FBI releases Bill Clinton closed case file. Are you up on the east coast and seeing this?https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-releases-bill-clinton-closed-case-files-days-232844166.html
Washington (AFP) – The FBI has unexpectedly released documents concerning ex-president Bill Clinton’s pardon of the husband of a wealthy Democratic donor, in a surprise move just days before the election in which his wife is seeking to become America’s first female president.
The release of the heavily redacted 129-page report over the pardon of trader Marc Rich — an investigation that closed in 2005 without charges — triggered questions from Democrats already angered by the FBI’s probe into hundreds of thousands of newly uncovered emails possibly linked to Hillary Clinton.
While the Rich documents were published online Monday, they received little notice until they were posted on Tuesday on a Twitter account for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s division managing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that had had no posts since a year ago, except for a small handful released simultaneously released on Sunday.
I really despise soap operas, reality tv, the Judge Judy and Dr. Phil pseudo “shows” occupying media space. My head is spinning with the FBI insertion into the POTUS campaign and election. I defend neither the Dem or Rep nominee for their flaws, corruption and contempt for truth and justice. This action by the FBI seems bizarre and demands explanation and investigation. Do not let this go, people.
The media desperately want a close election. The GOP desperately wants to retain and acquire power. Neither group demonstrates any commitment to any sort of value system or morality whatsoever.
We passed control of government to the handful of mostly men who own and control both the media and the GOP decades ago. Our millennials naively and foolishly believe that this problem will somehow go away if they refuse to participate.
We are experiencing the collapse of American democracy.
WCVB noon news included a segment produced by ABC about the election in which they called the race a dead heat (It isn’t in the ways that count.) and cited the FBI “reopening” the case against HRC (They haven’t.).
Corporations need revenue, corporations own the media, the media collects revenue through selling time slots to advertisers, political races spend money on media buys when there is a tight race…..
I figure you are either interested enough to follow the race or you aren’t. I’m skeptical of the notion that ratings have a correlation to the tightness of the race.
…when our Democratic nominee could make more in “donations” by speaking to Wall Street executives than she could speaking to ordinary laborers. Unless we acknowledge that fact and turn things around, the people, laborers and what I knew as the Democratic Party will never gain control.
You’re again whining about Ms. Clinton.
This happened way back in the 1980s when we dismantled the “Equal Time” and “Fairness Doctrine” policies governing the media. The GOP has been buying government for decades. Citizens United was brought by and benefited GOP, not Democratic, donors.
This is larger than parties. We are talking about the wholesale destruction of American democracy.
It all started with Ms. Clinton….or that’s what you need me to say to keep your inaccurate portrayal of me on point.
Nope, I did not say that. Not even close. But hey, as the saying goes, It is easy to find a stick to beat a dog. I did say that too many Democrats are open to accepting it when there are viable alternatives because they feel that money is a top priority over message and “the money has to come from somewhere”….
Here is what you wrote (emphasis mine):
There has been only one female Democratic nominee. Your own statement applied specifically to Hillary Clinton, and I responded to it. So actually, you did indeed say that.
She’s part of the problem, no doubt. She’s not the originator, but with support from Democrats who give up and say “the money has to come from somewhere”, well, here we are. If anyone is in denial, it’s not me. Those who cry out about wealth inequality and the money in politics that corrupts it but, when it matters, turn a blind eye…….that’s denial.
Every candidate of every party who accepts money from large donors is part of the problem. Agreed. The rub with that observation is that that applies to every candidate with a prayer of winning, so long as we have the election system and society that we have.
Hillary Clinton was not the first, nor will she be the last. It’s trivially easy to shout that candidate X is “part of the problem”. It’s also singularly unconstructive.
We must change the system we have. We must do all we can to empower candidates who strive to change the system we have. In the meantime, the only way to have any influence at all is to nominate candidates that have a prayer of winning. In order to have a prayer of winning, the party and its nominee has to spend money on campaigns. In order to have that money to spend, the party and its nominee needs to raise money. Small donors are great — so are big donors.
I know you hate it when I remind you of that reality, but it remains a reality whether you like it or not. Part of why Bernie Sanders had no chance of winning the nomination (never mind the general election) is that he didn’t raise enough money to make his case.
So the brutal fact is that the money to win a campaign does, in fact, have to come from somewhere. Those who reject every candidate who accepts big money literally guarantee that their resulting chosen candidates cannot win.
I agree with you that this is a terrible state of affairs. I think we ought to change it. I think you’re living in la-la-land if you think that change can happen by candidates unilaterally refusing to accept big money contributions. This was a problem long before Hillary Clinton and will be a problem long after Hillary Clinton.
I therefore invite you to stop sniping at Hillary Clinton and join me in electing candidates who can solve the issue. Bernie Sanders may help. Elizabeth Warren will help. Hillary Clinton can help enormously once she is elected and when she is given a Democratic House and Senate to work with.
That’s why I continue to suggest that every contribution to political discourse that hurts the chances of Hillary Clinton being elected or hurts the changes of regaining a Democratic majority in the House and Senate is a contribution that hurts progressives and helps the GOP.
…us refusing to return those shaky law firm donations until they have been ‘proven’ illegal.
n/t
None.
This is the sort of thing that happens in many “not-quite” democracies — the security industry dumps questionable gossip on people they don’t like to influence the election. Not necessarily so they get the candidate they want, but that whoever the winner is, s/he gives them free reign to engage in whatever corruption and misanthropy it desires. This feels like Serbia or Peru, not the United States.