View Full Version : Valerie Jarreett Behind Hillary Clinton E-mail Scandal Leak!
30 cal slut
03-15-15, 08:53
Wow.
http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-adviser-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail-scandal/
Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal
By Edward Klein
March 14, 2015 | 9:33pm
It’s the vast left-wing conspiracy.
Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.
But she did so through people outside the *administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.
In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.
Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been *going on at the State Department. I’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.
Members of Bill Clinton’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.
...
Wow.
http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-adviser-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail-scandal/
That would explain how the NYT broke the story and took the lead.
Sensei,
The article posted states the story originated in the New York Post.
That being the case, how did the New York Times get involved?
Or, was it the other way around?
Thanks!
Obviously they want someone more extreme to be the nominee.
Paging Liawatha Warren who makes Marxists seem merely liberal.
sevenhelmet
03-15-15, 11:13
Looks like a smoke screen...
Anyone still paying attention to the Benghazi debacle? If they are, I'm sure it will be timed to come to fruition only after Mr. "Change You Can Believe In" leaves office. :mad:
Isn't it pretty well known that the Obama's and the Clinton's pretty much hate each other? Anyway I think this is great! Dethrone Queen Hillary, AKA "Nixon in a pant suit".......
Voodoo_Man
03-15-15, 12:23
If I remember correctly the hillbilly camp really despised obama and biden but campaigned anyway.
Heavy Metal
03-15-15, 13:20
I am convinced that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination this time, she will burn the democrat party down on her way out the door.
sevenhelmet
03-15-15, 13:21
I am convinced that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination this time, she will burn the democrat party down on her way out the door.
Suits me, I hope that's what happens.
Heavy Metal
03-15-15, 13:22
I won't be getting misty if it happens unless it is from too much Schadenfraude induced laughter.
But, but, but she "deserves" to get to be "potus", after all, look at the sacrifice she made being the least accomplished secretary of state.
Hey man, when you travel a lot of miles you should get the nod.
Ah, long distance truckers, airline pilots, train engineers, and astronauts might have a better claim, but whose counting....?
Sensei,
The article posted states the story originated in the New York Post.
That being the case, how did the New York Times get involved?
Or, was it the other way around?
Thanks!
My understanding is that the NYT played a big role in bring this story to the forefront. This has been a bit surprising to many of us since that publication is a liberal rag.
MountainRaven
03-15-15, 17:07
My understanding is that the NYT played a big role in bring this story to the forefront. This has been a bit surprising to many of us since that publication is a liberal rag.
Interesting to me, as I've been reading that the Dems are uncomfortable about Clinton because they have no idea who to put forward for the nomination other than Hil-Liar-y.
Perhaps this is an effort to "inoculate" her against such scandals by having already exposed the American people to them?
Suits me, I hope that's what happens.
Me too, I don't have a problem with that..
I am convinced that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination this time, she will burn the democrat party down on her way out the door.
Best possible case scenario I can see.
If you air the dirty laundry now (Benghazi, emails, etc...) you simply dampen the shock later when it's brought up and people forget about it. The main issue is what kind of buffoon is the Republican party going to put forth that will all but guarantee another Democratic regime.
Me too, I don't have a problem with that..
Best possible case scenario I can see.
If that's the case hopefully she'll take some of the dem lite GOP leadership with her.
Bolt_Overide
03-16-15, 10:37
If you air the dirty laundry now (Benghazi, emails, etc...) you simply dampen the shock later when it's brought up and people forget about it. The main issue is what kind of buffoon is the Republican party going to put forth that will all but guarantee another Democratic regime.
This is my take on it, they are just playing politics with a public that has no memory and an attention span that cant go past the latest crap from honey boo boo.
If you air the dirty laundry now (Benghazi, emails, etc...) you simply dampen the shock later when it's brought up and people forget about it.
Agreed. Come campaign time, all she'll have to do is say "What difference does it make at this point?" and she'll be past it with the majority of the American sheeple.
This is really the only legitimate reason the email scandal is still in the news. If this was a republican lead charge, it would have been news for a day and gone. Dems don't even want her, or they wouldn't mind, but want Warren more.
If the GOP is smart, they'll shut up and let the two factions here battle it out. They aren't though, they'll interrupt their enemies who are making mistakes.
This is really the only legitimate reason the email scandal is still in the news. If this was a republican lead charge, it would have been news for a day and gone. Dems don't even want her, or they wouldn't mind, but want Warren more.
If the GOP is smart, they'll shut up and let the two factions here battle it out. They aren't though, they'll interrupt their enemies who are making mistakes.
I can see where you would be going with this, but if Democrats and Republicans are both complaining about one party, then the likely hood of finding commonalities through a larger group of the population would further push her away from a nomination slot. Her time was 2008 and she lost to Obama. I do know that there is a group of people within the US that would vote for her no matter what, so she may get nominated anyways.
Cincinnatus
03-16-15, 13:26
If you air the dirty laundry now (Benghazi, emails, etc...) you simply dampen the shock later when it's brought up and people forget about it. The main issue is what kind of buffoon is the Republican party going to put forth that will all but guarantee another Democratic regime.
Yup. And the RNC would rather lose running a RINO than win running a conservative; the Republican establishment, northeast types loathed Reagan and want to be sure that never happens again.
They hate conservatives more than they oppose liberals; in fact, they prefer to cooperate with liberals more than conservatives.
William Howard Taft had a term for such Republicans: he called them "assistant Democrats."
If Jeb gets the nomination, I'm going third party, and yes I know it is political suicide, but so is electing Jeb or any other RINO.
If you air the dirty laundry now (Benghazi, emails, etc...) you simply dampen the shock later when it's brought up and people forget about it. The main issue is what kind of buffoon is the Republican party going to put forth that will all but guarantee another Democratic regime.
Yep. The most amazing thing to me, it shouldn't be but it is, is the fact that most people don't even understand Benghazi and the private emails on a server at home are related issues. It's like people thinking the Watergate break in and Nixon bugging the building are unrelated.
Maybe the GOP keeps pushing this as well because they think they could actually win in 2016 and their scared of that? They want to a permanent minority... Maybe the string pullers really want a Warren type in the White House. Gag
If you air the dirty laundry now (Benghazi, emails, etc...) you simply dampen the shock later when it's brought up and people forget about it. The main issue is what kind of buffoon is the Republican party going to put forth that will all but guarantee another Democratic regime.
True. and add to that that Hillary knows that despite the fact that her, and Bill despise the Obama's, They'll stick together, because they're both socalist, marxist progressive's, and as long as Obumbo is in office the DOJ will do nothing, no matter how guilty Hillary is... This is IMO, just more proof that we, as a country, do not have a functioning government.(that is, one that obeys it's own laws...and not one set for "them" and another for "us") Hillary's banking on the fact that most voters are stupid, and will forget all about this by election day..
My understanding is that the NYT played a big role in bring this story to the forefront. This has been a bit surprising to many of us since that publication is a liberal rag.
I was surprised at first also, but everything the NYT prints is to advance an agenda. It could be the don't think Hillary is Progressive enough and would be like Bill in office, and compromise when backed into a corner. The Clintons are sell outs, not ideologues. They want money and power, and Dem politics has been the way to get it. Warren, and O'Malley are like Obama. Far, far left, progressive (communist) ideologues.
There were enough stupid people to elect Obama twice , so my bet is on yet another Dem in the a White House.
To many dummies, and free loaders to elect a Republican.
Averageman
03-17-15, 06:23
I'm willing to bet Jarret did it, I'm also willing to bet she's the one who wanted Hillary for the job. No experiance, no skills, they knew she would fail and ruin her chances to be POTUS.
If the right candidate goes up against her and wants to really take her out the information to do so will be given to him and yes, she'll crack in the debate.
Outlander Systems
03-17-15, 07:02
“The Clintons kind of think the law’s for, like, you ordinary people. You know, they think they are somehow above the law.”
- Rand Paul
If this dude doesn't get the nomination, the GOP deserves to become the next Whig party.
“The Clintons kind of think the law’s for, like, you ordinary people. You know, they think they are somehow above the law.”
- Rand Paul
If this dude doesn't get the nomination, the GOP deserves to become the next Whig party.
The problem with Rand Paul is simple.. He speaks the truth way too often, and it's rather inconvenient for both parties.. Someone who speaks the truth will NEVER be nominated for POTUS...
The problem with Rand Paul is simple.. He speaks the truth way too often, and it's rather inconvenient for both parties.. Someone who speaks the truth will NEVER be nominated for POTUS...
The problems with Rand Paul are:
1) No real executive experience. This will be less of a problem once he gets some legislative wins under his belt. For now, Walker has him beat when it comes to actually running an organization in a manner that shrinks the size of government. Bush also has him beat in the experience department, but I'm not sure if Jeb governed as a conservative since I did not live in FL while he was in office.
2) KY does not deliver many Electoral College votes and is not a swing state. Candidates coming from key swing states like FL, OH, PA, etc. have a huge advantage. This is especially true for FL since it is a must win. Guys like Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Walker (to a lesser extent) have this advantage.
3) He is seen as the Diet Coke version of his father - 1 calorie wacky when it comes to foreign policy. You and I may call it truth, but it does not resonate with the other half of the party.
Averageman
03-17-15, 15:32
I would like to see Walker in some debates.
I think it will come down to an ability to field questions in a way that disarms the liberals completely. What I don't want to see is a replay of Obama vs Romney. Several times in those debates Romney could have hit it out of the park by calling out Obama on out right lies. Instead he was content to sit back and be labeled an elitist and lost.
The next guy has to be willing to tell his opponent "You're a liar and here is why." otherwise were in for another beating. If you're not willing to upset the apple cart you have no business getting in there at such a pivotal time in our history.
The problems with Rand Paul are:
1) No real executive experience. ..
.
I'm not being argumentative with you, but I think we can throw that one out. Look at the current occupier of the White House. He had little experience in anything but he managed to fool people to elect him. He was a US Senator for less than two years, that's total time holding office, doesn't mean he worked anywhere in that time. Before he was a US Senator, he was an Illinois state senator for about 7 years, how many of those did he actually do anything is debatable.
Bottom line is, one needs a catchy slogan, media behind you and run against a person or platform that people are tired of, that's how you get elected president.
I'm not being argumentative with you, but I think we can throw that one out. Look at the current occupier of the White House. He had little experience in anything but he managed to fool people to elect him. He was a US Senator for less than two years, that's total time holding office, doesn't mean he worked anywhere in that time. Before he was a US Senator, he was an Illinois state senator for about 7 years, how many of those did he actually do anything is debatable.
Bottom line is, one needs a catchy slogan, media behind you and run against a person or platform that people are tired of, that's how you get elected president.
The executive experience category has less to do with getting elected and more to do with job performance once in the White House. Liberals and progressives live their lives in the world of emotion and theory. Conservatism is based on reality and practicality - hence our need for a record of achievement. Obama is the prime example of what happens when you put a neophyte in the world's top management job. Hillary's only saving grace is that her husband would be standing behind her...and every other female White House staffer
skijunkie55
03-17-15, 16:02
And in other news, the White House has officially told anyone submitting a FOIA request about the administration to suck it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/16/white-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/
I would like to see Walker in some debates.
I think it will come down to an ability to field questions in a way that disarms the liberals completely. What I don't want to see is a replay of Obama vs Romney. Several times in those debates Romney could have hit it out of the park by calling out Obama on out right lies. Instead he was content to sit back and be labeled an elitist and lost.
The next guy has to be willing to tell his opponent "You're a liar and here is why." otherwise were in for another beating. If you're not willing to upset the apple cart you have no business getting in there at such a pivotal time in our history.
Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate. I remember the opinion makers on MSNBC being apoplectic after Romney finished mopping the floor with Obama. It was the best GOP performance since Reagan-Carter. Then, he decided to play it safe in the last two debates instead of going for the Mortal Kombat fatality. This decision probably cost him the election.
Whoever gets the GOP nod had better learn the art of ripping out their opponent's spine while appearing to be affable. They also must learn from Romney's mistake that there is no room for playing it safe; keep swinging with everything you got until the bell rings.
Outlander Systems
03-17-15, 17:27
I'm not being argumentative with you, but I think we can throw that one out. Look at the current occupier of the White House. He had little experience in anything but he managed to fool people to elect him. He was a US Senator for less than two years, that's total time holding office, doesn't mean he worked anywhere in that time. Before he was a US Senator, he was an Illinois state senator for about 7 years, how many of those did he actually do anything is debatable.
Bottom line is, one needs a catchy slogan, media behind you and run against a person or platform that people are tired of, that's how you get elected president.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(Senate_candidate)#Campaign_demise
Subsequent to his withdrawal from the U.S. Senate race in Illinois, Jack Ryan has characterized what happened to him as a "new low for politics in America".[14] According to Ryan, it was unprecedented in American politics for a newspaper to sue for access to sealed custody documents.
Outlander Systems
03-17-15, 17:29
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(Senate_candidate)#Campaign_demise
I call shenanigans. Somebody scratched somebody's back...
Voodoo_Man
03-17-15, 17:43
I'm not being argumentative with you, but I think we can throw that one out. Look at the current occupier of the White House. He had little experience in anything but he managed to fool people to elect him. He was a US Senator for less than two years, that's total time holding office, doesn't mean he worked anywhere in that time. Before he was a US Senator, he was an Illinois state senator for about 7 years, how many of those did he actually do anything is debatable.
Bottom line is, one needs a catchy slogan, media behind you and run against a person or platform that people are tired of, that's how you get elected president.
If experience and credentials on a resume were what got people in the white house, the current bozo wouldn't be qualified to sweep the floors at the gate.
But for some reason someone who only has "community organizer" on his resume and zero experience other than living off the .gov tit is running the ship.
Amazin, ain't it?
If experience and credentials on a resume were what got people in the white house, the current bozo wouldn't be qualified to sweep the floors at the gate.
But for some reason someone who only has "community organizer" on his resume and zero experience other than living off the .gov tit is running the ship.
Amazin, ain't it?
The Peter principle at work?
Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate. I remember the opinion makers on MSNBC being apoplectic after Romney finished mopping the floor with Obama. It was the best GOP performance since Reagan-Carter. Then, he decided to play it safe in the last two debates instead of going for the Mortal Kombat fatality. This decision probably cost him the election.
Whoever gets the GOP nod had better learn the art of ripping out their opponent's spine while appearing to be affable. They also must learn from Romney's mistake that there is no room for playing it safe; keep swinging with everything you got until the bell rings.
That's the problem exemplified in nominating a Moderate. they think they can "moderate" their way to a win. It doesn't work that way. They waffle all over the place in order to appease everyone, and wind up appeasing no one. If GOP voters don't grow a spine before going to the polls in the primaries, they can expect yet another stinging defeat. :(
brickboy240
03-19-15, 15:52
Well when we have two basically Democrat states pick our candidate in the crazy primary system we have...what the hell do you expect?
We will always get a squishy moderate or someone that will get all riled up over abortion or homos marrying and be an easy punching bag for big media and the DNC.
This appears to be the pattern. Until this is broken...don't expect any significant changes....ok?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.