September 8-10, 2016
Sep 08 02:42 The polls keep tightening Sep 08 15:22 The DFL's ideological plans Sep 08 18:04 Otto's constitutional dishonesty Sep 09 10:31 Keith Downey vs. Ken Martin Sep 09 10:55 Hillary's words vs. Hillary's actions Sep 09 12:51 Dir. Comey's reputation is shot Sep 09 14:00 Duluth News Tribune criticizes environmentalists Sep 09 19:11 Will GOP keep US Senate? Sep 10 09:06 Hillary's biggest debate problem?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
The polls keep tightening
There's no question whether we're seeing a tightening of the presidential race. When it comes to figuring out why the polls are tightening, it's difficult to dispute with Michael Barone, of the most respected number crunchers in American political history. Michael Barone's latest column is filled with explanations of why the presidential race is tightening.
Turnout is everything to Hillary's campaign. If she doesn't win that fight, she'll lose. It's that simple. That's why it's difficult to think that it's good news for HRC when Mr. Barone wrote "There are plenty of signs Clinton is poorly positioned to do that. Black turnout and Democratic percentage is likely to be down, at least slightly, from when the first black president was seeking re-election. Polls have shown Hispanics are less interested and motivated by this campaign than just about any other demographic group."
Simply put, HRC simply doesn't excite people. Even the people who will vote for her and who support her do so more out of obligation or loyalty than rallying around their rock star. This isn't good news for the Clinton campaign, either:
Young voters, while repelled by Trump, are not attracted by Clinton. She ran way behind Bernie Sanders among young women as well as young men in primaries and caucuses. Four-candidate polls typically show Clinton running far behind the 60 percent Obama won among under-30s in 2012 , with as many as 20 percent preferring Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green candidate Jill Stein.
These demographic groups don't paint a great picture for HRC. Still, it's foolish to think that Trump doesn't have difficulties of his own. Still, it's difficult to picture someone with a more daunting task than Hillary has.
Think of it this way. People think that she isn't honest or trustworthy. They don't think she's terribly competent, either. They're certain that she's gotten preferential treatment with the email scandal. (They're right about that, BTW.) Finally, there's this:
The kid gloves treatment she got from the FBI - no recordings, allowing aide and co-conspirator Cheryl Mills in the interview - confirm the impression, created by the intended-to-be-secret meeting of Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch days before, that the fix was in. So does the fact that Clinton and her aides in court-ordered interviews claimed loss of memory 378 times.
The alphabet media will do their best to prop HRC up from now until Election Day. I just don't know that that's enough for her to win. This answer won't help Hillary:
Hillary was asked by a military veteran about her mishandling of classified and top-secret information. Her story changed another time. This won't help Trump as much as it'll hurt Hillary. At this point, all that Mr. Trump has to do is look like a legitimate alternative to Hillary. If he pulls that off, then Hillary's fighting an uphill fight.
Posted Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:42 AM
No comments.
The DFL's ideological plans
Let there be no mistake about what the DFL wants to do. Their goal is to run St. Paul ... again. The last time the DFL held the majority in the Minnesota House and the Minnesota Senate and there was a DFL governor, taxes were raised on small businesses, then partially repealed and property taxes skyrocketed. We were told by Rep. Thissen that the DFL's House Education Omnibus Finance bill "calls for historic investment in education." The DFL made that boast before the Princeton School Board raised property taxes by 25.16%. The DFL made that boast before the St. Cloud School Board raised their levy by 14.75% .
Gone is any pretense about finding middle ground. The DFL wants to shove another item from their ideological wish list down Minnesotan's throats. The DFL isn't interested in serving the people. The DFL is interested in winning one ideological victory after another. TakeAction Minnesota, an arm of the DFL, stated things quite clearly how they anticipate passing their ideological checklist in this fundraising appeal:
Notice that TakeAction Minnesota named 4 politicians, essentially telling us that they are hard left ideologues, aka true believers. The names of those true believers include the ethically challenged Ilhan Omar, Alberder Gillespie (who wants to be "a powerful, progressive voice for her community on education funding, paid sick leave and other issues", Zach Dorholt (who voted for forced unionization of in-home child care providers, the tax increases mentioned earlier and for the $90,000,000 Senate Office Building when he was part of the 2013 DFL legislature) and Lindsey Port. Mrs. Port thinks that government should tell businesses what they should do .
The candidates mentioned in TakeAction Minnesota's fundraising appeal are as hard left and as anti-jobs as they get. They aren't capitalists, either. This quartet thinks that the government solutions are the best solutions and that private citizens, acting in their own self-interests, are a danger to their social engineering plans.
Minnesotans need to ask themselves this question: do they want legislators that a) ignore the will of the people and b) think that people making their own decisions are a threat to the DFL's social engineering agenda? If they'd rather make their own decisions, they need to vote for Republicans. It's that simple.
Posted Thursday, September 8, 2016 3:22 PM
No comments.
Otto's constitutional dishonesty
Rachel Stassen-Berger's article highlights two frightening facts. First, it highlights the fact that Gov. Dayton doesn't take his oath of office seriously.
In his oath of office, governors swear to protect the state and federal constitution. When asked "Thursday if he believes he signed an unconstitutional law, Dayton said, 'It's fine with me if they (the Supreme Court Justices) decide that.'" In other words, Gov. Dayton doesn't have a problem if the Minnesota Supreme Court rules that he signed a bill that's unconstitutional.
That's actually the least frightening thing from the article. The most frightening quote from the article was Ms. Otto's statement that "This office belongs to the taxpayers and not to the Legislature. Auditing counties is a core constitutional duty of the office. I will not let this go. I must do everything I can to preserve this function on behalf of the people of Minnesota."
Actually, Ms. Otto's statement is frightening on multiple levels but mostly because of this part of Minnesota's Constitution :
What part of the "duties and salaries of the executive officers shall be prescribed by law" doesn't Ms. Otto understand? Are we to believe that the duties of the State Auditor are defined by state law but that the duties of those that work for the State Auditor are defined by the Minnesota State Constitution? If the Constitution defines the auditors' responsibilities, which article and which section are those duties found in?
Simply put, Minnesota's Constitution established the Office of State Auditor, aka the OSA. That's indisputable. It's equally indisputable that the duties and authorities of the OSA aren't spelled out in the Constitution. That's because they're assigned by the legislature and approved by the governor. That's what happened in 2015.
If the Minnesota Supreme Court rules that the 2015 law is unconstitutional, the justices that ruled it unconstitutional should be impeached and replaced with jurists that are faithful to the Constitution, not to the DFL. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Let's hope that this is so straightforward that it's a unanimous ruling against Ms. Otto. Otherwise, the Minnesota Supreme Court would essentially rule in the DFL's favor the vast majority of the time.
That isn't justice. That's hardball politics.
Posted Thursday, September 8, 2016 6:04 PM
No comments.
Keith Downey vs. Ken Martin
It isn't a secret that Keith Downey hasn't been a competent state party chairman. This evening, though, Republicans got verification that he might cost Republicans some legislative seats because he didn't get the basics right. He may also disenfranchise Minnesota's Trump supporters.
Ken Martin, the chairman of the DFL, filed a lawsuit saying that "On May 20 and May 21, 2016, the State Republican Party held its 2016 State Convention ('State Convention') in Duluth, Minnesota. The State Convention was attended by at least three delegates from each of Minnesota's congressional districts, as well as a number of 'at-large' delegates. During the convention, delegates to the State Convention nominated delegates to attend the 2016 Republican National Convention, as well as ten presidential electors for the November 8, 2016, general election. During the State Convention, however, delegates did not nominate ten alternate presidential electors as required by Minn. Stat. § 208.03."
Martin, in his filing, continued, saying "On August 3, 2016, the Secretary of State's Office informed the Chair of the State Republican Party, Keith Downey ('Downey'), that the State Republican Party had not submitted names of alternate presidential electors to the Secretary of State's Office. At no time thereafter did the State Republican Party hold a 'convention' called and held under the supervision of the State Republican Central Committee during which delegates nominated alternate presidential electors. Instead, the State Republican Party's leadership ignored state law. Specifically, on August 24, 2016, the State Republican Party Executive Committee met to select and approve alternate presidential electors itself. This process, however, did not occur at a State Convention."
Whether Republicans followed the rules or not in naming their alternate delegates is something that I'll let the courts decide. That being said, how can people have confidence in a chairman who can't get the basics done? Didn't Chairman Downey have a list of things that had to get done at the convention? If he didn't, why didn't he? It's his responsibility to make sure that the essential things got finished.
There's no excuse for Chairman Downey not to make sure that the Republican Party of Minnesota didn't meet its responsibilities as required by state statutes. Saying the equivalent of 'I forgot' doesn't cut it. If you can't finish the basics, you shouldn't be part of leadership.
Fundamentally, a state party chair has just two jobs - first, getting state constitutional officers elected and second, making sure the party's presidential candidate is on the state ballot. Chairman Downey has yet to accomplish the first and has now endangered the second.
Finally, and on a different subject, the worst kept secret is that Chairman Downey wants to run for governor in 2018. In light of this failure, I'd respectfully ask Chairman Downey to announce immediately that he isn't going to run for governor. After this lawsuit, the ads virtually write themselves, with the wording going something like 'if he can't run a political party, how can he run an entire state?' come to mind.
While I'm critical of what Chairman Downey failed to do, I don't have any ill will towards him. He was a skilled legislator. Perhaps he could contribute that way.
Posted Friday, September 9, 2016 10:31 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Sep-16 02:39 PM
It seems a pissing match that Martin never should have started.
Upwind no less.
Hillary's words vs. Hillary's actions
This morning, Kellyanne Conway tweeted a link to this article about how Hillary is trying to shift to a more positive-sounding stump speech. The article re-exposes HRC as a liar who'll say anything to get elected.
For instance, HRC told a black church "that she believes they deserve better than politicians 'who think they can just show up at election time, say a few nice words and then earn your support.'" Presumably, she wasn't talking about Democrats, who consistently show up at black churches in October of election years, then disappear for the next 22-23 months.
Democrats show up at black churches preaching that we're our brothers' and our sisters' keepers, which is true. The question I'd pepper HRC with, though, is 'Hillary, what type of Christian lies about what the law is on sending classified and top secret information? Why do you insist that it's the markings on the documents that make them confidential or top secret? You were told when you joined the Senate Armed Services Committee that the content determined whether the information was confidential or top secret. Do you really expect us to believe that you're a Godly lady when you've repeatedly lied about the emails and how many mobile devices you had. Hillary, did Christ teach us to lie to the families of murdered American patriots?'
The truth is that HRC knows that she isn't liked and never will be liked. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out that she's saying these things to soften her image. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that she's been around too long to change her image. For the better part of a generation, large numbers of people, from across the political spectrum, have thought of her as a cold-hearted bitch driven by her quest for power. This is the quintessential Hillary:
She even looks like a cold-hearted bitch.
Posted Friday, September 9, 2016 10:55 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Sep-16 02:41 PM
Her belief system is well grounded, on an extended Foundation that is the basis of her beliefs.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Sep-16 07:19 PM
Is that why her honest & trustworthy numbers have been terrible from the start? Hillary's a liar, a one-percenter & a corrupt politician, all the things you detest.
Dir. Comey's reputation is shot
Based on information revealed during Hugh Hewitt's interview of Jim VandeHei, Jim Comey's reputation is shot . At the start of the interview, Hewitt stated "Jim, I want to read the beginning of an email I got from a former AUSA, assistant United States Attorney, who I've known for many, many years, absolutely legit guy, and have been tracking down bad guys for a long time. He's married to an FBI agent. It reads, 'Now that the contents of that first FBI summary have been released, my wife tells me that Comey has lost all credibility in the FBI. Remember he's a DOJ veteran, not a Bureau veteran, and that makes a difference with the troops. My wife, a 25-year agent, tells me that since that document became public, and based on what's in there Comey decided to not recommend prosecution, his name among the agents is dirt. The most practical reason for that feeling is that they all know stories about agents or other federal employees who have befallen similar circumstances, and some have been prosecuted while just about all others have been fired. And the issue with the missing Blackberrys, IPad, AND the Apple Laptop and Thumb drive that had ALL her archived emails on them, is just unbelievable to agents who work on matters involving classified information.' I, Jim VandeHei, have heard this complaint over and over again. I held all the clearances in the Reagan years. And I always said the short end was if I left anything in my desk, I'd be disciplined. If I took it home, I'd be fired. If I gave it to someone, I'd be prosecuted. Have you heard this refrain yourself?"
VandeHei's response was telling:
It's interesting that you say that, and I think, yes, is the answer. And I think where the disconnect is, is are you in a military family? And do you know people in a military, or in your case, people who are in the Justice Department or the FBI? I have two brothers-in-law who are serving, and I was in a wedding this past weekend in Kerrville, Texas, where lots of Marines were there. And people who would be inclined, I think, several that I was talking to, to be inclined to support Hillary Clinton, and the only thing that they focus on, and the reason that they could never find themselves voting for her, is this very reason. They either themselves or know other people who have been sanctioned or had issues for doing far, far less than what they believe Hillary Clinton did with classified material. And I think if you're not talking to people in the military, if you don't have family members in the military, you don't have deep enough appreciation for how much focus they put on this, and how much they tie it to your character and to your performance.
It's clear that Comey's reputation with the rank-and-file investigators is irretrievably tarnished. Once you destroy your credibility, it's virtually impossible to regain it. If it's possible, it's only possible to retrieve it over time and by constantly being honest. Trust isn't rebuilt overnight.
Considering all the times Comey afforded Mrs. Clinton extra-special treatment, which is brilliantly documented in Ben Shapiro's article , there's little reason to think that Mr. Comey conducted a legitimate investigation:
According to new documents from the FBI's investigation of Clinton, the agency was fully aware that Clinton lied when she said she set up a private server in order to utilize one Blackberry device; she used 13 mobile devices and two phone numbers. The FBI knew that Clinton's aides destroyed old Blackberrys by cracking them in half or hitting them with a hammer. The FBI knew full well that Clinton had passed classified information over her private server; she admitted that she didn't even know how classified information worked, instead stating that she thought the "C" appearing at the top of documents probably had something to do with alphabetizing files. The FBI recognized that Clinton wiped her server after a New York Times article revealed her private sever and email use; that she brought her Blackberry into a secure State Department area; that she never turned over nearly 18,000 work-related emails; that she discussed an undercover asset on the server and put his family in danger; and that she refused to take Blackberrys from the State Department out of fear they could be discoverable under Freedom of Information Act requests.
Based on this information, it's clear that the fix was in. That's why Dir. Comey's reputation is shot.
Posted Friday, September 9, 2016 12:51 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Sep-16 02:35 PM
You are talking Justice Comey? The next to be nominated to be appointed for a Supreme Court vacancy should Clinton be elected? The guy has deep Bushco roots, but that's merely good additional proof of how he knows the important thing is wetting the finger, holding it to test the direction of the wind. Depth of convictions being an elastic thing. Wind being today's standard.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Sep-16 02:39 PM
Comey had a sterling reputation until he gave Queen Hillary a gift-wrapped present. Now they're both scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of integrity.
Duluth News Tribune criticizes environmentalists
This Duluth New Tribune Our View editorial is nothing if not a shot at the environmental activists who are trying to prevent PolyMet from becoming operational.
The Duluth News Tribune's editorial starts by saying "More than 10 years of exhaustive, detailed, thorough, and both emotional and science- and facts-based research, study and review: Apparently all of it still isn't enough for some. A citizens group, joined now by three Duluth city councilors, are calling on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to conduct an evidentiary hearing with an administrative law judge before issuing a permit to mine copper and other precious metals in northern Minnesota."
Clearly, the intent is to delay, not inform. That's apparent when the DNT's editorial says "An administrative law judge would serve as an impartial opinion-maker on the permit to mine, as those advocating for the evidentiary hearing point out. But the judge wouldn't be an environmental expert or an authority on the science or business of mining. Those experts already have weighed in, prompted improvements to the plans, and signed off. It's difficult to imagine what new evidence could be brought at such a hearing that hasn't already been thoroughly researched, considered, vetted and, where appropriate, implemented ."
Let's be straightforward with this: there aren't many Republicans who are environmental activists, assuming you use the DFL's definition of environmental activist. There are tons of Republicans who care deeply about preserving the natural resources that we've been entrusted with. That doesn't fit the DFL's definition of an environmental activist, though.
Relentless opponents of the $900 million Sandpiper pipeline project across Minnesota certainly cheered last week when Enbridge Energy Partners announced it had bailed on its project after years of protest and regulatory delays. Minnesota and the Twin Ports lost out on an estimated 3,000 badly needed, good-paying jobs.
The Sierra Club rejoiced when Enbridge pulled the plug on the Sandpiper Pipeline Project:
In response, Sierra Club Beyond Dirty Fuels Director Lena Moffitt released the following statement:
"The end of the proposed Sandpiper pipeline is a crucial victory for the tens of thousands of Americans who have fought to protect their communities, their health, and the climate from the threat of fossil fuel infrastructure expansion.
"As far too many communities throughout the Great Lakes region can attest to, when it comes to pipelines, especially an Enbridge operated pipeline, it's never a question of if it will spill, but rather a question of when. This is a risk no community should face, and thanks to today's announcement, thousands of people will remain safe from the dangers of the Sandpiper pipeline.
"Rather than continuing to expand our reliance on fossil fuels, we must continue to transition to clean, renewable energy, and leave dirty fuels in the ground, where they belong."
The end of the Sandpiper Pipeline project isn't a victory for the environmentalists. It's just another instance where the company just took a different route. In this instance, the jobs were lost in Minnesota and Wisconsin because the pipeline will now go through the Dakotas, into Iowa, the finishing in Illinois.
The environmentalists didn't win anything. They just screwed thousands of Minnesotans out of "3,000 badly needed, good-paying jobs." The dirty little secret is that so-called environmental activists aren't pro-environment as much as they're anti-development.
Posted Friday, September 9, 2016 2:00 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Sep-16 02:27 PM
We only have one earth. Even a bird brain knows, don't mess your nest. But, less than a bird brain on the Range, who knows?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Sep-16 02:30 PM
This isn't about the environment, Eric. It's about hating all development everywhere. Contrary to Conservation Minnesota's lies, this type of mining isn't any different than iron ore mining. CM says that non-ferrous mining is sulfide mining, which is true. Then they said that it's different from taconite mining. That's a lie. There's sulfide mixed with the taconite just like there's sulfide mixed with the precious metals.
The Sierra Club rejoiced when the Sandpiper Pipeline was scrapped. They talked about how they'd saved the earth. They didn't do a thing except shaft 3,000 Minnesotans out of a good-paying job. Now those jobs will go to the Dakotas, Iowa & Illinois. Brilliant, isn't it?
Provide proof that killing the Sandpiper Pipeline project or killing PolyMet will save Minnesota's environment. No, statements & declarations aren't proof. They're just proof that a windbag is in the vicinity.
Comment 2 by LadyLogician at 10-Sep-16 08:10 AM
Eric - there is a big difference between conserving the earth and making it an object of worship. The radical enviro activists want to put us all back in the stone age so that they can worship Mother Gaia like a bunch of Neanderthals. We have evolved beyond that - we have the technology and the ability to BOTH mine and protect the environment....something the radical enviro activists refuse to acknowledge.
LL
Will GOP keep US Senate?
One of the things that hasn't drawn much conversation this month is whether Republicans will maintain their majority in the US Senate. At the start of the year, it looked like Sen. Schumer would be the next majority leader. While that's still a possibility, it's looking more like an uphill fight at this point. Josh Kraushaar's article illustrates why things aren't turning in the Democrats' direction.
Kraushaar started talking about how Democrats had recruited "a highly cel'eb'rated Sen'ate can'did'ate with en'vi'able fa'vor'ab'il'ity rat'ings back home, Demo'crats cheered when this former statewide of'fice'hold'er de'cided to reenter polit'ics. He left of'fice after the Re'pub'lic'an wave elec'tion of 2010, and in the en'su'ing years spent much of his time away from his home state. Even so, he star'ted out ahead of his GOP rival in many early polls. One red flag: He hadn't won a race in nearly a dec'ade, liv'ing more on his past polit'ic'al glory than any re'cent elect'ive ac'com'plish'ments."
It's true that Sen. Bayh started off with a "$10 mil'lion stock'pile", which he'd been sitting on "since he re'tired." Once again, sitting on a big financial war chest isn't the determining factor:
A re'spec'ted WTHR/Howey poll re'leased Fri'day showed Bayh with a four-point lead, down from sev'en points in a Mon'mouth poll a month ago and a far cry from the double-di'git lead he re'cently held in Demo'crat'ic sur'veys. He's only polling at 44 per'cent, des'pite near-uni'ver'sal name iden'ti'fic'a'tion. If Re'pub'lic'ans can keep chip'ping away at Bayh's lead with car'pet'bag'ger at'tack lines, it would give them a des'per'ately-needed life'line in their bid to save their Sen'ate ma'jor'ity.
The fact that Bayh is "only polling at 44%" is rather striking.
Bayh is running in Indiana, which is solidly red in terms of the presidential race. That means, to win, Bayh will have to get lots of Trump voters to split their ticket and vote for him. I don't see that happening, especially considering the fact that Gov. Mike Pence, (R-IN), is Trump's running mate. This won't help Bayh, either:
The Sen'ate Lead'er'ship Fund is spend'ing $4 mil'lion in ads over the next month to re'mind voters of Bayh's checkered re'cord. Des'pite Bayh's huge war chest, Re'pub'lic'an groups are keep'ing pace on the air'waves, ac'cord'ing to a Demo'crat'ic source.
A $4,000,000 ad buy against Bayh isn't just a significant buy. It's an eye-popping-sized ad buy this close to the election. Bayh's lead dropped from 7 points to 4 points without the ad buy. As voters tune in and the ad buy kicks in, expect Bayh's lead to shrink, especially if the ads tout the fact that Bayh voted for Obamacare. It doesn't help Bayh that he's campaigned with Hillary:
I've been skeptical of the Democrats retaking the majority in the Senate. This article doesn't give me a reason to rethink my opinion.
Posted Friday, September 9, 2016 7:11 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Sep-16 10:33 AM
Nice image. Who's "us?"
Hillary's biggest debate problem?
The other night at NBC's Commander-in-Chief Forum, Hillary Clinton potentially offered a glimpse of her debate performances. She potentially offered that glimpse by twisting herself into a pretzel. HRC is prone to that because she's caught in an impossible situation. She's caught in an impossible situation because she's gotten caught lying about sending and receiving classified emails on her private email server.
The impossible situation started with a question that went like this "As a naval officer, I held a top secret, sensitive compartmentalized information clearance and that provided me access to materials and information that was highly sensitive to our war-fighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are trusted with America's most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?"
Predictably, Mrs. Clinton started her oratorical gyrations, saying "Well I appreciate your concern and also your experience, but let me try to make the distinctions that I think are important for me to answer your question. First, as I said to Matt, you know and I know, classified material is designated. ... And what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked, there were no headers, there was no statement top secret, secret, or confidential. I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system. I took it very seriously."
Mrs. Clinton should consider herself fortunate because she lied with that reply. Classified material is supposed to be protected whether it's got the markings on it or not. Also, we know from Jim Comey's testimony that there were emails on Hillary's server that contained classified material. It's possible that Mrs. Clinton occasionally used "a wholly separate system" to communicate classified materials but she certainly didn't use that separate system consistently, much less all the time.
Because she's caught in that impossible position of defending the indefensible, there's a high probability that she'll corkscrew herself into the ground in the debates. Those are the types of replies that might create an election-shifting moment.
Posted Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:06 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Sep-16 10:31 AM
Follow the money. Not blind alleys. Don't be distracted.
Unless new emails surface raising new issues.
"Why are you foot-dragging on the Goldman Sachs speech transcripts," would be an appropriate question. Also, "Has your son-in-law's hedge fund and your family foundation done any trading at any time with regard to Greek debt or Greek bank shares?" Also, with all the loot you and family members have taken into your own pockets from Wall Street and foreign interests, have you no reassuring words beyond, 'Trust me'?"
The GOP hesitation to do so is grounded on two things; follow the money with Trump is equally enlightening; and GOP politicians all want their own tracks to remain hidden, hence, there is a gentleman's agreement.
It is a sorry, sorry state in which we find American politics. Including a focus staked out because Trump has no email controversy; despite all other skeletons that might be rattled out of his closet. Sorry, sorry politics.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Sep-16 06:27 PM
Eric, I'll be blunt. You've raised some legitimate points. The difference is that DJT didn't put CIA intelligence assets at risk. Hillary did. The core function of government (at each level) is to protect its citizens. If gov't fails that, then it's failed its fundamental responsibility.
I don't have a problem following the money. What I have a problem with is when citizens give POTUS candidates a pass on national security issues.
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 11-Sep-16 07:48 AM
I am informed that there is intense pressure on the moderators to not mention the email controversy. Probably just as well, since no matter what Hillary says now, she will either contradict one or more previous lies or reaffirm them, and we still will be no closer to the truth. I'm thinking the best tool at our disposal here may be Occam's razor. That leads us to the simple conclusion that she had a secret server and therefore, by dint of her position alone, hundreds of secret or top secret messages went across it and were subsequently erased, deliberately, contrary to the law. The possibility that such messages were intercepted, or that there were messages indicative of corruption in her office, cannot be disproven because the messages were deliberately erased while under subpoena. Even if she could tell the truth now, it would be an admission of wrongdoing.
Somebody recently said, "I thought that there was nothing wrong with Hillary's email server, until she told me there wasn't."
