Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

This one is for Hillary Clinton

Who could stay on board with Mrs Clinton after this? Would Democrats risk her getting the nomination... and then an indictment? And aside from an indictment would you want someone like this leading our country?

Web Link ..... "Not only did Ms. Clinton deliberately demonstrate disdain for the Federal Records Act and nullify the protections of the Freedom of Information Act, she violated the Espionage Act by having information relating to the national defense on her server at all. And her deliberate disregard for national security made the job of all hackers that much easier."

Web Link ..... destroying original government documents is illegal. ..... Clinton wiped her server (but gave top security copies to her lawyer).

"It’s a three-year felony. The second part of it, anyone guilty of it can’t hold public office.”


Comments

Nice post thanks for Sharing with us

Web Link">Notting Hill Carnival

Web Link">Notting Hill Carnival London

Web Link">Notting Hill Carnival 2015

Web Link">Notting Hill Carnival dates

Web Link">Notting Hill Carnival 2015 dates


Judging by the above post, Hillary was either promoting Carnival cruises in her spare time and scrubbed too much, or "santosh king" is aiming for free advertising.

To the inevitable Madam Hillary, it is looking more and more like 2007 every day.

Where's that "reset" button when she kneads it?


I'll bet she wishes it were 2007 because right now she's 'cruising' for a term in the Big House instead of the White House.

She is done as a candidate, and, poetically, for the very reasons she was unworthy of the job anyway.


You underestimate the ability of Democrats to look past the crimes of their candidates and the ease in which Obama's politicized DOJ will fail to prosecute Democrats (unless those Democrats dare to cross Obama as Sen. Menendez of NJ did).


I think with the election coming up, Democratic partisans will take a position of Anybody but a Republican ("ABR"), and seeing Clinton showing grave signs of floundering, will soon also take the position of "ABC."

So there will be a new Annointed One, probably Biden


Such confidence.

I will bet you EACH $1000 that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee and will beat whatever Republican she runs against.

Any takers?


Although an interesting bet, you may want to hold off on it at least for a bit, due in no small part to rumors; and you Know how we all love rumors.

First, there is the rumor that Biden may throw his hat in the ring. It has been said that his son, before passing, made him promise he would. That may or may not be true, but certainly one can't turn their back on the possibility.

Next, and I first saw this last night, Al Gore's name is 'floating around as a possible candidate. I have no idea if that is true or not, but it is possible. "Rumors About Al Gore Considering a 2016 Run Are Overblown, Source Says", Web Link

One of the subtle nuances I seem to get from this is that the democratic leadership is concerned about Hillary and further that others see an opportunity.

One can only wonder why that is, but it sure looks that way.

Competition can only benefit us all.

Do what you like (of course) Coasters; but that is some serious money you're willing to plunk down on a possibly rapidly changing landscape. I do agree with you that Hillary should be able to beat any and all the losers the republicans have to offer (sorry lot they are), but that doesn't automatically mean that Hillary is the "chosen one".

You may want to postpone that generous offer until we know with certainty who is and who isn't running. Just a suggestion.


^^^ I will bet you EACH $1000 that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee and will beat whatever Republican she runs against. ^^^

That would require you to first stop hiding behind an anonymous name.

^^^ So there will be a new Annointed One, probably Biden ^^^

They nervous talking heads have turned to Al Gore now. The guilt-ridden trust fund babies and crony capitalists funding the global warming hysteria would like it, but for other Americans, AGW isn't that big on an issue. They would rather have the good jobs that Democrat policies prevent them from obtaining.


So much hate all wrapped in such an insignificant package. The pain must be excruciating.

Poor soul.


That would require you to first stop hiding behind an anonymous name.

Well, that makes it a twofer; you get to pay me $1000 to find out who I really am. You just have to put your money where your mouth is.


They would rather have the good jobs that Democrat policies prevent them from obtaining.

Funny, I thought Republicans were in control now. Get going and change those awful policies.

Tick-tock.


^^^ So much hate all wrapped in such an insignificant package. The pain must be excruciating. ^^^

What is it that you're calling hateful now? It's hard to keep up with all the drivel you spew in your tedious posts.


The new (actually that's an old rumor) is Hillary is having a lesbian affair with Huma.


Sorry, I sounded like TMZ or The National Enquirer.


Yet you didn't let that get in the way of posting it, huh? As if this circus doesn't already have enough rings and rumors to chew on.

Thanks.


George, Bill discussed their separate lives many times.


Here's the funny thing about the email server scandal.

Those emails that were received on the server were sent to Hillary's email address and domain. Clintonemail.com. They were not sent to, then forwarded from, a government-managed email server.

ANYONE who sent classified materials to a non-gov domain knew what they were doing and are culpable for any resulting security breech. Republicans and Democrats alike. Now, there are a lot of politicians that are somewhat technically challenged and they will be the ones explaining why they broke protocol.

The poop splash from this will be so large and broad that you can bet this problem will go away fairly quickly and conveniently once the usual witch-hunting suspects figure that out. Give them time. They're not very bright.


The new (actually that's an old rumor) is Hillary is having a lesbian affair with Huma.

It doesn't surprise me that politicos would go after a woman and that the place they'd go is what "conservatives" think they can cast as queer or tawdry or just "different". Similar to the birther nonsense.

It's also not unusual for the gossip wall to cast strong women as "dykes", too.

Pathetic.


The criminal law that Hillary Clinton violated (and which Gen. David Patreus plead guilty to):

Web Link

Weasel words from "Coasters" notwithstanding, the only question is whether Madam Hillary will be prosecuted by the Obama Administration or by a subsequent administration that has more respect for the rule of law.


"ANYONE who sent classified materials to a non-gov domain knew what they were doing and are culpable for any resulting security breech. Republicans and Democrats alike. Now, there are a lot of politicians that are somewhat technically challenged and they will be the ones explaining why they broke protocol."

That was the same Email address Hillary used as a Senator. What few people are not aware of is that Senators and Representatives are allowed (by law established by Congress) to conduct business on a non government Email account

"WASHINGTON — Members of Congress who are demanding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails are largely exempt from such scrutiny themselves.

Congress makes its own rules. It never has subjected itself to open records laws that force agencies such as the State Department to maintain records and turn them over to the public when asked."

Web Link


Speaking of missing E mails, remember the huge investigation when in 2007 there were 5 million missing E mails from The White House private Email account? Remember all the Congressional hearings? Remember all the news coverage?

Of course you don't because there was no investigation, no press coverage, no hearings.

Web Link

But of course Bush was a Republican and not running in 2008.


"George, Bill discussed their separate lives many times." I'm sorry; Bill who? and what exactly does that have to do with anything?

Some are so casual about public figures that I think it wise to be sure who "Bill" is before going down that hole.

In the meantime, and making a huge assumption, which I do not like to do; IF you are referring to Bill Clinton and you are trying to say that he has discussed his and Hillary's separate lives, it naturally begs the question; what exactly did Bill Clinton say about Hillary? More to the point did "Bill" say: "The new (actually that's an old rumor) is Hillary is having a lesbian affair with Huma." - Seal, a resident of Half Moon Bay, 1 hour ago

If so, you appear to be stating, with second hand at best knowledge, that Hillary Clinton is gay. A pretty bold move ... from someone who has absolutely zero idea - no matter who said what, when...unless of course it was Hillary.

So, Id respectfully ask you, Seal, to support your off-center accusation about Hillary; and please - don't just tell us that you heard it here or there, vaguely avoiding being accountable for your statements. If you wouldn't mind, please provide something of substance as your proof - like Proof.

Thank you.

PS: +1 to Coasters theme of a republican thinking of the worst thing they can, than using that to describe Hillary. Seems to me that there should be more than enough fodder to use when discussing Hillary to feel a need to make stuff up. She has been in front of the public in one capacity or another most of her adult life. One might think making something up, with all that time and material to use, is a little over the top. I'd agree.


George, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today? I'm not going to do your research for you. Hillary isn't gay, she's bi. Look it up for yourself. I'm leaving for the weekend.


George, you must take these rumors seriously.

Jerome Coursi, the World Net Daily reporter is the source

"In 2004, conservative political commentators hailed Jerome Corsi’s book on John Kerry’s military service, Unfit for Command, as a serious and devastating work despite the book’s factual shortcomings. Now targeting President Obama, Corsi has dedicated his career to peddling birther conspiracies. But with the birther movement’s efforts to declare Obama ineligible to be president going nowhere, Corsi is now arguing that Obama is secretly gay and was married to another man.

In his latest “report” for WorldNetDaily, Corsi ponders whether Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s church in order to meet other men at “The Down Low Club,” all confirmed by a source identified as “Carolyn,” who said Wright “helped Obama hide his homosexuality” and warned that people may have been killed to cover-up Obama’s dark, gay past."

Web Link

Corsi is the man who appeared on Alex Jones' Info Wars and declared Hillary was having a lesbian affair and was a member of The Muslim Brotherhood.

Now I watched every episode of "The L Word" on HBO so that qualifies me as an expert and Coursi may well be right. .......or maybe he is full of crap


"I'm not going to do your research for you." That's rich.

You make a claim - I question Your claim - I ask you to support Your claim with (aghast!!!) Proof - and you respond with such arrogance (how dare I question you!) trying to spin this my way? Choice stuff, Seal.

Seal has declared - "The new (actually that's an old rumor) is Hillary is having a lesbian affair with Huma." That rather reminds me of a Kindergarten student calling another the worst thing that child thinks they know ... poophead!

Then, in a fit after actually being challenged, Seal has the nerve to try to spin those accusations into my lap, suggesting I do Seal's "homework", then claims - "Look it up for yourself. I'm leaving for the weekend."

What a backbone.

Seal is very quick to challenge others in disagreement, but doesn't seem to appreciate it when challenged in return.

Isn't there a word for that? rational? No ... reasonable? No ... what is that word?


^^^ But of course Bush was a Republican and not running in 2008. ^^^

The article quoted by "BoneyBills" is woefully out-of-date and does not address any of the many known lies from the inevitable Madam Hillary on the issue.


... the use of other bad behavior to justify bad behavior is also very poor logic. Prosecute them both, I say.


Weasel words from "Coasters" notwithstanding, the only question is whether Madam Hillary will be prosecuted by the Obama Administration or by a subsequent administration that has more respect for the rule of law.

Hey, moron, were you born yesterday? The question is about power and Hillary and Bill knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they did this.

I'm reminded of Lao Tzu and Napoleon who essentially said that, "If you're marching quickly into the field of battle with no resistance, you're about to be slaughtered."

This too shall pass. Morons.


It all boils down to Hillary having -in all likelihood- committed a felony and no longer being eligible for the job. The sooner she gracefully exists to support another Democrat's candidacy the better to all.

I don't care if she's gay, bi, or just desperate. I just wish she would stop assuming she's above the law and above everyone else.

Compare what she's done to the relatively minor accusations against General Petreus and Rick Perry. They're not even in the same ball park. And is that poor videographer still in jail? The one Hillary blamed for the Benghazi attack?


Forget about Hillary.....Bernie is the Democrat for you to now start hammering....Bernie will be the Democrat Presidential candidate in 2016. I'll be one of the 30000 in Reno Tuesday listening to him. He is drawing bigger crowds that any primary candidate in history.

"CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)—Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont senator say.

According to those critics, Sanders has cynically targeted so-called “truth-based voters” to build support for his Presidential bid.

“People come to Sanders’s rallies expecting to hear the truth, and he serves it up to them on a silver platter,” the political strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “It’s a very calculated gimmick.”

But while Sanders’s practice of relentlessly telling the truth might play well in states that are rich in truth-based voters, like the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, critics say that his campaign could stall in states where the truth has historically been less important, like Florida.

“At some point in this campaign, voters are going to get truth fatigue,” Dorrinson said. “Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines. But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”

Dorrinson is just one of many critics who is eagerly waiting for the Sanders phenomenon to come down to Earth. “Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said."


>>“Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines.<<

Sounds a bit like Trump.

>>"But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”<<

Again, possibly the same thing with Trump. I'm waiting to hear more concrete ideas but he's a loose cannon with that big mouth.

>>“Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said."<<

I hope that was a joke.


It all boils down to Hillary having -in all likelihood- committed a felony

Can you share your legal expertise in this matter? What felony or felonies was/were committed?


Read the OP.


Sorry, Uff. I mis-clicked and ended-up in a quagmire of partisan media. Is there a site with credibility that has actual proof Hillary is felonious?


>>Is there a site with credibility that has actual proof Hillary is felonious?<<

Haha, Coasters, you're killing me.

I intentionally said "in all likelihood" to avoid arguments of "where's the proof".

The level of proof you want probably requires a video, a confession, a trial, and the concurrence of the almighty Obama.


Most rational people don't require such proof. This FoxNews poll indicates that, other than Democrats, most people think she lied about the emails and that her handling of those emails jeopardized national security:

Web Link

Some 87 percent of Republicans say Clinton lied, it said, and 81 percent think her use of the device was a security risk.

Among independents, 67 percent believe Clinton acted dishonestly, and over half — 54 percent — believe she endangered national security.

Democrats were most forgiving, with 27 percent thinking Clinton lied and 29 percent seeing her server use as a national security danger.

Some Democrats outside that 27 percent/29 percent are even foolish enough (or insincere enough) to wager that Madam Hillary will be the next president.


"I hope that was a joke"

Uff, check the byline on the "truth" story.

"CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)".....l

I know this is deadly serious blood sport for some, but come on.....it's over a year till the election and absolutely no one's mind is going to be changed by anything we write here on Talkabout.

Making a statement that includes "In all likelihood" means that no proof is required?

In all likelihood Uffish beats his wife!!!!!


The culling of the republican herd continues. First, it's the indicted X-governor of Texas Perry who can't keep up; now this (not unexpected) - "The candidate everyone thought could change the Republican Party is completely collapsing", Web Link

"Last fall, TIME magazine declared Paul the "most interesting man in politics" and stamped him on its cover. Paul launched his campaign earlier this year pledging that he was a "different kind of Republican." Four months later, though it's still early in a crowded, fluid race, it's clear that many Republicans want different — but not him."

He does look very Presidential on that cover, doesn't he?

Then we see this: "His campaign is struggling to keep up with his rivals in fundraising. Two of his political allies running an outside super PAC supporting his candidacy were recently indicted on campaign-finance fraud charges. Significant plunges in polling are starting to correspond."

"Campaign-finance fraud charges"? Ouch. As easy as it is to raise 'secret money', and still "two of his political allies" are indicted on campaign-finance fraud charges? That is all those two do is raise money for Rand's campaign. One might think they know the laws and one would certainly expect that a Presidential candidate follow all laws, wouldn't one?

Well, a law here and a law there; such petty interference in the quest for the Brass Ring shouldn't really matter, should it?

Two down, fifteen to go.


^^^ The culling of the republican herd continues. ^^^

Some fools bang the same drum no matter what the topic.

^^^ Uff, check the byline on the "truth" story. ^^^

Yeah, who cares about the seriousness of her incompetence and lawless behavior!:

Web Link

and

Web Link


Here's one for the Hillary ghouls: "Hillary Clinton Tries Boosting Poll Numbers: Threatens Third Party Run, Gives Out Bernie Sanders' Phone Number", Web Link

Funny stuff. Does this remind anyone of someone?


^^^ Funny stuff. Does this remind anyone of someone? ^^^

The guy that will go further in the primary than her?


George, thanks for the great article. You imply that it's humor, but we both know that Hillary is speaking the truth when she said

"I want to be the Democratic nominee, but if they don't treat me fairly, I may keep the door open for something else. You like Joe Biden so much--why don't you marry him? And give me a break--Martin O'Malley? Loser. Lincoln Chafee? He's from Rhode Island--the smallest state, full of Hispanics and not the good kind. And Bernie Sanders? He says he's a socialist, but Ronald Reagan once said he was a Democrat and look what happened. The Justice Department? Stupid. The State Department? Full of idiots and stupid idiots. I mean, if it weren't for me, none of you would even be talking about hacking or secret documents or computers or national security. You should be thanking me for using a private server! We need to build a cyber wall and I'll make the Russians and the Chinese pay for it. They will pay for it and they'll give each person in the United States a new car. Russia and China love me. They love me. Everybody loves me! I get things done because I have a lot of money. If I can get 25 million dollars making speeches, I can get Russia and China to do whatever I want. Also, Maureen Dowd is a bimbo."

I am working for Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is wrong about one thing in her comments. Maureen Dowd is NOT a bimbo!!!!

Web Link


Hillary probably thinks SHE is the authority here, so it was OK:

"U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1924

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."


knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority

That describes every single person who emailed Hillary any state secrets. They "removed" them from the .gov domain as soon as they sent them to clintonemail.com. Can't wait to see the list of Republicans who did that.

I realize that this witch hunt stuff is easier for "conservatives" than creating jobs and tackling the VERY important issue of illegal immigration, but it sure is sad and tedious.


It doesn't make Clinton setting up an off site server any less illegal. She was the boss who knew better.

Or is incompetence her defense for ignoring security? And I cant wait to hear what tactics she used to squelch enforcement of email policies.


Really? Interesting theory, Uff.

Karl Rove disagrees with you.

Web Link

Never mind that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, has said he used a system similar to Clinton’s — and never mind that in 2007 Karl Rove deleted 22 million emails from a private server in the Bush White House — a matter about which the Beltway media said little and Republicans in Congress, like Rep. John Boehner, said nothing.


More email hypocrisy from DC...

Web Link

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday's Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC's This Week.)

By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton's "email" or "emails" were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.

One might infer that the media finds Hillary a more exciting target than they found Dubya. She's not POTUS , yet, but is getting far more heat than the actual POTUS did for the same issue. Interesting, no?


She -should- get equal attention. Voters need to know what she's like. If you like corruption and scandal, she's your gal.


I'm certain you were equally outraged by Rove's deleting 22 million of Dubya's emails, right Uff? I bet the blogosphere was lit-up with your anger. LOL!


Never even heard about it.


Never even heard about it.

Well now you have. I'm certain you're outraged.


'Crank Economics, Crank Science, Crank Foreign Policy', Web Link

It took a while but finally someone in the media voiced what most people who aren't Republican partisans have known for a long time. The day after the first Republican debate, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote: "One of our two major parties has gone off the deep end. Or as the political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it in their book 'It's Even Worse Than It Looks,' the G.O.P. has become an 'insurgent outlier ... unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.' "

This might be stating the too-obvious-to-bother if it was just the Tea Party loonies, but it's not.

Krugman went on, "While media puff pieces have portrayed Mr. Trump's rivals as serious men... their supposed seriousness is all surface. Judge them by positions as opposed to image, and what you have is a lineup of cranks... Crank economics, crank science, crank foreign policy are all necessary parts of a candidate's resume... Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today's Republican Party... Leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a facade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party."

No one so prominent as Krugman has put it so bluntly before. Certainly not the pundits whose jobs require that they "maintain the pretense" nor the Democratic politicians who must sit across the negotiating table from these "cranks."

There is not a single policy issue where the Republicans have science and/or the consensus of scientific experts on their side. Not one.


I first ran across this yesterday, and smiled. It brought back memories, but it was not publicly known ... until now (I'll explain later).

In addition, it seems it is not getting any traction (yet), and maybe it shouldn't be a headline story, but it should be 'out there' for consideration for voters: "Hillary Clinton, Bane of the Secret Service", Web Link

That is not the only story about Clinton on this topic, so for those that might quibble over the source, forget about it. It is real.

The questions that will trouble some with this input will be; 1) is Clinton who I want in the White House? 2) is Clinton best and most qualified & 3) do I really want a Commander-in-Chief with such a bad attitude? All realistic and logical questions. Heck, I ask myself those same questions.

I had hoped that Clinton had mellowed over the years. It appears she hasn't, which is disappointing. One might have thought that the Lewinsky affair, all of it from start to now, would have rubbed off some of those sharp rough edges. It doesn't appear that way, which makes Bernie a target of interest for those that just can't get behind any of the republican wannabes.


Oh good. It must be safe now for Democrats to venture out against Hillary Clinton. The group-think is turning (where's the gratitude to Trey Gowdy for saving them from themselves?).

Hillary's behaviour as cited above has been widely known for some time by anyone open to hearing it. Democrat FYI agent Gary Aldrich wrote the best seller "Unlimited Access" about the shocking lack of White House security as well as the Clinton's jaw dropping dismissive attitude toward FBI and Secret Service agents and the job they needed to do... on the Clintons' behalf, mind you.


"I am feeling the Bern"


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium