Wattree's picture

    CLINTON SUED FOR ELECTION FRAUD

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
     

    CLINTON SUED FOR ELECTION FRAUD


    [PLAINTIFFS TO BE NAMED]                                                          Civil Case No.
                                                                                                                     DRAFT   
    Plaintiffs                                                                            v.                                                                                        
    PRESIDENT WIILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,    
    WILLIAM J. GALVIN, SECRETARY OF THE           
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS              
    Defendants   
    COMPLAINT 
     

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE  


    1. On March 1st, “Super Tuesday” in the Massachusetts Democratic primary election, William Jefferson Clinton, hereafter referred to as Bill Clinton, did disenfranchise a large group of voters by diluting their votes through illegal campaign activity in and near polling stations.  This disenfranchisement was deliberate, carefully crafted, and effective. As a result of the illegal activity, a critical battleground state at a critical juncture in the primary season may have gone to Hillary Clinton rather than to Bernie Sanders.   Bill Clinton’s illegal activity throughout the day was neither trivial nor inconsequential.  It significantly diluted the votes of people who in good faith voted for Bernie Sanders

    THE PARTIES 


    2.   William Jefferson Clinton, hereafter referred to as Bill Clinton, is a former president of the United States. 

    3.   William J. Galvin is Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the duly sworn officer overseeing the Elections Division of the state of Massachusetts. 

     
    4. [Plaintiffs to be named] 
     

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE 


    5.   This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Defendants, acting under color of Massachusetts state law, are subjecting Plaintiffs, and/or causing Plaintiffs to be subjected, to the deprivation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States and the constitution and  laws of the State of Massachusetts to cast a meaningful vote. 
     

    STATEMENT OF FACTS 



    6.   On March 1st, 2016, in violation of the law, President Bill Clinton did enter within 150 feet of numerous polling stations in the Massachusetts cities of Boston and Newton, in numerous and extended high-impact visibility stops for the campaign of Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential candidate for president of the United States.  Photographic evidence of Clinton  inside polling stations during voting hours appeared  in local newspapers and on the Internet in real time. 

    7.   Once inside polling stations, with no other business there, photographic and video evidence show Bill Clinton smiling, shaking hands, greeting people, having photographs taken with people, and otherwise generating goodwill for the candidacy of  his wife Hillary Clinton.   

    8.    At one point during the day, video shows Clinton apologizing to an audience that he was so hoarse from  campaigning that he had lost his voice. 

    9.   Campaigning within 150 feet of a polling station is illegal in the state of Massachusetts, following laws governing electioneering near polling stations which are well-known and in effect in all 50 states of the United States.  

    10.   In Newton and West Roxbury, Bill Clinton entered not only within the 150 foot perimeter outside the polling stations, but actually walked inside the polling stations and proceeded to meet and shake hands with election workers and  other people.  

    11.   The Massachusetts primary election on that day was a critical turning point in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.  

    12.   As the voting day progressed, the two candidates were reported to be “neck and neck” by the media, with Sanders at one point pulling ahead.  Sanders had closed in on Clinton quickly in recent prior polls, and overtook her in a February 17th poll by 7 points.   

    13.   A February 28, 2016 Suffolk University poll showed a full 8% of likely Democratic primary voters to be undecided just two days before the primary, for a total of roughly 100,000 votes. 
      
    14. Bill Clinton also made campaign stops in other cities and towns, clearly saying, in one city through a bullhorn, “I especially want to thank those of you who came out to support Hillary.” Video of this is available.  Throughout the day, Bill Clinton was in campaign mode for his wife, as his motorcade, security detail, and large entourage occasionally reportedly blocked people from voting at the times they had set aside to do so, due to his large security presence and security requirements.  

    15. By the end of the day Hillary Clinton had eked out a narrow victory by 1.4%, which represented about 16,800 votes.

    14. The narrow victory in this closely watched race, deemed “critical” for each candidate, bolstered the Clinton candidacy in future primaries, making this a live and active issue to the present day.   

     

    CLAIMS: VOTE DILUTION 


    16. Defendants’ actions in engaging or allowing individuals to engage in illegal campaign activity violates Plaintiffs’ right to due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because said actions allow Plaintiffs’ lawful votes  to be diluted. 

    17. U.S.C. § 1983 provides that any person acting under color of state law who deprives a citizen of the United States of any federal right, privilege, or immunity “shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ….” 

    18. Defendant Secretary Galvin, in his official capacity, is such a person. 

    19. 950 CMR 53.03(18); 54.04.22 of the Massachusetts General Laws states that "Within 150 feet of a polling place…no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election." 

    20. Given the large number of “undecided” voters and the extremely narrow margin of victory for Hillary Clinton, there was sufficient fluidity in the race for Bill Clinton’s illegal electioneering to have made a significant impact, and to have reversed the verdict of the voters by handing victory to Clinton rather than to Sanders.  With 100,00 undecided voters and a margin of victory of only 16,800 votes, it is eminently plausible that Bill Clinton impacted the final result. 

    21.  Bill Clinton's illegal actions were carefully and deliberately calibrated to impact the electoral battlefield in such a way that the entire course of future primaries was affected. 

    22. Defendant Secretary Galvin issued a statement during the controversy which surrounded Clinton’s activity inside polling places, which declared that Clinton’s entering the polling places alone was not illegal, as long he did not utter words such as “vote for Hillary.” This notion is beyond absurd.  The former president did not land at ground zero of a key battleground state and enter the polls because there was no place else to get a cup of coffee.  Bill Clinton does not need
    a button or a sign (which it is illegal to wear or display inside a polling place.)  In his very person, the presidential candidate’s fabulously famous husband amounts to a walking, talking sign for Hillary. 

    23. Bill Clinton's illegal actions served to demoralize Sanders workers, who now became convinced that no matter how hard they worked, a person of Bill Clinton's stature, with trappings of his former office and with the tacit cooperation of MA election officials, could always reverse that work, and prevent them from reaping the fruit of any labor performed for their candidate.  This further dilutes votes for Sanders by causing possible future voters for him to cease participating in the political process in disgust.  

    24. Bill Clinton's illegal behavior on Super Tuesday is a blow to democracy itself, in that a democratic system's legitimacy is anchored in a people's faith in its basic integrity, despite flaws.  Clinton's behavior was arrogant, highly visible, and demoralizing to any believer in the rule of law, and impacts negatively on the willingness of citizens to participate in the political process, a vital steam valve for society.  One of our truly great presidents, John F. Kennedy, once said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."    

     
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE,


    Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court:

    1.   In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, which required that evidence which was illegally obtained by police against a suspect must be thrown out.  In the present case, it is delegates which constitute the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and the claim of victory which was meaningful to the Clinton campaign.  To merely reapportion a small number of delegates would do nothing to discourage similar future violations of electioneering laws, because in some cases, a small risk for getting caught might be worth it.  Therefore plaintiffs request the court to invalidate the Massachusetts primary results for such open and egregious lawbreaking and to award all Massachusetts pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders.  

    2.   Declare that Defendants have violated the Massachusetts Election Code and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by engaging in or allowing illegal electioneering activity intended to swing the vote in a significant way.  

    3.   Declare that Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by virtue of said acts;  

    4.   Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, their successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging or allowing similar future activity;  

    5.    Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

    6.   Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

     
    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
     

    Eric L. Wattree
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does. 

    Comments

    Hillary won Boston by 20,000 votes, with an overall Massachusetts margin of 17,000 votes.

    There are 22 wards & 255 precincts, meaning a whole lot of ground to cover to pull 17,000 votes difference out of 123,000 total votes, much less the 99.9% other Mass voting locations that Clinton didn't visit.

    Actually, Clinton visited Newton & West Roxbury/Boston. In Newton (where Hillary won by 63%), there were 23,000 votes cast, so assume max 4,000 voters could be there in the half hour or whatever Bill was there, roughly 50% who would have normally voted for Hillary since she pulled in 50-68% around Boston suburbs. (video on someone's blogroll shows maybe half a dozen non-poll workers walking around Newton, so hard to see where the big scandal is).

    PS - brilliant tactic to bring a lawsuit 100 days after an election took place. I'm sure no deadlines have passed.


    I get the narrative that Bill was breaking the law against politicking in poll places but making it into a civil suit demanding redress of a demonstrable loss is a nebulous enterprise.
    There have been cases of election fraud that have been put forth as criminal charges. Are there examples of civil suits of the kind you are hoping to be written that can be presented for the purposes of comparison?


    Eric,

    Three days ago you said that despite your unhappiness with Hillary´s likely nomination we should be careful not to repeat Nader´s 2000 tactic , acting in such a way as to swing the election to Trump. Today have  , obviously, put a lot of effort into framing your proposed complaint against Bill Clinton.

    Seems to me like youŕe acting in such a way as to swing the election to Trump. 


    Flavius,

    I don't deal in favorite people. I deal in ideals.  I don't like what Bill Clinton engaged in so I said so.  I'll deal with Trump during the general election.  I always give truth priority over ideology, and I follow truth wherever it leads and regardless to whose ox it gores. That's my political philosophy.  I am not a cheerleader. I don't look upon politicians as leaders; I see them as employees, and I treat 'em as such - and Bill and Hillary needs to be fired for failing to adhere to the company's standards.
    .
    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

    Obama Supporters vs. Cheerleaders
    .

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-supporters-vs-cheerleaders.html

    .


    Eric, Bill Clinton was not electioneering inside the polling places

    Boston Globe

    corrected link

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/01/did-bill-clinton-violate-el...

    Original link was to an Olympics story

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paralympic-sailor-liesl-tesch-robbed...

    Snopes link on Bill at the polling station

    http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-laws-massachusetts/

    The megaphone belonged to the Mayor of Boston. The megaphone was outside the 150 foot limit and not illegal. The law is silent on the issue of megaphones. The Boston Mayor brought the device to the event.

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/01/bill-clinton-new-bedf...

    There is no legal case.


    Mmmm... paralympics in Brazil? think you miscopied.


    Thx, corrected link appears above


    STATEMENT OF FACTS 

    6.   On March 1st, 2016, in violation of the law, President Bill Clinton did enter within 150 feet of numerous polling stations in the Massachusetts cities of Boston and Newton, in numerous and extended high-impact visibility stops for the campaign of Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential candidate for president of the United States.  Photographic evidence of Clinton  inside polling stations during voting hours appeared  in local newspapers and on the Internet in real time. 

    7.   Once inside polling stations, with no other business there, photographic and video evidence show Bill Clinton smiling, shaking hands, greeting people, having photographs taken with people, and otherwise generating goodwill for the candidacy of  his wife Hillary Clinton.   

    8.    At one point during the day, video shows Clinton apologizing to an audience that he was so hoarse from  campaigning that he had lost his voice. 

    9.   Campaigning within 150 feet of a polling station is illegal in the state of Massachusetts, following laws governing electioneering near polling stations which are well-known and in effect in all 50 states of the United States.  

    10.   In Newton and West Roxbury, Bill Clinton entered not only within the 150 foot perimeter outside the polling stations, but actually walked inside the polling stations and proceeded to meet and shake hands with election workers and  other people.  

    11.   The Massachusetts primary election on that day was a critical turning point in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.  

    12.   As the voting day progressed, the two candidates were reported to be “neck and neck” by the media, with Sanders at one point pulling ahead.  Sanders had closed in on Clinton quickly in recent prior polls, and overtook her in a February 17th poll by 7 points.   

    13.   A February 28, 2016 Suffolk University poll showed a full 8% of likely Democratic primary voters to be undecided just two days before the primary, for a total of roughly 100,000 votes. 
      
    14. Bill Clinton also made campaign stops in other cities and towns, clearly saying, in one city through a bullhorn, “I especially want to thank those of you who came out to support Hillary.” Video of this is available.  Throughout the day, Bill Clinton was in campaign mode for his wife, as his motorcade, security detail, and large entourage occasionally reportedly blocked people from voting at the times they had set aside to do so, due to his large security presence and security requirements.  

    15. By the end of the day Hillary Clinton had eked out a narrow victory by 1.4%, which represented about 16,800 votes.

    14. The narrow victory in this closely watched race, deemed “critical” for each candidate, bolstered the Clinton candidacy in future primaries, making this a live and active issue to the present day.   

    WHAT KIND OF ARROGANCE AND SENSE OF
    ENTITLEMENT DOES IT TAKE TO DO SOMETHING
    LIKE THIS!!!?

    You repost

    Read what the AG said.  There will be no jail time .Bernie Sanders is not the nominee because he lost by nearly 4 million votes.

    Edit to add:

    There was no electioneering


    1) 4 stops is not "numerous".

    2) Only 2 of those stops appear to be polling places (maybe 3 - Newton, New Bedford, West Roxbury)

    3) Clinton spoke for 3 minutes, so he personally did not tangle traffic for "hours"

    4) Though the parking by the MEDIA ahead of time apparently did cause problems - at one location (New Bedford), which apparently caused them to put the mic closer to the polling station than intended

    5) as an aside, New Bedford wasn't just by accident:

    The Clintons have a history of coming to New Bedford.
    Hillary Clinton worked in the city in 1973 during her time as a young lawyer with the Children's Defense Fund. At the time, she was advocating for legislation that would provide equal education to children with special needs. "There are still some folks here who remember her," said Mitchell.

    6) Getting hoarse from campaigning is not a crime or violation of regulations (and most of that campaigning was before election day)

    7) Clinton did not hand out any materials in the polling place and only shook workers' hands - probably a thrill for some, but unwise with his wife in the event

    8) that said, 3 polling places is a trivial detail and nowhere near the 17,000 statewide difference (plus Hillary trounced Bernie in the Boston area, so it might have been more effective to get-out-the-vote in Bernie areas, though they're much more sparse and rural).

    9) The mayor provided the bullhorn, and apparently it's not illegal from the distance they were at.

    10) Clinton's full quote was "“Thank you all for participating,” Clinton says. “I especially thank those of you who are supporting Hillary, but we ought to give the others a round of applause, too — this is democracy’s day, and we thank you all.” - nice editing job.

    11) State officials ruled that no explicit campaigning had occurred, so nothing to prosecute. Let's hold a Benghazi hearing.

    12) I found it funny that an original plaintiff had to withdraw because he was registered with the Green Party and hadn't changed his affiliation in time. Oops. Perhaps he'll learn when he gets older.

     


    Honestly, all politics aside. Is a person with such poor judgment and incapable of handling the security of her own email qualified to be President of the United States?  For her entire career scandal, incompetence, and corruption has followed her everywhere she goes.

    Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server
     

    I don't know, I thought Colin Powell was qualified to be SoS even though I disagreed with many of his views. The fact that he had a private email server and that he totally wiped every email on that server after he left office doesn't seem disqualifying to me. He tried to do the best he could in a bad situation with a foolish republican president. What I find puzzling is why there was no FBI investigation of his private server. Why was he allowed to retain possession of his hard drive when he left government service and why was he allowed to delete every single email on that server.

    What do you think? Colin Powell, qualified to be SoS or product of affirmative action?


    There’s a BIG difference between a private account, which is generally free and simple to start, and a private SERVER, which requires a more elaborate setup.

    The Atlantic speculated the Clintons "may have wanted to be in control of the encryption of their correspondence, ensuring that no third parties — whether commercial, hacker, or GOVERNMENT — were able to snoop on them."
    .
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-c...

    .
    The State Department inspector general reported in May 2016 that Clinton never had authorization to use a private email server during her service as secretary of state, debunking the defense she and her supporters have been using for over a year to dismiss the issue.
    .
    The Clinton Foundation has also been linked to several cases of fraudulent activity. Clinton appointed Rajiv Fernando, a prominent Clinton Foundation donor, to an intelligence advisory board with the State Department despite the fact that Fernando had no experience or background qualifying him for the role. An IBTimes investigation in 2015 uncovered millions of dollars in donations given to the Clinton Foundation by foreign government dictatorships in exchange for favors from Clinton’s State Department.
    .
    http://observer.com/2016/06/corruption-conviction-of-clinton-crony-fores...

     
     
     
     

    No there isn't. The only difference is you hate Hillary and want to spin everything against her in the worst light. Just as you want to condemn her for being a republican in her teens while never saying a word about Elizabeth Warren being a republican far longer. Warren admits she was a republican until 1994. You know, virtually the entire black population switched from republican to democrat in about a decade as well as a large group of white "hippies." Are they all fake democrats?

    Powell had a private server. When asked about saving emails for FOI requests his answer is the same as Hillary's. All his work emails were sent to employees on their state department account and therefore saved on state department servers. His answer about classified documents on his private account is the same as Hillary's. He states they were classified after the fact by other agencies and he called for them to be declassified and released so everyone could see how benign they are.

    shrug, whatever. There's no hate like Hillary hate. It consumes people like you and sync


    Colon Powell did not have a private service:
    .
     Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email
    .
    Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there’s a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.
    .
    The Atlantic speculated the Clintons "may have wanted to be in control of the encryption of their correspondence, ensuring that no third parties — whether commercial, hacker, or government — were able to snoop on them."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-c...

     
     


    The Atlantic speculated...

    ...which. Is all you do.


    Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI! 


    I accept your description of your approach. 

    It 's not mine.


    Flavius,

    I corner the market on neither knowledge, wisdom, nor intelligence, so I don't dictate how others should think. I merely present my point of view. That's why I decided to stop trying to defend it. I simply contribute my thoughts to the public domain and move on. I'm not an ideologue, and I have very little time for ideologues, because ideologues tend to give ideology priority over truth. As a result, their ability to think can't be relied upon.  So when it comes to thinking, I don't have a team. I simply try to assess the facts and follow them, instead of trying to bend truth to try to make it conform to my preconceived ideas. If I find that what I previously believed is in conflict with the truth, I don't try to change truth, I change my beliefs. I think that's the key to efficient thinking.


    Dialog is the currency of the market of ideas.


    Actually there are multiple currencies, so persuasion and diatribes and monologues and hate speech and deceptive advertising and propaganda and protests and intimidatioin and other kinds of speech and signalling exist as well. But yes, vibrant dialog and debates are good indicators of a healthy market.


    The Black Panther Party railed against Capitalism. They had periodic purges and sometimes had only a handful of members. The Panthers were certain that their tactics were the only viable option. Others black people were worthless. SNCC and CORE had similar negative views of King's slow approach. There was division in the Civil Rights Movement. At the end of the day, King's approach led to progress. King is remembered. SNCC and the BPP are historical footnotes.

    We now have another group telling us how a majority of black people are worthless and cowardly. They want us to follow behind a man who did nothing for blacks while in Congress. They create division even after having a Primary campaign in which black voters overwhelmingly rejected their candidate. We are told their candidate was subjected to the greatest election fraud ever. We are told of lawsuits filed by various groups. They have to spend most of their time demonizing Hillary because their candidate has done so little.

    They tell us that the Congressional Black Caucus is in thrall to the Clintons. The neglect the story that Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, etc supported Obama rather than Hillary in 2008. They don't tell the story that Sanders had the support of the CBC when he gave his filibuster against the Obama-GOP tax bill. Now the CBC are traitors These folks are so in an anti-Hillary bubble that it is hard not to laugh at them. They often cannot defend their position so they often stand mute and pout when confronted. At the end of the day, we are facing a group similar to other groups we have seen before who do not want to form a coalition, they only want capitulation.

    Link to CBC statement during Sanders filibuster

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR201012...


    RM,

    All you've succeeded in proving is group-thought is not thought at all - it's ideology.

     


    Eric, that is what I see from Sanders supporters. Sanders did not have wide appeal. Instead of accepting that fact, the claim is made that black leadership sold out. Given that these same leaders backed Obama rather than Hillary in 2008, and stood with Bernie during the filibuster, the sellout charge is ridiculous. Bernie's plans are not thought out in depth. For example, single payer did not pass in his home state of Vermont. Also Sanders did very little to make himself know to blacks in Congress. The group thought lies with the Sanders supporters who alienate everyone who offers a different opinion.


    RM,
    .
    This is going to be my closing statement to you. There are reckless ideologues in both the Sanders and Clinton camps. They've been brainwashed into thinking the way they do.  I'm not one of them, and I'm not interested in debating the future of America like it's some kind of hockey match. I'm not into sports.  I'm into survival.

    Image result for worshiping Ronald McDonald


    People who disagree with your assessment are Alison concerned about the future of the country and do not see Sanders as a solution. Given the fact that disagreements exist, there has to be dialog to arrive at compromises.


    RM,

    I know I said that my last comment would be my closing response to you on this subject, but just for the record, I'd like to get your response to the following piece.  It would be invaluable to me in helping me to understanding how Black people of your persuasion think. I won't even comment on your response.  I'll let you have the final word:
    .
    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
     

    OKAY BLACK PEOPLE,
    LET'S REFUSE TO OPEN A HISTORY BOOK,
    SPIT IN MARTIN LUTHER KING'S FACE,
    AND ALL COME TOGETHER AND CUT OUR OWN THROATS.
    IT'S THE BLACK THING TO DO - WE OWE IT TO OUR FORMER SLAVE MASTERS.
    .

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2016/03/0kay-black-people-lets-all-come.html

     


    Eric, you continue to prove my point that there can be no true discussion with a hardcore Sanders supporter. You say that you will cut off any other exchange, This supports my position that hardcore Sanders supporters only want to work with those who agree with their position that the Senator is the modern day Martin Luther King Jr. Sanders is incapable of forming a larger coalition. Because he cannot form a broad coalition, he cannot lead a revolution. He outspent Hillary and lost. He fought against housing discrimination for two seconds. He voted for the 1994 crime bill and is not man enough to apologize for his vote. You ridicule Bill Clinton for making an attempted apology, but stand with the man who is not moral enough to apologize for his actual vote.I may give a more detailed response to your question later, if I feel the urge. Seeing that you are cutting off the discussion no matter what I say, why should I expend any detailed effort? 

    Donald Trump is using Sanders attacks on Hillary to bolster the Republican argument against Hillary. Sanders is now a tool of the GOP.


    RM,

    You're obfuscating. You didn't answer my question. The question was, in light of what the Clintons have done to Black people, how could you bring yourself to support her so enthusiastically? That's the only question I want answered.  Nothing else. Period.


    No comment, RM? 

    That's too bad.  I was hoping to gain some insight into Black self-destruction.  I've always wondered about the mindset of those Black people who fought for the South during the Civil War, and I was hoping that your response would give me some insight into that. I'm always seeking new knowledge - and like I said, I was even willing to give you the final word.  So I wasn't going to try to pass judgment on your response.  It's knowledge I'm after, not condemnation.


    So two rapid responses looking for answers. Wow.Incut off the discussion because you said you wouldn't be responding.

    Hillary is the most qualified candidate. Sanders offers pablum to children. Given the choice between Hillary and Bernie, it is easy to select Hillary. Look how fast Trump crashed when Hillary turned her attention to him. She used Trump's own words to destroy his nonexistent foreign policy. She just attached his lack of economic or even business acumen. She is ready for the battle with Trump.

    Bernie is stuck talking about millionaires and billionaires. He had to be literally forced to appear for a show vote on gun control. This is the man who did not want Sandy Hook families to sue the gun manufacturer. 

    I support Hillary because she is capable of attacking the GOP. She spearheaded to initial attempt to get health care. 

    Why are you supporting a man who voted for the 1994 crime bill and cannot admit error. He boasted of his hard on crime stance on his website as late as 2006. He voted against the Brady Bill. Why are you supporting Sanders? He merely talks a good game.


    I am going to add that Hillary took a risk by going undercover to investigate school segregation in Alabama. 

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/how-hillary-clinton-went-u...

    Hillary helped Flint receive aid and got the endorsement of the Mayor. Where was Bernie?

     


    Also I need to note that Sanders wants DWS gone. I may be wrong but I think the new nominee gets to replace the DNC chair as part of the routine. Sanders "demand" may be satisfied by the normal process.


    DWS is largely a figurehead after the normal shakeup a week ago when Hillary put in some youngish dude.


    Thank you for that, RM.

    I think I got it - They beat us, they treated us like animals, raped our women, and kept us tied up next to the mules - but at least they kept us with fatback.  What have the Yankees ever done for us? 
    .
    I think I got it. It also helps me to understand why when Northern soldiers captured a Black Rebel, they executed him on the spot.
    .
    Thank you, brother. You've been very helpful.


    Wattree, I really hope that at some point you can let go of what was done to your ancestors by people who are no longer alive, and that you can acknowledge that generations of us (I am a white woman, 68 years old) have worked to right those wrongs.  Your bitterness and hatred comes through with every word you write, although you state that your only concern is "truth."  

    Ok  which political party comes CLOSEST to what matters to you?  Are you able to face that truth?

    Your specific requirements for agreement end up in nothing but condescension for RM.  Why?  Because he is looking at 2016 instead of 1860?  Quite a bit has happened since then. Just one example:  women can vote. 

    Is it perfect?  No. If you really want to tear it all down, you may very well end up with a bigger mess.


    Cville,

     

     

     

     


    THAT WAS A BLACK GRANDMOTHER THAT COP WAS BEATING - AND IT WASN'T IN 1860.

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Ok.  Got it.  The fact that too many police are getting away with crimes (although these crimes are publicized and are a source of outrage for all of us) equals slavery in your eyes.  You seem to me to make no acknowledgement of the many people of other races that stand with you.  As I said before, your statement that all you care about is "truth" makes me realize what you obviously do not:  your entire screed is your very own ideology.  Yes.  I said you are spouting an ideology.  And I am right.

    I realize that nothing I or anyone else will reduce your anger and utter hatred for what is the reality.  I just wish you could be objective enough to recognize who are your enemies and who are your friends.  


    CVille,

    You said,

    "Ok.  Got it.  The fact that too many police are getting away with crimes (although these crimes are publicized and are a source of outrage for all of us) equals slavery in your eyes.  You seem to me to make no acknowledgement of the many people of other races that stand with you.  As I said before, your statement that all you care about is "truth" makes me realize what you obviously do not:  your entire screed is your very own ideology.  Yes.  I said you are spouting an ideology.  And I am right.

    "I realize that nothing I or anyone else will reduce your anger and utter hatred for what is the reality.  I just wish you could be objective enough to recognize who are your enemies and who are your friends."
    .
    No, you don't get it.  You don't get it at all. First of all, you're neither qualified, nor intellectually equipped, to even begin to determine what I see through my eyes, and your condescending and unwarranted assumption that you can speaks volumes. My son has been a special agent for the U.S. Justice Department for over 15 years, and another member of my family is also a senior training agent for the FBI academy at Quantico, Virginia. Yet, you seem to have jumped to the conclusion, without any evidence whatsoever, other than I'm Black, that I'm some kind of wild-eyed "angry Black man" who hates America. So just take a moment to ask yourself, what kind of mindset would lead you to make such an unwarranted and totally unsubstantiated conclusion.
    .
    I'm not the least bit angry.  That's not my nature. When it comes to reality, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. What I said to RM was my intellectual assessment of his response, not my emotional response to it. So do yourself a favor and stop assuming that everybody thinks the same way that you do - and you should also stop assuming that you're qualified to read other people's minds, because you're not. So, for the record, I'm not just another one of those "angry Black men." I'm blunt, I'm resolute, and I'm not a weak-kneed accommodationist.  That's the key to understanding me, and every word that I utter in this forum.
    .


    Eric Wattree, Jr.
    .
     23 April 2002
     
    MEMORANDUM FOR OFFICER TRAINING SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE


    FROM: 92 SFS/SFO
    2 E. ARNOLD STREET
    FAIRCHILD AFB, WA 99011

    SUBJECT: Recommendation for Staff Sergeant Eric L. Wattree

    1. I wholeheartedly concur with Staff Sergeant Wattree’s request to attend Officer Training School. He represents the enlisted ranks with the highest standard and will bring that dedication and professionalism to the officer corps.

    2. Eric continues to lead a stellar military career; his enlisted performance reports speak for themselves. His leadership and experience, especially in contingency environments, remains a vital asset to our unit and wing. As one of my primary Phoenix Raven team leaders, he’s propelled to the forefront of all major deployments throughout the world. He’s repeatedly secured aircraft and crews, supporting a wide variety of missions, in the most austere and terrorist-ridden environments where security is severely inadequate. The diversity of these missions never limited SSgt Wattree’s capacity to adapt to each situation. For this reason, Eric was selected as our 2000 Outstanding Phoenix Raven Member of the Year and the 2001 Air Force Reserve Component Airman of the Year for the 92d Security Forces Squadron.

    3. Whether operating under peacetime or contingency operations, Eric easily assumes control and tackles every situation with meticulous tenacity, a quality highly desired in our Air Force officers. Requested by name, Sergeant Wattree, provided security for presidential Banner missions throughout Greece, Peru and Viet Nam. While deployed to Afghanistan, he flew numerous combat missions in our nation’s pursuit to eradicate terrorism through Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. Additionally, he provided round-the-clock force protection for aircraft in other high-threat environments including Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Oman.

    4. Sergeant Wattree motivated his personnel during the worst conditions and raised the level of esprit de corps to integrate personnel from other Air Force specialties into a cohesive team. His leadership, integrity and devotion to our Air Force play an integral part in our future leadership. Eric has what it takes to become a commissioned officer and earns my full support to attend Officer Training School.

    FRANK HELLSTERN, JR., Captain, USAF
    Operations Officer

    I don't want to be given credit for his accomplishments, so let me make it clear, that's my son.  I'm a former Marine. But I raised him, and he wasn't raised to be an "angry Black man."  Even as we speak, he's out in the world as a special agent trying to protect YOUR interest, and the interests of YOUR family. So your knee-jerk assumptions about me as a Black man, while you may not intend them to be, are totally ridiculous, and demonstrably racist.

     

      


    Thank you for your service, Eric

    You said that Hillary supporters were ignoring that fact that slavers beat us. Yet you are supporting the only candidate who signed the 1994 crime bill. He voted against the Brady bill. You criticize John Lewis. You do all this in the name of a white guy who, like Cornel West, has powerful rhetoric but no acts. When it comes to Bernie Sanders, you are an accommodationist You lash out at others, but ignore Sanders,,the white guy who voted to send blacks to prison.

     


    Speaking of "lashing out", will you be consistent to your ongoing broad-brush painting of all Sanders supporters as being cut from the same mold and consider the old fart described here, and shown in a video, as being representative of all Hillary supporters and how they treat women of color who fight for fair treatment in campaign events?


    If that man assaulted a woman, he should be arrested.

    Edit to add:

    I will watch the video later.


    Did the young woman file a police report?

    The video doesn't show what the rules were for making motions for selecting Cuomo as chair. We only see the group being ignored. The group protesting the proceedings seemed to be relatively small. Another video might show that despite mention of Robert's Rules, the group may have been out of order. We need the tape of the entire event.


    Yeah, another video might show anything. There is probably one somewhere that shows what you are comfortable seeing. [As I write this I know that you have not yet watched]

    "Did the young woman file a police report?'

    I have no idea whether or not she did but I ask; what difference does it make in regards to what we see happening whether or not she filed a police report? Maybe the young woman was cool enough to not want to try to make life miserable for one misguided idiot which action would end up being a big distraction tending to further solidify the divide between supporters of change and those who think more of the same is the way to go.  But maybe she was instead a person more invested in taking what she believed to be a chance worth taking for a cause worth advancing, that cause being the risk of change for something better. Maybe she thought that speaking out in a public forum supposedly dedicated to processing democratic ideals of the Democratic Party, and in an official function of that party, was a place to buck the entrenched powers and make an effort to be heard. That sort of committed involvement has been a part of the heroism of more than one great leader and also has produced the light guiding many followers who have helped bring about great and morally/ethically necessary changes in the direction of becoming a more civilized society.  We aint bumped up against perfection yet so I am a fan of those with the commitment, courage, and good sense, to stand their ground for what I see as s good cause.  

     Yes, the group being ignored was relatively small, they did not hold a majority.They were a minority. Does that suggest that they should be ignored and, if that doesn't work to shut them up that they should continue to be cheated of proper consideration under the accepted rules of order? And, if that still doesn't work should they be struck with sticks to let them know how the majority feels? 

    Right now I don't feel like going any further with this although I already said more than I intended or expected to. I do thank you though for having the courtesy of looking at what I presented as evidence since you chose to comment on it.

     To be clear, I do not think there is anything earthshaking in the video but I do think it shows an example of the majority running roughshod over a minority. 


    la de da. When I went through BCT in 1977 the drill sergeants wanted to recommend me for Officer Training. I declined the offer because I joined the army to play trumpet and hone my skills for a possible career in music after the army. It doesn't provide any evidence that either of us are thinkers rather than feelers or that our intellectual assessment of any situation is any more correct than any of the other people here at dagblog.


    No, you don't get it.

    Yes I do.

    And I stand by what I said.  I wasn't "mind reading."  I was reading your words.  Comparing current indignities to slavery seems absurd to me, but regardless -- disagreeing with you about it does not make me a racist.  


    Eric, once again you confirm my analysis of hardcore Sanders people. Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill that led to the mass incarceration? Sanders black supporters are so controlled by Massa Sanders that they ignore that fact. I note that Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. Black Sanders overlook that fact. Sanders had the support of the CBC during his filibuster. The CBC backed Obama, not Clinton. Black Sanders label the CBC sellouts  because the CBC sees that Sanders is all hat and no cattle.

    Bernie Sanders campaign dismissed black Southern voters

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/18/why-ber...

    Jane Sanders labeled blacks who did not vote for Bernie as stupid.

    http://www.shakesville.com/2016/03/whoa-jane-sanders-interview-with-chri...

    Sanders supporters still kiss his behind in spite of his treatment of black voters.

    I would avoid the topic of Sanders vote for the crime bill too if I got down on my knees and bowed and scraped for 

    Bernie.

    The Confederates would be wanting blacks to vote for a weakling, do- nothing like Bernie Sanders. They would wipe out blacks who chose the stronger candidate, Hillary Clinton.

    Bernie Sanders is not evil but he has only words and no plan. He voted for the 1994 crime bill. He voted against the Brady Bill.

     


    "Sellout" John Lewis is leading the Congressional sit-in tonight. Those who criticize Rep. Lewis for not supporting Sanders are boxing above their weight class.


    I've seen some of that ugly stuff on Twitter today.  It's shocking when you consider who it's directed at.  Calling Lewis a traitor because he didn't support Bernie is reprehensible. 

    It occurred to me while I was watching the sit-in today that nearly every Dem member of the House will be supporting Hillary Clinton.  That's all I really care about.


    Sanders is not evil. His supporters are not evil. Sanders would be over his head as President. His hardcore supporters only serve to alienate everyone not in the Sanders bubble. When Sanders supporters are confronted, that respond with anti-Hillary statements because there is no strong list of Sanders accomplishments. They cannot deal with Sanders vote on the crime bill or the Brady Bill. 

    John Lewis is an American hero.


    Eric you cast John Lewis as a traitor and take the side of Cornel West and Tavis Smiley. Simply amazing. John Lewis eclipses everything that Sanders has ever done in Congress. Lewis did not have a difficult task because Sanders has done nothing. Lewis built a coalition of legislators to join the protest. Even Senators came out in support!


    Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server

    Why Did Hillary Clinton Need a Private Server? The Answer Makes Bernie Sanders President
    .

    Hillary Clinton is the only Secretary of State to delete 31,830 emails, from her own private server and without government oversight. Thus, we haven’t seen all her emails yet. In fact, there are over 30,000 emails that the FBI or Bryan Pagliano might have been able to access, but none of us will see these emails. Tim Black offers a brilliant analysis of the Pagliano breakthrough, from an IT perspective, in this segment of Tim Black TV.

    So, when you read those wonderfully titled articles about what we’ve learned from 55,000 pages of Clinton’s emails, remember that over 30,000 were deleted; without government or third-party oversight.

    Thankfully, Democrats have one person named Bernie Sanders who can type, and save an email, using government networks and without an FBI investigation.

    As the only Secretary of State never to use an @state.gov email address, Hillary Clinton is also the only Secretary of State to use a private server exclusively. As Yahoo states, “Clinton acknowledged in March that she exclusively used a private email account and private server from 2009 to 2013 while secretary of state, opting against a government account despite official recommendations.”

    Sorry Hillary supporters, nobody in State Department history has ever used a private server exclusively, or completely circumvented a State.gov email address.

    As for the spin regarding over-classification, Americans aren’t allowed to see the 22 “Top Secret” emails on Clinton’s server because they’ve been classified correctly. As I state in this YouTube segment, bring home Edward Snowden and free Chelsea Manning if America’s intelligence community has an over-classification problem. As it is, Hillary Clinton’s entire email saga has made a mockery of our intelligence community . . . (MORE).

    .
    COULD IT BE BECAUSE SHE WAS DOING FAVORS FOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS IN RETURN FOR HUGE DONATIONS TO THE $3 BILLION CLINTON FOUNDATION?


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-did-hillary-clinton-need-a...


    From Clinton form 990: the "$3 BILLION CLINTON FOUNDATION" has about $440 million in assets, takes in about $340 million in gross donations and proceeds now, with a net yearly gain of $90 million, pays $0 to any of the Clintons for activities there.

    The "$3 billion" figure was a WaPo smear that included $1 billion in donations for 3 presidential runs and $2 billion raised by the Clinton Foundation over the years. (usually putting a dollar figure in front of an organization refers to its assets, not its total lifetime draw. The Rockefeller Foundation has $3.5 billion on-hand, 10x as big as the Clintons', unsurprisingly).

    Obviously if Bill & Hillary are averaging ~$20 million a year in speaking fees recently (with 31% taxes), they don't need too much in corporate board salary, though under the current market, they'd likely earn and deserve it. Instead they make the money through entertainment and politics and give away a large chunk through their foundation.

    It's funny how a successful non-profit draws such ire - once upon a time Democrats were into philanthropy.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

    The new returns show that in 2014, the Clintons paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.7 percent and a combined federal, state, and local tax rate of 45.8 percent. In 2013, their effective federal tax rate was 35.4 percent and their combined rate was 44.6 percent.

    As for charitable donations, the Clintons gave just under $15 million over the eight-year period, which is 10.8 percent of their total income. The vast majority of that — about $14.8 million — went through the Clinton Family Foundation...


    The email server issue will not result in criminal penalties. She did nothing to aid foreign governments because funds came in to the Clinton Foundation.

    Once again your attempt at diversion away from Sanders signing the 1994 crime bill and being in the pocket of gun manufacturers is predictable. Your best defense of Sanders so far has been that he can type. This is a very weak criteria for a Presidential candidate. 

    Hillary is taking on Trump. Obama and Biden are taking on Trump. Elizabeth Warren is taking on Trump. Bernie is going to give his stump speech to supporters again today. Sanders is not building a structure for a future organization. Chris Murphy and John Lewis are spearheading a counter to the NRA.Sanders is spinning his wheels, his time is past.

    Why are you supporting the guy who signed the bill that led to  mass incarceration of black people? Are you afraid to answer that question?


    Eric the modus operandi of hardcore Sanders supporters is not to address criticisms of Sanders. Instead of addressing these issues, Sanders supporters make claims of some sort of criminal activity by the Clintons that is easily rebutted. Benghazi, Honduras, Haiti, email servers, Clinton Foundation fraud, etc. Hillary Clinton supporters respond to charges with facts. Sanders supporters, ignore Sanders behavior on the crime bill and guns.

    When Sanders supporters cast an icon like John Lewis as an enemy of black people, they lose all credibility. The CBC had Sanders back during his filibuster. Sanders now allows surrogates to attack the character of the CBC. I lost respect for Sanders. Sanders voted for the mass incarceration of black people you complain about and feels no need to apologize. Both Clintons acknowledge that the crime bill was a mistake. Members of the CBC who voted for the crime bill have acknowledge their mistake. John Lewis, who you call a traitor, voted against the crime bill. John Lewis has more moral character in his pinky finger than Bernie Sanders will ever have. The Clintons acknowledge their mistake. Bernie Sanders refuses to acknowledge that his crime bill vote was an error. Instead Sanders makes excuses. Sanders is not fit to be President.

    Sanders picked Cornel West because he knew that West was willing to throw black people under the bus to get a free meal and photo-op at the White House. West was the one who ridiculed Southern black voters. He also labeled Civil Rights icons as sellouts. Disgusting,

    Edit to add:

    Sanders supporters tell us that every election Bernie lost was because the election was rigged. These ridiculous charges are easily refuted. Again hardcore Sanders supporters have no credibility.


    RM,

    I laid out everything the Clintons have done to destroy Black families and simply asked you to give me your response to them. But instead, you've decided to completely ignore those things and talk about Bernie Sanders.  I've been around a long time, and I'm fully familiar with that tactic. It's the very same tactic that Clarence Thomas uses when he's confronted. So while you've sidestepped my question, you've given me my answer. So I'm done with you. Please don't bother me again.


    Stamping your foot like a little child? I told you that Bill Clinton broke no election law. I told you that Hillary's email sever would not lead to anything because nothing illegal occurred. I side-stepped nothing. Now I'm Clarence Thomas side-stepping questions? You need a better analogy because Thomas rarely speaks out on issues. The comparison means nothing

    I think you're like Cornel West, a lot of word salad put to a hip-hop beat. Empty mental calories. Sanders has you so bamboozled that you are shackled to Cornel West like antebellum contraband.

    You support the guy who voted for mass incarceration. Deal with it.

    Before you hooked up with Bernie and Cornel, your arguments were sharper.


    These are republican lies that have been thoroughly debunked. There is absolutely zero evidence that Hillary's email server was hacked. There is no evidence that she ever did any favors for foreign governments in exchange for donations.

    Sanders did not win on the debate on the issues. 55% to 45% is generally considered a landslide victory. Having lost on the issues Sanders desperately embraced republican lies to attempt a character assassination. It's a sad turn of affairs. Saddest of all it presumes that rank and file Sanders supporters are ignorant enough to believe the lies of propagandists like Wattree.


    You are claiming that a negative has been proven. A few days ago you could have claimed that there was absolutely no proof that the DNC had been hacked when in fact it was just a case of no evidence having reached us yet. Same with the State Department which likely had better protection than did Hillary's. Individuals and groups with interest and motive to hack those sites would have the same interest in hacking Hillary's private server and might have done so even if nobody has told you about it yet.

     Yes, a ten percent win in an American election is a big win but that does not make 45% insignificant.  


    I am not claiming a negative has been proven. I'm claiming there is no evidence to back up Wattree's accusations. Sanders hasn't released his tax returns. I've called for him to release his returns but I've never imputed that he's hiding tax fraud. In a world where anything is possible it's possible that next week we'll discover tax fraud. But there is no evidence to support that accusation. 10 million dollars of Sanders campaign contributions are unaccounted for. I've never imputed he pocketed that money or that it was a hidden bribe to attack Clinton. It's possible Sanders is taking bribes but there is not evidence to support that allegation. Anyone can make up accusations. If there is no evidence there is no evidence. Several completed investigations have concluded Hillary's server was not hacked. Media investigations of donations to the Clinton foundation have concluded there is no evidence of quid pro quo. At this point wattree's post is baseless accusations with no more substance than the claim she killed Vince Foster.


    Latest Comments