If Hillary is innocent of any wrong doing the simplest way to put the email issue to rest is to give up her emails; release them to the public, no holds barred.
I think that would happen only in one's dreams since Hillary has fought anyone and everyone who wanted a peek tooth and nail to this very day.
Why such a fuss if she has nothing to hide?
There's a simple answer to that question and most logical thinking eople know it.
FBI obtains search warrant to search newly discovered emails potentially relevant to Clinton investigation - The Washington Post
The FBI has obtained a warrant to search the emails found on a computer used by former Congressman Anthony Weiner that may contain evidence relevant to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, according to law enforcement officials.
One official said the total number of emails recovered in the Weiner investigation is close to 650,000 — though that reflects many emails that are not in any way relevant to the Clinton investigation. Officials familiar with the case said, though, the messages include a significant amount of correspondence associated with Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s estranged wife.
The agents investigating Clinton’s use of a private email server knew early this month that messages recovered in a separate probe might be germane to their case, but they waited weeks before briefing the FBI director, according to people familiar with the case.
FBI Director James B. Comey has written that he was informed of the development Thursday, and he sent a letter to legislators the next day letting them know that he thought the team should take “appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails.”
That missive ignited a political firestorm less than two weeks before the election. Almost instantly, Comey came under intense criticism for his timing and for bucking the Justice Department’s guidance not to tell Congress about the development. And his announcement means that Clinton could have to contend with the news that the FBI has resumed its investigation of her use of a private email server — without any real clarity on if its investigators will actually find anything significant — up to and beyond Election Day.
HEY HILLARY! WHY A WARRANT IF NOTHING TO HIDE?
Sunday, October 30, 2016
HILLARY SAYING COMEY IS A RUSSIAN AGENT?
Hillary likes to claim that anyone exposing corruption in politics is
not only disrupting her campaign but a threat to our democracy and that
is usually followed with some outrageous claim that the Russians are
behind it.
What she is really saying is that exposing
corruption in Establishment politics is a threat to the "Plutocracy"
which she happens to be the darling of.
When FBI
Director Comey announced that he was taking another look at Hillary's
emails it was tantamount to turning on the lights in a room full of
cockroaches. And, as is usually the case, not all of them are able to
disappear in the cracks.
First it was DWS, then
Podesta, now Uma and her perverted husband that have the light shinning
on them and in turn on Hillary's crony riddled campaign.
Only
this time it's not the Russians who Hillary loves to blame but our own
FBI and it's what looks like not so corrupt Director.
The heads of all those who are subservient to the Establishment are exploding. God forbid the Director is doing his job!
FBI Head Under Fire For Clinton Email Scrutiny Days Before Election
FBI
Director James Comey is facing criticism for turning the agency's
attention to newly discovered emails that could be linked to Hillary
Clinton, again focusing on the former secretary of state just days
before Election Day.
Former prosecutors and former Department of
Justice officials are questioning what Comey hopes to accomplish by
announcing the investigation so close to the election.
Comey notified members of Congress that the FBI was again looking into Clinton's use of a private email server. As NPR reported
Friday, Comey's decision followed the discovery of emails that "came to
light in the course of an unrelated criminal investigation of Anthony
Weiner," who is being scrutinized for sexting an underage girl. But, as
the the Associated Press reported,
it's "unclear what the emails contained, who sent them, or what
connection they might have to the yearlong investigation the FBI closed
in July without recommending criminal charges."
HILLARY SAYING COMEY IS A RUSSIAN AGENT?
not only disrupting her campaign but a threat to our democracy and that
is usually followed with some outrageous claim that the Russians are
behind it.
What she is really saying is that exposing
corruption in Establishment politics is a threat to the "Plutocracy"
which she happens to be the darling of.
When FBI
Director Comey announced that he was taking another look at Hillary's
emails it was tantamount to turning on the lights in a room full of
cockroaches. And, as is usually the case, not all of them are able to
disappear in the cracks.
First it was DWS, then
Podesta, now Uma and her perverted husband that have the light shinning
on them and in turn on Hillary's crony riddled campaign.
Only
this time it's not the Russians who Hillary loves to blame but our own
FBI and it's what looks like not so corrupt Director.
The heads of all those who are subservient to the Establishment are exploding. God forbid the Director is doing his job!
FBI Head Under Fire For Clinton Email Scrutiny Days Before Election
FBI
Director James Comey is facing criticism for turning the agency's
attention to newly discovered emails that could be linked to Hillary
Clinton, again focusing on the former secretary of state just days
before Election Day.
Former prosecutors and former Department of
Justice officials are questioning what Comey hopes to accomplish by
announcing the investigation so close to the election.
Comey notified members of Congress that the FBI was again looking into Clinton's use of a private email server. As NPR reported
Friday, Comey's decision followed the discovery of emails that "came to
light in the course of an unrelated criminal investigation of Anthony
Weiner," who is being scrutinized for sexting an underage girl. But, as
the the Associated Press reported,
it's "unclear what the emails contained, who sent them, or what
connection they might have to the yearlong investigation the FBI closed
in July without recommending criminal charges."
HILLARY SAYING COMEY IS A RUSSIAN AGENT?
IS COMEY HILLARY'S KEN STARR?
It appears that the FBI Directory can't be "handled" as easily as as
the AG (Lynch) and that he puts the country welfare ahead of politics,
much to the chagrin of the Establishment.
James Comey Broke with Loretta Lynch and Justice Department Tradition - The New Yorker
On Friday, James Comey,the
director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently
of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to Congress saying that
the F.B.I. had discovered e-mails that were potentially relevant to the
investigation of Hillary Clinton’s
private server. Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential
election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise
additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of
the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration
official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the
department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing
investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.
Comey’s
decision is a striking break with the policies of the Department of
Justice, according to current and former federal legal officials.
Comey,who is a Republican appointee of President Obama, has a reputation
for integrity and independence, but his latest action is stirring an
extraordinary level of concern among legal authorities, who see it as
potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential and congressional
elections.
“You don’t do this,” one former senior Justice
Department official exclaimed. “It’s aberrational. It violates decades
of practice.” The reason, according to the former official, who asked
not to be identified because of ongoing cases involving the department,
“is because it impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate,
even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an
indictment.”
James Comey Broke with Loretta Lynch and Justice Department Tradition - The New Yorker
IS COMEY HILLARY'S KEN STARR?
the AG (Lynch) and that he puts the country welfare ahead of politics,
much to the chagrin of the Establishment.
James Comey Broke with Loretta Lynch and Justice Department Tradition - The New Yorker
On Friday, James Comey,the
director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently
of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to Congress saying that
the F.B.I. had discovered e-mails that were potentially relevant to the
investigation of Hillary Clinton’s
private server. Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential
election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise
additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of
the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration
official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the
department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing
investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.
Comey’s
decision is a striking break with the policies of the Department of
Justice, according to current and former federal legal officials.
Comey,who is a Republican appointee of President Obama, has a reputation
for integrity and independence, but his latest action is stirring an
extraordinary level of concern among legal authorities, who see it as
potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential and congressional
elections.
“You don’t do this,” one former senior Justice
Department official exclaimed. “It’s aberrational. It violates decades
of practice.” The reason, according to the former official, who asked
not to be identified because of ongoing cases involving the department,
“is because it impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate,
even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an
indictment.”
James Comey Broke with Loretta Lynch and Justice Department Tradition - The New Yorker
IS COMEY HILLARY'S KEN STARR?
IS HUMA HILLARY'S JOHN DEAN?
Is this history repeating itself?
Will someone in Hillary's inner circle betray her and come clean about Hillary's dark empire?
Who
better than Huma "Weiner" Abedin who many look upon as a victim of
treacherous villains like her sexual predator spouse and one of the most
mistrusted presidential candidates in history?
A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty
In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton
had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She
planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a
respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a
second presidential run.
Then Carlos Danger happened.
Anthony D. Weiner,
the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running
for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange
lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his
congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired
moniker.
The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to
Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs.
Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s
descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named
Sydney Leathers.
Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of
winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a
perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama.
Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage
girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.
IS HUMA HILLARY'S JOHN DEAN?
Will someone in Hillary's inner circle betray her and come clean about Hillary's dark empire?
Who
better than Huma "Weiner" Abedin who many look upon as a victim of
treacherous villains like her sexual predator spouse and one of the most
mistrusted presidential candidates in history?
A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty
In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton
had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She
planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a
respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a
second presidential run.
Then Carlos Danger happened.
Anthony D. Weiner,
the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running
for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange
lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his
congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired
moniker.
The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to
Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs.
Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s
descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named
Sydney Leathers.
Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of
winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a
perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama.
Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage
girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.
IS HUMA HILLARY'S JOHN DEAN?
HEY HILLARY! SHOW US YOUR EMAILS!
Who better to be able to show the American public the emails than the person who wrote or received them?
Why waste millions in taxpayers money to pry them from the death grip Hillary and her allies have on keeping them hidden?
And then, to add insult to injury, blame others like the FBI for withholding them from the public.
A slick maneuver to be sure but one most "thinking" people can see right through.
The
emails are being withheld from the American public because Hillary and
an army of lawyers fight tooth and nail to block any and all attempts to
have them released.
All Hillary (and Huma) have to do
do with this fresh batch of emails is release them to the public. Do
the right thing. Be transparent. After all she claims she has nothing to
hide, did nothing wrong.
So, show us the emails Hillary!
Hillary Clinton Assails James Comey, Calling Email Decision ‘Deeply Troubling’
HEY HILLARY! SHOW US YOUR EMAILS!
Why waste millions in taxpayers money to pry them from the death grip Hillary and her allies have on keeping them hidden?
And then, to add insult to injury, blame others like the FBI for withholding them from the public.
A slick maneuver to be sure but one most "thinking" people can see right through.
The
emails are being withheld from the American public because Hillary and
an army of lawyers fight tooth and nail to block any and all attempts to
have them released.
All Hillary (and Huma) have to do
do with this fresh batch of emails is release them to the public. Do
the right thing. Be transparent. After all she claims she has nothing to
hide, did nothing wrong.
So, show us the emails Hillary!
Hillary Clinton Assails James Comey, Calling Email Decision ‘Deeply Troubling’
HEY HILLARY! SHOW US YOUR EMAILS!
Saturday, October 8, 2016
ORAL SEX IN THE OVAL OFFICE OR TALKING DIRTY IN LOCKER ROOM?
Just in case voters forgot or were not of voting age back then it was not too long ago that we had the Clinton's in the White House and there was a lot more going on than talking dirty in a locker room.
As the following narrative from the Special Prosecutors report vividly conveys; unlike Trump, Bill Clinton was more of a man of action than words. A sexual predator of sorts.
So let's be honest folks. If Hillary; after all of the humiliation and emotional abuse she endured, and all the Clinton fans who are willing to let her and Bill return to the White House, can forgive and forget, then they surely should be able to extend the same courtesy to Donald Trump who never even got to first base.
Ms. Lewinsky testified that Wednesday, November 15, 1995 -- the second day of the government shutdown -- marked the beginning of her sexual relationship with the President.(146) On that date, she entered the White House at 1:30 p.m., left sometime thereafter (White House records do not show the time), reentered at 5:07 p.m., and departed at 12:18 a.m. on November 16.(147) The President was in the Oval Office or the Chief of Staff's office (where Ms. Lewinsky worked during the furlough) for almost the identical period that Ms. Lewinsky was in the White House that evening, from 5:01 p.m. on November 15 to 12:35 a.m. on November 16.(148)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President kissed. She unbuttoned her jacket; either she unhooked her bra or he lifted her bra up; and he touched her breasts with his hands and mouth.(160)Ms. Lewinsky testified: "I believe he took a phone call . . . and so we moved from the hallway into the back office . . . . [H]e put his hand down my pants and stimulated me manually in the genital area."(161)While the President continued talking on the phone (Ms. Lewinsky understood that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator), she performed oral sex on him.(162) He finished his call, and, a moment later, told Ms. Lewinsky to stop. In her recollection: "I told him that I wanted . . . to complete that. And he said . . . that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. And then I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."(163)
Both before and after their sexual contact during that encounter, Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked.(164) At one point during the conversation, the President tugged on the pink intern pass hanging from her neck and said that it might be a problem. Ms. Lewinsky thought that he was talking about access -- interns were not supposed to be in the West Wing without an escort -- and, in addition, that he might have discerned some "impropriety" in a sexual relationship with a White House intern.(165)
White House records corroborate details of Ms. Lewinsky's account. She testified that her November 15 encounters with the President occurred at about 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., and that in each case the two of them went from the Chief of Staff's office to the Oval Office area.(166) Records show that the President visited the Chief of Staff's office for one minute at 8:12 p.m. and for two minutes at 9:23 p.m., in each case returning to the Oval Office.(167) She recalled that the President took a telephone call during their sexual encounter, and she believed that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator.(168)White House records show that after returning to the Oval Office from the Chief of Staff's office, the President talked to two Members of Congress: Rep. Jim Chapman from 9:25 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., and Rep. John Tanner from 9:31 p.m. to 9:35 p.m.(169)
D. November 17 Sexual Encounter
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had a second sexual encounter two days later (still during the government furlough), on Friday, November 17. She was at the White House until 8:56 p.m., then returned from 9:38 to 10:39 p.m.(170) At 9:45 p.m., a few minutes after Ms. Lewinsky's reentry, the President went from the Oval Office to the Chief of Staff's office (where Ms. Lewinsky worked during the furlough) for one minute, then returned to the Oval Office for 30 minutes. From there, he went back to the Chief of Staff's office until 10:34 p.m. (approximately when Ms. Lewinsky left the White House), then went by the Oval Office and the Ground Floor before retiring to the Residence at 10:40 p.m.(171)
Ms. Lewinsky testified:
We were again working late because it was during the furlough and Jennifer Palmieri . . . had ordered pizza along with Ms. Currie and Ms. Hernreich. And when the pizza came, I went down to let them know that the pizza was there and it was at that point when I walked into Ms. Currie's office that the President was standing there with some other people discussing something.
And they all came back to the office and Mr. -- I think it was Mr. Toiv, somebody accidentally knocked pizza on my jacket, so I went to go use the restroom to wash it off and as I was coming out of the restroom, the President was standing in Ms. Currie's doorway and said, "You can come out this way."(172)
Ms. Lewinsky and the President went into the area of the private study, according to Ms. Lewinsky. There, either in the hallway or the bathroom, she and the President kissed. After a few minutes, in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she told him that she needed to get back to her desk. The President suggested that she bring him some slices of pizza.(173)
A few minutes later, she returned to the Oval Office area with pizza and told Ms. Currie that the President had requested it. Ms. Lewinsky testified: "[Ms. Currie] opened the door and said, 'Sir, the girl's here with the pizza.' He told me to come in. Ms. Currie went back into her office and then we went into the back study area again."(174) Several witnesses confirm that when Ms. Lewinsky delivered pizza to the President that night, the two of them were briefly alone.(175)
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter during this visit.(176) They kissed, and the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts with his hands and mouth.(177)At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leading to the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had a telephone call.(178) Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was a Member of Congress with a nickname.(179) While the President was on the telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pants and exposed himself," and she performed oral sex.(180) Again, he stopped her before he ejaculated.(181)
During this visit, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President told her that he liked her smile and her energy. He also said: "I'm usually around on weekends, no one else is around, and you can come and see me."(182)
Records corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's recollection that the President took a call from a Member of Congress with a nickname. While Ms. Lewinsky was at the White House that evening (9:38 to 10:39 p.m.), the President had one telephone conversation with a Member of Congress: From 9:53 to 10:14 p.m., he spoke with Rep. H.L. "Sonny" Callahan.(183)
In his Jones deposition on January 17, 1998, President Clinton -- who said he was unable to recall most of his encounters with Ms. Lewinsky -- did remember her "back there with a pizza" during the government shutdown. He said, however, that he did not believe that the two of them were alone.(184) Testifying before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, the President said that his first "real conversation" with Ms. Lewinsky occurred during the November 1995 furlough. He testified: "One night she brought me some pizza. We had some remarks."(185)
E. December 31 Sexual Encounter
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had their third sexual encounter on New Year's Eve. Ms. Lewinsky -- by then a member of the staff of the Office of Legislative Affairs
-- was at the White House on Sunday, December 31, 1995, until 1:16 p.m.; her time of arrival is not shown.(186) The President was in the Oval Office area from 12:11 p.m. until about the time that Ms. Lewinsky left, 1:15 p.m., when he went to the Residence.(187)
Sometime between noon and 1 p.m., in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she was in the pantry area of the President's private dining room talking with a White House steward, Bayani Nelvis. She told Mr. Nelvis that she had recently smoked her first cigar, and he offered to give her one of the President's cigars. Just then, the President came down the hallway from the Oval Office and saw Ms. Lewinsky. The President dispatched Mr. Nelvis to deliver something to Mr. Panetta.(188)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she told the President that Mr. Nelvis had promised her a cigar, and the President gave her one.(189) She told him her name -- she had the impression that he had forgotten it in the six weeks since their furlough encounters because, when passing her in the hallway, he had called her "Kiddo."(190) The President replied that he knew her name; in fact, he added, having lost the phone number she had given him, he had tried to find her in the phonebook.(191)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, they moved to the study. "And then . . . we were kissing and he lifted my sweater and exposed my breasts and was fondling them with his hands and with his mouth."(192) She performed oral sex.(193) Once again, he stopped her before he ejaculated because, Ms. Lewinsky testified, "he didn't know me well enough or he didn't trust me yet."(194)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, a Secret Service officer named Sandy was on duty in the West Wing that day.(195) Records show that Sandra Verna was on duty outside the Oval Office from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m.(196)
As the following narrative from the Special Prosecutors report vividly conveys; unlike Trump, Bill Clinton was more of a man of action than words. A sexual predator of sorts.
So let's be honest folks. If Hillary; after all of the humiliation and emotional abuse she endured, and all the Clinton fans who are willing to let her and Bill return to the White House, can forgive and forget, then they surely should be able to extend the same courtesy to Donald Trump who never even got to first base.
READ THE FULL REPORT HERE;
Ms. Lewinsky testified that Wednesday, November 15, 1995 -- the second day of the government shutdown -- marked the beginning of her sexual relationship with the President.(146) On that date, she entered the White House at 1:30 p.m., left sometime thereafter (White House records do not show the time), reentered at 5:07 p.m., and departed at 12:18 a.m. on November 16.(147) The President was in the Oval Office or the Chief of Staff's office (where Ms. Lewinsky worked during the furlough) for almost the identical period that Ms. Lewinsky was in the White House that evening, from 5:01 p.m. on November 15 to 12:35 a.m. on November 16.(148)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President kissed. She unbuttoned her jacket; either she unhooked her bra or he lifted her bra up; and he touched her breasts with his hands and mouth.(160)Ms. Lewinsky testified: "I believe he took a phone call . . . and so we moved from the hallway into the back office . . . . [H]e put his hand down my pants and stimulated me manually in the genital area."(161)While the President continued talking on the phone (Ms. Lewinsky understood that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator), she performed oral sex on him.(162) He finished his call, and, a moment later, told Ms. Lewinsky to stop. In her recollection: "I told him that I wanted . . . to complete that. And he said . . . that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. And then I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."(163)
Both before and after their sexual contact during that encounter, Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked.(164) At one point during the conversation, the President tugged on the pink intern pass hanging from her neck and said that it might be a problem. Ms. Lewinsky thought that he was talking about access -- interns were not supposed to be in the West Wing without an escort -- and, in addition, that he might have discerned some "impropriety" in a sexual relationship with a White House intern.(165)
White House records corroborate details of Ms. Lewinsky's account. She testified that her November 15 encounters with the President occurred at about 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., and that in each case the two of them went from the Chief of Staff's office to the Oval Office area.(166) Records show that the President visited the Chief of Staff's office for one minute at 8:12 p.m. and for two minutes at 9:23 p.m., in each case returning to the Oval Office.(167) She recalled that the President took a telephone call during their sexual encounter, and she believed that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator.(168)White House records show that after returning to the Oval Office from the Chief of Staff's office, the President talked to two Members of Congress: Rep. Jim Chapman from 9:25 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., and Rep. John Tanner from 9:31 p.m. to 9:35 p.m.(169)
D. November 17 Sexual Encounter
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had a second sexual encounter two days later (still during the government furlough), on Friday, November 17. She was at the White House until 8:56 p.m., then returned from 9:38 to 10:39 p.m.(170) At 9:45 p.m., a few minutes after Ms. Lewinsky's reentry, the President went from the Oval Office to the Chief of Staff's office (where Ms. Lewinsky worked during the furlough) for one minute, then returned to the Oval Office for 30 minutes. From there, he went back to the Chief of Staff's office until 10:34 p.m. (approximately when Ms. Lewinsky left the White House), then went by the Oval Office and the Ground Floor before retiring to the Residence at 10:40 p.m.(171)
Ms. Lewinsky testified:
We were again working late because it was during the furlough and Jennifer Palmieri . . . had ordered pizza along with Ms. Currie and Ms. Hernreich. And when the pizza came, I went down to let them know that the pizza was there and it was at that point when I walked into Ms. Currie's office that the President was standing there with some other people discussing something.
And they all came back to the office and Mr. -- I think it was Mr. Toiv, somebody accidentally knocked pizza on my jacket, so I went to go use the restroom to wash it off and as I was coming out of the restroom, the President was standing in Ms. Currie's doorway and said, "You can come out this way."(172)
Ms. Lewinsky and the President went into the area of the private study, according to Ms. Lewinsky. There, either in the hallway or the bathroom, she and the President kissed. After a few minutes, in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she told him that she needed to get back to her desk. The President suggested that she bring him some slices of pizza.(173)
A few minutes later, she returned to the Oval Office area with pizza and told Ms. Currie that the President had requested it. Ms. Lewinsky testified: "[Ms. Currie] opened the door and said, 'Sir, the girl's here with the pizza.' He told me to come in. Ms. Currie went back into her office and then we went into the back study area again."(174) Several witnesses confirm that when Ms. Lewinsky delivered pizza to the President that night, the two of them were briefly alone.(175)
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter during this visit.(176) They kissed, and the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts with his hands and mouth.(177)At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leading to the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had a telephone call.(178) Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was a Member of Congress with a nickname.(179) While the President was on the telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pants and exposed himself," and she performed oral sex.(180) Again, he stopped her before he ejaculated.(181)
During this visit, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President told her that he liked her smile and her energy. He also said: "I'm usually around on weekends, no one else is around, and you can come and see me."(182)
Records corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's recollection that the President took a call from a Member of Congress with a nickname. While Ms. Lewinsky was at the White House that evening (9:38 to 10:39 p.m.), the President had one telephone conversation with a Member of Congress: From 9:53 to 10:14 p.m., he spoke with Rep. H.L. "Sonny" Callahan.(183)
In his Jones deposition on January 17, 1998, President Clinton -- who said he was unable to recall most of his encounters with Ms. Lewinsky -- did remember her "back there with a pizza" during the government shutdown. He said, however, that he did not believe that the two of them were alone.(184) Testifying before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, the President said that his first "real conversation" with Ms. Lewinsky occurred during the November 1995 furlough. He testified: "One night she brought me some pizza. We had some remarks."(185)
E. December 31 Sexual Encounter
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had their third sexual encounter on New Year's Eve. Ms. Lewinsky -- by then a member of the staff of the Office of Legislative Affairs
-- was at the White House on Sunday, December 31, 1995, until 1:16 p.m.; her time of arrival is not shown.(186) The President was in the Oval Office area from 12:11 p.m. until about the time that Ms. Lewinsky left, 1:15 p.m., when he went to the Residence.(187)
Sometime between noon and 1 p.m., in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she was in the pantry area of the President's private dining room talking with a White House steward, Bayani Nelvis. She told Mr. Nelvis that she had recently smoked her first cigar, and he offered to give her one of the President's cigars. Just then, the President came down the hallway from the Oval Office and saw Ms. Lewinsky. The President dispatched Mr. Nelvis to deliver something to Mr. Panetta.(188)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she told the President that Mr. Nelvis had promised her a cigar, and the President gave her one.(189) She told him her name -- she had the impression that he had forgotten it in the six weeks since their furlough encounters because, when passing her in the hallway, he had called her "Kiddo."(190) The President replied that he knew her name; in fact, he added, having lost the phone number she had given him, he had tried to find her in the phonebook.(191)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, they moved to the study. "And then . . . we were kissing and he lifted my sweater and exposed my breasts and was fondling them with his hands and with his mouth."(192) She performed oral sex.(193) Once again, he stopped her before he ejaculated because, Ms. Lewinsky testified, "he didn't know me well enough or he didn't trust me yet."(194)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, a Secret Service officer named Sandy was on duty in the West Wing that day.(195) Records show that Sandra Verna was on duty outside the Oval Office from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m.(196)
READ THE FULL REPORT HERE;
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
HILLARY STAFFERS TAKE THE 5TH - GRANTED IMMUNITY = CRIME?
If there's "just smoke and no fire" as Hillary says then why are the people surrounding her taking the 5th when asked to testify in public and/or granted immunity by the FBI and DOJ?
That kind of behavior usually indicates there are crimes involved.
A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.
Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice when the emails were deleted in March 2015.
Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation. The other was Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in 2009.
The F.B.I. described the deletions by Mr. Combetta in a summary of its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s account that was released last Friday. The documents blacked out the specialist’s name, but the law enforcement official and others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. Combetta. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing matters that were supposed to remain confidential.
Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary Clinton’s Emails - The New York Times
That kind of behavior usually indicates there are crimes involved.
A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.
Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice when the emails were deleted in March 2015.
Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation. The other was Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in 2009.
The F.B.I. described the deletions by Mr. Combetta in a summary of its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s account that was released last Friday. The documents blacked out the specialist’s name, but the law enforcement official and others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. Combetta. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing matters that were supposed to remain confidential.
Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary Clinton’s Emails - The New York Times
Sunday, September 11, 2016
HILLARY SHORT CIRCUITS ABOUT OVERHEATING
If the way Hillary was feeling today was "great" I would hate to see her when she's not feeling so good.
Here again, being truthful; which would probably go a long way in making her more likable, is just not in her genes.
Had a video of her being carried into a van not appeared the public would again be left with another load of BS to mull over trying to figure out who the real Hillary is.
Hillary Clinton fell ill during a New York memorial service marking the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and video of her unexpectedly early departure showed her buckling and stumbling as she got into her van.
The video, circulated on Twitter, appeared to show the Democratic presidential nominee leaving the commemoration at Ground Zero. Flanked by several Secret Service agents who are regulars on her detail, Clinton can be seen leaning against a security bollard while agents prepare to help her into a black van. As she steps forward, Clinton can be seen falling as agents help lift her into the van.
A campaign spokesman confirmed that Clinton had suffered from overheating and left the ceremony early.
"Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen," spokesman Nick Merrill said. "During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter's apartment and is feeling much better."
The incident quickly renewed attention to Clinton's health. Her rival, Republican Donald Trump, has for more than nine months questioned her condition, saying that she doesn't have the "strength" or "stamina" for the presidency and accusing her of being "exhausted" and sleeping too much.
Neither Trump nor his aides responded immediately for requests for comment Sunday. But the attacks have intensified in the past month as unverified and often debunked theories about Clinton's health have floated around the Internet. And Sunday's incident prompted an avalanche of speculation on social media.
One individual familiar with the incident confirmed that Clinton felt ill and wobbly at the event.
And a former agent said that the detail’s movements show they had not planned for her to leave that early and had to make up some rushed security plans on the fly. The detail leader, normally in charge of sticking by her side at all times, had to leave her momentarily to open the door of her van.
"However, all details were reporting heat related matters/issues," the first individual said. "This is actually common and anticipated for events such as this."Clinton falls ill during 9/11 memorial service in New York - The Washington Post
Here again, being truthful; which would probably go a long way in making her more likable, is just not in her genes.
Had a video of her being carried into a van not appeared the public would again be left with another load of BS to mull over trying to figure out who the real Hillary is.
Hillary Clinton fell ill during a New York memorial service marking the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and video of her unexpectedly early departure showed her buckling and stumbling as she got into her van.
The video, circulated on Twitter, appeared to show the Democratic presidential nominee leaving the commemoration at Ground Zero. Flanked by several Secret Service agents who are regulars on her detail, Clinton can be seen leaning against a security bollard while agents prepare to help her into a black van. As she steps forward, Clinton can be seen falling as agents help lift her into the van.
A campaign spokesman confirmed that Clinton had suffered from overheating and left the ceremony early.
"Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen," spokesman Nick Merrill said. "During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter's apartment and is feeling much better."
The incident quickly renewed attention to Clinton's health. Her rival, Republican Donald Trump, has for more than nine months questioned her condition, saying that she doesn't have the "strength" or "stamina" for the presidency and accusing her of being "exhausted" and sleeping too much.
Neither Trump nor his aides responded immediately for requests for comment Sunday. But the attacks have intensified in the past month as unverified and often debunked theories about Clinton's health have floated around the Internet. And Sunday's incident prompted an avalanche of speculation on social media.
One individual familiar with the incident confirmed that Clinton felt ill and wobbly at the event.
And a former agent said that the detail’s movements show they had not planned for her to leave that early and had to make up some rushed security plans on the fly. The detail leader, normally in charge of sticking by her side at all times, had to leave her momentarily to open the door of her van.
"However, all details were reporting heat related matters/issues," the first individual said. "This is actually common and anticipated for events such as this."Clinton falls ill during 9/11 memorial service in New York - The Washington Post
Thursday, September 8, 2016
HILLARY 'SHORT CIRCUITS' AGAIN! and AGAIN and..............
At the NBC News “Commander in Chief” forum on Wednesday night aboard the U.S.S. Intrepid in New York, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invented a new alibi for her mis-handling of classified information, telling host Matt Lauer that she used a secure server when she needed to send classified information.
In July, FBI director James Comey revealed that Clinton not only withheld and deleted work-related emails, but also sent classified emails — many marked as such — on her private, non-secure email server.
Clinton told Lauer on Wednesday evening:
I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system. I took it very seriously. When I traveled, I went into one of those little tents that I’m sure you’ve seen around the world because we didn’t want there to be any potential for someone to have embedded a camera to try to see whatever it is that I was seeing that was designated, marked, and headed as classified.
In fact, the FBI report released last week confirmed that Clinton declined to use a state.gov email account, and defied her own department’s policy to use an “authorized information system” for official business. She had no computer in her office, which was a secure environment, nor did she use a computer inside the secured area in her homes. (In her FBIinterview, she said she could not recall receiving any advice about email policies.)
The report implies that the only time Clinton used a secure system for sending email was when she was traveling abroad — when State Department career staff, not her personal entourage, were responsible for setting up her communications.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at a town hall forum Wednesday tried to assure voters that she was careful in her handling of classified information as secretary of state.
Clinton said, "I did exactly what I should have done and I take it very seriously. Always have, always will."
Clinton was asked by a veteran during a "commander in chief forum" hosted by NBC how she could be trusted, given her use of a private email server as secretary of state.
Clinton insisted she never used an insecure system to handle classified material designated and marked with clear headers.
She said that she "communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system" and "took it very seriously."
Clinton said none of the emails she sent or received had a header that clearly marked "top secret."
She noted that she has years of experience dealing with classified material dating back to her time as a senator. Classified material usually has a heading marked "top secret," she said.
She insisted that none of the messages sent or received on her private server had such a heading.
Clinton conceded that some of the messages included references to the covert drone program. But she said there was no discussion of "covert actions" that were being considered in the messages.
She also said there was no evidence her email server was hacked.
In July, FBI director James Comey revealed that Clinton not only withheld and deleted work-related emails, but also sent classified emails — many marked as such — on her private, non-secure email server.
Clinton told Lauer on Wednesday evening:
I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system. I took it very seriously. When I traveled, I went into one of those little tents that I’m sure you’ve seen around the world because we didn’t want there to be any potential for someone to have embedded a camera to try to see whatever it is that I was seeing that was designated, marked, and headed as classified.
In fact, the FBI report released last week confirmed that Clinton declined to use a state.gov email account, and defied her own department’s policy to use an “authorized information system” for official business. She had no computer in her office, which was a secure environment, nor did she use a computer inside the secured area in her homes. (In her FBIinterview, she said she could not recall receiving any advice about email policies.)
The report implies that the only time Clinton used a secure system for sending email was when she was traveling abroad — when State Department career staff, not her personal entourage, were responsible for setting up her communications.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at a town hall forum Wednesday tried to assure voters that she was careful in her handling of classified information as secretary of state.
Clinton said, "I did exactly what I should have done and I take it very seriously. Always have, always will."
Clinton was asked by a veteran during a "commander in chief forum" hosted by NBC how she could be trusted, given her use of a private email server as secretary of state.
Clinton insisted she never used an insecure system to handle classified material designated and marked with clear headers.
She said that she "communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system" and "took it very seriously."
Clinton said none of the emails she sent or received had a header that clearly marked "top secret."
She noted that she has years of experience dealing with classified material dating back to her time as a senator. Classified material usually has a heading marked "top secret," she said.
She insisted that none of the messages sent or received on her private server had such a heading.
Clinton conceded that some of the messages included references to the covert drone program. But she said there was no discussion of "covert actions" that were being considered in the messages.
She also said there was no evidence her email server was hacked.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
RICK PERRY CALLS OUT KHAN FOR CHEAP SHOT AT TRUMP
I never thought I would ever agree with someone like Rick Perry but, to my surprise, he made a comment about the Khan attack on Trump that I completely agree with.
Not only should Khan be ashamed of himself for using his son's death as political fodder, but the DNC should be scolded for manipulating the Khans to do it. Playing the "fallen hero" card is dirty politics.
Rick Perry to Khizr Khan: ‘Shame on You’
Not only should Khan be ashamed of himself for using his son's death as political fodder, but the DNC should be scolded for manipulating the Khans to do it. Playing the "fallen hero" card is dirty politics.
Rick Perry to Khizr Khan: ‘Shame on You’
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
WHY NOT HAVE REAL - INSTEAD OF RIGGED DEBATES?
Just as with the primaries being rigged the Establishment and Main Stream Media are now rigging the Presidential debates.
Instead of giving the stage to the "four" candidates running for POTUS the powers to be want to keep it just "two" which happen to be the candidates selected (at least partially) by the Establishment; Hillary and the Wild Card (Trump) they are still plotting to bring down.
So, what about the other 2 candidates; Stein (Green) and Johnson (Libertarian)?
Why keep them off the stage and national limelight?
Simply put; fear. The Establishment is afraid that a narrative they can't control could upset the apple cart if Main Street Americans (voter) were better informed and made aware that they do have choices besides the lesser of "two evils."
Commission on Presidential Debates announces polls to be used for securing spot - POLITICO
Instead of giving the stage to the "four" candidates running for POTUS the powers to be want to keep it just "two" which happen to be the candidates selected (at least partially) by the Establishment; Hillary and the Wild Card (Trump) they are still plotting to bring down.
So, what about the other 2 candidates; Stein (Green) and Johnson (Libertarian)?
Why keep them off the stage and national limelight?
Simply put; fear. The Establishment is afraid that a narrative they can't control could upset the apple cart if Main Street Americans (voter) were better informed and made aware that they do have choices besides the lesser of "two evils."
Commission on Presidential Debates announces polls to be used for securing spot - POLITICO
Monday, August 15, 2016
POLLS DECIDE WHAT CANDIDATES ARE WORTHY; DEMOCRATIC?
Why is it not better to allow anyone who is legally registered to run for the office of POTUS to participate in the presidential debates?
Commission on Presidential Debates announces polls to be used for securing spot - POLITICO
Commission on Presidential Debates announces polls to be used for securing spot - POLITICO
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.
This person has a real problem with just being truthful. It’s arrogant at best and pathological at worse. It’s not that she lies more than other politicians but what she lies about.
Hardly an incident goes by where she is asked to respond to fairly straightforward questions that she goes into this double-talk mode and evades responding truthfully; she “short circuited” or she answered “truthfully” to one out of many questioners as if that negates all the times she didn’t. Even though it’s obvious she lied and the obvious reasons why she lied she just can’t bring herself to admitting it; “I made a mistake” is as close as she comes.
It could just be arrogance but it is still insulting and demeaning to others because what she’s saying is; believe me! Don’t believe what you know to be true (reality) by the facts that support it. They are just plain “wrong.” I’m right and that’s the way is. So deal with it!
If it’s worse yet, and pathological in nature, then there’s a real problem with how this person would act and behave in situations where they felt threatened because there a real risk they would encapsulate themselves in their own version of reality; very dangerous when someone is in a powerful position.
Friday, August 12, 2016
CLINTON'S FAVORITE CHARITY IS THEMSELVES
It's a win-win for the Clinton's. Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution to a charity owned by you.
96 Percent Of Hillary's Charitable Donations Went To Clinton Foundation |
Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year — $1 million of which went to their own family non-profit, the Clinton Family Foundation.
The documents show that the power couple earned $10,745,378 last year, mostly on income earned from giving public speeches.
96 Percent Of Hillary's Charitable Donations Went To Clinton Foundation |
Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year — $1 million of which went to their own family non-profit, the Clinton Family Foundation.
The documents show that the power couple earned $10,745,378 last year, mostly on income earned from giving public speeches.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
IS CLINTON FOUNDATION A PIGGY BANK FOR BILL AND HILLARY?
POLITICAL FAVORS FOR MONEY? It's called "pay for play" and Hillary is a notorious player.
Hillary Clinton publicly defended an embattled banker during an official visit to Bangladesh while Clinton Foundation officials tried to steer money from an Abu Dhabi oil company into the banker’s coffers.
A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation traced the convoluted payment by TAQA — formally known as the the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company — to Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank. Yunus is a long-time friend and Clinton Foundation donor.
The oil company deal eventually put as much as $500,000 into President Bill Clinton’s pockets via a speaking fee he got in Scotland.
The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director. The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases.Hillary Aide Mills OK'd Deal That Put $500K In Bill's Pocket | The Daily Caller
Hillary Clinton publicly defended an embattled banker during an official visit to Bangladesh while Clinton Foundation officials tried to steer money from an Abu Dhabi oil company into the banker’s coffers.
A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation traced the convoluted payment by TAQA — formally known as the the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company — to Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank. Yunus is a long-time friend and Clinton Foundation donor.
The oil company deal eventually put as much as $500,000 into President Bill Clinton’s pockets via a speaking fee he got in Scotland.
The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director. The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Sunday, August 7, 2016
HILLARY APOLOGIZES FOR MISTAKE BUT NOT FOR LYING
Hillary learned this from the best. This is a classic Bill Clinton, "it all depends what the definition of the word is- is."
If it were anyone else all of this nonsense would easily be resolved by either admitting they lied or taking the "fifth."
But that would be too simple for Hillary so for over a year now the public has to be subjected to an ongoing flow of crazy making double talk; "I made a mistake", "I short circuited" (whatever that means), and now Tim Kaine explains the lying as "talking past each other" Uh?
You are asked a straightforward and specific question. You answer with a lie. That's talking past each other. Uhm?
After playing a montage of Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey that for all intents and purposes indicated that Clinton lied to the American public, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” Chuck Todd said, “[Clinton] seems to be conflating what she said to the FBI and what she said to the American public. Can you conclude here whether or not Secretary Clinton lied to the American public about sending and receiving classified email?” (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper Calls Out Clinton For Email Lies: You’re Not Entitled ‘To Your Own Facts’ [VIDEO])
“Chuck, let me just say this, I’m going to jump right to the punch line,” Kaine claimed. “I heard Hillary Clinton say over and over again when I’ve been sitting next to her and when I’ve watch her on TV that with respect to the emails, I made a mistake and I’ve learned something and I wouldn’t do it again and I’ve heard her apologize.” (RELATED: Hillary Clinton: I ‘Short-Circuited’ With My Email Answers [VIDEO])
“I did hear that back and forth and I think Chris Wallace and Hillary were sort of talking past each other last week. She was saying what Director Comey acknowledged to be true, that when she spoke to the FBI, when she was talking to the FBI thought her answers in that setting were truthful.”(RELATED: Hillary, Chris Wallace Spar Over Her Classified Emails [VIDEO])
Kaine Unable To Answer For Hillary's Email Lies [VIDEO] |
If it were anyone else all of this nonsense would easily be resolved by either admitting they lied or taking the "fifth."
But that would be too simple for Hillary so for over a year now the public has to be subjected to an ongoing flow of crazy making double talk; "I made a mistake", "I short circuited" (whatever that means), and now Tim Kaine explains the lying as "talking past each other" Uh?
You are asked a straightforward and specific question. You answer with a lie. That's talking past each other. Uhm?
After playing a montage of Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey that for all intents and purposes indicated that Clinton lied to the American public, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” Chuck Todd said, “[Clinton] seems to be conflating what she said to the FBI and what she said to the American public. Can you conclude here whether or not Secretary Clinton lied to the American public about sending and receiving classified email?” (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper Calls Out Clinton For Email Lies: You’re Not Entitled ‘To Your Own Facts’ [VIDEO])
“Chuck, let me just say this, I’m going to jump right to the punch line,” Kaine claimed. “I heard Hillary Clinton say over and over again when I’ve been sitting next to her and when I’ve watch her on TV that with respect to the emails, I made a mistake and I’ve learned something and I wouldn’t do it again and I’ve heard her apologize.” (RELATED: Hillary Clinton: I ‘Short-Circuited’ With My Email Answers [VIDEO])
“I did hear that back and forth and I think Chris Wallace and Hillary were sort of talking past each other last week. She was saying what Director Comey acknowledged to be true, that when she spoke to the FBI, when she was talking to the FBI thought her answers in that setting were truthful.”(RELATED: Hillary, Chris Wallace Spar Over Her Classified Emails [VIDEO])
Kaine Unable To Answer For Hillary's Email Lies [VIDEO] |
Saturday, August 6, 2016
WHY IS HILLARY BEATING TRUMP ON WALL STREET?
It looks like the Wall Street money is almost all on Hillary and one has to wonder what is she promising them in return? Speeches?
As for Trump? No one is buying possibly because he can't be bought.
Who should you vote for?
Using history (2008 crash) as a guide voters may want to take a close look at why and where all that Wall Street money is going to Hillary. The rest is easy to figure out.
A July 29 Wall Street Journal article crediting our data is headlined, “Hedge-Fund Money: $48.5 Million for Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump.” The startling disparity in numbers led other media outlets to cite the piece — as did Trump himself. The article was shared on Facebook over 27,000 times and generated more than 500 comments.
Only problem is, those numbers aren’t correct. Trump had taken in just $2,054 in hedge fund contributions as of June 30. Clinton, along with her supporting super PACs, has received $25.6 million from the hedge fund industry, just a bit more than half the WSJ’s figure.
While the article says the money came from “employees or owners” of hedge funds (later amended to include private equity), nearly all of it came from just four people. Four big donors associated with hedge funds gave $24.6 million of the total — most of which was given to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, which she does not control (at least not directly).
Clinton’s campaign itself, not counting super PACs, has so far received just $557,619 from individuals who work at hedge funds.
Further down, the WSJ article says that the $48.5 million figure is the sum of contributions to Clinton from seven unspecified “financial firms” that are either hedge funds or “similar private investment funds.” We emailed the reporters on the story to find out which firms they counted.
Setting it straight: Hedge funds to Clinton plus super PACs, $25.6 million; to Trump, $2,000 | OpenSecrets Blog
As for Trump? No one is buying possibly because he can't be bought.
Who should you vote for?
Using history (2008 crash) as a guide voters may want to take a close look at why and where all that Wall Street money is going to Hillary. The rest is easy to figure out.
A July 29 Wall Street Journal article crediting our data is headlined, “Hedge-Fund Money: $48.5 Million for Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump.” The startling disparity in numbers led other media outlets to cite the piece — as did Trump himself. The article was shared on Facebook over 27,000 times and generated more than 500 comments.
Only problem is, those numbers aren’t correct. Trump had taken in just $2,054 in hedge fund contributions as of June 30. Clinton, along with her supporting super PACs, has received $25.6 million from the hedge fund industry, just a bit more than half the WSJ’s figure.
While the article says the money came from “employees or owners” of hedge funds (later amended to include private equity), nearly all of it came from just four people. Four big donors associated with hedge funds gave $24.6 million of the total — most of which was given to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, which she does not control (at least not directly).
Clinton’s campaign itself, not counting super PACs, has so far received just $557,619 from individuals who work at hedge funds.
Further down, the WSJ article says that the $48.5 million figure is the sum of contributions to Clinton from seven unspecified “financial firms” that are either hedge funds or “similar private investment funds.” We emailed the reporters on the story to find out which firms they counted.
Setting it straight: Hedge funds to Clinton plus super PACs, $25.6 million; to Trump, $2,000 | OpenSecrets Blog
Friday, August 5, 2016
HILLARY 'SHORT CIRCUITS' LIES ABOUT LYING
On Friday, Hillary Clinton took questions from the press for the first time in 260 days. A number of her answers revealed why she doesn’t hold press conferences more: Her answers to both difficult and easy questions were often evasive, excessively legalistic, and frustrating to watch.
Clinton spoke at a joint convention being held by the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Her previous press conference was December of last year and she has faced heavy criticism from both the media and the Trump campaign for not being more accessible.
In Friday’s press questioning, the trouble began when she was asked her first question about her private email server and recent statements about that server which independent fact checkers have labeled as categorically untrue. Clinton’s responses here—and her previous responses to questions about the truthfulness of past statements—are so overly legalistic and convoluted that they are difficult to even explain. But here’s a shot.
Last month, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asserted to Clinton that FBI Director James Comey said her public statements about which documents on her private email server were classified and which were not were untrue. In actuality, Comey declined to address the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of those statements in Congressional testimony on the matter.
Clinton spoke at a joint convention being held by the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Her previous press conference was December of last year and she has faced heavy criticism from both the media and the Trump campaign for not being more accessible.
In Friday’s press questioning, the trouble began when she was asked her first question about her private email server and recent statements about that server which independent fact checkers have labeled as categorically untrue. Clinton’s responses here—and her previous responses to questions about the truthfulness of past statements—are so overly legalistic and convoluted that they are difficult to even explain. But here’s a shot.
Last month, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asserted to Clinton that FBI Director James Comey said her public statements about which documents on her private email server were classified and which were not were untrue. In actuality, Comey declined to address the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of those statements in Congressional testimony on the matter.
But in announcing his investigation into her server—which cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing—Comey implied that she had either misled the American public about her poor handling of material she should have known was classified information, or been incompetent in doing so. “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it,” he said. Clinton had previously claimed: “I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time. I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”
In response to Wallace’s question claiming that Comey had said she was not telling the truth, Clinton said this: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
This is the claim that fact checkers have destroyed. Clinton’s defenders might claim that she was talking about two separate things in two separate clauses in this sentence: That Comey said her answers to the FBI were truthful and separately that her answers to the FBI were consistent with her public statements. This would have made the statement incredibly misleading, though, given that she was asked directly about what Comey's views.
In response to Wallace’s question claiming that Comey had said she was not telling the truth, Clinton said this: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
This is the claim that fact checkers have destroyed. Clinton’s defenders might claim that she was talking about two separate things in two separate clauses in this sentence: That Comey said her answers to the FBI were truthful and separately that her answers to the FBI were consistent with her public statements. This would have made the statement incredibly misleading, though, given that she was asked directly about what Comey's views.
Also making that answer seem disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst, is that she repeated a similar version of it in an interview earlier this week, telling a local CBS affiliate: “It was all personal stuff [that was deleted on the email server], and we’ve said that consistently. And as the FBI said, everything that I’ve said publicly has been consistent and truthful with what I’ve told them.” It’s really hard to argue that this is two separate points, with the “and as the FBI said” part referring to the earlier point, but I guess a really eager Clinton apologist could make that claim.
All of this leads us to the press conference, where Clinton was asked this:
Are you mischaracterizing Director Comey's testimony and is this not undercutting your efforts to rebuild trust with the American people?
Clinton’s answer, which you can watch here, is an awkward journey of disassembling and lawyerly quibbling:
SEE VIDEO; Hillary gave a rare press conference. It was terrible.
All of this leads us to the press conference, where Clinton was asked this:
Are you mischaracterizing Director Comey's testimony and is this not undercutting your efforts to rebuild trust with the American people?
Clinton’s answer, which you can watch here, is an awkward journey of disassembling and lawyerly quibbling:
SEE VIDEO; Hillary gave a rare press conference. It was terrible.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
THERE'S A NEW GRASS ROOTS ACTIVIST IN TOWN
The Republican nominee’s new fund-raising numbers suggest he has tapped into the passion of his core supporters and may now have the resources to compete with Hillary Clinton.
Donald J. Trump all but erased his enormous fund-raising disadvantage against Hillary Clinton in the span of just two months, according to figures released by his campaign on Wednesday, converting the passion of his core followers into a flood of small donations on a scale rarely seen in national politics.
Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee raised $64 million through a joint digital and mail effort in July, according to his campaign, the bulk of it from small donations. All told, Mr. Trump and his party brought in $82 million last month, only slightly behind Mrs. Clinton’s $90 million, and ended with $74 million on hand, suggesting he might now have the resources to compete with Mrs. Clinton in the closing stretch of the campaign.
“She’s been doing this for 20 years,” said Steven Mnuchin, a New York investor who is Mr. Trump’s finance chairman. “We’ve been doing it for two months.” More than two-thirds of the $64 million had come online, Mr. Mnuchin said.
The new figures indicate a major shift in Mr. Trump’s campaign, which until recent months was largely funded by hat and T-shirt sales and by Mr. Trump’s wallet. And they suggest that Mr. Trump has the potential to be the first Republican nominee whose campaign could be financed chiefly by grass-roots supporters pitching in $10 or $25 apiece, echoing the success of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the Democratic primary.
Fueled by Small Donations, Donald Trump Makes Up Major Financial Ground - The New York Times
Donald J. Trump all but erased his enormous fund-raising disadvantage against Hillary Clinton in the span of just two months, according to figures released by his campaign on Wednesday, converting the passion of his core followers into a flood of small donations on a scale rarely seen in national politics.
Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee raised $64 million through a joint digital and mail effort in July, according to his campaign, the bulk of it from small donations. All told, Mr. Trump and his party brought in $82 million last month, only slightly behind Mrs. Clinton’s $90 million, and ended with $74 million on hand, suggesting he might now have the resources to compete with Mrs. Clinton in the closing stretch of the campaign.
“She’s been doing this for 20 years,” said Steven Mnuchin, a New York investor who is Mr. Trump’s finance chairman. “We’ve been doing it for two months.” More than two-thirds of the $64 million had come online, Mr. Mnuchin said.
The new figures indicate a major shift in Mr. Trump’s campaign, which until recent months was largely funded by hat and T-shirt sales and by Mr. Trump’s wallet. And they suggest that Mr. Trump has the potential to be the first Republican nominee whose campaign could be financed chiefly by grass-roots supporters pitching in $10 or $25 apiece, echoing the success of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the Democratic primary.
Fueled by Small Donations, Donald Trump Makes Up Major Financial Ground - The New York Times
MAIN STREET UNDER ATTACK BY MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES
These super rich, super spoiled Millionaires, Billionaires and the
legions of minions that pander to them are mad as hell and are not about
to let the American people take back America.
Bernie Sanders came after them but they were just too big to take down and inthe end brought him to "heel" as Hillary would say.
But there is still one guy they have not been able to buy who is out of their control and they are going berserk looking for ways to end him and the real possibility that Main Street American voters could turn the tables against them and dismantle the cozy plutocracy they have created
for themselves.
So far nothing has worked and it's not because of a lack of trying; using the mainstream media to bombard the 24/7 news cycle with everything they can conjure up, no matter how petty or silly.
There’s the belief that somehow the whole system in Washington is not on the level—that it’s tilted against the ordinary citizen. And the reason people have that view is because they’re right: it is tilted against the ordinary citizen and it does favor the rich.”
That is Tom Downey, a former U.S. Congressman from New York turned founder of the high-powered lobbying firm Downey McGrath Group, Inc., and one of many talking heads in Meet the Donors, a damning new documentary that just made its premiere on HBO.
The film comes courtesy of Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. There is a brief showdown between Pelosi Jr. and a right-wing lobbyist who took out vicious attack ads against her mother that showed the former House Speaker as a city-destroying Godzilla-like monster. Despite the family ties, this remains a fairly nonpartisan examination of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how the American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Late last year, The New York Times published a terrifying study on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.
“Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.”
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision changed the playing field, allowing both nonprofit and for-profit corporations to be treated as people, thereby prohibiting the government from regulating their political expenditures (coincidentally, this whole hullabaloo was over the right-wing nonprofit Citizens United’s desire to air a propaganda film, Hillary: The Movie, just prior to the 2008 general election). This led to the creation of super PACs, or political action committees—vessels that individuals, corporations, and other organizations can pour large sums of money into in order to influence elections, typically via attack ads. Conservative strategist Karl Rove notoriously oversaw super PACs that spent over $300 million on Republican candidates during the 2012 election year.
Meet the Billionaires Manipulating the U.S. Presidential Election
Bernie Sanders came after them but they were just too big to take down and inthe end brought him to "heel" as Hillary would say.
But there is still one guy they have not been able to buy who is out of their control and they are going berserk looking for ways to end him and the real possibility that Main Street American voters could turn the tables against them and dismantle the cozy plutocracy they have created
for themselves.
So far nothing has worked and it's not because of a lack of trying; using the mainstream media to bombard the 24/7 news cycle with everything they can conjure up, no matter how petty or silly.
The U.S. can’t let Trump win: His victory would embolden the most hateful Americans who fostered his rise
It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign?
America is no longer a country “by the people, for the people,” but a plutocracy. The new doc ‘Meet the Donors’ exposes our broken political system and the uber-rich pulling the strings.There’s the belief that somehow the whole system in Washington is not on the level—that it’s tilted against the ordinary citizen. And the reason people have that view is because they’re right: it is tilted against the ordinary citizen and it does favor the rich.”
That is Tom Downey, a former U.S. Congressman from New York turned founder of the high-powered lobbying firm Downey McGrath Group, Inc., and one of many talking heads in Meet the Donors, a damning new documentary that just made its premiere on HBO.
The film comes courtesy of Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. There is a brief showdown between Pelosi Jr. and a right-wing lobbyist who took out vicious attack ads against her mother that showed the former House Speaker as a city-destroying Godzilla-like monster. Despite the family ties, this remains a fairly nonpartisan examination of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how the American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Late last year, The New York Times published a terrifying study on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.
“Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.”
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision changed the playing field, allowing both nonprofit and for-profit corporations to be treated as people, thereby prohibiting the government from regulating their political expenditures (coincidentally, this whole hullabaloo was over the right-wing nonprofit Citizens United’s desire to air a propaganda film, Hillary: The Movie, just prior to the 2008 general election). This led to the creation of super PACs, or political action committees—vessels that individuals, corporations, and other organizations can pour large sums of money into in order to influence elections, typically via attack ads. Conservative strategist Karl Rove notoriously oversaw super PACs that spent over $300 million on Republican candidates during the 2012 election year.
Meet the Billionaires Manipulating the U.S. Presidential Election
BREAKING NEWS! TRUMP BREAKS WIND!
Has the media gone berserk?
This is an example of the sh-t load of crazy-making rhetoric the media floods the 24/7 news cycle with.
It's gotten so bad that Trump can't even fart without someone sounding a "breaking news" alert.
In the last two weeks, Donald Trump has slandered the family of a dead soldier, committed treason by inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email account, admitted he lied about receiving a letter from the NFL, saw an Air Force mother get booed at one of his rallies, claimed Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine even though they already have, refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan’s candidacy, falsely accused a fire marshal of limiting his crowd for political reasons, tossed a baby out of a rally, and called Hillary Clinton “the devil.”
It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign? - Salon.com
In the last two weeks, Donald Trump has slandered the family of a dead soldier, committed treason by inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email account, admitted he lied about receiving a letter from the NFL, saw an Air Force mother get booed at one of his rallies, claimed Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine even though they already have, refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan’s candidacy, falsely accused a fire marshal of limiting his crowd for political reasons, tossed a baby out of a rally, and called Hillary Clinton “the devil.”
It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign? - Salon.com
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
DNC A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT
These heads should have been rolling before the Hillary balloon drop.
But then, this is not about cleaning house, but more about taking the focus off the conspirators who, after successfully rigging the primaries, have accomplished their mission and are now liabilities.
The CEO of the Democratic National Committee and two other high-level staffers left the organization on Tuesday in the wake of the committee's hacked email controversy.
Amy Dacey is the highest-ranking official at the DNC to step aside due to the matter, a senior Democratic official said.
The DNC also announced the departure of CFO Brad Marshall and and Communications Director Luis Miranda in a press release Tuesday afternoon.
Dacey is well-respected by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC circle, a source familiar with the resignation said. But the committee is looking to clean house in the wake of leaked emails that appeared to show the committee favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primary.
Dacey's resignation was first reported by Politico.
Interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who stepped in after the resignation of former Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also announced some additions to her team, saying former Howard Dean aide Tom McMahon would lead a transition team focused on November's election. The chief of staff that joined the DNC in June, Brandon Davis, will retain his post and oversee general election efforts, Brazile announced.
Also joining as an interim senior adviser is Doug Thornell.
Wasserman Schultz resigned after the party's convention last week as a result of the revelations, and Brazile has stepped in as interim chair through the election.
The changes at the DNC come as the Clinton campaign is moving to take greater control of party headquarters in Washington and in states across the country.
Democrats are also trying to get ahead of the disclosure of more emails and internal documents from hacked computer systems, fearful of more embarrassing revelations.
The press release made no mention of the controversy, focusing instead on gearing up for the November election.
DNC CEO resigns in wake of email controversy
But then, this is not about cleaning house, but more about taking the focus off the conspirators who, after successfully rigging the primaries, have accomplished their mission and are now liabilities.
The CEO of the Democratic National Committee and two other high-level staffers left the organization on Tuesday in the wake of the committee's hacked email controversy.
Amy Dacey is the highest-ranking official at the DNC to step aside due to the matter, a senior Democratic official said.
The DNC also announced the departure of CFO Brad Marshall and and Communications Director Luis Miranda in a press release Tuesday afternoon.
Dacey is well-respected by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC circle, a source familiar with the resignation said. But the committee is looking to clean house in the wake of leaked emails that appeared to show the committee favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primary.
Dacey's resignation was first reported by Politico.
Interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who stepped in after the resignation of former Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also announced some additions to her team, saying former Howard Dean aide Tom McMahon would lead a transition team focused on November's election. The chief of staff that joined the DNC in June, Brandon Davis, will retain his post and oversee general election efforts, Brazile announced.
Also joining as an interim senior adviser is Doug Thornell.
Wasserman Schultz resigned after the party's convention last week as a result of the revelations, and Brazile has stepped in as interim chair through the election.
The changes at the DNC come as the Clinton campaign is moving to take greater control of party headquarters in Washington and in states across the country.
Democrats are also trying to get ahead of the disclosure of more emails and internal documents from hacked computer systems, fearful of more embarrassing revelations.
The press release made no mention of the controversy, focusing instead on gearing up for the November election.
DNC CEO resigns in wake of email controversy
TRUMPHOBES GONE WILD!
There is a raging epidemic of "Trumphobia" gripping the Establishment and the Main Stream media hacks that run interference for them.
This crazy obsession with bringing Trump down is raging on both sides of the aisle; though not so much with the Main Street voters.
Even the president is climbing on the phobia train which is surprising given that he was once in Trump's shoes and should know what it feels like when your being ganged up on.
The Establishment is trying it's damnedest to bring the angry voters to "heel" as Hillary would put it. It's still difficult for these corrupted pandering politicians to get their heads around the notion that the electorate is completely fed up with them.
The people are "anti-Establishment" and they are looking for an "outsider" for leadership; in this case it's Trump.
The following piece is an example of the barrage of vitriol being spewed at Trump and the people who support (voted) him.
The message is that a vote for Trump is a vote for hate and fear mongering while the reality is that a vote for Trump is a vote for reform of a corrupt plutocratic political system that has proven to be the real threat against democracy and the American people.
The headlines read:
A victory for Trump would legitimize the dangerous, inchoate anger of unhinged Americans
Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, and therefore he can’t simply lose the election. He has to be electorally humiliated. Crushed. Embarrassed. The candidate who pledged “so much winning” has to be personally mortified by an unequivocal loss — an electoral massacre so severe that it leaves little room for screeching about rigged elections, and, more importantly, the loss has to be so overwhelming that it discourages any similar would-be populist tyrants from emerging in the future. Trump and anyone similar needs to be politically put-down in a way that permanently ends whatever derangement led us to this point.
Sadly, however, the latest polls continue to indicate that the popular vote will come down to a five-point contest.
Monday’s CBS News poll, taken following the conventions, puts the race at 47-41 (including leaners) in Hillary’s favor. PPP’s latest numbers also reflect a five-point race, even after all the hoopla surrounding the Democratic Convention; even after Hillary’s historic nomination and President Obama’s moving remarks; even after Michelle Obama’s barnburner address and especially the salient remarks by Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan. It’s still just a five or six point race, even after the deeply contrasting conventions, and even after news about Trump’s nefarious connections to Putin; even after Trump trolled the Khans on Twitter (as predicted by Hillary in her acceptance speech), and even after his utterly disastrous Palin-style interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.
Five points separate Hillary and national oblivion. As Bernie Sanders said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday, Trump is easily the most treacherous presidential nominee in modern history, and yet there’s really not much of a difference in the polls between his numbers and the numbers of previous GOP nominees, McCain and Romney.
It seems as though nothing will change the hearts and minds of Trump’s rage-filled minion. And I suppose that’s acceptable as long as enough sensible, rational Republicans choose to forego this election, either voting for Gary Johnson or Hillary Clinton, or by simply sitting it out. It can’t be underscored enough how this election has to result in a party realignment, with moderate, reasonable Republicans voting with center-left and, yes, progressive Democrats to defeat this cancerous GOP nominee.
HILLARY SAYS BOTH OBAMA AND TRUMP NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT
President Obama has a short memory loss. As he comes out in support of Hillary claiming that Trump is not fit to be president he seems to have forgotten that he was once in those very same shoes.
Monday, August 1, 2016
THE REASON AMERICANS DON'T TRUST HILLARY
Hillary just can't help herself when confronted with reality that doesn't fit her version of it.
Hillary Clinton on Sunday insisted that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American public regarding her handling of emails containing classified information were truthful, but this was disputed by host Chris Wallace.
“The emails… I want to ask you about just one aspect of them, and that’s what you told the American people,” Wallace said to the Democratic nominee on “Fox News Sunday.”
Fox then played three separate clips in which Clinton said she did not send or receive any classified material via email.
“After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said to the former secretary of state.
“Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to, in my view, clarify,” Clinton responded. “Director Comey said that my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
“I was communicating with over 300 people in my emailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified,” she added. “Now in retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that’s not what was happening in real time.
“But in a congressionally hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public,” Wallace said.
Fox then aired footage of the congressional hearing when Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey. “There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.
Hillary Clinton on Sunday insisted that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American public regarding her handling of emails containing classified information were truthful, but this was disputed by host Chris Wallace.
“The emails… I want to ask you about just one aspect of them, and that’s what you told the American people,” Wallace said to the Democratic nominee on “Fox News Sunday.”
Fox then played three separate clips in which Clinton said she did not send or receive any classified material via email.
“After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said to the former secretary of state.
“Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to, in my view, clarify,” Clinton responded. “Director Comey said that my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
“I was communicating with over 300 people in my emailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified,” she added. “Now in retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that’s not what was happening in real time.
“But in a congressionally hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public,” Wallace said.
Fox then aired footage of the congressional hearing when Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey. “There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
HILLARY CONTINUES DOWN HER CROOKED PATH
Terry McAuliffe, a top ally of Hillary Clinton's, just let slip that he expects her to change her position and support the TPP if she wins the election.1
McAuliffe tried to walk back the comment after it sparked a backlash from Bernie Sanders supporters—but this week the Clinton campaign has also refused to assert that it would fight a vote on TPP during the "lame duck" session after the November election.
The TPP is an awful trade deal that threatens Net Neutrality, ends protections against Wall Street recklessness, and allows corporations to sue the U.S. government in secret tribunals to overturn laws passed by Congress.
Clinton friend McAuliffe says Clinton will flip on TPP, then walks it back - POLITICO
McAuliffe tried to walk back the comment after it sparked a backlash from Bernie Sanders supporters—but this week the Clinton campaign has also refused to assert that it would fight a vote on TPP during the "lame duck" session after the November election.
The TPP is an awful trade deal that threatens Net Neutrality, ends protections against Wall Street recklessness, and allows corporations to sue the U.S. government in secret tribunals to overturn laws passed by Congress.
Clinton friend McAuliffe says Clinton will flip on TPP, then walks it back - POLITICO
Saturday, July 30, 2016
HILLARY R.C.GIVES BERNIE THE BIG FU - REHIRES DEBBIE W.S.
Bernie supporters have once again been given the big FU from Hillary by rehiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately after she stepped down (at Bernie's request) from her post as conspirator and chief of the DNC.
Bernie endorsed Hillary with an understanding that many of the commitments he made to his followers would be honored and accepted by the Hillary/DNC folks. Unfortunately, Bernie and Hillary do not play by the same rules and Hillary has once again proven that she can not be trusted.
On July 22, Wikileaks released 20,000 DNC emails, exposing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC staff of sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In the wake of the fallout, Wasserman Schultz formally resigned from her position asDNC chair, only to be replaced by another Clinton surrogate, DNC vice chair Donna Brazile.
Rather than allowing Wasserman Schultz’s career to go down with her resignation, Clinton has awarded Wasserman Schultz a new role as honorary chair to the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
“There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to Republicans than Debbie—which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and other key states,” Clinton announced.
Bernie endorsed Hillary with an understanding that many of the commitments he made to his followers would be honored and accepted by the Hillary/DNC folks. Unfortunately, Bernie and Hillary do not play by the same rules and Hillary has once again proven that she can not be trusted.
On July 22, Wikileaks released 20,000 DNC emails, exposing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC staff of sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In the wake of the fallout, Wasserman Schultz formally resigned from her position asDNC chair, only to be replaced by another Clinton surrogate, DNC vice chair Donna Brazile.
Rather than allowing Wasserman Schultz’s career to go down with her resignation, Clinton has awarded Wasserman Schultz a new role as honorary chair to the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
“There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to Republicans than Debbie—which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and other key states,” Clinton announced.
Friday, July 29, 2016
HEDGE FUNDS BUY HILLARY -TRUMP NOT FOR SALE
Looks like Hillary is the darling of the hedge fund industry who are throwing money at her as if she were a political "wishing well."
There's also a bonus prize. One Clinton family member is also a member of the hedge fund industry; and insider if you will.
In this election cycle, hedge funds have contributed $122.7 million to Hillary’s campaign. That number is more than twice that of the total contributions hedge funds made in 2012 and it comprises 14 percent of her total campaign purse, reports Market Watch.
Comparing these numbers with Donald Trump (who has allotted just $19,000 from hedge funds), Hillary has $122,681,000 more than Trump from hedge funds.
Trump is an anomaly among Republicans — who so far this campaign cycle have gotten in excess of $65.8 million from hedge funds.
Hillary Clinton is demolishing Donald Trump among hedge-fund donors — so far - MarketWatch
There's also a bonus prize. One Clinton family member is also a member of the hedge fund industry; and insider if you will.
In this election cycle, hedge funds have contributed $122.7 million to Hillary’s campaign. That number is more than twice that of the total contributions hedge funds made in 2012 and it comprises 14 percent of her total campaign purse, reports Market Watch.
Comparing these numbers with Donald Trump (who has allotted just $19,000 from hedge funds), Hillary has $122,681,000 more than Trump from hedge funds.
Trump is an anomaly among Republicans — who so far this campaign cycle have gotten in excess of $65.8 million from hedge funds.
Hillary Clinton is demolishing Donald Trump among hedge-fund donors — so far - MarketWatch
THE DNC AND CLINTON CAMPAIGN ARE CORRUPT - NOT CLASSIFIED
Hacking into political organizations that are involved in corrupt activities is not at all as serious as
taking classified government information and storing them on unsecured personal servers.
The Obama Administration and the Security agencies would be better serving the American public by investigating and determining if a foreign government hacked Hillary'e private servers.
Exposing corruption in the US political system is in essence doing the American people a favor and the tragedy is that the US government is not able to police itself.
taking classified government information and storing them on unsecured personal servers.
The Obama Administration and the Security agencies would be better serving the American public by investigating and determining if a foreign government hacked Hillary'e private servers.
Exposing corruption in the US political system is in essence doing the American people a favor and the tragedy is that the US government is not able to police itself.
READ MORE; Hillary Clinton Campaign Reportedly Hacked
HILLARY BLAMES RUSSIA FOR EXPOSING CORRUPTION IN US POLITICAL SYSTEM
Let's kill the messenger! How else can we avoid having to deal with the rotting political system Americans are being exploited by?
Email exchanges involving top officials at theDemocratic National Committee released along with private documents by WikiLeaks show that DNC officials hoped to reward top donors and insiders with appointments to federal boards and commissions in coordination with the White House.
The revelations give an inside look into how the Democratic Party attempted to leverage its access and influence with the White House to bring in cash.
In an April 20, 2016 email, DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan canvassed what appears to be the committee’s finance department – its fundraising office – for names of people (mainly donors) to reward with federal appointments on boards and commissions.
That email exchange yielded a list compiled by DNC Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer and emailed to Kaplan on April 26 titled “Boards and Commissions Names_Final,” which listed the names of twenty-three DNC donors and insiders.
Email exchanges involving top officials at theDemocratic National Committee released along with private documents by WikiLeaks show that DNC officials hoped to reward top donors and insiders with appointments to federal boards and commissions in coordination with the White House.
The revelations give an inside look into how the Democratic Party attempted to leverage its access and influence with the White House to bring in cash.
In an April 20, 2016 email, DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan canvassed what appears to be the committee’s finance department – its fundraising office – for names of people (mainly donors) to reward with federal appointments on boards and commissions.
That email exchange yielded a list compiled by DNC Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer and emailed to Kaplan on April 26 titled “Boards and Commissions Names_Final,” which listed the names of twenty-three DNC donors and insiders.
READ MORE;
Leaks show DNC asked White House to reward donors with slots on boards and commissions | OpenSecrets Blog
Thursday, July 28, 2016
DID BERNIE GET HIS LINES FROM GEORGE?
Now that Establishment has shuffled Bernie off the stage and into history's dumpster the power brokers are hoping to be able to go back to business as usual and we can rest assured that Hillary will be more than happy to oblige them.
For a brief moment in this years political circus it looked like the average American had a chance to regain a tiny bit of what has been lost (stolen) by the "Billionaires and Millionaires" Bernie was so good at making hay out of.
The message Bernie sent us was articulated years ago by none other than a comedian who some might suspect Bernie took some lines from.
IS AMERICA GREAT? DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK.
President Obama and his now heir to be Hillary Clinton like to boast about how great America is; the implied unsaid part of the message is, don't complain, it makes us look bad.
Both Obama and Clinton are trying to distract us from what the truth is because neither he or his heir apparent want to admit that the Democratic Establishment has failed miserably in delivering what has been promised over and over again when they ask to be elected and then disappear into the mist of history the day after they take the oath of office.
Rest assured there is a select group of Americans that Obama and Hillary are speaking to who can declare that America has been great to them. But that's a very small and select group which ironically include the Clinton's who joined the "millionaire club" by pandering to it's members.
So, is America great? Well, it depends on who you ask;
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS ONCE THE PARTY OF THE NEW DEAL and the ally of organized labor. But by the time of Bill Clinton's presidency, it had become the enemy of New Deal programs like welfare and Social Security and the champion of free trade deals. The end result is that the party which created the New Deal and helped create the middle class has now become “the party of mass inequality.”
The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.
Wealth Inequality
Wealth inequality can be described as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation.
Defining Wealth
We equate wealth with “net worth,” the sum total of your assets minus liabilities. Assets can include everything from an owned personal residence and cash in savings accounts to investments in stocks and bonds, real estate, and retirement accounts. Liabilities cover what a household owes: a car loan, credit card balance, student loan, mortgage, or any other bill yet to be paid.
In the United States, wealth inequality runs even more pronounced than income inequality
America is great to the 1%
The share of America’s wealth held by the nation’s wealthiest has changed markedly over the past century. That share peaked in the late 1920s, right before the Great Depression, then fell by more than half over the next three decades. But the equalizing trends of the mid 20th century have now been almost completely undone. At the top of the American economic summit, the richest of the nation’s rich now hold as large a wealth share as they did in the 1920s.
The 21st century has not been kind to average American families. The net worth — assets minus debts — of most U.S. households fell between 2000 and 2011. Only the top two quintiles of the nation’s wealth distribution saw a net increase in median net worth over those years.
The rich don’t just have more wealth than everyone else. The bulk of their wealth comes from different — and more lucrative — asset sources. America’s top 1 percent, for instance, holds nearly half the national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds. Most of the wealth of Americans in the bottom 90 percent comes from their principal residences, the asset category that took the biggest hit during the Great Recession. These Americans also hold almost three-quarters of America’s debt.
The most visible indicator of wealth inequality in America today may be the Forbes magazine list of the nation’s 400 richest. In 1982, the “poorest” American listed on the first annual Forbes magazine list of America’s richest 400 had a net worth of $80 million. The average member of that first list had a net worth of $230 million. In 2015, rich Americans needed net worth of $1.7 billion to enter the Forbes 400, and the average member held a net $5.8 billion, over 10 times the 1982 average after adjusting for inflation.
Inequality is skyrocketing even within the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest. The net worth of the richest member of the Forbes 400 has soared from $2 billion in 1982 to $76 billion in 2015, far outpacing the gains at either the Forbes 400 entry point or average.
America is not so great to the middle class
The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.
The share of adults living in middle-income households has also dwindled in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and Denver. It's fallen in smaller Midwestern metros where the middle class has long made up an overwhelming majority of the population. It's withering in coastal tech hubs, in military towns, in college communities, in Sun Belt cities.
The decline of the American middle class is "a pervasive local phenomenon," according to Pew, which analyzed census and American Community Survey data in 229 metros across the country, encompassing about three-quarters of the U.S. population. In 203 of those metros, the share of adults in middle-income households fell from 2000 to 2014.
Pew defines middle-income households here as those making between two-thirds and twice the national median household income. For a three-person household in 2014, that means an income between about $42,000 and $125,000. The fact that median incomes have declined over this same time frame also means that the bar to get into the middle class is actually lower now than it was in 2000. Pew's metro-level data are also adjusted for household size and local cost of living.
The shrinking middle class is in part a reflection of rising income inequality in America, and of the same underlying and uneven economic forces that have fueled the rise of Donald Trump. And as the middle class has been shrinking, median incomes have fallen, too. In 190 of these 229 metros, the median income dropped over this same time.
As the middle class has shrunk, Pew points out, the lower and upper classes in America have grown in size and significance. In some metros, the middle class is dwindling primarily because families are falling out of it and into the lower class. The share of households in this bottom tier has skyrocketed since 2000, for instance, in Goldbsoro, North Carolina, a railroad junction with an Air Force base.
America is terrible to the working poor;
(the majority of which are non-white)
The Great Recession deepened the longstanding racial and ethnic wealth divide in the United States. The typical white family held a net worth six times greater than the typical black family at the end of the 20th century. That gap has now doubled. The wealth gap between white and Hispanic households has widened as well.
The billionaires who make up the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans now have as much wealth as all African-American households, plus one-third of America’s Latino population, combined. In other words, just 400 extremely wealthy individuals have as much wealth as 16 million African-American households and 5 million Latino households.
Democrats will say, not all hope is lost. The Working poor just need to be patient.
In Congress, 53 progressives, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin and others, are backing legislation for a $15 federal minimum wage by 2020 and the gradual elimination of the subminimum tipped wage. While action on the minimum wage at any level is unlikely
More older Americans – those ages 65 and older – are working than at any time since the turn of the century, and today’s older workers are spending more time on the job than did their peers in previous years, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of employment data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In May, 18.8% of Americans ages 65 and older, or nearly 9 million people, reported being employed full- or part-time, continuing a steady increase that dates to at least 2000 (which is as far back as we took our analysis). In May of that year, just 12.8% of 65-and-older Americans, or about 4 million people, said they were working.
The relatively strong presence of 65-and-older workers is found across age brackets: 65- to 69-year-olds, 70- to 74-year-olds, and those 75 and older. All are working at higher rates than they did in May 2008, the only age groups about which that can be said.
Though we took the current analysis only back to 2000, an earlier Center report noted that the labor force participation rate (that is, workers and those actively seeking employment as a share of a group’s total population) among older adults began rising in the mid-1980s, after declining for more than three decades.
Not only are more older Americans working, more of them are working full-time. In May 2000, 46.1% of workers ages 65 and older were working fewer than 35 hours a week (the BLS’ cutoff for full-time status). The part-time share has fallen steadily, so that by last month only 36.1% of 65-and-older workers were part-time.
America is a disaster zone to the poverty striken
In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four.
15.1%15.1 percent— just over 46 million Americans— were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007.
27.4%Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.
45.8%45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children.
28.0%In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour).
18-25 Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25.
1.8x The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high.
Almost 50 million people in the U.S. are poor using the supplemental measure, compared to the 47 million using the official measure.
Food stamps (formally known as SNAP) keep about five million people out of poverty, according to the supplemental measure.
Without Social Security more than half of all Americans 65 and over would be in poverty. (Both supplemental and traditional poverty measures include Social Security benefits.)
Under the supplemental measure, which includes cost-of-living differences, poverty is much higher in expensive states like California and New York, and lower in places like Alabama and Kentucky.
The poverty rate for children goes down under the supplemental measure and it goes up for those 65 and older. That's because the supplemental measure includes the impact of out-of-pocket medical expenses (which are high for senior citizens) and of certain government benefits that go disproportionately to children.
In other supplemental-poverty-related news, a study out of UC Berkeley finds that using the supplemental measure is especially useful in identifying the most serious cases: families that are chronically poor.
Both Obama and Clinton are trying to distract us from what the truth is because neither he or his heir apparent want to admit that the Democratic Establishment has failed miserably in delivering what has been promised over and over again when they ask to be elected and then disappear into the mist of history the day after they take the oath of office.
Rest assured there is a select group of Americans that Obama and Hillary are speaking to who can declare that America has been great to them. But that's a very small and select group which ironically include the Clinton's who joined the "millionaire club" by pandering to it's members.
So, is America great? Well, it depends on who you ask;
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS ONCE THE PARTY OF THE NEW DEAL and the ally of organized labor. But by the time of Bill Clinton's presidency, it had become the enemy of New Deal programs like welfare and Social Security and the champion of free trade deals. The end result is that the party which created the New Deal and helped create the middle class has now become “the party of mass inequality.”
The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.
The elephant in the room that neither Obama or Clinton want Americans to pay attention to is;
Wealth Inequality
Wealth inequality can be described as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation.
Defining Wealth
We equate wealth with “net worth,” the sum total of your assets minus liabilities. Assets can include everything from an owned personal residence and cash in savings accounts to investments in stocks and bonds, real estate, and retirement accounts. Liabilities cover what a household owes: a car loan, credit card balance, student loan, mortgage, or any other bill yet to be paid.
In the United States, wealth inequality runs even more pronounced than income inequality
America is great to the 1%
The share of America’s wealth held by the nation’s wealthiest has changed markedly over the past century. That share peaked in the late 1920s, right before the Great Depression, then fell by more than half over the next three decades. But the equalizing trends of the mid 20th century have now been almost completely undone. At the top of the American economic summit, the richest of the nation’s rich now hold as large a wealth share as they did in the 1920s.
The 21st century has not been kind to average American families. The net worth — assets minus debts — of most U.S. households fell between 2000 and 2011. Only the top two quintiles of the nation’s wealth distribution saw a net increase in median net worth over those years.
The rich don’t just have more wealth than everyone else. The bulk of their wealth comes from different — and more lucrative — asset sources. America’s top 1 percent, for instance, holds nearly half the national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds. Most of the wealth of Americans in the bottom 90 percent comes from their principal residences, the asset category that took the biggest hit during the Great Recession. These Americans also hold almost three-quarters of America’s debt.
The most visible indicator of wealth inequality in America today may be the Forbes magazine list of the nation’s 400 richest. In 1982, the “poorest” American listed on the first annual Forbes magazine list of America’s richest 400 had a net worth of $80 million. The average member of that first list had a net worth of $230 million. In 2015, rich Americans needed net worth of $1.7 billion to enter the Forbes 400, and the average member held a net $5.8 billion, over 10 times the 1982 average after adjusting for inflation.
Inequality is skyrocketing even within the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest. The net worth of the richest member of the Forbes 400 has soared from $2 billion in 1982 to $76 billion in 2015, far outpacing the gains at either the Forbes 400 entry point or average.
America is not so great to the middle class
The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.
The share of adults living in middle-income households has also dwindled in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and Denver. It's fallen in smaller Midwestern metros where the middle class has long made up an overwhelming majority of the population. It's withering in coastal tech hubs, in military towns, in college communities, in Sun Belt cities.
The decline of the American middle class is "a pervasive local phenomenon," according to Pew, which analyzed census and American Community Survey data in 229 metros across the country, encompassing about three-quarters of the U.S. population. In 203 of those metros, the share of adults in middle-income households fell from 2000 to 2014.
Pew defines middle-income households here as those making between two-thirds and twice the national median household income. For a three-person household in 2014, that means an income between about $42,000 and $125,000. The fact that median incomes have declined over this same time frame also means that the bar to get into the middle class is actually lower now than it was in 2000. Pew's metro-level data are also adjusted for household size and local cost of living.
The shrinking middle class is in part a reflection of rising income inequality in America, and of the same underlying and uneven economic forces that have fueled the rise of Donald Trump. And as the middle class has been shrinking, median incomes have fallen, too. In 190 of these 229 metros, the median income dropped over this same time.
As the middle class has shrunk, Pew points out, the lower and upper classes in America have grown in size and significance. In some metros, the middle class is dwindling primarily because families are falling out of it and into the lower class. The share of households in this bottom tier has skyrocketed since 2000, for instance, in Goldbsoro, North Carolina, a railroad junction with an Air Force base.
America is terrible to the working poor;
(the majority of which are non-white)
The Great Recession deepened the longstanding racial and ethnic wealth divide in the United States. The typical white family held a net worth six times greater than the typical black family at the end of the 20th century. That gap has now doubled. The wealth gap between white and Hispanic households has widened as well.
The billionaires who make up the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans now have as much wealth as all African-American households, plus one-third of America’s Latino population, combined. In other words, just 400 extremely wealthy individuals have as much wealth as 16 million African-American households and 5 million Latino households.
Democrats will say, not all hope is lost. The Working poor just need to be patient.
In Congress, 53 progressives, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin and others, are backing legislation for a $15 federal minimum wage by 2020 and the gradual elimination of the subminimum tipped wage. While action on the minimum wage at any level is unlikely
This flicker of hope might resonate with teens and 20 year olds, but not so much for the 65 and older Americans.
More older Americans – those ages 65 and older – are working than at any time since the turn of the century, and today’s older workers are spending more time on the job than did their peers in previous years, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of employment data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In May, 18.8% of Americans ages 65 and older, or nearly 9 million people, reported being employed full- or part-time, continuing a steady increase that dates to at least 2000 (which is as far back as we took our analysis). In May of that year, just 12.8% of 65-and-older Americans, or about 4 million people, said they were working.
The relatively strong presence of 65-and-older workers is found across age brackets: 65- to 69-year-olds, 70- to 74-year-olds, and those 75 and older. All are working at higher rates than they did in May 2008, the only age groups about which that can be said.
Though we took the current analysis only back to 2000, an earlier Center report noted that the labor force participation rate (that is, workers and those actively seeking employment as a share of a group’s total population) among older adults began rising in the mid-1980s, after declining for more than three decades.
Not only are more older Americans working, more of them are working full-time. In May 2000, 46.1% of workers ages 65 and older were working fewer than 35 hours a week (the BLS’ cutoff for full-time status). The part-time share has fallen steadily, so that by last month only 36.1% of 65-and-older workers were part-time.
America is a disaster zone to the poverty striken
In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four.
15.1%15.1 percent— just over 46 million Americans— were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007.
27.4%Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.
45.8%45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children.
28.0%In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour).
18-25 Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25.
1.8x The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high.
Almost 50 million people in the U.S. are poor using the supplemental measure, compared to the 47 million using the official measure.
Food stamps (formally known as SNAP) keep about five million people out of poverty, according to the supplemental measure.
Without Social Security more than half of all Americans 65 and over would be in poverty. (Both supplemental and traditional poverty measures include Social Security benefits.)
Under the supplemental measure, which includes cost-of-living differences, poverty is much higher in expensive states like California and New York, and lower in places like Alabama and Kentucky.
The poverty rate for children goes down under the supplemental measure and it goes up for those 65 and older. That's because the supplemental measure includes the impact of out-of-pocket medical expenses (which are high for senior citizens) and of certain government benefits that go disproportionately to children.
In other supplemental-poverty-related news, a study out of UC Berkeley finds that using the supplemental measure is especially useful in identifying the most serious cases: families that are chronically poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)