The following is from today's Washington Post
Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment
Bret Baier, seen at right last year with fellow Fox anchors Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly, called the inflammatory story "a mistake," while also backing away from a second damaging Clinton story. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)
By Paul Farhi
November 4, 2016, at 2:40 PM
Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton's private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.
In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.
Baier, the anchor of Fox's evening newscast "Special Report," went on the air Wednesday to report that the FBI had determined that Clinton's private server, which she used while serving as secretary of state, had been hacked by "five foreign intelligence agencies."
He further said on Thursday, during an interview with Fox's Brit Hume, that a separate FBI investigation — of the charitable Clinton Foundation — was "likely" to lead to an indictment of Clinton after Tuesday's election.
Both statements, if true, would be explosive developments in the late stages of the presidential campaign between Clinton and Republican rival Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly invoked the alleged atmosphere of corruption around the Clinton Foundation and the security risks involved in Clinton's use of a private server while secretary of state as reasons not to vote for Clinton.
But neither of his reports about Clinton were accurate, Baier acknowledged Friday morning in a "Fox News alert" conversation with Fox News anchor Jon Scott.
Baier said he relied on a single anonymous source within the FBI for his report about an alleged hack of the server: "I was quoting from one source about his certainty that the server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies. . . . As of today there still are no digital fingerprints of a breach, no matter what the working assumption is within the bureau."
He added, "All the time, but especially in a heated election, on a topic this explosive, every word matters no matter how well sourced."
He went on to describe his comment to Hume about an indictment — which he has previously called "inartful" — as more than that.
"I explained the phrasing of one my answers to Brit Hume on Wednesday night, saying it was inartful the way I answered the last question about whether the investigations would continue after the election. And I answered that yes, our sources said it would, they would continue to, likely, an indictment.
"Well, that wasn't just inartful. It was a mistake. And for that I'm sorry. I should have said they will continue to build their case.
"'Indictment,' obviously, is a very loaded word, Jon, especially in this atmosphere, and no one knows if there would or would not be an indictment no matter how strong investigators feel their evidence is. It's obviously a prosecutor who has to agree to take the case and make that case to a grand jury."
As an addendum, he added, "We stand by the sourcing on the ongoing, active Clinton Foundation investigation and are working to get sources with knowledge of the details on the record and on camera, hopefully today."
www.washingtonpost.com
Brian Williams was castigated for his lies. . . Where's the anger over this individuals lies?
Imagine that. Fox News was lying about something.
I'll bet Hank will be the first to be outraged. </sarcasm>. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on November 05, 2016, 12:45:15 PM
Imagine that. Fox News was lying about something.
I'll bet Hank will be the first to be outraged. </sarcasm>. ;D
:rotfl:
Sadly, the Trump supporters will believe it anyway. They've already made up their minds that Hillary did this and don't care if Baier lied.
Big difference
He immediately apologized and didn't act as if he didn't
This isn't even a lie ... he used bad judgement and then retracted.lj
Williams flat out lied about being hit by a rocket gernade in a helicopter.... that flat out never happened.
Quote from: AbbyTC on November 05, 2016, 05:37:58 PM
Sadly, the Trump supporters will believe it anyway. They've already made up their minds that Hillary did this and don't care if Baier lied.
Wow! You are joking aren't you?
I think Abby knows those Trump voters aren't the brightest bulbs in the lamp. :razz:
Quote from: Locutus on November 05, 2016, 06:30:37 PM
I think Abby knows those Trump voters aren't the brightest bulbs in the lamp. :razz:
Very true! :biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on November 05, 2016, 06:30:37 PM
I think Abby knows those Trump voters aren't the brightest bulbs in the lamp. :razz:
We also know that Henry isn't the brightest bulb in the pack either. :trustme: :salute: :tiphat:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 05, 2016, 05:42:01 PM
Wow! You are joking aren't you?
No. I personally know Trump supporters that are believing this. I am constantly seeing lies in articles and memes they post that are so easy to fact check and even after proving these are false, they still choose to believe them. They have their heads in the sand and are so afraid they can't see the truth even when it is set right in front of them. Trump is preying on their fears.
Here's a good example of a false meme that was posted on FB. I refuted it with various sources and he, the poster, still refused to believe it as the lie it is. When I asked for facts to back his position that it was a true meme, he couldn't.
(http://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/47777b29-8abc-4122-a5d0-57b95c207057-large.jpeg)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 05, 2016, 05:40:55 PM
Big difference
He immediately apologized and didn't act as if he didn't
This isn't even a lie ... he used bad judgement and then retracted.lj
Williams flat out lied about being hit by a rocket gernade in a helicopter.... that flat out never happened.
BOTH are, how did you phrase it exactly, news anchors that should know better.
One lie was stolen valor. . . (Williams)
The other attempts to sway national election results. . .
Which one imposes the most harm?
Baier's lies and Trump's plans to indict and jail Hillary look all the more egregious :rant: now -- FBI Director Comey wrote another letter, this time exonerating Hillary. Case closed. Conclusion the same as in earlier letter.
But did he really review the emails, or just give it a pass under threat of losing his job?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/7/state-needs-75-years-450k-emails-fbi-650k-9-days/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/7/state-needs-75-years-450k-emails-fbi-650k-9-days/)
QuoteLast year, the State Department said it would need about one year to comb through and release Hillary Clinton's 30,000 emails, or the 55,000 work-related pages she handed over in March 2015. Yet, we're to believe the FBI can evaluate roughly 650,000 emails in just nine days.
Either the FBI is incredibly efficient or — more likely — partisan politics has corrupted two departments in our executive branch.
They used software.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 07, 2016, 12:57:53 PM
They used software.
Of course they did. I can't believe that hasn't crossed anyone's mind.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 07, 2016, 12:57:53 PM
They used software.
Why didn't they do that the first time? I think it's bull shit.
Quote from: me on November 07, 2016, 02:31:50 PM
Why didn't they do that the first time? I think it's bull shit.
You think a lot of things, not many of which are true. ;D
Quote from: me on November 07, 2016, 02:31:50 PM
Why didn't they do that the first time?
They did do it the first time but they also manually examined emails that were flagged by the software. What the software told them this time was that these were mostly copies of emails they've already looked at.
QuoteI think it's bull shit.
Because it's beyond your level of comprehension.
Quote from: parkerdivine on November 07, 2016, 03:30:29 PM
Link?
I'm getting ready to leave work and don't have time to look for it but it was discussed this morning on NPR. I'm sure you can find it on their website.
Software. Unless you really know how this stuff works from being in the industry, it may not make much sense, but it was definitely software.
I can try and clarify some of this if anyone would like.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/04/maths_defuses_clinton_fbi_mega_bombshell_claim/
From that link:
"To find out how many emails on the laptop were relevant would have taken "seconds", according to e-discovery software industry experts. To then find out how many of those – if any – the FBI had not seen in its previous investigation would, at most, have taken "minutes." Standard methods are to take and match cryptographic hashes of email files (which proves the email files identical, if the hashes match), or to match metadata and then textual content.
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 04:47:31 PM
Software. Unless you really know how this stuff works from being in the industry, it may not make much sense, but it was definitely software.
I can try and clarify some of this if anyone would like.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/04/maths_defuses_clinton_fbi_mega_bombshell_claim/
From that link:
"To find out how many emails on the laptop were relevant would have taken "seconds", according to e-discovery software industry experts. To then find out how many of those – if any – the FBI had not seen in its previous investigation would, at most, have taken "minutes." Standard methods are to take and match cryptographic hashes of email files (which proves the email files identical, if the hashes match), or to match metadata and then textual content.
But all along the classifications of emails were done on at least 112 emails, and those which were sensitive material were later classified. So, there's no way a software programs was set up to determine those.
This doesn't seem like a very good investigation...just more or less an excuse to end it quickly.
Quote from: parkerdivine on November 07, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
But all along the classifications of emails were done on at least 112 emails, and those which were sensitive material were later classified. So, there's no way a software programs was set up to determine those.
That determination was obviously made by a human, but once a human had seen those, it's easy for software to determine which emails were duplicates using hashing on the message body or the metadata.
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 05:13:28 PM
That determination was obviously made by a human, but once a human had seen those, it's easy for software to determine which emails were duplicates using hashing on the message body or the metadata.
Duplicate? That's a bit of an add on, isn't it? When NEW emails are released, such as the 30,000 emails she claimed she deleted which were recovered, do not indicate duplicates. You are stretching a bit here, don't you think? The software is NOT designed to look at sensitive email and then determine if it was later classified and NEVER should have been sent. If you are Secretary of STate, SURELY you have the intelligence to know when you are discussing something which could become classified, don't you think?
The FBI determined that many of the emails were duplicates of what they had already seen. All I'm saying is that's very easily accomplished by software.
For example:
This is a sentence.
Here is the MD5 hash for that sentence:
7d46f2bdf6a4df2681ff0d71abe848a6
Here is the same sentence, but with the number 8 after the period.
This is a sentence.8
..and the resulting hash is completely different.
be6679fc0c5b672fbe02651caf2b1231
It's very easy for a computer to hash things and determine if it's something that has already been seen.
The same process can be used on documents, pictures, etc., or anything else that can be stored digitally.
But what about the ones on Weiners computer?
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 05:29:35 PM
The FBI determined that many of the emails were duplicates of what they had already seen. All I'm saying is that's very easily accomplished by software.
For example:
This is a sentence.
Here is the MD5 hash for that sentence:
7d46f2bdf6a4df2681ff0d71abe848a6
Here is the same sentence, but with the number 8 after the period.
This is a sentence.8
..and the resulting hash is completely different.
be6679fc0c5b672fbe02651caf2b1231
It's very easy for a computer to hash things and determine if it's something that has already been seen.
The same process can be used on documents, pictures, etc., or anything else that can be stored digitally.
That may have been they had seen those before, but it does not indicate that there were multiple emails with the exact same content in the batch of 30,000. See the difference? If the FBI reported it in the program, then it was already seen...but that's not to say there were 30,000 emails with the exact same content.
Am I missing something here?
Quote from: me on November 07, 2016, 05:37:43 PM
But what about the ones on Weiners computer?
That's a whole new ballgame..not yet reported..and involves his Wife who is reported (albeit maybe not by a reliable source) to be sympathetic with the same SUNNI muslims of the ISIS variety Clinton gave weapons permits to .
Quote from: me on November 07, 2016, 05:37:43 PM
But what about the ones on Weiners computer?
I thought all of these emails were found on Weiner's computer.
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 05:44:52 PM
I thought all of these emails were found on Weiner's computer.
:yes:
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 05:44:52 PM
I thought all of these emails were found on Weiner's computer.
I'm pretty sure these are part of the 30,000 she deleted which Wikileaks found.
Maybe not.
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 05:44:52 PM
I thought all of these emails were found on Weiner's computer.
Even if they were should they have been on his computer and how did they get there? That in itself should be investigated I would think. The whole thing stinks for sure.
Quote from: parkerdivine on November 07, 2016, 05:41:34 PM
That may have been they had seen those before, but it does not indicate that there were multiple emails with the exact same content in the batch of 30,000. See the difference? If the FBI reported it in the program, then it was already seen...but that's not to say there were 30,000 emails with the exact same content.
Am I missing something here?
If you study what I just posted about the hash, you can see how it's easy to determine whether emails contain the exact same content. I just showed how it's done using just one sentence.
Quote from: me on November 07, 2016, 05:49:52 PM
Even if they were should they have been on his computer and how did they get there? That in itself should be investigated I would think. The whole thing stinks for sure.
I don't think they've stated how they got there, so I'm not going to opine on that. Given some of the computer problems you've had in the past, I'd suggest you don't speculate either. :razz:
Also from that article:
As only 110 of 30,490 official emails previously examined by the FBI were found to contain classified government information, the number of previously unseen mails that had strayed onto Weiner's laptop is likely to range from zero to a few tens.
It really isn't that difficult to understand if you try.
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 06:22:34 PM
Also from that article:
As only 110 of 30,490 official emails previously examined by the FBI were found to contain classified government information, the number of previously unseen mails that had strayed onto Weiner's laptop is likely to range from zero to a few tens.
It really isn't that difficult to understand if you try.
Weiner had more emails than that...which are we talking about?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-07/clinton-emails-from-weiner-probe-are-fair-game-for-possible-disclosure-judge-says (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-07/clinton-emails-from-weiner-probe-are-fair-game-for-possible-disclosure-judge-says)
Can't be the Weiner emails....they are determining them now and a judge said they were admissible for possible disclosure on the 7th of November. So. . .
Quote from: parkerdivine on November 07, 2016, 08:20:20 PM
Weiner had more emails than that...which are we talking about?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-07/clinton-emails-from-weiner-probe-are-fair-game-for-possible-disclosure-judge-says (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-07/clinton-emails-from-weiner-probe-are-fair-game-for-possible-disclosure-judge-says)
Can't be the Weiner emails....they are determining them now and a judge said they were admissible for possible disclosure on the 7th of November. So. . .
We're talking about a computerized scan of the body and metadata of all 600,000 emails that were found, regardless of sender, recipient, subject, and content.
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 05:55:20 PM
I don't think they've stated how they got there, so I'm not going to opine on that. Given some of the computer problems you've had in the past, I'd suggest you don't speculate either. :razz:
Haven't had any I wasn't able to solve on my own actually. Well, with some occasional help by asking questions, but basically I've had no one but myself to solve whatever the problem was.
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 10:24:37 PM
We're talking about a computerized scan of the body and metadata of all 600,000 emails that were found, regardless of sender, recipient, subject, and content.
So, just how does a scanner prove there were sensitive emails which could be classified, or that there were emails sent to people NOT authorized to get this information, again?
You all should spend less time worrying about these stupid emails and more time learning to say, "President Clinton." :biggrin:
:yes:
I'm feeling better about today than I have been over the last week or so due to Comey's non-issue bomb. But I won't be completely calm until it's called tonight.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 05, 2016, 12:23:52 PM
Brian Williams was castigated for his lies. . . Where's the anger over this individuals lies?
Or Drumpf's, Pence's, their representatives/minions/supporters?
Quote from: Palehorse on November 05, 2016, 07:43:53 PM
BOTH are, how did you phrase it exactly, news anchors that should know better.
One lie was stolen valor. . . (Williams)
The other attempts to sway national election results. . .
Which one imposes the most harm?
I noticed you didn't get an answer.
This election has been about continuing lies from the Drumpf campaign and his supporters that I suspect were directly intended to keep inquiring minds from focusing on Drumpf's history, his lack of qualifications for the job, and his lack of detailed direction.
Now what about the inferred lie Comey handed Baier, Drumpf, and the rest of the RW?
Comey either had an amazing lack of judgement or he deliberately intended to influence the election up and down the ballot.
What about him, you RWrs?
Quote from: Locutus on November 07, 2016, 10:24:37 PM
We're talking about a computerized scan of the body and metadata of all 600,000 emails that were found, regardless of sender, recipient, subject, and content.
Save your breath. Neither Kooks or ME want to understand. It doesn't fit any of the scenarios they've created in their lil' pea brains.
Quote from: Y on November 08, 2016, 10:14:57 AM
Save your breath. Neither Kooks or ME want to understand. It doesn't fit any of the scenarios they've created in their lil' pea brains.
:biggrin:
Quote from: Y on November 08, 2016, 10:14:57 AM
Save your breath. Neither Kooks or ME want to understand. It doesn't fit any of the scenarios they've created in their lil' pea brains.
I'ts cookie..unless we're able to throw out names for people on here.
And what scenario have I created, oh great one able to read minds.
That there's something to those e-mails that there ain't, "Brainiac(TM)!
Most of us understood how the FBI did it, that it could be done, and that they could find out what they wanted to know doing it that way.
We didn't have to create conspiracy scenarios.
Quote from: Y on November 08, 2016, 01:42:02 PM
That there's something to those e-mails that there ain't, "Brainiac(TM)!
Most of us understood how the FBI did it, that it could be done, and that they could find out what they wanted to know doing it that way.
We didn't have to create conspiracy scenarios.
So, please explain to the rest of us, something you CAN'T do, Tubby.
I thought I did explain it pretty clearly with the hash example a couple of pages back.
Quote from: Locutus on November 08, 2016, 05:03:15 PM
I thought I did explain it pretty clearly with the hash example a couple of pages back.
Well, not at least where I could understand and therein may lie the problem. but I don't think you cleared up the fact that these programs can discern sensitive material and who should not have gotten it. Therein lies my problem with this "Quick" review.
Quote from: Locutus on November 08, 2016, 05:03:15 PM
I thought I did explain it pretty clearly with the hash example a couple of pages back.
You did. Obviously some people aren't able to learn via the written word. . .
Quote from: Y on November 08, 2016, 01:42:02 PM
That there's something to those e-mails that there ain't, "Brainiac(TM)!
Most of us understood how the FBI did it, that it could be done, and that they could find out what they wanted to know doing it that way.
We didn't have to create conspiracy scenarios.
Of course there was something to those emails.
She stole a primary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/wikileaks-emails-hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/wikileaks-emails-hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta)
Quote from: parkerdivine on December 07, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
Of course there was something to those emails.
She stole a primary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/wikileaks-emails-hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/wikileaks-emails-hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta)
Give it up, it is over and the out and out lies have been told and the idiots still believe what is false is true. :ghost: For god sake give up your stupid ideas. You won and you got what you wanted. :doh: :angry:
Quote from: The Troll on December 07, 2016, 06:17:04 PM
Give it up, it is over and the out and out lies have been told and the idiots still believe what is false is true. :ghost: For god sake give up your stupid ideas. You won and you got what you wanted. :doh: :angry:
I lost..Clinton stole the primary and Bernie didn't represent the democratic party. I never wanted Trump...those "godly" born agains did on accounta they worship the rich....
Quote from: parkerdivine on December 07, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
Of course there was something to those emails.
She stole a primary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/wikileaks-emails-hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/wikileaks-emails-hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta)
Do you ever read the links you post in support of your conspiracy theories?
That link says nothing of what you claim.
BTW, Hillary didn't 'steal' the primaries. Bernie was never going to win for multiple reasons.
Quote from: parkerdivine on December 08, 2016, 03:47:45 PM
I never wanted Trump...
Don't lie; you were stumping for him over Hillary.
Remember, you stated 'at least he (Trump) can be impeached'.
If the Republican Party and the Republican Dirty Tricks Team had been forced to tell the truth and not lie about Hillary Clinton. She would have won hands down. People have to remember she did win the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes and counting. :rant: :zoners: :rant:
Since when does a person or team don't win with the most votes It is pure :bsflag:
Quote from: Y on December 08, 2016, 04:12:57 PM
Do you ever read the links you post in support of your conspiracy theories?
That link says nothing of what you claim.
BTW, Hillary didn't 'steal' the primaries. Bernie was never going to win for multiple reasons.
Missed a bit of the article, hey? You really can read all the way through it before lying about my character.
QuoteIn December, when Tanden wrote in praise of the Paris climate deal, Podesta responded: "Can you believe that doofus Bernie attacked it?"
Then, in March this year, Clinton strategist Minyon Moore opined: "I think Sanders is a rule breaker and has no institutional loyalty to the Democratic Party; we should expect him to ignore the rules and persist in his quest to flip superdelegates despite overwhelming evidence that reflects his considerable weaknesses with the Democratic base and no doubt in the general."
Tanden, meanwhile, pulled no punches when Clinton's campaign hesitated over whether to condemn Democratic activist David Brock for demanding Sanders' medical records. She wrote: "Hillary. God. Her instincts are suboptimal."
A stout defender of Clinton in public, in private Tanden injects some bracing honesty that suggests the candidate is not surrounded by sycophants. After the former first lady described herself as a moderate, Tanden asked of Podesta: "Why did she call herself a moderate?"
He wrote back: "I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn't remember saying it. Not sure I believe her."
Tanden replied: "I mean it makes my life more difficult after telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive but that is really the smallest of issues. It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment."
The daily dump of stolen emails has uncovered Clinton's lucrative Wall Street speeches, lists of 39 potential vice-presidents and 84 potential campaign slogans, fresh questions over a conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation and alleged advance warnings of debate questions. But there have been few revelations likely to alter the course of the race for the White House.
In fact, just as WikiLeaks' release of US embassy cables often showed diplomats' judgment in a flattering light, so the Podesta emails have illuminated a micromanaged campaign operation with a laser-like focus and little by way of ill-discipline or even foul language. The nerve centre is, however, all too aware of its candidate's weaknesses and sensitive to media criticism, and as prone as any other office to personality clashes, terse exchanges and mutual exasperation.
The email treasure trove also lifts the lid on the complications of celebrity
Quote from: Y on December 08, 2016, 04:15:19 PM
Don't lie; you were stumping for him over Hillary.
Remember, you stated 'at least he (Trump) can be impeached'.
Bernie was out....but in NO way did I want MORE trade deals to give ownership to corporations in our labor laws and in our environmental laws. I never voted for Trump..I voted for Bernie...Clinton stole the primary, the DNC knew many of Bernie supporters would not vote for her.
And I wasn't alone. Many of those who came out to vote for Obama in 2012 did NOT come out to vote Clinton in November. She is not liked by many of the democrats and independents who lean democrats because of her neoliberal values. She and Billy have been republican thinking, following Reagans call to dismantle FDR New Deal programs, since he was president.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world)
Quote3. Wall Street's Deregulator-in-Chief. As president, Clinton outdid the GOP when it came to unleashing Wall Street's worst instincts, by supporting and signing into law more financial deregulation legislation than any other president, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.
He didn't just push the Democrats controlling the House to pass a bill (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) that dissolved the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which barred investment banks from commercial banking activities. He deregulated the risky derivatives market (Commodity Futures Modernization Act), gutted state regulation of banks (Riegle-Neal) leading to a wave of banking mergers, and reappointed Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chair. In recent years, Clinton has ludicrously claimed that the GOP forced him to do this, which led in no small part to the global financial crisis of 2008 and the too-big-to-fail ethos, with the federal government obligated to bail out multinational banks while doing little for individual account holders.
Mr. Republican...and then right before her election, he starts talking about the mistake it was...20 years AFTER it happened. The man and woman have no scruples and NO I did not want her to represent the democratic party...I wanted BERNIE to ... and wrote him in.
Quote from: parkerdivine on December 08, 2016, 04:58:49 PM
Missed a bit of the article, hey? You really can read all the way through it before lying about my character.
You're simply ridiculous. I actually read the article; you obviously didn't.
That article says nothing about, and gives no evidence of, "she stole a primary".
Face it, you grasp at conspiracy theories, make up 'facts', then post articles etc. which you haven't read, and act as if it's all true and proved...
...you're the LW version of Tony Light.
Quote from: parkerdivine on December 08, 2016, 05:04:10 PM
I never voted for Trump..I voted for Bernie......I wanted BERNIE to ... and wrote him in.
Pffffttt!
You know what I think about those sort of unprovable claims - especially those which are most likely untrue and from known liars.
You stumped far too hard for Drumpf, and far too hard against Hillary, to believe your denial now.
Quote from: Y on December 08, 2016, 05:36:04 PM
Pffffttt!
You know what I think about those sort of unprovable claims - especially those which are most likely untrue and from known liars.
You stumped far too hard for Drumpf, and far too hard against Hillary, to believe your denial now.
I could care less what you think..your mind hasn't wrapped around the truth with me for years.
I think you can't discern the fact there are republicans called neoliberals in the democratic party..and that you support the same agenda Trump does, because you support the same agenda the neoliberals have for this nation.
Here's your Obama/Clinton republican connection.
Anyone who supports a neoliberal supports the global economy for the rich.
Clinton STOPPED the FDR welfare program that allowed education to get single moms out of poverty....AND he stopped public prisons by flooding money for privatization....the list goes on...supporting the PROMOTING the TPP which Clinton did as Secretary of State shows the neoliberal LACK of concern for worker rights...
Anything you thought about the democrats in line with FDR and helping Americans was removed by the Clinton machine.
[url]http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right#14812370125681&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=]http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376[url]
Anyone who supports a neoliberal supports the global economy for the rich.
Clinton STOPPED the FDR welfare program that allowed education to get single moms out of poverty....AND he stopped public prisons by flooding money for privatization....the list goes on...supporting the PROMOTING the TPP which Clinton did as Secretary of State shows the neoliberal LACK of concern for worker rights...
Anything you thought about the democrats in line with FDR and helping Americans was removed by the Clinton machine.
[url]http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right#14812370125681&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data= (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376%5Burl)
Quote. . .
But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, "Ready for the New Economy," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus describes it, is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton - a key member of the DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as The American Prospect describes it, "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.
The Reign of the DLC
A lot has happened since the last time the Democrats had a contested primary. The 2008 economic crisis, the growth of the Occupy movement, the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the consequent increase in public attention to the ongoing killings of Black people by police, and the Bernie Sanders campaign have all played major roles in shaping the political consensus of primary voters. None of these existed when Barack Obama won the nomination over Clinton in June 2008.
. . .
Find out what you are supporting...not just the feel goods corporate news tells you.
Quote from: Y on December 08, 2016, 05:29:55 PM
You're simply ridiculous. I actually read the article; you obviously didn't.
That article says nothing about, and gives no evidence of, "she stole a primary".
Face it, you grasp at conspiracy theories, make up 'facts', then post articles etc. which you haven't read, and act as if it's all true and proved...
...you're the LW version of Tony Light.
Come on....it doesn't because you refuse to see it.
http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/ (http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/)
QuoteOne email from DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker to several DNC staffers cites two news articles showing Sanders leading in Rhode Island and the limited number of polling locations in the state: "If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They'll probably complain regardless, actually."
Instead of treating Sanders with impartiality, the DNC exhibits resentful disdain toward him and the thousands of disenfranchised voters he could have brought into the party.
"Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," wrote DNC Deputy Communications Director Mark Paustenbach to DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda, in response to backlash over DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz shutting off the Sanders campaign's access to voter database files.
Another chain reveals MSNBC's Chuck Todd and DNC staff members discussing how to discredit MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski's call for Wasserman Schultz to resign.
Most of the emails released come from seven prominent DNC staff members: senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary and Miranda.
The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.
Over the past several weeks, Guccifer 2.0 released several internal memos showing DNC staff strategizing to make Clinton the presidential nominee—as early as March 2015. In June 2016, Florida-based law firm, Beck & Lee, filed a class action lawsuit against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC based on the revelations from these leaked files.
Other emails show DNC staff in damage control over allegations from the Sanders campaign, when a report—corroborated by a Politico—revealed the DNC's joint fundraising committee with the Clinton campaign was laundering money to the Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats. Regardless of the fundraising tactics, because both major campaigns didn't agree to use the joint fundraising committee super-PAC with the DNC, the DNC should have recused itself from participating with just the Clinton campaign.
Does that article clear it up for you?
Why would anyone support a candidate who doesn't believe in fair elections? She helped in overthrowing the democracy in Honduras...apparently she wanted to do the same here.
Quote from: parkerdivine on December 08, 2016, 05:45:44 PM
Come on....it doesn't because you refuse to see it.
http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/ (http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/)
Does that article clear it up for you?
1) No, because it wasn't there. Obviously you can't find it there either.
2) Again, no, that second article doesn't either. Also, you don't appear to understand the party process etc. as well you not finding what you're looking for.
Barney was never going to win the nomination. He knew it like so many others. Had he the voluminous support you seem to think he garnered, he could have - and would have - run as an independent candidate.
Barney's entire agenda was to push the Democratic platform to the left - nothing more, nothing less.
You idiots that bought into him as 'savior' are not an iota different than the Drumpf idiots who suckered themselves into the same BS.
Quote from: Y on December 08, 2016, 06:18:07 PM
1) No, because it wasn't there. Obviously you can't find it there either.
2) Again, no, that second article doesn't either. Also, you don't appear to understand the party process etc. as well you not finding what you're looking for.
Barney was never going to win the nomination. He knew it like so many others. Had he the voluminous support you seem to think he garnered, he could have - and would have - run as an independent candidate.
Barney's entire agenda was to push the Democratic platform to the left - nothing more, nothing less.
You idiots that bought into him as 'savior' are not an iota different than the Drumpf idiots who suckered themselves into the same BS.
Bernie WAS going to win...you just don't want to admit it. And Corporate media tried denying it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide)
QuoteWe have aimed to provide an overview of the evidence for various types of fraud and targeted voter suppression impacting the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. After covering the legal background and the history of Election Justice USA's legal actions, our best efforts to combat election fraud and voter suppression, we gave a thorough treatment of:
1) Targeted voter suppression
2) Registration tampering
3) Illegal voter purges
4) Exit polling discrepancies
5) Evidence for voting machine tampering
6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types
Finally, we gave a date-by-date, state-by-state overview of each of these fraud or suppression types at work throughout the course of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders' pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton's total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders' campaign.
Then there's this...the FEC fraud she should have been investigated for but Lynch, being a former Clinton supporter, refused to do.
\
More republican "pay to play" from the neoliberal Clinton.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/ (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/)
QuoteIn August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.
The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.
Again. your choice of candidate for the democratic party was a republican.....neoliberal...just like George W Bush...and hubby Billy.
Parker Divine, I heard it through the grapevine that you on another website, that you were supporting Donald Trump big time. :huh1:
Is this story true and you come over here saying that you were supporting Bernie. :huh1:
Any thing true to the grape vine news. :huh1: