I can't believe I'm deigning to respond to these comments....And, no, I"m not expressly defending Mrs. Clinton. I'm defending the truth because it seems from your remarks that you believe a variety of things are so and they quite simply are not. I cannot stop you from holding the ultimate stance you do, but to the extent that stance/conclusion depends on the "facts" you cited, I can say that your stance derives from your accepting to be so that which is not.
the first primary, which Sanders won with like 70% of the vote, but still wound up with fewer delegates
Mr. Sanders won more votes in New Hampshire's primary, but
he did not receive fewer New Hampshire delegates than Mrs. Clinton. Additionally, Sanders did not win more overall primary votes than did Mrs. Clinton
this whole series of faked up votes
What faked votes? If you have any evidence that Democratic primary votes were falsified, faked or otherwise unlawfully registered for either Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton, I suggest you share that information with the appropriate state election commission(s).
Hillary is cleared of charges of gross negligence regarding
She was not cleared of any charges of gross negligence in connection with "Email-gate" because none have been levied against her.
And just what is the legal meaning of "gross negligence?" It's "
a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages."
that is not the same kind of 'extreme carelessness' that the rest of us have. No, we have the kind of extreme carelessness when we get caught doing that that is also gross negligence and we get hammered for it. But in Clintons case it is just a 'silly old thing, darling, never you mind; now run along dear' kind of negligence, but not real serious [gross] negligence.
And, as
FBI Director Comey stated under oath on 7-July-2016 before the House Judiciary Committee, where are all those people who got prosecuted under Subsection 793(f) based on strict liability alone rather than under strict liability plus intent?
Congressperson:
"YOU ENDED YOUR STATEMENT TO CONGRESSMAN COOPER A WHILE AGO SAYING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS CASE, YET YOU ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY THAT YOU HAD SEEN SEVERAL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND OTHER PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID PUBLICLY, MANY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE."
Director Comey:
"I SPILE [sic] BECAUSE THEY'RE FRIENDS, AND I WANT TO SAY, GUYS, WHERE WERE YOU OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS? WHERE WERE THESE CASES? THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT FOR REASONS I SAID EARLIER."
Are you going to say that Dir. Comey implicitly and under oath misrepresented the historical facts pertaining to the history of DOJ prosecutions to Congress when he rhetorically asked the question you see above? Do you really think he (his FBI team) didn't look to see what the historic trend/reality is regarding who has been prosecuted under Subsection 793(f)?
Law professor Laurie Levenson, writing in the
National Law Journal writes:
Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after "leakers," but not bunglers. Twenty years ago,
John Deutsch** found himself in hot water and the target of a DOJ investigation for transferring classified materials to his government-owned computer at home — a computer that he used to access a wide range of Internet searches. He was never charged.
Additionally, you'll note from the video clip below that the FBI made the same recommendation for Mrs. Clinton's State Department aides and factotums that they not be prosecuted. I suppose you think, therefore, they too must also be "royalty?" I sure don't see them or Mrs. Clinton as some "American version" of royalty, yet they are receiving the very same consideration that she is. So much for your "the little guy suffers and the 'royal' Clintons don't" presumption of comparative modes of treatment....
** Note:
For more info on the Deutsch investigation, see:
the hundreds of millions of US dollars Hillary and Bill have received from foreign nations and corporations for their marvelous speaking ability.
The Clintons' total speaking fee income from 2001 to February of 2016 is $153M. That's ~$10M per year if one spreads it out evenly over the years. What is there to say about that? Speaking is "good money if you can get it." What place have I, you or anyone else to grumble over the fact that they can get it? Is one supposed to be ashamed of being wealthy or for being able to generate wealth by selling what is that buyers demand and that is legal to sell?
I doubt their speaking ability, in and of itself, has much to do with it. Moreover, neither she nor anyone else need necessarily be "marvelous" speakers to be paid to address a body. All that's needed is the demand to hear someone speak and the speaker's willingness to supply that demand. What the speaker gets paid is merely a matter of price negotiation for delivering the speech.
If you want to earn money for delivering a speech, go do something that makes folks willing to pay to hear what you have to say.
- Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical
- Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees are high—but only compared with other women and The Price Of Political Speakers
- Bill Clinton: According to the Washington Post, the former president “earned more than $16.3 million for 72 speeches” in 2012. That’s an average of around $226,000 per speech, and CNN reports he was once paid $750,000 for a speech to telecom firm Ericsson in Hong Kong.
- Tim Geithner: According to the Financial Times, the former US treasury secretary was paid roughly $200,000 (paywall) for a speaking engagement at Deutsche Bank in 2014.
- Ben Bernanke: The former Fed chairman left his government job and started charging his annual government salary to appear at single events. As of May 2014 he charged “fees that range from $200,000 in the United States and $400,000 for engagements in Asia,” according to the New York Times.
- Larry Summers: The former treasury secretary charged Yale only $10,000, but took $135,000 from Goldman Sachs in 2008 or 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal.
- Al Gore: Bloomberg reported in 2013 that after Gore won the Nobel prize he was asking for $175,000 in speaker fees.
- Donald Trump: Trump reportedly earned $1.5 million per speech for a series of seminars in a private online learning company’s “real estate wealth expos,” Forbes reports. That was in 2006 and 2007, though. In light of recent news, his star power may be decreasing.
the fawning press that will alter the color of Hillarys pantsuit so it wont look like the exact match to Elizabeth Warrens pantsuit and they look like Bobsy twins or something equally ridiculous.
Exact match, similar, different color pantsuits. So what? Why is what they wore even something worth noting, much less talking about? Have you never seen men, political, business, or otherwise not dressed alike?
Oh, yeah. They all look real different. Not wearing pretty much exactly the same thing. Not at all.
Nope, not several Congresswomen wearing essentially the same thing.
Not those businesswomen and businessmen either...
And for the record, Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Warren weren't wearing the same color pantsuit. Here they are from the same event.
That image is from the
Daily Caller's depiction of MSNBC video.
Here's a
NY Post photo from the same day/event.
