It Won’t Be Hillary: Schweizer’s book will finish off doomed Clinton campaign. Who else do Dems have? Much like a mediocre NFL team laden with overpaid, declining veteran players

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    Honestly, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign won’t go any further than — if it even gets as far as — her ill-fated 2008 attempt at returning to the White House. After all, Clinton isn’t a more attractive candidate now than she was then, and after two terms of a failed Democrat president one would think it would require a candidate with real political skill to keep a Democrat installed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Clinton, unlike her glib husband, has no such talent. Last week’s amateurish and clumsy “rollout” to her presidential bid showed she has no more aptitude for retail politics than she has for messaging. Want proof? This woman, who touched off guffaws nationwide by claiming she and Bill were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House (with silverware in tow) in 2001, decided to offer herself as a champion of the little people as the key theme of her campaign.
    ------
    And what makes Clinton Cash so impactful — the howling about Schweizer looks hollow in the face of three major news organizations, including the New York Times and Washington Post, agreeing to join him in investigating the allegations made in the book — is that it comes on the heels of another scandal showing just how far from regular Americans she is. Hillary opting to use her own email server to conduct government business as Secretary of State and then destroying that server rather than provide the government with all the emails residing thereon stands in rather discordant harmony with the content of Schweizer’s book.
    ------
    When the leadership of the Democratic Party is found in the Hillary Clintons, Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis, Joe Bidens, John Kerrys, and Al Gores of the world, and the Democrats’ bench has been badly depleted in the last few election cycles, there are no young stars on the way up.
    ------
    It points to an exceedingly bleak choice: ride Clinton to her inevitable bitter end and suffer the down-ballot damage a rejected presidential candidate inevitably brings, or start over with a sacrificial lamb who might be better poised for a 2020 comeback. In the latter might come eventual renewal. In the former only comes the defeat and disgrace of a worn-out, spent political party.

    http://spectator.org/articles/62507/it-won’t-be-hillary
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 8:03 PM GMT
    A smear article from the Conservative site The American Spectator... LOL!!!

    Full of half-truths and distortions, and outright lies (for instance, Schweizer himself now admits to "serious errors" in his forthcoming book, and what many in the media are searching for is the truth to debunk Schweizer's claims, not to attack Clinton). What this tells me is that you Repugnants are the ones getting desperate, not the Hillary camp. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 8:21 PM GMT
    'Clinton Cash' author says no "direct evidence" of wrongdoing

    Washington (CNN) - The author of a book alleging some Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday [today] that he did not have "direct evidence" of any impropriety, but argued the "pattern of behavior" required an investigation into Clinton's record.

    Peter Schweizer claims in his forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash," that contributors to Clinton's family foundation had undue influence on American foreign policy. But when pressed by ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Schweizer said the record is only suggestive, not definitive.

    ...Schweizer said his role was merely to lay the groundwork for a broader probe by authorities.

    "It's not up to an author to prove crime," he said.


    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/26/politics/schweizer-clinton-cash/index.html

    In other words, there are few if any facts in Schweizer's book (a former speechwriter for President GW Bush). Basically a "what if" book of speculative fiction. For that you write an article, not a book. But a controversial book during the election cycle can be a good money maker, even if it contains no facts or proofs of wrongdoing.

    And it's also now been revealed that Schweizer's earlier claims that he briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the book are false. He's only briefed some Republican lawmakers, and not a single Democrat in Congress. Yeah, I can understand why the media are now doing their own investigating of this guy and his book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 8:30 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidA smear article from the Conservative site The American Spectator... LOL!!!

    Full of half-truths and distortions, and outright lies (for instance, Schweizer himself now admits to "serious errors" in his forthcoming book, and what many in the media are searching for is the truth to debunk Schweizer's claims, not to attack Clinton). What this tells me is that you Repugnants are the ones getting desperate, not the Hillary camp. icon_razz.gif

    Why don't you try to say what those half-truths and distortions are? Typical response to discuss the messenger and ignore the message.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 8:34 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said'Clinton Cash' author says no "direct evidence" of wrongdoing

    Washington (CNN) - The author of a book alleging some Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday [today] that he did not have "direct evidence" of any impropriety, but argued the "pattern of behavior" required an investigation into Clinton's record.

    Peter Schweizer claims in his forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash," that contributors to Clinton's family foundation had undue influence on American foreign policy. But when pressed by ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Schweizer said the record is only suggestive, not definitive.

    ...Schweizer said his role was merely to lay the groundwork for a broader probe by authorities.

    "It's not up to an author to prove crime," he said.


    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/26/politics/schweizer-clinton-cash/index.html

    In other words, there are few if any facts in Schweizer's book (a former speechwriter for President GW Bush). Basically a "what if" book of speculative fiction. For that you write an article, not a book. But a controversial book during the election cycle can be a good money maker, even if it contains no facts or proofs of wrongdoing.

    And it's also now been revealed that Schweizer's earlier claims that he briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the book are false. He's only briefed some Republican lawmakers, and not a single Democrat in Congress. Yeah, I can understand why the media are now doing their own investigating of this guy and his book.

    Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Do you know people of been convicted for murder based upon circumstantial evidence? Do you know the prosecution of Senator Menendez is based upon circumstantial evidence (based on what is publicly known)? Why do you suppose the New York Times and Washington Post are actively participating in the investigation?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 26, 2015 8:36 PM GMT
    It takes five tons of hubris for a WELL DOCUMENTED nasty fat ass lying queen to even speak of the honesty of others.

    She refers to a "smear article" when she is the NUMBER ONE psychotic smear factory in RealJock. She accuses people she doesn't like of being sock puppets, racists, haters, homophobes, paid political operatives, liars, trolls, and anything else her nasty fat ass imagination can come up with.

    And to top it all off the nasty fat ass queen HAS NEVER PRODUCED ONE F**KING OUNCE OF PROOF for one accusation that has come out of her loathsome nasty fat ass queenie mouth.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 26, 2015 8:48 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Do you know people of been convicted for murder based upon circumstantial evidence?

    Not only murder cases...
    Most insider trading and money laundering cases
    Conspiracy
    and then you mentioned


    socalfitness saidDo you know the prosecution of Senator Menendez is based upon circumstantial evidence (based on what is publicly known)?

    It has hardly been mentioned that the co-conspirator of Menendez, Dr Salomon Melgen has known the Clintons longer, had more money transactions with them and even entertained Bill at his Jamaica estate that's quite famous for all the "girlfriends" Melgen had there who strangely enough got US EB5 visas through Gulf Coast Funds Management owned by Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham. I bet that will come out when Menendez starts talking.

    socalfitness saidWhy do you suppose the New York Times and Washington Post are actively participating in the investigation?

    Socal that "suppose" would require critical thinking. Stop pushing that or you may make him bruise his brain.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 9:29 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Do you know people of been convicted for murder based upon circumstantial evidence? Do you know the prosecution of Senator Menendez is based upon circumstantial evidence (based on what is publicly known)? Why do you suppose the New York Times and Washington Post are actively participating in the investigation?

    Yes, and I'll go you one better - I know the difference between truth and propaganda. You're a great spewer of the latter, and seldom the former.

    Schweizer's book is starting to fall apart, except in right wing circles, who believe anything anti-Hillary. After all, they believed Benghazi.

    The media, including the Times, are investigating the claims as much to see if Schweizer is just a con artist repeating his past patterns, as to see if he's really got anything on Hillary (which it appears at present he doesn't). So what you linked was a smear piece from a Conservative web site, about a book of empty smears by a Conservative author with little credibility.

    One who's been revealed to repeatedly lie and distort the facts to attack Democrats. For instance, the claim in his Washington Post article titled "Why is Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence meetings?" was proven to be false.

    Oh, and among his résumé credits is Foreign Policy Advisor to VP Candidate Sarah Palin. Maybe not something he should publicly talk about too much. But he's also the Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large, so I guess that helps to prove the quality of his material. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 9:36 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Do you know people of been convicted for murder based upon circumstantial evidence? Do you know the prosecution of Senator Menendez is based upon circumstantial evidence (based on what is publicly known)? Why do you suppose the New York Times and Washington Post are actively participating in the investigation?

    Yes, and I'll go you one better - I know the difference between truth and propaganda. You're a great spewer of the latter, and seldom the former.

    Schweizer's book is starting to fall apart, except in right wing circles, who believe anything anti-Hillary. After all, they believed Benghazi.

    The media, including the Times, are investigating the claims as much to see if Schweizer is just a con artist repeating his past patterns, as to see if he's really got anything on Hillary (which it appears at present he doesn't). So what you linked was a smear piece from a Conservative web site, about a book of empty smears by a Conservative author with little credibility.

    One who's been revealed to repeatedly lie and distort the facts to attack Democrats. For instance, his Washington Post article titled "Why is Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence meetings? was proven to be false. Oh, and among his résumé credits is Foreign Policy Advisor to VP Candidate Sarah Palin. Maybe not something he should publicly talk about too much. icon_wink.gif

    Typical response not challenging any of the allegations. It is apparent that the NY Times and Washington Post are doing serious investigations and have already uncovered and validated the money into the Foundation and speaking fees to Bill and favors from State. They aren't disputing the book.

    As far as the opinion from the source quoted in the OP, it is one author's opinion. You can call it a smear of whatever you choose. However, that liberal sources and Democratic donors are raising serious questions indicate some Democrats are not comfortable with what has come out so far. You and your fellow-far left zealots can sit back and be comfortable. Doesn't matter. The far left would support her no matter what (unless Hiawatha, Sanders, or Stalin were in the race).
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 26, 2015 9:43 PM GMT
    "...join him in investigating the allegations made in the book..."

    I love it. Publish a book full of allegations, then do the investigating.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 9:53 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Typical response not challenging any of the allegations. It is apparent that the NY Times and Washington Post are doing serious investigations and have already uncovered and validated the money into the Foundation and speaking fees to Bill and favors from State. They aren't disputing the book.

    As far as the opinion from the source quoted in the OP, it is one author's opinion. You can call it a smear of whatever you choose. However, that liberal sources and Democratic donors are raising serious questions indicate some Democrats are not comfortable with what has come out so far. You and your fellow-far left zealots can sit back and be comfortable. Doesn't matter. The far left would support her no matter what (unless Hiawatha, Sanders, or Stalin were in the race).

    Well now I can't challenge the book's specific allegations when the book hasn't been released yet, can I? This is all coming from indirect sources. And Schweitzer only briefed Republicans on Capitol Hill about it, not a single Democrat, so also difficult for the Clinton Camp or the Democratic Party to refute in detail the charges being previewed in the media.

    But since *I* cannot refute the reported allegations at this time, item for item, here's something from Media Matters:

    ThinkProgress details several of Schweizer's claims, and highlights one major error already found in the book. According to the site, Schweizer at one point uses a press release to bolster one of his many speculative claims, citing it to suggest there may have been a link between a private company that was paying Bill Clinton for speeches (and which supposedly issued the press release) and a State Department report released when Hillary Clinton was secretary. However, ThinkProgress notes, the press release Schweizer cites was revealed as a hoax back in 2013.

    This apparently sloppy sourcing from Schweizer is nothing new. As Media Matters extensively documented, Schweizer's career as a Republican activist and researcher is riddled with errors, retractions, and investigations that find his facts "do not check out" and his sources "do not exist." Our analysis found at least 10 separate incidents in which journalists called out Schweizer for his botched reporting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 10:12 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Typical response not challenging any of the allegations. It is apparent that the NY Times and Washington Post are doing serious investigations and have already uncovered and validated the money into the Foundation and speaking fees to Bill and favors from State. They aren't disputing the book.

    As far as the opinion from the source quoted in the OP, it is one author's opinion. You can call it a smear of whatever you choose. However, that liberal sources and Democratic donors are raising serious questions indicate some Democrats are not comfortable with what has come out so far. You and your fellow-far left zealots can sit back and be comfortable. Doesn't matter. The far left would support her no matter what (unless Hiawatha, Sanders, or Stalin were in the race).

    Well now I can't challenge the book's specific allegations when the book hasn't been released yet, can I? This is all coming from indirect sources. And Schweitzer only briefed Republicans on Capitol Hill about it, not a single Democrat, so also difficult for the Clinton Camp or the Democratic Party to refute in detail the charges being previewed in the media.

    But since *I* cannot refute the reported allegations at this time, item for item, here's something from Media Matters:

    ThinkProgress details several of Schweizer's claims, and highlights one major error already found in the book. According to the site, Schweizer at one point uses a press release to bolster one of his many speculative claims, citing it to suggest there may have been a link between a private company that was paying Bill Clinton for speeches (and which supposedly issued the press release) and a State Department report released when Hillary Clinton was secretary. However, ThinkProgress notes, the press release Schweizer cites was revealed as a hoax back in 2013.

    This apparently sloppy sourcing from Schweizer is nothing new. As Media Matters extensively documented, Schweizer's career as a Republican activist and researcher is riddled with errors, retractions, and investigations that find his facts "do not check out" and his sources "do not exist." Our analysis found at least 10 separate incidents in which journalists called out Schweizer for his botched reporting.

    Media Matters and David Brock - great reputations, but whatever. He tried the same tactic on MSNBC. Same playbook as Howard Dean who got destroyed by both MSNBC panelists and NY Times reporter.

    MSNBC Panel Hammers Howard Dean’s Effort to Smear Clinton Cash Author
    Thursday’s Morning Joe broadcast saw Clinton attack hack Howard Dean getting destroyed by New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters.

    http://dailysurge.com/2015/04/msnbc-panel-hammers-howard-deans-effort-to-smear-clinton-cash-author/#
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 26, 2015 10:18 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Do you know people of been convicted for murder based upon circumstantial evidence? Do you know the prosecution of Senator Menendez is based upon circumstantial evidence (based on what is publicly known)? Why do you suppose the New York Times and Washington Post are actively participating in the investigation?


    Art_Deco said
    Yes, and I'll go you one better - I know the difference between truth and propaganda. You're a great spewer of the latter, and seldom the former.


    ☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝

    CAUTION!!!!! CAUTION!!!!! CAUTION!!!!!

    CONGENITAL LIAR IN ACTION!!!!!!


    There is NO ONE IN REALJOCK with a greater history at lying than this lying nasty fat ass queen above!!!!!

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Apr 26, 2015 10:22 PM GMT
    It must be happy hour for Fart Deco as evidenced by all his defending Hillary gibberish and hilarious distortion of the facts. Yet he cannot explain why two of the nation's premier liberal papers, the New York Times and the Washington Post are doing thorough reporting into all the hanky panky and misuse of funds at the crooked Clintons so called foundation. He gets all bent out of shape and when the heat is too much for him, he calls the ballerina bozo from Tulsa to cook up more propaganda to cover up for the power hungry Clintons. Go figure.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Apr 26, 2015 10:48 PM GMT
    Conservatives will spend the next two years in the right-wing echo chamber of made-up Clinton scandals and fabricated attacks... then they will wake up the day after the election and wonder how it's possible that Hillary won.
    The same thing that happened with Obama... remember how Fox News was telling us that he was a terrorist and conservative talk radio was sure he was a Communist?

    It turns out the conspiracy theories and preposterous attacks don't win elections -- ideas do.
    And voters do not like Republican ideas, as poll after poll shows.

    I don't expect Republicans to wake up and change their ways... in fact, I'm counting on the fact that they won't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 6:12 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidConservatives will spend the next two years in the right-wing echo chamber of made-up Clinton scandals and fabricated attacks... then they will wake up the day after the election and wonder how it's possible that Hillary won.
    The same thing that happened with Obama... remember how Fox News was telling us that he was a terrorist and conservative talk radio was sure he was a Communist?

    It turns out the conspiracy theories and preposterous attacks don't win elections -- ideas do.
    And voters do not like Republican ideas, as poll after poll shows.

    I don't expect Republicans to wake up and change their ways... in fact, I'm counting on the fact that they won't.

    Total nonsense. Can you point to any specifics about Fox saying Obama was a terrorist? If the scandals are made-up, why are several liberal / mainstream media outlets actively investigating? Why are Democratic donors demanding answers?

    I don't expect you to respond. You never do. You just lob dumbass crap and slink away like an insect under a log.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 6:29 PM GMT
    The Democrats can run Bernie Sanders. He was correct on gay rights and against the Iraq war while other politicians had to change their views.

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 27, 2015 6:47 PM GMT
    Jasonfest saidThe Democrats can run Bernie Sanders. He was correct on gay rights and against the Iraq war while other politicians had to change their views.


    The only problem with that is Bernie Sanders isn't a real Democrat at all. He's a Democratic Socialist. That makes him at least honest about his political stance unlike Obama and Hillary but it will stand against him for a party nomination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 6:53 PM GMT
    Jasonfest saidThe Democrats can run Bernie Sanders. He was correct on gay rights and against the Iraq war while other politicians had to change their views.

    The further to the left a Democratic candidate is, the less motivated the Republicans will be to nominate a moderate to get the moderate vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 6:56 PM GMT
    He champions the liberal policies that Democrats give lip-service to. If he does run, he will probably run as a Democrat.

    Also, social policies if done correctly are investments in the USA. Much better use of money than unnecessary wars and foreign aid to hostile countries, in my opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Jasonfest saidThe Democrats can run Bernie Sanders. He was correct on gay rights and against the Iraq war while other politicians had to change their views.

    The further to the left a Democratic candidate is, the less motivated the Republicans will be to nominate a moderate to get the moderate vote.


    I would say there could be more motivation, but that does not necessarily translate to action. Many Republicans considered Obama very liberal, yet selected McCain and Romney (which some pundits and politicians call mushy moderates) as the nominees in fields that had many more far-right candidates.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 27, 2015 7:20 PM GMT
    KissTheSky said The same thing that happened with Obama... remember how Fox News was telling us that he was a terrorist and conservative talk radio was sure he was a Communist?


    Obama's own words in both of his autobiographies are all that's needed to come to the conclusion he was or possibly still is a communist. He wrote that he sought out the friendship and company of communists when he was in college and referenced several communists as his mentors and role models.. with Frank Marshall Davis and his own grandfather being the most memorable.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis


    I don't remember anything about anyone ever accusing him of being a terrorist. If you can remember who actually said such things I would be interested in knowing their names.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 7:24 PM GMT
    Jasonfest saidThe Democrats can run Bernie Sanders. He was correct on gay rights and against the Iraq war while other politicians had to change their views.



    Yeah, him and Dennis Kucinich
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 11:35 PM GMT
    Jasonfest said
    socalfitness said
    Jasonfest saidThe Democrats can run Bernie Sanders. He was correct on gay rights and against the Iraq war while other politicians had to change their views.

    The further to the left a Democratic candidate is, the less motivated the Republicans will be to nominate a moderate to get the moderate vote.


    I would say there could be more motivation, but that does not necessarily translate to action. Many Republicans considered Obama very liberal, yet selected McCain and Romney (which some pundits and politicians call mushy moderates) as the nominees in fields that had many more far-right candidates.

    Agree. I think if the Democrats nominated someone seen as moderate, the Republicans would not want to lose the vote of the middle, and might be motivated to nominate someone not too extreme. Your example is valid and indicates voting results from many factors. It would probably be difficult to look at history and see if what I'm suggesting has basis because for each election there would be many different factors involved.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 28, 2015 3:26 AM GMT
    From my memory since Kennedy/Nixon, there has never been a single candidate from either party who has gone uncontested from the moment they announced their candidacy to the primary except for some incumbent presidents running for second terms. Just being an incumbent doesn't insure a lack of other candidates from within the party.

    This has been true until now with Hillary who has been offered no competition or substantial criticism from anyone in the Democratic party. For all intents and purposes, Hillary has anointed herself to be the apparent nominee of the Democratic party while the party fields no opposition to her. As it stands now the Democratic party is being a subservient collection of sycophants to the legacy candidate who anointed herself to represent them without providing voters with any other options.

    That certainly undermines much of the democratic process built into the pre-primary season in which both parties should be able to present their best and brightest for the primary voters to select from.

    I hate to point this out, but Hillary's self anointment is one step away from how national elections have been engineered in virtually every socialist dictatorship in the world; one uncontested candidate for the highest office. Vote for that one candidate or don't.

    It's just that at this time it is only happening in the Democratic party making a mockery of the democratic process and setting a cornerstone on the path to a dictatorship.