Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[stillrobertpaulsen]

And the mainstream media. New York Times, CBS, USA Today. All fair and balanced!

[Nordic]

Merry Christmas

FBI surprises again, shares files on Bill Clinton pardon of Marc Rich
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /93136458/

The FBI is now picking the President ...everyone loves the FBI now ...don't they?

Gosh, somebody in the Deep State chooses the president. Shocking!!

Whoever they are, it seems they are suddenly tired of Hillary's shit.

[Jerky]

Yeah.

I mean, if another Sandy Hook Hoax proponent / Alex Jones regular coming out (GASP!) against Clinton isn't indicative of a shift, what is?!

J

Things do seem to have changed for Hillary in the last few days.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

Sandy Hook was a total hoax, so. Yeah, I'm with him.

[seemslikeadream]

News tomorrow from TargetSmart

Florida
28% GOP early voters voted for Clinton

winning 53% total vote

Cubans give it to Clinton


Trump Violated Embargo Against Cuba

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40050&p=612814&hilit=cuba+trump#p612814

Moody's Analytics

332 electoral vote goes to Clinton

Trump

206

[Jerky]

So has anyone else checked out Nordic's link that allegedly showcases the most "shocking" revelations of the Wikileaks Podesta emails?

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com

Am I the only one who is shocked at how fucking SQUARE and above board these supposed "shocking" revelations make the Clinton campaign seem? Wikileaks' attempts to weave this stringy straw into the gold of pro-Trump scandal stretches all credulity. It's literally ridiculous.

And still, after multiple requests, both here and elsewhere, I have yet to have either a Trump defender, or even just a Clinton hater, tell me exactly what it is that the Clintons have done that's got them so het up and thirsty for blood. And I'm not talking about "They're CORRUPT! Duh!" I'm talking specific, actual crimes that make the Clintons uniquely unfit for the White House.

J

[seemslikeadream]

yea it's Trump that's got 2 trial dates set

I'm waiting with ya Jerky

[8bitagent]

The Democrats lately...

[Novem5er]

Jerky, for me, it's not at all about the emails or Bengazhi, or any of these conspiracies against her.

I dislike Clinton's actual record as Secretary of State. I think she has a record of interventionism, much like Bush, although she learned that it's unnecessary to actually invade a country with American troops. I turned against Obama when I discovered the ongoing Drone War. She held no military oversight, but she negotiated with the governments of Pakistan and Yemen to allow our drones into their airspace and her department had review authority over targets; which they only vetoed a small handful out of hundreds.

She was a crucial agent at getting, first the UN to strike against Lybia, and then for getting the US involved in those airstrikes. Obama was hesitant, but she convinced him. Same thing with the US Surge in Afganistan; Obama wanted a very limited number, but she sided with Gen. McChrystal for a much larger number. It's important to note that 2/3rd of US casualties in Afghanistan happened after the Surge, as well as hundreds or possibly thousands of Afghani civilian deaths, and the country is still a mess. Lybia is still a mess, 5 years later, with a rise in terrorism and hate crimes against Black Africans.

Hillary also argued for getting involved in Syria before she left her role as SecState. She organized with the CIA a plan to arm Syrian rebels to put them in direct conflict with Assad. Obama did not like her plan, but after she left office, he enacted a scaled back version of that using DoD assets rather than CIA . . . and it's been another disaster. Now US weapons are scattered all over Syria, with extremists groups in as much possession as "moderates". War crimes have been committed with our weapons in the hands of Islamists.

Now she wants a No Fly Zone above Syria to prevent Syrian and Russian jets from bombing large areas. Great, until the Russians call our bluff and violate the NFZ, and we . . what? Shoot Russian jets out of the sky?

Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a Hawk. She has gone out of her way to prove this since she was elected as Senator from NY. She doesn't hide it, and she has used every opportunity to flex her military muscles. She's tried diplomacy, too, of course . . . but the end result has been thousands of dead civilians at the hands of US bombs and missiles, in at least four countries . . . and that's not even counting her vote for the Iraq War.

All this would be enough for me to hold my vote, but beyond that, I just don't trust or like her personality. I remember her 2008 campaign as she ran against Obama. I remember her dismissive attitude at the time. I remember her outright lies (sniper fire, anyone?). I remember Bill Clinton's race baiting. I grew to dislike her and not trust her. And this was BEFORE the email scandals.

Oh, and she also approved the largest arms sale in American history . . . to one Saudia Arabia, who is now using those exact same weapons to destroy the Houthis in Yemen. More blood on our hands.

So, for me it has nothing to do with these conspiracies and everything to do with her record.

[Jerky]

Novem5er, these are all absolutely legitimate reasons to judge her as being a candidate you cannot, in good conscience, support.

However, I would argue that there are mitigating circumstances and situational factors surrounding each of the instances you mention above that make them far more complicated and nuanced than they might seem to be, at first blush.

For instance, in my opinion, the whole kerfuffle over Obama being the King of Drones is entirely overblown. OF COURSE Obama has "droned" more human beings than any previous President. The technology was only being perfected towards the end of the Bush administration! Blaming Obama for using drones is like blaming FDR for going on the radio more than all previous Presidents combined (radio only became popular as a mass medium during his Presidency).

To me, a more telling metric would be the number of people killed in conflicts in which Americans are participating, either as front line combatants or in an intel or State Dept "advisory" (CIA) capacity. And while stipulating that one civilian (or even military) death caused by American action is a sad and nasty business, the fact of the matter is that, since Bush's last day in office, that number has decreased exponentially. Fewer than 3000 civilians have been killed in ongoing actions across North Africa and the Middle East since Obama was inaugurated. That's probably close to 3000 too many, but it's a tiny fraction of the monstrous suffering that went on during the Bush II admin.

Now, when we take into account conflicts where America has flexed its power in a less direct manner (Libya being a prime example, particularly when taking into account the fact that the EU essentially made that conflict inevitable), the numbers increase, but they are still nothing compared to the Bush years... which, astonishingly, are themselves nothing when compared to the Cold War years, even post-Vietnam (i.e. Uncle Sam's first go-round with Afghanistan by luring the USSR into its own proxy quagmire, which in and of itself accounts for probably close to 2 million dead).

So when taken in context, while Clinton's record as SoS may seem nasty and brutal when compared to a blank slate, when you compare it to what came before... you get an altogether different impression.

That's my 2 cents anyway. As a student of history, and as a realist, if I could vote in the USA, I would cast my vote for Hillary, and I would do so gladly, without hesitation.

J

[Freitag]

This analysis is from a Hillary supporter: Do I Really Need to Worry About Hillary’s Emails? Yes. She Should Be Indicted. (Full Form)

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

by Andrew C. McCarthy July 5, 2016

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

[8bitagent]

I live in the largest battleground state this year: Florida.

I'll be voting Stein.

So if Clinton loses Florida by 1% and Steil racks up 2% of the vote, wouldn't that mean that Stein voters cost her the state and possibly the election? I guess.

I'd argue that the DNC cost themselves the election when they colluded with party officials, big donors, and the media, to christen Hillary Clinton before the primary season ever began. Hillary Clinton began the primary process with some of the lowest favorability ratings in American history, as well as some of the lowest ratings for trust. THIS is the candidate they propped-up, one that their own party rated as unfavorable and untrustworthy.

Their mantra from the beginning was that they didn't care if America, and especially progressives, didn't like her and didn't trust her; she was to be nominated regardless. Progressive voters would fall in line and vote for this unlikeable and untrustworthy candidate or else they risk handing power to the Republicans. Let me be clear, though:

The PARTY took that risk and is now demanding that the people absolve them of the consequences. Angry progressives voting for Hillary is akin to a DNC Bailout, and will justify every one of their risky, selfish decisions.

So if Clinton loses Florida and loses the election, do not blame the 20,000 Stein voters for following their conscience. Blame the DNC for having no conscience.

BTW in 2012, Jill Stein only got 8.947 votes (or 0.11% of the total vote). To even get, say 2% she will need to win 20x the number of votes this year. That is historically unheard of. Think about that; she'd have to double her turnout and then multiply that by ten.

*Seriously* could not have said it better myself. Wikileaks only confirmed what a lot of us figured; that not only did the "impartial" DNC and string pullers the Clinton team have utter contempt for Sanders and his followers,
they did all they could to sabotage his chances both in the media, infrastructure, and other means. Hillary never laid out a vision. Just a "its my turn dammit!", and a sense of anger there was even a primary contest at all. Or even an election. Like you said, they planned to ensure to install her as Im guessing the Bush team did in 2000. And while it seems now, most the Sanders crowd has reluctantly now signed up for the Clinton cult, Im glad theres at least a few principled progressives out there. Just a shame Jill Stein is polling so low, when a leftist Bernie-esque candidate should be doing gangbusters now. Screw John Oliver and the rest of the smug fuck yuppy liberals
for derailing and shitting all over third parties.

Part of me kind of hopes Bill Clinton's ploy of tricking his ego maniac friend Donald Trump into running for President as a sort of manchurian spoiler backfires. The smugness of much of the left who supports Hillary both on tv and on social media gives me the same feeling I got with the Bush era Bush lovers (yeah yeah, I know that is spose to be Trumps crowd, but this whole year is in twilight zone)

Hell, even "Hillary must win" Young Turks is exposing this week how the DNC cheated and the Clintons are corrupt

[8bitagent]

Novem5er, these are all absolutely legitimate reasons to judge her as being a candidate you cannot, in good conscience, support.

However, I would argue that there are mitigating circumstances and situational factors surrounding each of the instances you mention above that make them far more complicated and nuanced than they might seem to be, at first blush.

For instance, in my opinion, the whole kerfuffle over Obama being the King of Drones is entirely overblown. OF COURSE Obama has "droned" more human beings than any previous President. The technology was only being perfected towards the end of the Bush administration! Blaming Obama for using drones is like blaming FDR for going on the radio more than all previous Presidents combined (radio only became popular as a mass medium during his Presidency).

To me, a more telling metric would be the number of people killed in conflicts in which Americans are participating, either as front line combatants or in an intel or State Dept "advisory" (CIA) capacity. And while stipulating that one civilian (or even military) death caused by American action is a sad and nasty business, the fact of the matter is that, since Bush's last day in office, that number has decreased exponentially. Fewer than 3000 civilians have been killed in ongoing actions across North Africa and the Middle East since Obama was inaugurated. That's probably close to 3000 too many, but it's a tiny fraction of the monstrous suffering that went on during the Bush II admin.

Now, when we take into account conflicts where America has flexed its power in a less direct manner (Libya being a prime example, particularly when taking into account the fact that the EU essentially made that conflict inevitable), the numbers increase, but they are still nothing compared to the Bush years... which, astonishingly, are themselves nothing when compared to the Cold War years, even post-Vietnam (i.e. Uncle Sam's first go-round with Afghanistan by luring the USSR into its own proxy quagmire, which in and of itself accounts for probably close to 2 million dead).

So when taken in context, while Clinton's record as SoS may seem nasty and brutal when compared to a blank slate, when you compare it to what came before... you get an altogether different impression.

That's my 2 cents anyway. As a student of history, and as a realist, if I could vote in the USA, I would cast my vote for Hillary, and I would do so gladly, without hesitation.

J

3000? Over half a million dead in Syria thanks to Hillary, Mccain and the CIA stirring up Saudi backed destabilization in 2010/2011

Just Libya alone, which Hillary brags of being the architect, has killed over 10,000. Currently, the joint US/Saudi attacks in Yemen have killed tens of thousands of civilians.
While the Scahill crowd may focus on Obama's drones, Im looking at all the US/West/Saudi shenanigans and thinking it leads to nearly the amount of civilians killed by Bush's wars.

And of course, we all know who the Bushes and neocons are fully behind

[8bitagent]

This analysis is from a Hillary supporter: Do I Really Need to Worry About Hillary’s Emails? Yes. She Should Be Indicted. (Full Form)

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

by Andrew C. McCarthy July 5, 2016

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

I just don't get how the Democrats can at once focus all their energy calling Trump a sex criminal whether they have good reason or not, but then ignore the fact Bill Clinton has a long trail of accusers
and that the current FBI investigation into Hillary was spurred on by Anthony Weiner's sending rape fantasy/sex pix to a 15 year old. (with one of the images being his erect bulge next to his sleeping toddler son)
The social media Democrats talk about this bogus Jerry Springer produced child rape claim, but even if that had any sort of credibility it'd lead to Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein.

As much as I've always disliked Fox, Drudge, and Rush they seem to be some of the only ones pointing out all this corruption. Like Bill Clinton and elite billionare pedofile Jeffrey Epstein

[Nordic]

The Lords of Capital Sic Crazy Hillary on the World

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford

“The Lords of Capital are creatures of U.S. imperial dominance; they go out of business when the empire does.”
By virtually every measurement, the United States is in deep crisis, as both a society and as the headquarters of global capitalism. We can roughly measure the severity of some aspects of the crisis with the tools of economic analysis. Such an analysis is quite useful in explaining why Washington is so eager to risk war with Russia and China, whether in Syria or the South China Sea or along the ever expanding borders of NATO. To put it simply, the U.S. and western Europe become smaller, in terms of their economic influence, with every passing day, and cannot possibly maintain their political dominance in the world except by military force, coercion and terror. Those are the only cards the imperialists have left to play. The ruling circles in the U.S. are aware that time is not on their side, and it makes them crazy -- or crazier than usual.

The ruling class’s own analysts tell them that the center of the world economy is moving inexorably to the East and the South; that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future; and that the U.S. is already number two by some economic measures -- and dropping. The Lords of Capital know there is no future for them in a world where the dollar is not supreme and where Wall Street’s stocks, bonds and derivatives are not backed by full weight of unchallenged empire. Put another way, U.S. imperialism is at an inflection point, with all the indicators pointing downward and no hope of reversing the trend by peaceful means.

Now, that’s actually not such a bad prognosis for the United States, as a country. The U.S. is a big country, with an abundance of human and natural resources, and would do just fine in a world among equals. But, the fate of the Lords of Capital is tied to the ongoing existence of empire. They create nothing, but seek to monetize and turn a profit on everything. They cannot succeed in trade unless it is rigged, and have placed bets in their casinos that are nominally seven times more valuable than the total economic activity of planet Earth. In short, the Lords of Capital are creatures of U.S. imperial dominance; they go out of business when the empire does.

Beat the Clock
The rulers are looking class death in the face -- and it terrifies them. And when the Lords of Capital become frightened, they order their servants in politics and the war industries and the vast national security networks to take care of the problem, by any means necessary. That means militarily encircling Russia and China; arming and mobilizing tens of thousands of jihadist terrorists in Syria, in an attempt to repeat the regime change in Libya; waging a war of economic sanctions and low-level armed aggression against Iran; occupying most of the African continent through subversion of African militaries; escalating subversion in Latin America; and spying on everyone on earth with a digital connection. All this, to stop the clock that is ticking on U.S. and European world economic dominance.
Left political analysts that I greatly respect argue that Hillary Clinton and the mob she will come in with in January will pull back from apocalyptic confrontation with Russia in Syria -- that they’re not really that crazy. But, I’m not at all convinced. The ruling class isn’t just imagining that their days are numbered; it’s really true. And rulers do get crazy when their class is standing at death’s door.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.