2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Irish YJ]

You can dispute the things they choose to fact check. But their fact checks (complete with links and sources) are solid.

that's the question.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Will she though, at least as big as what you are hinting?

The big difference is that Trump was the "outsider" and the GOP establishment can now only sit it out or get behind him. However, Sanders is the "outsider", who has had tremendous amount of success running on populist measures that Clinton tepidly supports or is the antithesis of. If he was about rallying the troops, he would have dropped out by now, no? I think what is most likely to happen is that Sanders gives a speech at the convention saying that Clinton is by far the better option than Trump, but will not throw all his support towards her. If he does, than what good was his message?

He HATES Trump and the Republican Party. He has already said many times, even yesterday, that they must stop Trump.

IMO he knows he has no chance but he does have a golden opportunity to get his message out there and some of his platform to be a part of the Democratic platform. He has said many times that he won't run independent, so I fully expect him to back Hillary when he backs out of the race, even though it will be later than everyone expected (and wants).

As for the bump, I fully believe it will happen. The Sanders supporters are devoted and loyal to him, and the ones I know and the ones I follow loathe Trump and will support Hillary (even with their noses plugged) when Sanders tells them to. Just like the Republicans are doing so reluctantly, the Dems will do the same. I think people are being incredibly foolish to honk otherwise. I actually think people are also foolish for looking at the polls right now, and later after the Bernie bump to Hillary as well. Things will settle down after that and then we'll better see how things shake out.

But hey, polls right now sell, and that buffoon (Trump) will use any good news in those polls to his advantage, even as he lies brought his teeth for the rest of his stump speeches. His followers just don't care how much he lies or how much he flip-flops or how incredibly #reckless his policies are or much of an ass he acts like. They're going to support him anyway. It's insane. I get why people hate Hollary - for the life of me I will never understand how anyone with a sound, intelligent mind can support Trump, especially someone of faith. It's baffling.

 

[GoIrish41]

that's the question.

But they were still fabrications ... who cares who the messager is? Right leaning media will do the same to Hillary when she stretches the truth. You going to get all bent out of shape when that happens?

 

[Irish YJ]

But they were still fabrications ... who cares who the messager is? Right leaning media will do the same to Hillary when she stretches the truth. You going to get all bent out of shape when that happens?

Both Trump and Hilary are a million Pinocchio's. My point is publishing a fact checker from WP, or WT will be slanted. Reading WP without knowledge of their political stance (or vice versa) suggest that one candidate is good, and one is bad. When in reality they are both just making a choice to fact check what they want and pushing it in the media. I'm not suggesting that any fact checking by either paper, or any other paper for that matters, is incorrect. It's simply just not impartial or equal.

 

[GoIrish41]

Both Trump and Hilary are a million Pinocchio's. My point is publishing a fact checker from WP, or WT will be slanted. Reading WP without knowledge of their political stance (or vice versa) suggest that one candidate is good, and one is bad. When in reality they are both just making a choice to fact check what they want and pushing it in the media. I'm not suggesting that any fact checking by either paper, or any other paper for that matters, is incorrect. It's simply just not impartial or equal.

So when candidates lie, who calls them on it?

 

[Irish YJ]

So when candidates lie, who calls them on it?

typically everyone from the opposite leaning media.

On another note.. looks like we get to here more about Hilary's Weiner for the next week or so.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I know there are some Chomsky haters on here, but I personally think he's brilliant. His documentary is on Netflix now. I watched it yesterday. I have to admit, I don't get how there is this disbelief in the populist movement (be it Trump or Bernie). Both parties in our government, along with the wealthiest individuals and corporations, have been moving the needle further and further for decades. People are tired of it. I recommend Requiem for the American Dream. I enjoyed it.

- PF PICTURES – REQUIEM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zI_Ik7OppEI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I don't, personally, think Trump has a real path to victory because of how poorly he polls with Hispanics, African Americans, and women. But IF he does have a clear path, this article may help explain it a little:

As West Virginia Goes… - NYTimes.com

As ABC News reported Tuesday about preliminary exit polls in the state, “the highest level of economic concern in any Democratic primary this year and greater-than-usual turnout among men, whites, political independents and critics of President Obama characterized Hillary Clinton’s challenges in the West Virginia primary.”

In 2014, Gallup reported on the depths of this problem for Democrats in general:

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating among white non-college graduates is at 27 percent so far in 2014, 14 percentage points lower than among white college graduates. This is the largest yearly gap between these two groups since Obama took office. These data underscore the magnitude of the Democratic Party’s problem with working-class whites, among whom Obama lost in the 2012 presidential election, and among whom Democratic House candidates lost in the 2014 U.S. House voting by 30 points.

These white non-college graduates are a strong base of support for Donald Trump, who exclaimed in Nevada, “I love the poorly educated.” Apparently, the feeling is mutual.

If Trump has a path to the presidency, it will most likely be because of Clinton’s — and Democrats’ — weakness among people who look an awful lot like the voters in West Virginia.

 

[woolybug25]

typically everyone from the opposite leaning media.

On another note.. looks like we get to here more about Hilary's Weiner for the next week or so.

YJ, you are trying to make the argument that no article (despite having sources cited, etc) can be trusted unless they puts good and bad comments in the article. That's preposterous and clearly not the standard you hold for journalism. This kinda reads like you are spinning your wheels on this one, dude. Like you made the original comments, then realized that it's all cited, and am now backtracking with this "it's about what they source" argument.

But as you said, we can move on.

 

[IrishLax]

I know there are some Chomsky haters on here, but I personally think he's brilliant.

It really isn't surprising that a Bernie supporter thinks Chomsky is brilliant. When people are disillusioned with the current system, what Bernie and Chomsky are selling is something they're inclined to buy.

I've already given my viewpoint on Chomsky, and it's not flattering. When you really research him and get to the root of what he believes, it's completely nonsensical. Anarchism doesn't work. And he utterly refuses to address the fundamental issues with anarchism by basically saying "well, if there is a need for the rule/authority, then there should be the rule/authority... but if there isn't a need for the rule/authority, then there shouldn't be the rule/authority" which is just a self-fulfilling statement that can't be argued against. But then when you break it down, you realize that individuals and communities will never ever have a consensus on what rules/authority is required... which is how you end up with the governments we've seen throughout human history.

And then when he's pushed on how impossible anarchism basically sounds like less-pragmatic libertarianism... he gets super defensive and just makes up BS about how libertarianism is a facade for a different kind of tyranny/authoritarianism (lol) but anarchism is the solution to everything because he says so.

Not once in all of the thousands and thousands of words he has published or spoken has he actually laid out a road map for how anarchism could be successfully applied to an industrialized nation. But that doesn't stop him from self-styling himself as a "genius" and telling everyone why his ideas are perfect/smart and all of theirs wrong/stupid. Chomsky literally embodies everything that is wrong with the know-it-all career academic.

 

[kmoose]

Like Trump would be a great win for the country. Give me a break. The thought of guys like you losing though ... Pure Joy! Thanks for trying to pick an argument over what was obviously a joke.

No, Trump would not be a great win for the country. That's why I would not vote for him. I am registered as a Republican, but consider myself more of an Independent. The bs on both sides annoys the hell out of me. This far along in the process, I think I feel confident that I would vote for Sanders over Trump. But "guys like you" are too dumb to nominate him, aren't you? Oh wait........... you are going to tell me that you are a Bernie supporter? Well, I've never been a Trump supporter, so the broad brush treatment works just the same for you as it does, when you used it on me.

I knew it was a joke; just like I know that you don't REALLY relish the thought of the country losing. But sometimes I wonder.................

 

[phgreek]

I'm not making a stance, just pointing out how small that number of contributors is. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and jazz hands.

According to this article I just googled President Bush received over $42,000 from DOJ employees while running in 2000. (cue dramatic music!)



Federal Workers Stuffing Campaign Coffers - latimes

Was active duty, currently reserves, no contributions to political campaigns. I pushed my CFC dollars to The Human Fund.

Good man....

And had I known any person received funds from employees of DOJ or The irs...I would have bithced. Not about the numbers...it's about the attitude of allowing any...at all...ever.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

 

[irishfan]

I agree with some of what he says, but the "crazy" probably comes from this:

Bernie Sanders' economic plan would add $18T in debt - CBS News

You can be authentic all you want, but people will still call you "crazy" when you consider what his platform would eventually do to the economy.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I agree with some of what he says, but the "crazy" probably comes from this:

Bernie Sanders' economic plan would add $18T in debt - CBS News

You can be authentic all you want, but people will still call you "crazy" when you consider what his platform would eventually do to the economy.

Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and inefficient. That's not debatable. This whole "adds $18T in debt" line completely ignores the savings that comes with single payer and lower pharma costs. It's literally a made up number. No question that Bernie's plans will cost money, but this is being misreported far too often. If it's by the mainstream media , it's probably done on purpose (excuse my cynicism, I just don't trust the media).

If you want to debate the practicality with single payer, etc. That's fine. But just know the people who came up with that number left out a pretty significant variable; savings.

 

[GATTACA!]

Hillary's team prepares for the worst as she finds herself in a perfect storm of legal misery

It is almost inconceivable that all of his emails have been lost. Surely this will intrigue the FBI, which has reportedly been able to retrieve the emails Mrs. Clinton attempted to wipe from her server.

"Like with a cloth?"

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Hillary's team prepares for the worst as she finds herself in a perfect storm of legal misery



"Like with a cloth?"

Interesting theory that IF the higher powers believed HRC was truly going to be indicted, they would never have put so much behind her run for POTUS. Now HRC finds herself deeper and deeper in this mess....and out comes Biden talking about how he'd make a great President and floats Warren as his VP. Hmmm....

 

[irishfan]

Interesting theory that IF the higher powers believed HRC was truly going to be indicted, they would never have put so much behind her run for POTUS. Now HRC finds herself deeper and deeper in this mess....and out comes Biden talking about how he'd make a great President and floats Warren as his VP. Hmmm....

Biden would do well with moderates. And the Bernie people love Warren. I just wonder how many Bernie people would be so turned off by this that they won't bother showing up for Biden.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty just published an article titled "The myth of Donald Trump's upper-class support":

Liberals want reality to conform to their heroic narratives about life. So wouldn't it be easier if Trump's support were mostly explained by racism (which is repulsive), rather than his supporters' status as low-earning, working-class people (which is sympathetic)? The reality is that these issues may be connected.

Because some liberals find explanations of Trump's support by "class" or "economic anxiety" to be prissy or evasive, they make a joke whenever a Trump supporter is found doing something heinously racist. They point to it and say, "Wow, lots of economic anxiety here." Naturally, their argument would be bolstered if it turned out that Trump supporters were discovered to not be so strained economically. Data journalist Nate Silver provided what looked like a reason to believe this. And, even though the evidence is quite thin, wonkish liberals are running with it.

Matt Yglesias, using numbers from Silver's article "The myth of Donald Trump's working class support," writes that Trump supporters are "pretty rich."

As best we can tell from the data available in exit polls, the median household income of a Trump supporter is about $72,000 a year. It's true that this makes Trump voters more downscale than John Kasich voters ($91,000 a year), but it's essentially equal to the median household income of Ted Cruz voters ($73,000 a year) and well above the $61,000-a-year median household income of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters.

Note that the median household income in the United States is only $52,000 a year and most people don't vote in primaries, so all of the major 2016 candidates turn out to have supporters who are more affluent than the typical American. Trump, in particular, built his big primary wins on the backs of people who are economically comfortable. There is no country on Earth where the median household income is higher than the median household income of a Donald Trump primary voter, and there never has been throughout world history. [Vox]

Yes, at this scale, you do notice that Trump voters are richer than pharaoh's slaves or 11th-century Russian serfs. I suppose they really ought to check their privilege. By this standard the poorest of America's poor are wealthier than many of history's kings and aristocrats. But let's just price in the fact that in the 21st century, dentistry and agriculture are as good or better than ever. Unfortunately, after you factor in the century and country we live in, the evidence that the Trump voter is especially well-off is pretty thin.

I'm a defender of data-journalism generally and Nate Silver specifically. But Silver should have been more explicit about the limits of his data set.

Household income numbers are not all that revealing. If you wanted to guess whether the residents of certain houses were obese, you'd want to know more than the total weight of human flesh domiciled in a given house. You'd want the divisors, like number of humans. You'd want other qualifying data, like their ages. The very numbers that would tell us most about the relative strain on a household income isn't available in the exit data Nate Silver uses.

We know that voters generally have higher incomes than non-voters, that primary electorates have higher incomes than general election voters, and that Republicans tend to have higher household incomes than Democrats. But data from previous elections also tells us that Republican voters tend to be older than Democrats. They are more likely to be married and more likely to have more children. And researchers like George Hawley have shown that rising income doesn't correlate with rising support for the Republican Party if income gains are accompanied by higher costs of land or the need for greater educational attainment.

Telling us the household income of Trump supporters without describing the age and number of the earners and dependents tells us not much at all. A 24-year-old single and unmarried Bernie Sanders supporter who makes $28,000 a year may have a college degree and may expect to make a six-figure income by middle age. He may have parents that help him make rent when he comes up short.

But under household-income numbers alone, that Sanders supporter looks more desperate than a Trump supporter who heads a family of five, in which two working parents in their peak earning years make $68,000 as a household. Sometimes being "rich" means you can spend a few years earning $24,000 at a job you love. Sometimes being working class means taking a dangerous job at six figures, but go on disability in your mid-40s. Pay gaps between America's classes are small early in the life-cycle of a career.

And so this raw data leads intelligent journalists to say insane things, as when Matthew Yglesias described the Trump-voting Staten Island as an "affluent" community.

When people think of "affluent" they think of neighborhoods they'd move into if they became wealthy. In New York that might be the Upper East Side or a bedroom community in Westchester County. Staten Island has a couple of wealthy neighborhoods on the North Shore. But the borough is defined by a culture of New York's public sector workers — like sanitation men, NYPD, and FDNY — whose incomes look "affluent" by national standards, but don't feel like it in such close proximity to Manhattan.

More truth is found out about Staten Island on Urban Dictionary, or in the character of Ray from HBO's Girls, who explains Staten Island this way: "All these people, they want to live in Manhattan but they end up on this f--ked up weird little island watching the city in the distance with this quiet–just–rage burning in their hearts." Yes, there are poorer neighborhoods in New York that vote Democrat. But Staten Island is not the Upper East Side.

The Staten Island example fits with some of the other data that Silver, Yglesias, and others breeze over. Staten Island was Trump-central, while truly affluent neighborhoods voted for John Kasich. Even though his campaign was a joke by this point, Kasich did best against Trump in truly affluent New York suburbs, like Darien and Westport, Connecticut. Trump dominated with voters in "affluent" Maryland that were over 50 or had no college degree. He did best with people reporting less than $100,000 in total family income. Nationally, Trump's household income numbers are matched roughly evenly with Ted Cruz's. But Trump was winning those household incomes in states with higher costs of living. Cruz dominated Texas, Wyoming, the inner Plains states. Trump won people with the same income in much more expensive states like Maryland and Massachusetts.

I would not argue that Trump supporters are the most put-upon subset of voters. They don't face the same poverty rates as other groups that vote for Democrats, nor the incarceration rates. And Trump does have many truly affluent, secular supporters in the Northeast. But the data Nate Silver provides does not prove the case that his working-class support is "a myth."

In the other ways we measure class besides income, a core of Donald Trump supporters sure do look like the picture of Fishtown drawn by Charles Murray in Coming Apart. Silver admits Trump supporters are notable for not having gone to college. Other surveys show Trump supporters, consistent with other downscale whites, do not regularly attend church. Jobs in agriculture, construction, and manufacturing correlate with Trump support. So does owning a mobile home. Trump dominates the "great white ghetto" that is Appalachia. We see the same in the admittedly anecdotal evidence that Trump supporters were practically "invisible" to New Hampshire's Republican establishment before they showed up at the polls.

My hunch is that even though Trump's support is now broader than the white working class, the white working-class portion of the GOP formed a crucially important core of his support throughout the primaries. And that these voters have a unique bond with him, one similar to the bond of business-class Republicans with Mitt Romney. We're going to have to wait for the micro-data to come out after the election to pronounce more definitely on the nature of Trump's support.

It is important to get this right. My own view is that explicitly racially-charged politics and nationalism are not merely relics of the past, but our likely future. And that racism can be generated or intensified when it is accompanied by real economic anxiety. If you perceive that your life prospects would improve in a tighter labor market for low-skilled workers, you may come to resent the policies that invite more low-skilled workers into the country. Motivated reasoning could also lead you to hate and fear the immigrants themselves for other reasons, however irrational.

Some residents of New Orleans moved from the reasonable belief that Republican government wasn't solicitous of their interests, to believing crazy things like George Bush and his friends blew up the levees to drown them intentionally. It would have been wrong to say, "They're just pathological, they can't be helped," and strike the city and its problems from the list of political issues it is permissible to address. The correct response is to create a policy environment that builds trust with the residents of that city again. I actually learned that ethic from liberals.

Similarly, if you want working-class whites to stop believing that immigrants are the cause of their economic problems, the best way for our government and political class to prove it is to create a nation in which a hard worker generally provides a better life for his family than his father did, and halt the trend of downward mobility among such a large portion of Americans. The political class should do this not because Trump voters meet their moral standards, but because they are fellow citizens. Or we could just condemn them as racists who are lucky to live in beautiful, "classy" Staten Island, and see how that works.

 

[phgreek]

REPORT: Hillary’s Emails Hacked by Russia – Kremlin Deciding Whether to Release 20,000 Stolen Emails (VIDEO)

DO IT!!!

I hope people understand that if this is true, Mrs. Clinton is not electable Unless those things are released.

You can't be president with Russia holding the ace of spades in extortion material. That simply cannot be.

Yet if they release it, given the content...it would likely kill her run.

I'd be more concerned if I were a Mrs. Clinton fan.

And this is an object lesson in WHY security proceedures apply to everyone.

 

[Corry]

I hope people understand that if this is true, Mrs. Clinton is not electable Unless those things are released.

You can't be president with Russia holding the ace of spades in extortion material. That simply cannot be.

Yet if they release it, given the content...it would likely kill her run.

I'd be more concerned if I were a Mrs. Clinton fan.

And this is an object lesson in WHY security proceedures apply to everyone.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

 

[connor_in]

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

 

[woolybug25]

I hope people understand that if this is true, Mrs. Clinton is not electable Unless those things are released.

You can't be president with Russia holding the ace of spades in extortion material. That simply cannot be.

Yet if they release it, given the content...it would likely kill her run.

I'd be more concerned if I were a Mrs. Clinton fan.

And this is an object lesson in WHY security proceedures apply to everyone.

You've been telling Hillary supporters that doom was eminent for like two years now. If she is elected, is IE going to have to listen to you swearing up and down that "it's coming" her entire presidency?

Do you honestly think the Russians suddenly have something the FBI couldn't find?

 

[phgreek]

You've been telling Hillary supporters that doom was eminent for like two years now. If she is elected, is IE going to have to listen to you swearing up and down that "it's coming" her entire presidency?

Do you honestly think the Russians suddenly have something the FBI couldn't find?

Actually in your haste to be....YOU...you missed the times i've said this is hers to lose...

I've always said I hate the clintons...and I wish she'd lose...I've pointed out when folks downplay her shit when I know better...

Never said she was doomed...quite the contrary, which makes me hate her more.

I did preface this with...if true right?

I don't have to ask what we'll hear from you until you stop breathing...smh.

 

[Irish YJ]

You've been telling Hillary supporters that doom was eminent for like two years now. If she is elected, is IE going to have to listen to you swearing up and down that "it's coming" her entire presidency?

Do you honestly think the Russians suddenly have something the FBI couldn't find?

If you look at the situation around "how they came into the info" (tracking a hacker), and the tracking logs, or lack there of on Hilldog's residential class NAS/server, sure it is more than possible. Russia supposedly intercepted the traffic when the original hacker was streaming/copying (believable story as to why they were watching him). It's also been confirmed that the security on the server was on par with a residential class application, and was based out of her home behind a feature poor router/firewall. This means that the original hack was likely untraceable. And, if Russia intercepted the traffic while streaming to the Romanian hacker, then sure it's possible. What is there for the FBI to confirm or find if they did not capture/intercept while the hack was in progress.

The Romanian is in custody. And FBI has been mum so far (as they should be until they do all the interviews). So any or all of it is very possible. If Hilldog had any sense she would have been sitting behind a Paloalto PA200 at minimum.

 

[EddytoNow]

I hope people understand that if this is true, Mrs. Clinton is not electable Unless those things are released.

You can't be president with Russia holding the ace of spades in extortion material. That simply cannot be.

Yet if they release it, given the content...it would likely kill her run.

I'd be more concerned if I were a Mrs. Clinton fan.

And this is an object lesson in WHY security proceedures apply to everyone.

Another scurrilous charge that has no proof behind it. And even if it was true, Hillary would be the victim of computer hackers, not a criminal. I have seen nothing that proves she violated any laws. She may be guilty of poor judgement, but if that were a crime there wouldn't be enough jail cells to hold all the politicians guilty of the same thing, including all of her accusers. Based upon what Trump has said and done during his campaign, I would be much more comfortable with Hillary's judgement. Trump is a disaster waiting to happen when it comes to foreign relations.

I'd be more worried about what our own National Security Administration has on all of the top politicians in this country, including both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The only lesson here is that the season for mud-slinging has begun in earnest. Voters should ignore all the unsubstantiated allegations from both sides. Stick to the facts. And the facts support Hillary's qualifications to be president. There is nothing to suggest that Trump is capable of conducting the delicate diplomacy that fuels international relations.

There are no safeguards that can totally prevent hackers from gaining access to information that has been transmitted electronically. Trump is just as susceptible to having his e-mail hacked. And so are you and I. We should be more worried about our own lack of privacy, a privacy threatened by our own government more so than any other.

The Republicans' case against Hillary seems to be to blame her for everything even though she has never been in a position to have the final decision. Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. It's Hillary's fault. She's an enabler. Terrorists attack the embassy in Benghazi. It's Hillary's fault even though military forces were too far removed to assist in a rescue and Republicans had reduced funding that would have enabled a larger force to be stationed at the embassy. George W. Bush and his administration lie to the public about Iraq. It's Hillary's fault, because she supported military action based upon the lies she was told. Hillary uses a private e-mail server for e-mail that was not marked "Classified" at the time, and she is reckless and irresponsible. Despite the fact the others in her position (Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) were pretty much doing the same thing during the Bush administration. And now someone hacks into Hillary's e-mail, and she is a criminal, ignoring the fact that hackers have probably done the same thing to every prominent politician in the country, especially the recent batch of presidential candidates.

 

[Irish YJ]

Another scurrilous charge that has no proof behind it. And even if it was true, Hillary would be the victim of computer hackers, not a criminal. I have seen nothing that proves she violated any laws. She may be guilty of poor judgement, but if that were a crime there wouldn't be enough jail cells to hold all the politicians guilty of the same thing, including all of her accusers. Based upon what Trump has said and done during his campaign, I would be much more comfortable with Hillary's judgement. Trump is a disaster waiting to happen when it comes to foreign relations.

I'd be more worried about what our own National Security Administration has on all of the top politicians in this country, including both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The only lesson here is that the season for mud-slinging has begun in earnest. Voters should ignore all the unsubstantiated allegations from both sides. Stick to the facts. And the facts support Hillary's qualifications to be president. There is nothing to suggest that Trump is capable of conducting the delicate diplomacy that fuels international relations.

There are no safeguards that can totally prevent hackers from gaining access to information that has been transmitted electronically. Trump is just as susceptible to having his e-mail hacked. And so are you and I. We should be more worried about our own lack of privacy, a privacy threatened by our own government more so than any other.

The Republicans' case against Hillary seems to be to blame her for everything even though she has never been in a position to have the final decision. Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. It's Hillary's fault. She's an enabler. Terrorists attack the embassy in Benghazi. It's Hillary's fault even though military forces were too far removed to assist in a rescue and Republicans had reduced funding that would have enabled a larger force to be stationed at the embassy. George W. Bush and his administration lie to the public about Iraq. It's Hillary's fault, because she supported military action based upon the lies she was told. Hillary uses a private e-mail server for e-mail that was not marked "Classified" at the time, and she is reckless and irresponsible. Despite the fact the others in her position (Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) were pretty much doing the same thing during the Bush administration. And now someone hacks into Hillary's e-mail, and she is a criminal, ignoring the fact that hackers have probably done the same thing to every prominent politician in the country, especially the recent batch of presidential candidates.

Clinton has long maintained that she never mishandled, sent or received any email “marked” classified on her private server. But government reviews of the 55,000 emails she turned over to the State Department determined over a thousand of them contained information that later had to be upgraded to classified and withheld from public view, including 22 emails that had to be deemed "top secret."

Also this week, it was revealed that almost all the email from Secretary Clinton’s top IT staffer during her tenure at the State Department appears to be missing. That staffer, Bryan Pagliano, has become a key witness in the FBI investigation and has been granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation.

Clinton’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Comey’s remarks.

I'd be willing to bet there's some law breaking going on... will we ever know what happened, probably not. But the Justice Department doesn't give someone immunity for something as simple as bad judgement.....
No question she blatantly ignored national security policy. That coming from one of the top 4 cabinet members is simply excusable.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

You've been telling Hillary supporters that doom was eminent for like two years now. If she is elected, is IE going to have to listen to you swearing up and down that "it's coming" her entire presidency?

Do you honestly think the Russians suddenly have something the FBI couldn't find?

If only there was a recent example of FBI needing help from hackers. Hmmmmm

 

[GATTACA!]

[URL="http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/12/poll-45-bernie-voters-say-theyre-neverhillary-15-will-vote-trump/]"POLL: 45% of Bernie voters say they’re #NeverHillary, 15% will vote for Trump
[/URL]

 

[EddytoNow]

I'd be willing to bet there's some law breaking going on... will we ever know what happened, probably not. But the Justice Department doesn't give someone immunity for something as simple as bad judgement.....
No question she blatantly ignored national security policy. That coming from one of the top 4 cabinet members is simply excusable.

More speculation. No evidence. The Justice Department is being pressured by Republicans in Congress to continue their investigation so speculation and innuendo can continue during the 2016 election cycle. The Republican committees found no evidence to support any criminal charges against Hillary, either in the Benghazi incident or in the e-mail controversy. Anyone want to bet that once the election is over, the whole e-mail issue will fade away? It won't matter who wins the election. If Hillary wins, the speculation and innuendo will have failed. If Trump wins, the speculation and innuendo will no longer be necessary. This isn't about truth or criminality, it's dirty politics pure and simple. Anyone who watched the congressional hearings witnessed American politics at its worst. Republicans weren't interested in the truth. Rather than ask questions of the so-called witnesses, they used their TV air time to attack Hillary and make unsubstantiated accusations. The Democrats were no better. They used their TV air time to make statements in support of Hillary. Neither side asked any questions that would have shed new light on any of the issues.