HillaryLeaks

[SDHornet]

Voicemails released

Will have to wait for people to listen to these... but, hopefully some good stuff.

[93henfan]

I railed against the chimp. You can check my posts.

I wasn't including you in that. More hardline Conks like AZ, Cid, baldy, G8, Travelinman (RIP), native (RIP?), etc. I remember all those guys defending Bush hardcore on AGS in the mid-2000s.

You're impossible to gauge. You vote for Obama and Trump. You clearly don't vote on actual issues... I have no idea what you vote on. I wouldn't consider you a Conk or a Donk.

I do vote on issues. I don't follow political party platforms. I listed every position of mine in the ISideWith thread a few days back.

One of my biggest issues is not misusing our military. That is why I voted against a defacto Bush third term (and against his second term) and after I was duped by Obama against his second term. I'm more consistent on that issue than any member here or on AGS and I'm proud of it.

[AZGrizFan]

I railed against the chimp. You can check my posts.

I wasn't including you in that. More hardline Conks like AZ, Cid, baldy, G8, Travelinman (RIP), native (RIP?), etc. I remember all those guys defending Bush hardcore on AGS in the mid-2000s.

You're impossible to gauge. You vote for Obama and Trump. You clearly don't vote on actual issues... I have no idea what you vote on. I wouldn't consider you a Conk or a Donk.

if you think I'm a "hardcore conk" you really haven't been paying attention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

Come on, Julian. Give us the juice.

[Baldy]

I wasn't including you in that. More hardline Conks like AZ, Cid, baldy, G8, Travelinman (RIP), native (RIP?), etc. I remember all those guys defending Bush hardcore on AGS in the mid-2000s.

You're impossible to gauge. You vote for Obama and Trump. You clearly don't vote on actual issues... I have no idea what you vote on. I wouldn't consider you a Conk or a Donk.

if you think I'm a "hardcore conk" you really haven't been paying attention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He never really does.

[AZGrizFan]

So, my sister (a true hard core lefty Bernie supporter) just blamed TRUMP for Bernie not getting the nomination....says Hillary and the DNC are just "convenient scapegoats" but it was really comments made by Trump that caused Bernie not to get the nomination....

I swear, even when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face the hard core donks are gonna blame conks. Too fucking funny.

[89Hen]

So, my sister (a true hard core lefty Bernie supporter) just blamed TRUMP for Bernie not getting the nomination....says Hillary and the DNC are just "convenient scapegoats" but it was really comments made by Trump that caused Bernie not to get the nomination....

I swear, even when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face the hard core donks are gonna blame conks. Too fucking funny.

She's an idiot. Anybody with half a brain knows it was Bush or Cheney's fault.

[89Hen]

Did I really just see these posters at a Hillary fundraiser?...

[Ivytalk]

Did I really just see these posters at a Hillary fundraiser?...

Aw, 89, now you're racing andy's motor...

[Grizalltheway]

Did I really just see these posters at a Hillary fundraiser?...

What were you doing at a Hillary fundraiser? Scouting for a side piece?

[89Hen]

What were you doing at a Hillary fundraiser? Scouting for a side piece?

No, it was on the video Jelly posted above.

[CAA Flagship]

Li-Ying Ho

[Grizalltheway]

BTW is sounds like she needs to invest in these:

[andy7171]

Did I really just see these posters at a Hillary fundraiser?...

Aw, 89, now you're racing andy's motor...

I said early 90's! As in 1990's not age!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Did I really just see these posters at a Hillary fundraiser?...

You're kinda slow, Hen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey

[MSUDuo]

[89Hen]

Did I really just see these posters at a Hillary fundraiser?...

You're kinda slow, Hen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey

What am I supposed to be reading here? Why do I care who designed it? If this was intentional, it's even more

[Skjellyfetti]

Yes, it was intentional. And, I'm not defending it. I think it's stupid and he's gotten plenty of flack from the right and the left. Just thought you should know.

[Ibanez]

Yes, it was intentional. And, I'm not defending it. I think it's stupid and he's gotten plenty of flack from the right and the left. Just thought you should know.

That guy is pretty cool. I met him once when he came home to visit his folks and he was getting ready to paint a huge Andre the Giant mural on the roof of a hotel.

[CID1990]

Yes, it was intentional. And, I'm not defending it. I think it's stupid and he's gotten plenty of flack from the right and the left. Just thought you should know.

That guy is pretty cool. I met him once when he came home to visit his folks and he was getting ready to paint a huge Andre the Giant mural on the roof of a hotel.

I remember the mid 1980s downtown (especially King St) was plastered with the Andre the Giant has a Posse stickers. At first I thought it was a band.

[houndawg]

Who needs success against Putin?

Seriously, WTF are you complaining about?

Obama is trying to screw with Russia and Russia is kicking Obama's arse...and deservedly so.

We have no business on Russia's borders, yet we continue to operate as though they are a threat to us, so we keep pushing Russia into a corner. For what? My bet is for more markets for the Western wealthy.

To say that Trump would do worse than Obama is to believe that we should be fvcking with Russia...and that is just plain stupid.

It amazes me that people do not study their history, but they are willing to give opinions on global matters. Russia is not going to be a direct threat to the US. They can't occupy our land...they can't outperform us in the markets...they can't do **** to the US of gawdamned America...PERIOD.

Yet some folks want to paint them as the big bad wolf that we have to battle.

Frankly, that is a waste of time. Russia isn't going to roll into Germany...they just aren't. What would Putin gain by such a move? Russia isn't going to threaten any of our traditional allies or markets.

What Russia will do is try to steady their borders and reestablish what they see is their role in their neighboring states. Duh...that is what EVERY country tries to do.

Big deal. Let them.

Russia will simply do what we do...they will just do it in a less sophisticated and less sneaky way. Oh, the horror.

Again, we will need Russia more as an ally than an enemy. I am not concerned about Latvia, Georgia, Persnikita, or any other tiny country's interests. They have dealt with powers at their doorstep for millennia...they'll deal with it now. And let's not try to pretend that we are their saviors...all we are doing is putting different people in the driver's seats...the direction of travel isn't much different except for more useless distractions.

Ok Cluck, I agree with a lot of this isolationism type of “world policing”. Nothing would please me more than to see the world fall into utter chaos when we stop playing Captain Save-a-hoe. Now the question is this: Do we let Russia do/take whatever they want? Is there a limit at which point we step in and say enough is enough? They will expand to take back what is “theirs”, and eventually they will reach beyond that. So then what?

We need those strategic rare earth elements in Afghanistan so we don't have to buy them China, if they'll sell them to us.

[kalm]

I didn't claim you were defending The Hildabeast or Burney, like you usually do.
However, since the Donks have been shitting the bed the past couple of days, you've been doing a lot of "but Conks...".

Most conks are outwardly opposed to campaign finance so when they pipe up about a quid pro quo with Clinton appointments as in this thread...yeah I'll point out the hypocrisy.

Just like I've consistently pointed out the hypocrisy of establishment Dems all along.

Hope this helps with your confusion.

To my friend Baldy...for the sake of balance...

For the more than 1,900 Bernie Sanders delegates at the convention, the dependence on high-roller lobbyists was particularly galling. Sanders’s campaign was built on a simple promise: he would shun big-ticket fundraisers and corporate lobbyists in favor of a legion of small donors. And it worked. By the end of April 2016, Sanders’s campaign was actually raising more money than Clinton’s, which was welcoming support from corporate lobbyists and bundlers.

But an overwhelming majority of Democratic lawmakers we spoke to at the convention didn’t seem troubled by the rule change at all.

At a posh event hosted by The Atlantic and paid for by the American Petroleum Institute oil lobby, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, shrugged off concerns about the influence of special interest groups.

“I don’t know, you’ll have to ask the DNC on that,” he said in response to a question whether lifting the ban was the right move.

“Do you think that lobbyists have undue influence?” we followed up.

“I don’t know.”

“What about energy lobbyists? What about oil lobbyists?”

“What about ’em?”

“Do you think they have undue influence in the United States?”

“I think they’re just like teachers, like firemen, like everybody who contributes.”

“What about the Koch Brothers, who spent $400 million on an election?”

“You’ve gotta go talk to the Koch Brothers,” he replied, ending the conversation.

Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia offered a Willie Sutton justification for lifting the lobbying ban. “The lobbyists, that’s where the money is,” he said.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley made attacks on special interests a cornerstone of his short-lived Democratic presidential primary campaign — decrying Hillary Clinton’s “cozy relationship with Wall Street.” Just a few short months later, his concern about moneyed interests influencing the Democratic Party seem to have evaporated.

“I’m really kind of agnostic on it,” he said. “I really don’t care one way or another.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland ducked the question. “It’s above my paygrade,” he quipped.

Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said he would never have banned lobbyists like Obama did in the first place. “I wouldn’t have done it,” he said. “It’s not a matter of wrong or right. It’s a matter of making sure we have the resources to put on a convention.”

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the chair of the DNC’s Host Committee, has refused to disclose donors to that committee until 60 days after the convention.

In an interview with The Intercept, Rendell insisted there was nothing wrong with keeping the committee’s donors secret until just a few weeks before the election, and he downplayed the influence of big donors. “I never made one decision where I was influenced by a campaign contribution,” he said.

“So why are lobbyists giving money to the DNC now again,” we asked. “Are they doing it just because they have extra money to give?”

“They want access,” he acknowledged.

Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan avoided the question. “At this point I want to focus on the basic issues. I’m in favor of getting money more and more out of politics,” he said. When we followed up by asking whether lobbyists should be able to fundraise for the DNC, he walked away.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California stopped to talk to us, but after hearing the subject, briskly walked away as a fleet of staffers blocked off access to her.

A staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff of California asked the subject of our interview question. She then informed her boss, who told her, “I don’t want to talk about that.”

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said he was unconcerned with the policy shift. “Unfortunately, we’re in a world today where we have to raise private money,” he said. “I don’t get too concerned about who and what groups you take money from. It’s up to you.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/29/in- ... onvention/

[DSUrocks07]

Most conks are outwardly opposed to campaign finance so when they pipe up about a quid pro quo with Clinton appointments as in this thread...yeah I'll point out the hypocrisy.

Just like I've consistently pointed out the hypocrisy of establishment Dems all along.

Hope this helps with your confusion.

To my friend Baldy...for the sake of balance...

For the more than 1,900 Bernie Sanders delegates at the convention, the dependence on high-roller lobbyists was particularly galling. Sanders’s campaign was built on a simple promise: he would shun big-ticket fundraisers and corporate lobbyists in favor of a legion of small donors. And it worked. By the end of April 2016, Sanders’s campaign was actually raising more money than Clinton’s, which was welcoming support from corporate lobbyists and bundlers.

But an overwhelming majority of Democratic lawmakers we spoke to at the convention didn’t seem troubled by the rule change at all.

At a posh event hosted by The Atlantic and paid for by the American Petroleum Institute oil lobby, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, shrugged off concerns about the influence of special interest groups.

“I don’t know, you’ll have to ask the DNC on that,” he said in response to a question whether lifting the ban was the right move.

“Do you think that lobbyists have undue influence?” we followed up.

“I don’t know.”

“What about energy lobbyists? What about oil lobbyists?”

“What about ’em?”

“Do you think they have undue influence in the United States?”

“I think they’re just like teachers, like firemen, like everybody who contributes.”

“What about the Koch Brothers, who spent $400 million on an election?”

“You’ve gotta go talk to the Koch Brothers,” he replied, ending the conversation.

Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia offered a Willie Sutton justification for lifting the lobbying ban. “The lobbyists, that’s where the money is,” he said.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley made attacks on special interests a cornerstone of his short-lived Democratic presidential primary campaign — decrying Hillary Clinton’s “cozy relationship with Wall Street.” Just a few short months later, his concern about moneyed interests influencing the Democratic Party seem to have evaporated.

“I’m really kind of agnostic on it,” he said. “I really don’t care one way or another.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland ducked the question. “It’s above my paygrade,” he quipped.

Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said he would never have banned lobbyists like Obama did in the first place. “I wouldn’t have done it,” he said. “It’s not a matter of wrong or right. It’s a matter of making sure we have the resources to put on a convention.”

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the chair of the DNC’s Host Committee, has refused to disclose donors to that committee until 60 days after the convention.

In an interview with The Intercept, Rendell insisted there was nothing wrong with keeping the committee’s donors secret until just a few weeks before the election, and he downplayed the influence of big donors. “I never made one decision where I was influenced by a campaign contribution,” he said.

“So why are lobbyists giving money to the DNC now again,” we asked. “Are they doing it just because they have extra money to give?”

“They want access,” he acknowledged.

Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan avoided the question. “At this point I want to focus on the basic issues. I’m in favor of getting money more and more out of politics,” he said. When we followed up by asking whether lobbyists should be able to fundraise for the DNC, he walked away.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California stopped to talk to us, but after hearing the subject, briskly walked away as a fleet of staffers blocked off access to her.

A staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff of California asked the subject of our interview question. She then informed her boss, who told her, “I don’t want to talk about that.”

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said he was unconcerned with the policy shift. “Unfortunately, we’re in a world today where we have to raise private money,” he said. “I don’t get too concerned about who and what groups you take money from. It’s up to you.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/29/in- ... onvention/

Like all politicians, their views will pivot to whatever is most beneficial to themselves at the time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

DNC and Hilary campaign hacked...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07 ... ating.html

The Clinton Campaign was warned by the FBI in March that they were the target of a cyber attack but they refused to cooperate.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-hillary- ... 00269.html

I'm sure the Russians and Trump will be blamed..

[BDKJMU]

Hillary proves yet again she is incapable of basic computer security, yet she wants to be elected POTUS, entrusted with our nation's greatest secrets..