Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.
Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).
Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.
If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.
I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.
It will require getting 50 Senate seats and nominating a moderate like Merrick Garland. I think that gets the process started on eliminating gerrymandering and campaign finance reform. Then once that happens, everything in the country begins to change.
If the dems have a senate majority she can nominate a hardcore liberal and get her appointed, if they don't control the senate - I have no reason to believe HRC can get anyone appointed. If Trump wins and Dems control senate you may actually see moderate getting appointed, assuming Dems don't cave in to pressure. (Not a safe assumption)
Well, the Dems would have to also eliminate the filibuster and even then, they'd have to get everyone on board.
C'mon man you can't filibuster forever. What's the longest ever filibuster?
Dems need 51 votes in the Senate to control the SC nomination.
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:GoNyGoNyGo wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
Kadzik has been appointed by DOJ to be in charge of the emails found on Huma's PC. He is a personal friend of Podesta. He also told them about other DOJ proceedings when he was probably not supposed to.
That is what it shows. It shows that he is not exactly an objective party.
There's a lot of wishy washy language in these criticisms. Exactly what law did Kadzik or Podesta break?
If you mean the emails that exist are wishy washy, I guess thats your opinion. Kadzik is also the lawyer who represented the pardoned Marc Rich by WJC in 2001 before leaving office. Podesta was involved in that as well.
There is history with Podesta and Kadzik. Now he has been appointed as the DOJ lead guy on the Clinton Investigation. THe only thing "wishy washy" is Kadzik being involved with overseeing the case against HRC .
Stay tuned....more to come.
No the accusations are wishy washy. They just say things like "not exactly an objective party" and we're supposed to think Hillary or her team are criminals or horrible people. You've been asked many times, what law was broken?
meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.
Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).
Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.
If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.
I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.
It will require getting 50 Senate seats and nominating a moderate like Merrick Garland. I think that gets the process started on eliminating gerrymandering and campaign finance reform. Then once that happens, everything in the country begins to change.
If the dems have a senate majority she can nominate a hardcore liberal and get her appointed, if they don't control the senate - I have no reason to believe HRC can get anyone appointed. If Trump wins and Dems control senate you may actually see moderate getting appointed, assuming Dems don't cave in to pressure. (Not a safe assumption)
Well, the Dems would have to also eliminate the filibuster and even then, they'd have to get everyone on board.
C'mon man you can't filibuster forever. What's the longest ever filibuster?
Dems need 51 votes in the Senate to control the SC nomination.
I'm not so sure about that. The Republicans were willing to postpone hearings for a year. I think they'd filibuster for 2 years (at which point they would hope to win back the majority).
Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.
Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).
Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.
If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.
I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.
It will require getting 50 Senate seats and nominating a moderate like Merrick Garland. I think that gets the process started on eliminating gerrymandering and campaign finance reform. Then once that happens, everything in the country begins to change.
If the dems have a senate majority she can nominate a hardcore liberal and get her appointed, if they don't control the senate - I have no reason to believe HRC can get anyone appointed. If Trump wins and Dems control senate you may actually see moderate getting appointed, assuming Dems don't cave in to pressure. (Not a safe assumption)
Well, the Dems would have to also eliminate the filibuster and even then, they'd have to get everyone on board.
C'mon man you can't filibuster forever. What's the longest ever filibuster?
Dems need 51 votes in the Senate to control the SC nomination.
I'm not so sure about that. The Republicans were willing to postpone hearings for a year. I think they'd filibuster for 2 years (at which point they would hope to win back the majority).
There is a political cost associated to filibustering. You can really piss people off and it will always be associated with an individual as opposed to never bringing a nomination to vote when they hold the majority. But yes that is possible, equires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.
Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).
Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.
If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.
I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.
It will require getting 50 Senate seats and nominating a moderate like Merrick Garland. I think that gets the process started on eliminating gerrymandering and campaign finance reform. Then once that happens, everything in the country begins to change.
If the dems have a senate majority she can nominate a hardcore liberal and get her appointed, if they don't control the senate - I have no reason to believe HRC can get anyone appointed. If Trump wins and Dems control senate you may actually see moderate getting appointed, assuming Dems don't cave in to pressure. (Not a safe assumption)
Well, the Dems would have to also eliminate the filibuster and even then, they'd have to get everyone on board.
C'mon man you can't filibuster forever. What's the longest ever filibuster?
Dems need 51 votes in the Senate to control the SC nomination.
I'll tell ya. Wikileaks has methodically jabbed Hillary Clinton into submission. she threw her bomb but the jabs have taken the toll
martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?
someone sent someone else an email....? And?
When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?
Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema....
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.
And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.
earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?
someone sent someone else an email....? And?
When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?
Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema....
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.
And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.
Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?
GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz Reported To FBI For Using Potential Illegal Private Email Server
The man who has promised to lead the investigations of Hillary Clinton if she wins the White House, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is under new scrutiny for his potential use of an illegal private email server.
(snip)
It is going to be very difficult for Rep. Chaffetz to investigate Hillary Clinton if he also was using a private email server. The Democratic Coalition Against Trump raises a great point. Why is Hillary Clinton the only person under investigation?
The Russian hacks have proven that the FBI needs to look at all officials who have access to classified information and use private email. If Republicans want to make email use a national security issue, then let’s examine all the members of Congress who are using private email servers.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/02/g...
Breaking news From WSJSecret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe
Agents thought they had enough material to merit aggressively pursuing investigation into Clinton Foundationhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/secret-recor...snippet and note bold
Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said.
Agents, using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation that started in summer 2015 based on claims made in a book by a conservative author called “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” these people said.
The account of the case and resulting dispute comes from interviews with officials at multiple agencies.
Starting in February and continuing today, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and public-corruption prosecutors became increasingly frustrated with each other, as often happens within and between departments. At the center of the tension stood the U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, Robert Capers, who some at the FBI came to view as exacerbating the problems by telling each side what it wanted to hear, these people said. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Capers declined to comment.
The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton.
Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn’t let them pursue, they said. These details on the probe are emerging amid the continuing furor surrounding FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure to Congress that new emails had emerged that could be relevant to a separate, previously closed FBI investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement while she was secretary of state.
Bonn1997 wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?
someone sent someone else an email....? And?
When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?
Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema....
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.
And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.
Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?
Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.
When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.
You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.
In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.
-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation
-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.
Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?
Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.
They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?
someone sent someone else an email....? And?
When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?
Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema....
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.
And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.
Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?
Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.
When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.
You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.
In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.
-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation
-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.
Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?
Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.
They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.
But if all you can say is that it might be criminal or might not be, then that's too ambiguous to justify anyone changing their votes. There's plenty of "might be criminal or might not be" stories for Trump too. Unless you have something that is undoubtedly criminal, then what you're posting can easily be counterbalanced by stories about Trump too.
Hillary's server hacked by five different intelligence agencies as per the FBI.
Bonn1997 wrote:
Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?
GoNYGoNyGo answered your question extremely well.
Do you really want a democracy to be about "What laws were broken?"
How about checks and balances or preserving our moral integrity?
I really question your motives here.
Bonn1997 wrote:GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?
someone sent someone else an email....? And?
When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?
Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema....
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.
And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.
Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?
Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.
When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.
You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.
In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.
-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation
-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.
Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?
Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.
They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.
But if all you can say is that it might be criminal or might not be, then that's too ambiguous to justify anyone changing their votes. There's plenty of "might be criminal or might not be" stories for Trump too. Unless you have something that is undoubtedly criminal, then what you're posting can easily be counterbalanced by stories about Trump too.
Counter balance all you like. I am all for everyone making as informed decision as possible.
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?
someone sent someone else an email....? And?
When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?
Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema....
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.
And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.
Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?
Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.
When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.
You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.
In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.
-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation
-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.
Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?
Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.
They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.
But if all you can say is that it might be criminal or might not be, then that's too ambiguous to justify anyone changing their votes. There's plenty of "might be criminal or might not be" stories for Trump too. Unless you have something that is undoubtedly criminal, then what you're posting can easily be counterbalanced by stories about Trump too.
Counter balance all you like. I am all for everyone making as informed decision as possible.
OK, fair enough then. Counterbalancing would have to weigh Hillary's e-mail server and Podesta e-mails like this one above against Trump's upcoming fraud and child rape trials, 73 other lawsuits, and sexual assault confession. I'd have to question anyone's motives if they thought Hillary's e-mails were more serious than the concerns about Trump.
BRIGGS wrote:I'll tell ya. Wikileaks has methodically jabbed Hillary Clinton into submission. she threw her bomb but the jabs have taken the toll
The only thing that has been jabbed into submission is your take on some Twitter followers and the glee that you thought you had from it.
That and the CT lawn sign thing.
let's play...let's make a deal.
ok, what you have in front of you is a "crooked" politician. this politician may have some shady ways about her but she has served and fought for people's rights in this country and has a wealth of domestic and international experience.
do you want that...or what's behind door #2?
hillary is a crooked politician? ok.
trump is a crooked business man with questionable integrity...that will translate to the political arena.
but it seems a good portion of this country wants to take a chance on the unknown hell that's about to be unleashed rather than the one everyone knows about.
martin wrote:BRIGGS wrote:I'll tell ya. Wikileaks has methodically jabbed Hillary Clinton into submission. she threw her bomb but the jabs have taken the toll
The only thing that has been jabbed into submission is your take on some Twitter followers and the glee that you thought you had from it.
That and the CT lawn sign thing.
Briggs is reminding me of Baghdad Bob! Basically: "Just say whatever you want - it doesn't matter if there's any evidence for it."
meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.
Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).
Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.
If Scalia is replaced with an SC justice like Bill Clinton's, the country will move much more to the left. I believe we'd eventually see the end of gerrymandering and much of the money would get out of politics. There is no other plausible path for moving the country to the left other than voting for Hillary Clinton. All other choices will have the effect of moving the country much more to the right.
I hope you are right, but given what we saw with Republican obstructionism to SC nominees I doubt what was possible in Bill's era is still possible post tea party take down of civilized society.
I'd also add that even if Republicans don't let Hillary appoint an SC Justice, it would still prevent the rightward shift our country would see if Donald appointed the kinds of people he says he would. Look, I'd love to see Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren be president, but they're not on the ballot. Voting for anyone other than Hillary will move the country more to the right than voting for Hillary would. If you're a progressive, I don't see any other way to view this. If you think voting for someone else would end up helping the middle class more than voting for Hillary would, that's a huge gamble and it seems more likely to backfire than to actually be correct in my estimation.
Bonn1997 wrote:GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.
you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?
WTF is that supposed to show?
"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?
someone sent someone else an email....? And?
When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?
Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema....
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.
And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.
Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?
Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.
When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.
You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.
In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.
-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation
-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.
Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?
Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.
They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.
But if all you can say is that it might be criminal or might not be, then that's too ambiguous to justify anyone changing their votes. There's plenty of "might be criminal or might not be" stories for Trump too. Unless you have something that is undoubtedly criminal, then what you're posting can easily be counterbalanced by stories about Trump too.
Counter balance all you like. I am all for everyone making as informed decision as possible.
OK, fair enough then. Counterbalancing would have to weigh Hillary's e-mail server and Podesta e-mails like this one above against Trump's upcoming fraud and child rape trials, 73 other lawsuits, and sexual assault confession. I'd have to question anyone's motives if they thought Hillary's e-mails were more serious than the concerns about Trump.
Again, HRC email server is a national security issue. The FBI just said as many as 5 foreign entities hacked it. We know there was classified info on it. Its a matter of breaking the law as SOS of the US. Podesta's emails show how the operations work and how the mainstream media participates.
Trump's rape trial is a civil lawsuit not a criminal case. That being said, if there is evidence that comes out that shows he did what is claimed, he should be locked up.
I do not know what the other 73 lawsuits are. I am surprised that are so many. It seems to me that an even an ethical business man would have some lawsuits against them but not that many.
The NBC video is disturbing. He makes claims that he did it on tape and then walked that back under the guise of bragging. While it may have been bragging, it also could have been real. At this point there is no way of knowing for sure. Watching Trump and how he acts, I can see how someone would take that next step and conclude that he has done it before.
