First Dem debate is tonight 830 pm ET. (CNN)

Lead moderator is Anderson Cooper.

In the CNN Republican debate, Jake Tapper said he was trying to get the candidates to go after each other.

So how about for the Democrats ?

http://www.washingtonexaminer....&utm_medium=referral

On Sunday, Cooper indicated that he would not attempt to instigate confrontations among the five Democratic candidates who will share a stage for the first time this primary season on Tuesday night.

"I'm always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off," Cooper said Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

"Look, these are all serious people. This is a serious debate. They want to talk about the issues and I want to give them an opportunity to do that."

Cooper's suggested style is a departure from the GOP debate hosted by CNN and moderated by Jake Tapper in September.

And Cooper is a former member of the Clinton Global Initiative nonprofit.


*******************

Serious people indeed.

Yawn, Democratic debate meh, sounds more like a joke opening, "A crook and a commie walk into a bar"... Most exciting thing will be D. Trumps tweets while its going on. You can bet no hardball will be played on stage tonight.

I can't wait to see (and laugh at) the ratings from tonight's yawn fest. Should be highly comical.

SDY quoted "And Cooper is a former member of the Clinton Global Initiative nonprofit."

The fix is in.

The latest headline...

Source: FBI probe of Clinton email focused on ‘gross negligence’ provision

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne Published October 16, 2015

Three months after Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server while secretary of state was referred to the FBI, an intelligence source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News that the team is now focused on whether there were violations of an Espionage Act subsection pertaining to "gross negligence" in the safekeeping of national defense information.

Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton’s March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented.

Clinton and her team maintain the use of a private account was allowed, and the intelligence was not classified at the time, but later upgraded. The latter claim is disputed by the intelligence community Inspector General, who represents the agencies involved, which concluded the information was classified from the start.

One of Clinton's primary defenses is that the emails containing classified information, did not carry classification markings, but a leading national security defense attorney says that is no excuse under the law.

“The fact that something's not marked or that the person may not know that it was classified would not be relevant at all in a prosecution under the Espionage Act,” defense attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. recently told Fox.

It is not known what relevant evidence, if any, has been uncovered by the FBI, or whether any charges will ultimately be brought, but Director James Comey told reporters in Washington D.C. on Oct. 1, "If you know my folks... they don't give a rip about politics."

On Thursday, a group of national security whistleblowers held a news conference in Washington at the National Press Club to highlight what they characterized as a double standard in these types of cases.

NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was indicted in 2010 under the Espionage Act for sharing unclassified material with a Baltimore Sun reporter. Drake, who also went to Congress with his concerns about the NSA, said his goal was to expose government misconduct.

"This is the secretary of state, one of the most targeted individuals by other intelligence entities and agencies in the world using a private server to traffic highly sensitive information and no doubt including classified information and no doubt including info about sources and methods,"Drake said at Thursday’s event.

He added the whistleblowers’ treatment shows there is a law for the average citizen, and apparently a different set of rules for the powerful.

"But hey, I'm secretary of state,” Drake said in a sarcastic tone. ”Even Obama gave her cover."

The charges against Drake were eventually dropped. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor, but in the process lost his ability to work in national security and depleted his life savings to mount a defense.

Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling also went to Congress with his complaints, but was sentenced in May to three-and-a-half years in prison for violating the Espionage Act by giving classified information to a New York Times reporter. Sterling, who is appealing the case, was also convicted on obstruction of justice charges because a single email was missing from his account, even though the government could not show he was responsible for that.

Clinton has acknowledged deleting some 30,000 emails she considered personal.

In 2015, former CIA Director General David Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor admitting he mishandled classified materials by sharing notebooks with his former mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell.

He also was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine. Sterling’s supporters said he shared far less classified information with the New York Times.

“Powerful and politically connected individuals accused of the same and much worse conduct receive, at most, a slap on the wrist. Like General David Petraeus who gave away more secret information, classified at a much higher level, to his mistress and received a sweetheart plea deal for a minor misdemeanor,”Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower and former ethics adviser to the Department of Justice, said Thursday.

“Or Hillary Clinton - she got a primetime TV apologist political spin interview from President Obama himself,” Radack added.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...vision/?intcmp=hpbt1

IMHO, this woman is WORSE than "The Teflon Don". I don't see anything sticking to her and she'll skate through history unscathed. Oh how she will RUE judgement day.....

Calling these affairs "debates" is another example of how the language is bring reshaped a la Alice in Wonderland.

These are merely joint press conferences in lieu of paid advertisements.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Calling these affairs "debates" is another example of how the language is bring reshaped a la Alice in Wonderland.

I was thinking it is more like Orwell's 'doublethink'

Clinton interview w Jake Tapper today

http://freebeacon.com/uncatego...f-a-personal-server/

Tapper asked Clinton if it ever occurred to her if any of the emails she had received from Sid Blumenthal or others contained any sensitive information. Clinton brushed off the comment by saying Blumenthal was not a government employee.

“It would be like you sending me something,” Clinton said.

***********************
good grief why do they let this lying sack of shit get away with this nonsense.

If a nongovt person sent her classified material to her private email system, it was her responsibility to report that to the State Dept Security office.

it is hard at times to figure out if she is that bold a liar or just that incredibly stupid

I really hope Trey Gowdy notes that response and asks her publicly why that would be legal.

It would be great if Gowdy also had a security procedure expert at the testimony so he could in real time have her challenged. They just keep letting her off the hook.


adding:

a very short video of HC laughing it off in response to Jake Tapper's question.

she keeps right on laughing even when Tapper mentions the FBI investigation.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...illarys-hilarity.php

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

I don't think Gowdy is going to be drilling her on any emails that don't deal with Bengazi. Sadly that committee has been neutered by the two stooges McCarthy and Hanna.
Hillary knows this. I expect her to be one indignant bitch during her upcoming appearance before the committee.

As SDY said in the other thread. Unless Gowdy has a silver bullet loaded that can't miss this show is over.

After that it's up to the FBI to slay the dragon. Reports coming out are saying those involved at the FBI are fuming over Obama running his mouth to try to run cover for Hillary on 60 minutes the other night.

Who knows perhaps that will serve as another source to motivate them to prove Obama wrong.
But then it will fall to the DOJ eventually. Sigh....

I dunno. I'm an optimist trying to read tea leaves here, but there still seem to be more stories about Hillary and the emails in the MSM than there are stories about McCarthy (who's announced he's resigning from the House, IIUC) and that AF dude (who so far seems to be represented in the media as a mild whackjob on a mission).

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I dunno. I'm an optimist trying to read tea leaves here, but there still seem to be more stories about Hillary and the emails in the MSM than there are stories about McCarthy (who's announced he's resigning from the House, IIUC) and that AF dude (who so far seems to be represented in the media as a mild whackjob on a mission).

Wow! McCarthy is actually resigning from the House? That's great news. When did he announce that one? Last I heard he was pulling his name from the run for Speaker, but, staying on as Majority Leader. So, he announced recently that he's leaving the House altogether? When did he do that? I can't believe that he would quit like Boehner did. I'm ecstatic.

It's because he finally has a sense of shame about the affair he was having, albeit a bit late.

A sense of shame is sorely lacking from politicians anymore. For that matter, from all of society as a whole.
The world would be a better place if a sense of shame was still present in all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
It's because he finally has a sense of shame about the affair he was having, albeit a bit late.

A sense of shame is sorely lacking from politicians anymore. For that matter, from all of society as a whole.
The world would be a better place if a sense of shame was still present in all of us.

Shame and Humility are severely lacking today in all aspects of society.

I don't think Kevin McCarthy has resigned from the House.

There were a lot of rumors, but as far as I know it has not happened.

Why shouldn't Hillary laugh? She wants to convey to voters that the whole thing is laughable. McCarthy and the other made it so.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I don't think Kevin McCarthy has resigned from the House.

There were a lot of rumors, but as far as I know it has not happened.

That's a damp rag. I've been watching the news everyday since McCarthy withdrew from the Speaker run and never heard anything at all as far as any announcements that McCarthy has resigned from the House. Then I read here that someone says that he resigned from the House. Beginning to sound like a false alarm. Now that really, really sucks. Got my hopes up for nothing.

So what else does the Clinton Mafia have to worry about?

The WSJ (Oct.16-15) ran a follow-up story which originated in the WaPo

A quick summary;
Cheryl Mills (Chief of Staff to Hillary at State) was one person who reviewed/approved WJ Clinton’s foreign speaking tours.

Mills started at State while still being employed by NYU, she negotiated a deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to open a NYU campus in Abu Dhabi funded by UAE.
WJC made speeches there in 2010 & 2011 at his customary $500,000; he has been paid a total of $5.6 million since 2011 out of UAE coffers.
Naturally the UAE and the Royal Family have also contributed considerable sums to the Clinton Fund.
Mills was paid $330,000 by NYU in special compensation.
Is this illegal? Well, it is highly irregular, and certainly was not public, nor was it intended to be public.
Was there a quid pro quo? The emails may come very close to proving one.


My take on this;
The Clinton’s evidently used Hillary’s position at State as the pivot in a scheme to fleece the rubes.

It worked like this; some foreign country wants something which must be approved by the License Raj at State, an intermediary is found, Slick Willie for example, who approaches Hillary’s people at State, the approval is made, WJC then makes a speech in the country involved at $500,000, and further contributions are forwarded to the Clinton Slush Fund.
Many third world countries think that this sort of greasing the wheels is what gets business moving.

This kind of information is what is sought in many of the FIOA lawsuits in progress.

quote:

it is hard at times to figure out if she is that bold a liar or just that incredibly stupid,,,

For the record, they are not mutually exclusive. I personally believe Hillary is both, yet although bold, she seems to be a terrible liar, totally unlike her hubby who was a very accomplished liar.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

it is hard at times to figure out if she is that bold a liar or just that incredibly stupid,,,

For the record, they are not mutually exclusive. I personally believe Hillary is both, yet although bold, she seems to be a terrible liar, totally unlike her hubby who was a very accomplished liar.

Bill was a good liar because he actually gave a rats ass about how the people perceived him and what his legacy would be. Hillary is just simply entitled and she could give a rats ass what you or I or anyone else for that matter thinks. She believes and perhaps correctly that she has enough votes to be elected regardless of what she does. Perception is in no way reality to her.