Saturday, February 06, 2016

Upgrades by the State Department as to what is "confidential" or "secret" find that former Secretaries of State Condollezza Rice and Colin Powell may now be in violation of the guidelines as well. Oops.

Courtesy of CNN: 

Colin Powell and top staffers for Condoleezza Rice received classified information through personal email accounts, according to a new report from State Department investigators. 

Hillary Clinton has received severe criticism -- particularly from Republicans and computer security experts -- for using her personal email account while serving as the nation's top diplomat under President Barack Obama. 

Thursday's revelation about the two secretaries of state under former President George W. Bush gave her supporters an opportunity to claim the Democratic presidential candidate was being singled out over the practice. 

The emails were discovered during a State Department review of the email practices of the past five secretaries of state. It found that Powell received two emails that were classified and that the "immediate staff" working for Rice received 10 emails that were classified. 

The information was deemed either "secret" or "confidential," according to the report.

So I assume that we can now look forward to Condi and Colin having to sit before some Congressional investigative committee as well now, right?

Oh no I'm sorry that only happens if your name is Clinton.

Colin Powell is not exactly happy that he has been dragged into this BS either:

"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share." 

"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said.

Okay we need to move onto a new scandal, this one is boring.

I think the new shiny object is that Hillary is supposedly the mascot of Wall Street.

Well at least it's relatively new.


  1. Anonymous5:25 AM

    "...Hillary is supposedly the mascot of Wall Street."

    She takes a ton of $$$$ from Wall Street.

    1. Anonymous5:46 AM

      And the GOP candidates take more than 'a ton of money' from the Kochs. Let's cut to the chase and get rid of CU, and cubically fund campaigns lasting no more than six months. Frankly, the President has to work with Wall Street, corporations, and the people. I;d say the agenda of Wall Street is far less frightening than the agendas of the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson.

    2. Anonymous5:59 AM

      We have pointed this out all along..Condi and Colin never gave their emails to be scrutinized when asked. Hillary did. Now that ALL the emails are being looked at, guess what? Hillary only did what her predecessors did. Lord, the GOP is so self-righteous and so wrong. About everything. We had better get people to the polls and vote out the extremists. They care nothing about the nation, and everything about power and wealth from our work. Vote people. I don't care who our nominee is, but we have to get them into the White House. Either would be great..I prefer Hillary, but will vote for Bernie as well. No Republicans hiding behind their version of the Bible to hold women and minorities down.

    3. Anonymous6:08 AM

      Here's a comprehensive list of how much Hillary and Bill have taken for "speeches".

    4. Anonymous6:19 AM

      ALL the politicians in U.S. Congress take money from Wall Street folks. Check the facts on your own Congressmen and women!

      Do any Republicans really want to hold political office in the next couple of cycles? It assuredly doesn't seem like it! Know I'll never vote for anyone in their party ever, ever, ever! They are assholes and don't represent the majority of the people/voters throughout America!

      They are going down and I can hardly wait to campaign against them on all levels - nationally, state and local governments!

    5. Yeah we get it, she got paid a lot of money for speeches.

      Now the challenge is to prove that it somehow means that everybody who heard her speak now owns her in some way.

    6. Anonymous6:22 AM

      "Now the challenge is to prove that it somehow means that everybody who heard her speak now owns her in some way."
      She's been asked to release the transcripts...

    7. Anonymous7:11 AM

      Why is the word "speeches" is scare quotes?

    8. Maple7:46 AM

      The Clintons and most other current and former politicians belong to Speakers' Bureaus. The Bureau (or agent) sets the rate depending on the demand. Obviously, the demand for the Clintons (and for former Presidents and VPS and other prominent politicos) is very high. They all get paid what he market will bear. If Goldman Sachs wants to hear what Hillary to say about the state of the nation (or whatever), then GS pays the set fee. This DOES NOT MEAN that Hillary tells them what they want to hear.
      I have experience in hiring speakers. I do know what I'm talking about, and for anyone to smear her for taking a fee set by her agent (the speakers' bureau) is just so ridiculous and mean. And it's especially bad (not to mention hypocritical) for the GOP -- the party of big business, free enterprise etc.) to criticize her for a simple case of supply and demand!

    9. Anonymous8:24 AM

      She takes a ton of $$$$ from Wall Street.
      Like the Republicans don't !!!!

      Anyone who has investments "takes" money from Wall Street. You put your money in a bank, you are "taking" money from Wall Street.

      Jeb!! worked at Lehman Bros right before the crash.

      Rafaele's wife works for wall street.

      Trump finances his buildings from banks on Wall Street.

      So either you don't understand how capitalism/business/investments work or you are just looking for another lame excuse to bash Hillary.

      By the way, if you have money in a bank, you better take it out and put it under your mattress, because you are taking $$$$ from Wall Street!!!

    10. Anonymous8:28 AM

      HRC charges $225,000 a speech

      and says no to a $15 min wage.

      Wall Street owned crone!

    11. "Crone"?

      Oh yes, that feeble, tired, misogynist attempt at an insult will go a LONG way with women voters. (snark).

    12. Anonymous9:30 AM

      Attack a word, not the charge?

      WEAK defense of HRC taking $225,000 for a hours work and denies the people a measly #15 an hour.

      What a kind and considerate human being HRC is, she is obliviously fighting for US.

      But to her US, is her Wall Street friends!

    13. Anonymous9:43 AM

      Your comment is simple-minded, 8:28.

    14. Anonymous9:47 AM

      "Now the challenge is to prove that it somehow means that everybody who heard her speak now owns her in some way."

      Don't be so frickin' obtuse dude. Just stop acting dumb and at least admit who her masters are, even if you still support her. It is a little harder to do when you are truly honest about it though isn't it?

    15. Anonymous10:54 AM

      Yahoo's Michael Isikoff notes Elmendorf is a "key player" in her campaign. Elmendorf runs Subject Matter, "a go-to Democratic lobbying firm for corporate interests, raking more than $10 million in fees last year." Its clients include Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Verizon, and Monsanto.

      This isn't an ideal image for Clinton, who has been fighting her ties to Wall Street. Just yesterday, Anderson Cooper asked Clinton, "did you have to be paid $675,000" for speeches to Goldman Sachs. She replied, "That's what they offered."

    16. Anonymous10:55 AM

      In turn, as “proof” that she’s progressive, Clinton touted the endorsement of former Vermont governor and farther-left presidential candidate Howard Dean, now himself an employee of a healthcare lobbying firm.

      He’s not exactly a “lobbyist,” but he more or less is.

      Here’s how The Intercept describes him:

      Dean, though he rarely discloses the title during his media appearances, now serves as senior advisor to the law firm Dentons, where he works with the firm’s Public Policy and Regulation practice, a euphemism for Dentons’ lobbying team. Dean is not a lawyer, but neither is Newt Gingrich, who is among the growing list of former government officials and politicians that work in the Public Policy and Regulation practice of Dentons.

      The Dentons Public Policy and Regulation practice lobbies on behalf of a variety of corporate health care interests, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a powerful trade group for drugmakers like Pfizer and Merck.

      Not only is Dean now a corporate shill for Big Pharma, he is actively campaigning against his own support for single-payer healthcare (Medicare-for-all, as Bernie calls it) while also playing a surrogate for the Clinton camp.

    17. Anonymous11:21 AM

      I want to know what you think she is saying in her speeches to a general assembly of people who work for a bank or other corporation that will be your smoking gun.

      Oh, no! Hillary said "thank you" at the end of her speech. What is she thanking them for? The big bag of cash they are sending her on a regular basis?

      You think she's a master liar, but she's going to say a bunch of incriminating things in a speech?

    18. Anonymous11:23 AM

      "corporate shill for Big Pharma"

      I'm rolling my eyes here. This is the kind of trite, lazy accusation we see in anti-vaccination screeds.

    19. Anonymous11:25 AM

      They got to Howard Dean, too?

      How far does the conspiracy go? All the way to the top?

    20. Anonymous11:27 AM

      Don't use sexist-charged insults like "crone." It makes you look like a sexist. How can anyone take you seriously if you rally for the 99% while insulting half of them?

      We should be above this kind of thing.

    21. Anonymous1:59 PM

      Hillary’s Best Bundlers Lobby For Big Pharma, Private Prisons, And Anti-Obamacare Health Insurers
      Photo of Chuck Ross
      Chuck Ross
      2:26 PM 02/01/2016



      U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Rochester Opera House campaign town hall meeting in Rochester, New Hampshire January 22, 2016. REUTERS/Faith Ninivaggi U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Rochester Opera House campaign town hall meeting in Rochester, New Hampshire January 22, 2016. REUTERS/Faith Ninivaggi

      Two of Hillary Clinton’s biggest campaign bundlers are Washington D.C. lobbyists who represent a who’s who of companies that the Democratic presidential candidate publicly claims to despise.

      Campaign finance records released on Sunday show that Capitol Counsel lobbyists Richard Sullivan and David Jones raised more than $540,000 for Clinton in 2015. More than $225,000 of that came in the last quarter of the year.

      Sullivan bundled the second largest amount of cash for Clinton, raising $274,891 for the year and $69,363 in the last quarter. Jones came in third, raising $266,286 for the year and $158,286 for the quarter.

      But both lobbyists represent companies and trade groups in the pharmaceutical industry, health insurance field, oil exploration business and private prison industry — all fields that Clinton has criticized throughout her campaign. She has said she will shut down the private prison business, claiming that it contributes to racial disparity in the justice system. In the first Democratic presidential debate in October the former secretary of state named health insurance and pharmaceutical companies on her list of enemies. She’s also railed against oil and gas producers as creators of climate change.

      Sullivan and Jones rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars each quarter for Capitol Counsel from those supposed Clinton foes

      Read more:

    22. Anonymous2:11 PM

      Yet you would seem a sexist for pushing the issue.

      But I am sure you believe in citizens united and corporate politics.

      Why do you support corporate welfare, arms dealing, arming of terrorists in Syria, and war in the Middle East???

      Is the use of a sexist phrase a greater crime against humanity or of more importance on the grand scale of the world?

      Your values are very specific and you may not have your priorities in order; but your one hell of a nice person.:)

    23. Anonymous2:19 PM

      This is getting very strange, in my whole life, I've never seen so many fighting for the lobbyists rights to buy our politicians!

      scratches head?

      Go team HRC!

    24. Anonymous2:22 PM

      anon 11:32

      the Bush and clinton oligarchy.

      Time to throw out the robber barrons!

    25. Anonymous2:23 PM

      Tax the 1%,

      they won't go hungry!

    26. Anonymous3:59 PM

      "Is the use of a sexist phrase a greater crime against humanity or of more importance on the grand scale of the world?

      Ridiculous. Who said it was more important or that I don't care about war or corporate rule or world poverty and hunger?

      I would just appreciate if we can talk about those things without resorting to those kinds of low-blow personal attacks based on someone's sex. How is it that you support a progressive candidate, yet you don't seem to care about removing sexist language from the discussion?

      I'm a woman with two daughters and I've had to hear that kind of bullshit my whole life. I'm fucking sick of it.

    27. Anonymous10:05 PM

      Fem Nazi!!!!

  2. Anonymous6:00 AM

    Wait, isn't that kind of a risky strategy for the GOP? I mean, I thought being a mascot of Wall Street was a GOOD thing.

    Aren't they worried their voters are all going to switch over to Hillary now?

    1. Anonymous8:30 AM

      You are correct!!! The rethugs do want want fiance reform because their buddies on Wall Street would get mad.

  3. Anonymous6:02 AM

    Jeez, they all do! They have to if they want to get elected in this day and's called evening the playing field. We need campaign finance reform. Hillary is for it!

    1. Anonymous8:33 AM

      They all do it, is that why our country is in such fine shape???

      Why do our representatives give away so much to wall street?

      Because they're beholden, to those that donate to them!


      Homer Simpson face palm!!!

      Wake up and smell the coffeee!

      Quit drinking the HRC koolaid!

    2. Anonymous9:42 AM

      All politicians take money from someone.

    3. Anonymous10:48 AM

      That was a quite disingenuous statement!

      Our country is in shamble from the last 40yrs of corporate rule and you feel it if just dandy our politicians are in Wall Streets pocket.

      I will not question corporate rule!

      I must not question corporate rule!

      I must not question corporate rule!

      I must not question corporate rule!

    4. Anonymous11:32 AM

      Only 40 years? Who ruled before that?

      Are you saying the years before 1976 were a paradise where corporations were powerless and we were all free?

    5. Anonymous3:10 PM

      Lets see in my trade wages were higher, gas was cheap and we had glass steagal.

      since then mass union busting, Clinton removed glass steagal and reformed welfare.

      Now we've had a giant wall street banking crash, that we are all paying for. Trillions of dollars, I know that was Bush that signed that into play, and paid out during president Obama time in office.

      Still the crash would not have been the governments responsibility if glass steagal had been in place.

      Mixing investment capital with insured saving, make for wall street gambling be insured by the taxpayers.

      The removal of glass steagal, is a great example of corporate law at work.

  4. Anonymous6:13 AM

    Republicans (especially on the national level!) are friggin' nuts!

    It's amazing to watch how they are trying so desperately to take Hillary Clinton down! And, the media (Republican owners) is involved too.

    I can hardly wait to cast my vote for her! She's such a better (and most qualified!) person to serve as POTUS. Her experience and long history of serving the American people is far superior to ANY of the idgits in the clown car!

    Plus, she'd make mincemeat out of Trump!

    1. Anonymous8:33 AM

      She would be schlonged bt Trump!

    2. Anonymous9:41 AM

      Can we retire the word "schlonged" already?

    3. Anonymous9:53 AM

      Young women in New Hampshire were offended by the way Hillary Clinton uses her gender to garner support, an MSNBC survey revealed Friday.

      When MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall asked young female voters about Hillary Clinton’s claim on Wednesday that she is not an establishment candidate because she is a woman, they responded negatively.

      One of the respondents said that she did not like how Clinton assumed that her feminism was identical to the feminism of all women.

      “I also am a woman. I also face discrimination as being a woman. Her feminism does not represent my feminism, and I think it’s really important to differentiate that,” one young woman said. Her complaint is a common one among young women and reveals a generational divide within the Democratic Party.

      Another respondent said that Clinton’s gender does not automatically make her the best candidate.

      “You have to realize that, you know, everybody’s human and … you have to go for who has the best ideals,” she said. “Just because she’s a woman doesn’t necessarily make her the best candidate.”

      Hall expressed shocked at the responses she received to her questions. Although it is well known Clinton’s opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) polls better with young voters, Hall did not expect young women to react negatively to Clinton’s use of gender.

    4. Anonymous11:34 AM

      I'm really sorry, but these young women have no sense of history. They don't realize that they stand on the shoulders of women like Hillary Clinton.

    5. Anonymous2:39 PM

      11:34 that's for sure, they take for granted so many things we had to fight for.

    6. Anonymous4:09 PM

      “You have to realize that, you know, everybody’s human and … you have to go for who has the best ideals,” she said. “Just because she’s a woman doesn’t necessarily make her the best candidate.”

    7. Anonymous5:56 PM

      “I also am a woman. I also face discrimination as being a woman. Her feminism does not represent my feminism, and I think it’s really important to differentiate that,”

      So, what exactly is the difference between the two feminisms?

  5. Anonymous6:22 AM

    I had a security clearance for a long time. At times, it was above the "Top Secret" level. I can tell you that the folks who establish what is classified and what is not are typically over-zealous minor bureaucrats. A LOT of stuff that is classified is already in the public domain.

    My guess is that Hill, Condo, and Colin did not realize it might be classified when they saw it in their email because it was innocuous (although perhaps technically qualifying for a classified rating -- because it mentioned Item A or concept B).

    This is all such BS.

  6. Anonymous6:31 AM

    The idea that E Warren was just quoted as saying "Yes, Hill DID change her vote as a result of big money" is a bad sign for Hill -- because I trust Warren to offer her v influential comments carefully. To me, that quote is saying "Hillary WAS influenced," in Warren's opinion.

    I will of course vote for Hill but prefer Bernie+Warren.

    1. Anonymous8:45 AM

      Warren lies!

    2. Anonymous9:32 AM

      Warrens a f-ing Progressive for christ sakes, of course she would attack Hills!

      My vote is for Hillary, I feel she is the most honest person in politics.

    3. Anonymous10:53 AM

      "My vote is for Hillary, I feel she is the most honest person in politics."

      You are either really stupid or a terrible liar, or deadpan joking.

    4. Anonymous11:02 AM

      Bill & hills have never once been caught lying, you stupid troll.

    5. Anonymous11:36 AM

      Warren is great, but she isn't infallible. If you set her up as some kid of superhero, you will be disappointed in the end. The same is true with Sanders.

      And with Clinton, by the way. There should be no die-hard fans of any politician.

    6. Anonymous11:45 AM

      "Progressive" isn't a dirty word, even if you like Hillary Clinton.

    7. Anonymous4:23 PM

      I though That sanders was using his being a progressive agaianst our hillayy.

      SO progressives are bad right?

    8. Anonymous4:24 PM

      The republicans have been trying to pin anything on the Clintons since 92 remember ken starr how many years and millions wasted on that investigation to come up with nothing. I would say the Clintons have been vetted more than anyone I can remember.

  7. Anonymous6:37 AM

    It's bad enough that the right is using this email scandal and the Wall Street b.s. to discredit Hillary.

    What makes it worse is that Bernie supporters are FALLING FOR IT.

    Every Bernie supporter I've spoken to spouts anti-Hillary stuff that is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.

    1. Anonymous7:09 AM

      It is amazing. They ignore everything positive she is and has done and even those things are called lies and deception. There's so much anger and just plain nastiness, it reminds me of how conservatives treat Pres Obama. I don't care if democrats disagree with her or dislike her. That's normal in politics. But the level of hatred seems irrational.

    2. Anonymous8:22 AM

      HRC is a part of the problem IE a corporate owned politician.

      That's no hatred, but rather a simple fact!

    3. Anonymous9:34 AM

      the phrase "corporate owned" is a simplistic and trite.

    4. Anonymous9:35 AM

      Bernie Sanders bent to the will of conservatives and voted against marriage equality in Vermont.

    5. Anonymous10:36 AM

      And Sen Sanders has done that how many time and when did he do that??? Current voting record??

      But this is OK?

      HRC goes against Obama ans 91% of the US of A !!!!!!!!!

      Obama has cast his early and forceful opposition to the war as a key test of presidential judgment. The Clinton team has begun openly challenging his claim of political purity and authenticity on the volatile issue.

      The matter came to a head Monday at a forum at Harvard University, where Clinton strategist Mark Penn squared off with Obama adviser David Axelrod over the Illinois senator's voting record on the war. But beneath the squabble lay an acute recognition of the depth of voter anger over Iraq, especially among Democratic primary voters.

      Polls indicate that most Americans now decisively oppose the war, but the figure is much higher among Democrats. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken last month said that 61 percent of the public now believe the war was a mistake; among Democrats, it was 91 percent.

    6. Anonymous11:15 AM

      It is exactly what I'm talking about, 10:36. You don't know his record either because it hasn't gotten scrutiny or because you don't really care.
      I've posted this a few times in different IM threads:

      "But Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents. But the fact remains that, in the critical early days of the modern marriage equality movement, Sanders was neutral at best and hostile at worst."

      You read that correctly, "state's rights." A progressive shouldn't be using a state's rights argument to vote against civil rights.

    7. Anonymous12:05 PM

      Could it be, that as a representative of the people of Vermont, that he followed the will of the people of Vermont at the time?

      Now if you could produce polls showing othwerwise.

      That said, the DOMA is quite important, but deaths of war are not something to be trifled with.

      Peace out!

    8. Anonymous12:32 PM

      Great answer, 12:05. No, wait, it's a shitty one. It sucks that a progressive like Bernie Sanders would use that kind of excuse to deny a class of people their civil rights.

    9. Anonymous12:57 PM

      Their was a day that scotus represented the people,

      rather that giving rights to corporations (citizens united).

      Could it be both dem and rep judges are corporately owned?

      O IM everyone is saying all our politicians are taking wall street money and somehow that makes it the right thing to do?

      Feel the Bern!

  8. Replies
    1. Anonymous7:04 AM

      It's not s bad sign. It's just the way it is. The media goes after Hillary for everything. Chelsea is a public figure now and campaigning for her mom.

    2. Anonymous9:18 AM

      And why I maintain that Track and Bristol are fair game. They are no longer children.

    3. Anonymous10:37 AM

      Chelsea has been begging for Wall Streets donations, that makes her open game!

      Just like Sarah and her props!

    4. Anonymous11:10 AM

      The WashPo is a a newspaper run by a bunch of conservatives, and they've been going after Chelsea Clinton since she was 12 years old and they used to love to say she was ugly.

    5. Anonymous11:46 AM

      A bad sign of what? They went after Chelsea when she was a preteen. This is par for the course.

    6. Anonymous12:33 PM

      Why would she have to beg for them if her mother is supposedly the mascot of Wall Street?

    7. Anonymous2:41 PM

      Exactly my point; why else would anyone pay, Chelsea Clinton. $225,000 for a speech.

      Granted I hold a higher opinion of Chelsea, than I do Bristol Palin, Bristles or it barstool these days.

      IM seems quite at home with silly names and stereo typing.

      But these personal attacks over words, that are part of our language is beneath you.

      In all honesty crying sexist, rather the debate the point, is quite a weak diversion at best.

    8. Anonymous3:45 PM

      Words have meaning.

      Would you say the same thing is someone came here and criticized President Obama's drone policy, calling him a "nigger" in the same sentence?

      Let's have a debate about Clinton. Let's do it without calling her a "crone" or a "bitch" or any other sexist names.

    9. Anonymous5:37 PM


      Do you have a manual of what I am allowed to say? I thought this was the USA? I've heard sarah called much worse here at IM wasn't that sexist, where were you protests then?

      Does the use of the word crone diminish clintons selling weapons to nations supplying terrorists? And what about how the donations to the clinton foundation match with arms sales?

      You ask me about the n word, not one I use, nor do I make use of the c word. But I might describe Obama as colored or black.

      And I feel the use of crone bothers you but you have made a lot out of it that was not intended, a little fanatical on the subject.

      How many words do we just remove from use, to support your view?

      Plllease get over it! lol's

  9. Anonymous7:42 AM

    What's scary is how die hard Sanders supporters give him the benefit of the doubt on everything. I'm impressed with his take on most issues and agree with them. But he has made some questionable comments on urban vs rural when it comes to gun control, he didn't really vote for gay marriage rights until relatively recently, and his comments on planned parenthood were outrageous. All of this gets rationalized away or ignored.

    1. Anonymous8:24 AM

      HRC is a corporate politician that is a war hawk, tet her followers ignore those facts.

    2. Anonymous9:36 AM

      Hillary fans are in denial!

      Only their love of Hillary means anything.

      They will gladly accept corporate politics if it gets Hillary what she wants.

      It's all about Hillary, not our broken government.

      Just think Hillary, ignore everything that is negative about her.


    3. Anonymous11:48 AM

      So, 9:36, what do you think about it?

      "But he has made some questionable comments on urban vs rural when it comes to gun control, he didn't really vote for gay marriage rights until relatively recently, and his comments on planned parenthood were outrageous."

      Don't you care about what Sanders' records and feelings are on gun control, gay marriage, and reproductive rights?

    4. Anonymous12:41 PM

      OMG HRC sales Billions of dollars in weapons and make a tidy profit; you're whining about comments on gun control.

      HRC promotes Monsato, hows that for bad!

      Eat your GMO cornflakes and STFU.

    5. Anonymous12:49 PM

      I am a rural Alaskan and each year my hunting rifle puts food on my families table.

      I might not be the one to talk to on the taking away of gun rights.

      But I do not want to defend against humans with firearms.

      Just critters...

    6. Anonymous1:40 PM

      Yes, I care about the fact that Bernie Sanders gave blanket immunity to gun sellers and manufacturers and I care that he voted against gay marriage based on states' rights and I care that he spoke out against planned parenthood right after they got raked over the coals.

      These things are as important to me as a progressive as economic and foreign policies.

      You see, even though I like Bernie Sanders and his policies and I am leaning toward voting for him in the primaries (in spite of some of his supporters), I don't pretend he has a spotless record or that he is infallible.

  10. Anonymous8:02 AM

    "Why over her political career has Wall Street been a major, the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton? Maybe they're dumb and they don't know what they're going to get, but I don't think so," Sanders said. "I have never heard a candidate, never, who has received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street from the military industrial complex, not one candidate -- 'Oh these, these campaign contributions will not influence me.' But why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something, everybody knows that."
    -Bernie Sanders

    1. Anonymous8:25 AM

      The truth, how many will know it when they see it.

  11. Anonymous8:38 AM

    Condasleeze and Colin's emails, now that would be an interesting read.

    Also too, it is ok if they used their own servers, they are repubicans and republicans never lie or try to hide things :)

  12. Randall8:38 AM

    Gosh! I imagine that it's all over Fox News:
    If Hillary's guilty, then so are Colin and Condoleeza.

    Yeah, sure...

  13. Anonymous8:43 AM

    Is there anyone at IM, that denies HRC is a warhawk?

    Well do you deny this?

  14. Anonymous8:46 AM

    Report: Iowa Democratic Party Unilaterally Shifted Delegates From Bernie To Hillary

    Read more:

  15. Anonymous9:11 AM

    Andy Mcguire IDP -

    McGuire is close to Clinton in other ways. In 2007 she was appointed to the Women’s Leadership Council for Team Hillary, a group of 250 women whose goal was to help Clinton reach the White House.

  16. Anonymous9:15 AM

    The Iowa Democratic party chair who is refusing to release raw vote totals from Monday’s state caucuses is a long-time Hillary Clinton supporter who donated to the politician’s various campaigns and who reportedly drives a Buick with the license plate “HRC 2016.”

  17. Anonymous9:16 AM

    1. Anonymous10:00 AM

      It's a ridiculous request.

    2. Anonymous10:46 AM

      Many of the journalists reporting on Hillary are also on the speakers circuit. (Most talking heads from all the networks are on the speakers circuit) Maybe they should release all of their speeches so we can see whether their commentary is tainted to benefit the organizations who've hired them.

    3. Anonymous11:08 AM

      The request that HRC release the speaking transcripts was asked by a voter, not Sen Sanders.

      The people want to know, or at least some of us do.

  18. Anonymous9:21 AM

    According to Hillary's 2014 Tax Return, the Clinton's Total Income was $28,336,212, which places them among the top 0.1% of Americans.

    1. Anonymous10:00 AM

      Hardly surprising for a former POTUS and Governor and a former FLOTUS, Senator, and Secretary of State. Do they need to make a vow of poverty in order to satisfy you? Give away all their money?

    2. Anonymous10:16 AM

      Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

      These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

      The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

    3. Anonymous10:17 AM

      These countries that were receiving sweetheart deals from Clinton were violating human rights left and right, and that’s according to information that the State Department had. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait – all of these countries had been singled out by the State Department for things like corruption, violation of civil liberties, and violently retaliating against political opponents. But Hillary looked past all of these atrocities when she gave them massive weaponry.

    4. Anonymous10:19 AM

      As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of "an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." She declared that "Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region." She said the Kuwaiti government was "less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks." She noted that "UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups." All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department...

      In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.

    5. Anonymous10:22 AM

      American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

    6. Anonymous1:06 PM

      Foreign diplomacy doesn’t always resolve world-class problems, but it sure does rake in the swag.

      Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was given a half-million bucks worth of diamond and ruby jewelry by Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and received $58,000 worth of bling from Brunei.

      The lavish gifts were among a treasure trove of keepsakes bestowed upon U.S. leaders in 2012, the State Department disclosed Thursday.

      Russian President Vladimir Putin gave Clinton a $560 bottle of cognac

    7. Anonymous1:24 PM

      Sigh. Federal officials don't personally keep those kinds of gifts.

      Here is the end of the very article you link to (did you leave it out on purpose?):

      " The Constitution prohibits U.S. government employees from keeping presents worth more than $350. But officials at the U.S. General Services Administration said the gifts were accepted to avoid awkward moments.

      The GSA said some of the presents were donated and others were sold to the public."

  19. Anonymous9:38 AM

    The Iowa Democratic party chair who is refusing to release raw vote totals from Monday’s state caucuses is a long-time Hillary Clinton supporter who donated to the politician’s various campaigns and who reportedly drives a Buick with the license plate “HRC 2016.”

  20. Anonymous9:44 AM

    Rice and Powell did not maintain private servers for all their emails. Hillary is miles beyond your comparison. It is in typical Dem fashion though to still be looking in the rearview mirror at the Bush admin, every time the Obama administration fucks up.

    1. Anonymous9:55 AM

      Here that, Democrats? Hillary is WORSE than the Bush administration. This is the new rallying cry for Democrats that will result in a GOP presidency.

    2. Anonymous10:49 AM

      So, I guess your point is that the Rice and Powell private emails were less secure than Hillary's.

  21. Anonymous9:50 AM

    After a series of disastrous wars overseas, we should be looking for someone who has better “judgment” rather than candidates who have “experience” but are calling for more of the same policies in the Middle East that have led us into the mess we’re in now in the first place

    Nothing exemplifies this more than Hillary Clinton seemingly bragging about her foreign policy credentials at Thursday’s Democratic debate by citing her friendship with Henry Kissinger, who Christopher Hitchens called a war criminal. The former Nixon and Ford administration national security advisor and secretary of state is revered in DC foreign policy establishment circles but reviled just about everywhere else for his role in building or perpetuating multiple atrocities in east Asia during the late 1960s and 70s.

    As Gawker editor Alex Pareene remarked during the debate: “Never say ‘I was flattered when Henry Kissinger said I…’ unless the end of that sentence is ‘finally made him pay for his crimes.’”

    But it’s a far larger problem than the ubiquitousness of Kissinger, who still advises Republican candidates as well. The campaigns of Clinton, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all been advised by the same foreign policy “consulting” group made up of former defense and intelligence officials who epitomize DC conventional wisdom. A gaggle of former Bush administration officials most known for their Iraq war and pro-torture advocacy advises virtually every Republican candidate outside Donald Trump.

  22. Anonymous9:57 AM

    Sen. Bernie Sanders’ legislation to strengthen and expand Social Security would extend the life of the program an additional 40 years, from 2034 to 2074, according to a new analysis by the agency in charge of determining the solvency of Social Security.

  23. Three wrongs don't make a right. Hillary is using this to deflect blame from herself. If they did it, they are all wrong.

    1. Anonymous11:17 AM

      I've only heard two people in claim her innocent.

      1) HRC

      2) her campaign manager

    2. Anonymous11:42 AM

      They were classified after the fact in all cases. The point isn't that "two wrongs don't make a right." The point is that the GOP only went after Clinton. If you care about Clinton's emails, you should care about Rice's and Powell's.


  25. Anonymous1:01 PM

    Hillary makes a minimum of 225,000 for a speech, But she thinks a 15 dollar minimum wage is to high. Well Hillary it would take a minimum wage worker 15 years to make as much money as you do for a one hour speech to Goldman Sachs

  26. Anonymous5:08 PM

    I honestly thought we lived in a capitalistic society. Has/would Bernie write a book, make speeches and not take a cent?


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.