( CDS) because some of Clinton's critics do indeed seem deranged.

I believe Nixon thought the only thing he did wrong was to leave himself exposed to his Enemies. I remember on his interview with David Frost, that he said " I handed my enemies a sword, and they used it with relish." The Clintons might well say the reciprocal . . . " Our enemies have handed us a shield, and we use it with relish."

If this set of scandals are as fabricated as the Arkansas Project's sets of scandals, they will come to nothing. If this set of scandals is based on real problems, they may still come to nothing, because the Clintons are better smarter lawyers than Nixon apparently was, and they can design better coverups. And coverup the coverups. If these latest Clinton actions are bad for real, it will take huge patience and determination and pressure by all kinds of people and agencies to burn through the layers of teflon and cult worshipers which the Clintons have protected themselves with.

And if the Clintons end up going down, I hope they can bring down everyone who was associated with them in every aspect of this. I hope the Establishment which the Clintons did so much to serve and enrich is not able to escape the roosting chickens if indeed those chickens do come home. I hope the chickens are all zombie vampire chickens.

different clue


If Clinton ends up leaving the campaign in that manner, the nomination will be a poisoned chalice for Bernie Sanders. I hope he would refuse to accept the nomination under that particular scenario or set of circumstances. The millions of Clinton supporters would believe that Sanders had orchestrated her downfall to usurp the nomination which had been rightfully hers. They would all vote against Sanders the most effective way they could bear to do so. Sanders would be blamed for the Democrats' ensuing loss, and after a decent interval, the Establishment Democrats would seek to preserve Clintonism without Clinton, and keep right on running in future elections on the Clintonistic platform of Free Treason Trade Traitor Agreements, "improving" and "updating" Social Security and Medicare, etc.

It would be better for Clinton to keep the nomination and take herself and the DemParty down to a flaming defeat. The Dems would try to blame the Sanders supporters, but they would have to find data support for that in voting patterns. If Clinton got elected under such a scenario, then hopefully all the vampire zombie chickens would come home to roost for real, and Clintonism and the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party would finally be incinerated once and for all. That would be the best outcome IF war with Russia or with others could be avoided in the meantime.

different clue


Her husband ( President Clinton) help begin the long decline and fall of our economy with NAFTA, MFN for China, WTO Membership for America, etc.
Since Clinton has said that she will put her husband in principal charge of "revitalizing the economy" if she is elected, her husband's legacy of economic erosion and decay is very relevant.

If erupting scandals can keep Bill Clinton from becoming Economic Revitalization Czar, then erupting scandals are a good thing.

different clue


If Sanders had criticised Obama the least little bit, Obama's worshipful black followers would have turned on Sanders in their millions, and he knows it. If he were to start criticizing any part of Obama's "legacy", they will still turn on him in their millions, and he knows that too.

How many black people even read Black Agenda Report? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand?


I agree with you that a Clinton presidency would mean war with Russia. But why do you suppose that is?

Most posters here seem to attribute Hillary's flaws to defects in her personality (narcissism, overweening ambition, etc.)

Why does no one consider the possibility that it is ideology that is driving her?

different clue


I believe she would risk war with Russia because she believes Putin is a bad evil president of a bad evil country who does bad evil things like support Assad in power when Clinton wants Assad toppled, support the East Ukrainians in protecting themselves from the Nazi-Nazi Banderazis when she herself believes the Banderazi coup-government people in Kiev are Democratic Liberators against Putin and Putin's Yanukovich-of-the-golden-toilet, because she believes in Madeleine Albright's concept of Exceptional America the Indispensable Nation, etc. She would act on her beliefs and might well shove American and Russian armed elements together into a supercritical mass which would "go nuclear", even if she doesn't overtly seek nuclear war.


Reuters says double digit lead:

"Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3."

and presents graph showing:

Results here are all respondents, not just likely voters

Hillary Clinton (Democrat) 39.5%
Donald Trump (Republican) 31.9%
Other/Wouldn't vote/refused 28.6%


Is Reuters trying to confuse me?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad