The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[gangababa]

From informedcitizens.net, this one minute reflection upon the idea of assigning job tasks without any consideration of qualifications, experience, temperament, desirability or deservability.

Gardeners as surgeons, auto mechanics as wedding caterers, sanitation engineers as cooks, clergy men as sanitation engineers; everyone should have the opportunity to do Trump's job while he mucks out some toilets.

I am sorry, but as the politically wrong right has rejected PC talk, I need no longer check my self in calling BS on all arguments for Trump and all arguments for letting him win while clinging to the (won't pass the Jesus test) claim that one stayed pure by not voting or voting for other parties that want lots that likely you do not yourself want.

Read the Libertarian Party platform. Read all of the party platforms.
In which world will you, a Muslim, a Shik, a Hindu, a secularist, a person who is not colorless, a less than perfectly embodied being, a woman, a Mexican, LGBTQ? friendly, a foreigner, among the poor and downtrodden, in which world will you be welcome?
In which world, played out under the plans and actual possibilities of which party, are you ready to live and force your next generations to live under. How many dead BLDM* souls among USA are we willing to accept?

I reject the parties of pie in the sky and the parties of hate and division.
I am not Christian. I am told this is a Christian nation (or at least religious compared to Europe).
I was raised Christian.
The moral, ethical, logically Spockian choice is too clear for me to suffer fools badly.
Political arguments are vacuous when facts are rejected and the opposition does not live in the same world as the opposition.

Stop the Trump war-lord army of Republican right-wing teahadists and racists, many actually heavily armed angry people who are not rational, clearly not followers or believers in the words of their God, no matter how intelligent they may be! And I suppose among Trump supporters, some might be nice people, I'm told, I don't know, maybe it is true.

Latter we can tackle the many problems of this great country, where many behave like angry three-year-olds.
*The "D" stands for "don't", because clearly BLDM is the truth in this USA of Trump loving regressive, haters.
Truly deplorable.

 

[grokit]

Nevada is the #1 reason why the bernie camp insists they won 23 states rather than 22.

 

[cybrguy]

Even if it were true, would it change anything? Does Bernie, or do his followers get anything for 23 vs 22 states? I get the , but when does the come into play?

 

[His_Highness]

Even if it were true, would it change anything? Does Bernie, or do his followers get anything for 23 vs 22 states? I get the , but when does the come into play?

You're correct...

They didn't get anything:
- That made them comfortable that the DNC and HRC had clean hands.
- That might have given them hope that everything was out in the open and there isn't more waiting to be leaked.
- Giving them a reason to 'trust' the process, the party or the candidate.

Yep....they didn't get anything except more fuel for the same ol' fire.

EDIT: And will probably continue as long as there are detractors who continue to try and convince those who feel otherwise when information like this is out there.

 

[ReggieB]

Maybe bernie would've been better staying independent and not selling his soul to get on a democrat ticket?

 

[BD9]

To everyone that I blew off for saying this thread has no room for discussion, I sincerely apologize. It really doesn't.
When someone starts a conversation by posting things that are untrue, gets called on it, then makes a feeble attempt at insults, then shuts another person down when they attempt to join the conversation, there may be a problem.
This thread may have run it's course.

 

[Gunky]

And the Nevada complaint is still bs, a tissue of lies. We discussed it here at the time. For every supposed Clinton campaign transgression, I can show you a worse one in the Bernie camp, like impersonating workers at union meetings.

Total, lame, lying, conspiracy theory crap, which gets amplified and embellished each time it is retold, like one of our posters here who invented a Clinton quote and screamed about 39 times under oath when the lady wasn't, in fact, under oath. Never acknowledged the falsehoods either, just like Trump. This is how Trump operates too: throw lots of mud and hope some sticks, truth is irrelevant. Not so much the Big Lie as one fukking lie after another with no breathing space in between. There isn't even enough time to address all the bull-pucky. It's an avalanche of crap, a bullshit blitzkrieg.

 

[grokit]

People like bernie much better than they do killary. Unlike with killary, with bernie the democrats would have a huge lead the polls against drumpf, according to all the polling data. I agree that bernie put too much faith in an inherently unfair system. Four of the "leaders" had to resign from the dnc, yet their stench remains.

 

[Joel W.]

Gunky is correct, she was not under oath when the FBI interviewed her. My bad.

That does not change the fact she repeated 39 times, " I do not recall" in the interview. Go read it, but stop calling me a liar.

 

[cybrguy]

Yet people like bernie much better than they do killary

There are many people I like who I would NEVER vote for in a Presidential election. That would probably include MOST people I like.

And none of the primary polling is in any way useful for the general. Bernie has never felt the the weight of the republican onslaught that would have surely followed his nomination. He has never won an election anywhere but is one of the most liberal states in the union.

I am done with the Bernie discussion. You guys have at it, I will stay on the election.

 

[ReggieB]

People like bernie much better than they do killary. Unlike with killary, with bernie the democrats would have a huge lead the polls against drumpf, according to all the polling data. I agree that bernie put too much faith in an inherently unfair system. Four of the "leaders" had to resign from the dnc, yet their stench remains.

Yeah, what I meant was, if he wanted to make a moral stand he would've stood up directly for his socialism and not tried to jump on the coat tails of a different party, then flip flop about whether he was a democrat or not.

 

[His_Highness]

If you gave the Dems a do-over I don't think HRC would win the primary knowing what we know now.

Likability aside...choosing a candidate who hasn't used the office for 'legal-everyone-does-it-financial-gain, remains true to his policies (doesn't flip flop like a caught fish), and is an outsider.... is what the public majority fashion show is looking for.

Before anyone raises the experience factor let me just say one word..... 'Obama'. Geez...if only we could have cloned him when we had the chance.

 

[cybrguy]

Clinton Puts Fighting Poverty Back on the Agenda
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 21, 2016 3:13 PM

While income inequality has been a focus for liberals for a few years now, most of the remedies discussed tend to focus on going after the 1%ers and/or ways to help the middle class. Very rarely does anyone talk about lifting up those who are living in poverty.

On the other hand, conservatives have given lip service to helping the middle class, while they have spent decades deriding LBJ’s “war on poverty” as an utter failure – leading to dependence among those who simply want “free stuff.” Recently, Rep. Paul Ryan attempted to showcase a poverty agenda, but it turned out to simply be a rehash of old GOP ideas coupled with an attempt to roll back the progress made during the Obama years.

Today, Hillary Clinton published an op-ed in the New York Times outlining her plan for combating poverty. Many of the items in it are things she has already proposed. For example:

Jobs, Minimum Wage and Pay Equity

I will work with Democrats and Republicans to make a historic investment in good-paying jobs — jobs in infrastructure and manufacturing, technology and innovation, small businesses and clean energy. And we need to make sure that hard work is rewarded by raising the minimum wage and finally guaranteeing equal pay for women.​

Affordable Housing

My plan would expand Low Income Housing Tax Credits in high-cost areas to increase our affordable housing supply, and fuel broader community development. So if you are a family living in an expensive city, you would be able to find an affordable place to call home and have access to the transportation you need to get to good jobs and quality schools.​

Child Care, Paid Leave and Pre-K

As president, I will continue my life’s work focused on creating opportunities for children and fairness for families. We need to expand access to high-quality child care and guarantee paid leave so parents at all income levels can balance their jobs and lives. And we will work to double investments in Early Head Start and make preschool available to every 4-year-old because our children deserve the best possible start in life.​

To that package, Clinton added this:

We also need to ensure that our investments are reaching the communities suffering the most from decades of neglect. We have got to acknowledge that even though poverty overall has fallen, extreme poverty has increased. Tim Kaine and I will model our anti-poverty strategy on Congressman Jim Clyburn’s 10-20-30 plan, directing 10 percent of federal investments to communities where 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years. And we’ll put special emphasis on minority communities that have been held back for too long by barriers of systemic racism.​

This is actually not a new proposal from Hillary. Almost a year ago she penned an article in EBONY in which she outlined a plan to strengthen communities of color. As part of that agenda, she wrote this:

Ultimately, reversing the legacy of racism and underinvestment will require directing more federal resources to those who need them most. One appealing approach has been proposed by Congressman James Clyburn, who has piloted the “10-20-30” concept—in which 10 percent of funds are directed at communities where at least 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years or more. I believe the 10-20-30 model holds promise and this principle should be expanded to other programs.​

This comprehensive anti-poverty agenda is just one of the ways that Hillary Clinton is running on the most progressive agenda we have seen in decades from a major party candidate. It is important to keep in mind that reducing income inequality requires that we lift up those on the bottom and find ways to include those who have traditionally been left behind.

 

[BD9]

Hillary didn't rig anything. Bernie lost the primary because he wasn't/isn't a Democrat, and there was no way he was going to convince most of us, especially those that have followed politics for decades, that he was a dem or gave a shit about the Democratic party. The fact that he got so far is remarkable, but he couldn't win and thank the stars.

The majority of Bernie supporters were new to politics and didn't have a clue how it was supposed to work. They and people who were so frustrated they were willing to take a chance on someone with relatively little chance of winning the general. Or had Clinton derangement syndrome. There were never going to be enough for him to win.

.

By implying that that was the only reason I gave that led people to vote for him. It was not. And many if not most of the people who supported Bernie had never voted before so the statement you called a lie is true. Certainly there were many who had and I never said everyone who voted for him lacked experience.

To be more accurate, you didn't misquote me, you mischaracterized me.

This is all moot. Bernie is no longer running and the choice for President doesn't include him.

There are many people I like who I would NEVER vote for in a Presidential election. That would probably include MOST people I like.

And none of the primary polling is in any way useful for the general. Bernie has never felt the the weight of the republican onslaught that would have surely followed his nomination. He has never won an election anywhere but is one of the most liberal states in the union.

I am done with the Bernie discussion. You guys have at it, I will stay on the election.

You started the conversation. And now you're shutting people down? What did you expect?

 

[cybrguy]

Gotta love those "rascally Dems"...
House Republicans’ IRS hearing doesn’t go as planned
09/21/16 04:00 PM
By Steve Benen

Far-right House Republicans, ignoring their own congressional leadership, haven’t given up on their crusade to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Their efforts don’t make a lot of sense, and there’s absolutely no way the impeachment drive will have any practical effect, but several GOP lawmakers see this as a useful electoral and fundraising tool – and so the gambit continues.

Last week, with the far-right threatening to force an impeachment resolution onto the House floor, Republicans reached an intra-party agreement: the House Judiciary Committee would hold a big hearing; the far-right would spend a couple of hours treating Koskinen like a rhetorical punching bag; conservatives would send out some fundraising letters; and the political world would move on.

And for a while, everything was going according to plan. Koskinen appeared on the Hill and explained that there’s no sane reason to impeach him, while assorted Republicans complained incessantly about the IRS controversy that was discredited years ago.

But the twist came when Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made clear that this hearing could serve their political purposes, too.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, asked if people under IRS audit are free to release their tax returns, a situation [Donald Trump] has asserted in refusing to release his forms. Koskinen said such taxpayers can release their returns.

Nadler also asked if someone can use money from a charitable foundation to buy a portrait or a football helmet autographed by former quarterback Tim Tebow or to pay fees from legal disputes. Reports have said money from the Donald J. Trump Foundation has been used for those purposes.

Koskinen said, generally, charitable money shouldn’t be used to benefit someone who runs a charitable foundation.
​

Remember, this was supposed to be the far-right’s show trial – right up until those rascally Dems took advantage of the opportunity.

Note, Nadler wasn’t the only one. The Huffington Post reported:

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) wanted to know if there was anything that would stop someone from proving that they are in fact being audited by releasing the audit letter they got from the IRS.

“Would releasing the person’s tax return during the audit in any way impact that pending audit of the return?” Deutch asked.

“The release itself wouldn’t. The concern sometimes by taxpayers is that when the information is public there may be more information that will be discovered or provided,” Koskinen said.

“That is the concern,” Deutch agreed, sounding somewhat pleased with the admission. “We understand that is the concern.”

Democrats then went on to highlight some of the items that could prove problematic for Trump to disclose, such as his actual income, what he pays the government in taxes, clues to his actual net worth and records of his charitable giving. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) wondered aloud if discovering payments by Russia might suggest a monetary – or even treasonous – motive for going soft on a U.S. rival.
​

Needless to say, this wasn’t the direction House Republicans had in mind, but let this be a reminder to members that interesting things can happen when they open a closed door.

 

[Gunky]

Gunky is correct, she was not under oath when the FBI interviewed her. My bad.

That does not change the fact she repeated 39 times, " I do not recall" in the interview. Go read it, but stop calling me a liar.

Nope, even that is not true. She didn't recall, in other words didn't remember, on an estimated 39 questions, this from the summary report published by the FBI. They did not publish the transcript, just a summary. So when they summarized, they lumped all the don't remember answers into didn't recall. This is not the same as saying "I do not recall" 39 times. We don't know precisely what words she used in each question. Ergo you are making stuff up again. And you know what happens when you pass on falsehoods like that? The next person to repeat it elaborates just that little bit more. In a week or two the story will be: 'Hillary admits she crucified 43 kittens!' You keep calling Hillary a liar. Take a look in the mirror. Plus you have an entirely different standard for yourself and for Hillary. When you tell a falsehood, you shrug and say "my bad". This is known in technical circles as the 'call me pisher maneuver'. If Hillary gets something wrong, no matter how trivial (how many fucking phone devices did she have? Like that is a matter of national security now, years later! Gee cries.), she's a pariah and must be cast into the outer darkness reserved for lying liars, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. I believe the technical term for this is hypocrisy.

She was questioned recently on events that took place between 2008 and 2012, so some stuff was as long as 8 years ago. 8 years back would have been when she was briefed on email security procedures, whatever briefing they gave her. 8 years ago! The lady had a fairly busy job and dealt with ungodly reams of information, people, documents. She was questioned in the midst of a presidential campaign. Do you think maybe not recalling some specific details years after the events could possibly be, you know, not so sinister? Could it be overkill to call not remembering something from years before 'lying?' Particularly when the question is some pettifogging gotcha...

 

[grokit]

Clinton Puts Fighting Poverty Back on the Agenda
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 21, 2016 3:13 PM

While income inequality has been a focus for liberals for a few years now, most of the remedies discussed tend to focus on going after the 1%ers and/or ways to help the middle class. Very rarely does anyone talk about lifting up those who are living in poverty.

On the other hand, conservatives have given lip service to helping the middle class, while they have spent decades deriding LBJ’s “war on poverty” as an utter failure – leading to dependence among those who simply want “free stuff.” Recently, Rep. Paul Ryan attempted to showcase a poverty agenda, but it turned out to simply be a rehash of old GOP ideas coupled with an attempt to roll back the progress made during the Obama years.

Today, Hillary Clinton published an op-ed in the New York Times outlining her plan for combating poverty. Many of the items in it are things she has already proposed. For example:

Jobs, Minimum Wage and Pay Equity

I will work with Democrats and Republicans to make a historic investment in good-paying jobs — jobs in infrastructure and manufacturing, technology and innovation, small businesses and clean energy. And we need to make sure that hard work is rewarded by raising the minimum wage and finally guaranteeing equal pay for women.​

Affordable Housing

My plan would expand Low Income Housing Tax Credits in high-cost areas to increase our affordable housing supply, and fuel broader community development. So if you are a family living in an expensive city, you would be able to find an affordable place to call home and have access to the transportation you need to get to good jobs and quality schools.​

Child Care, Paid Leave and Pre-K

As president, I will continue my life’s work focused on creating opportunities for children and fairness for families. We need to expand access to high-quality child care and guarantee paid leave so parents at all income levels can balance their jobs and lives. And we will work to double investments in Early Head Start and make preschool available to every 4-year-old because our children deserve the best possible start in life.​

To that package, Clinton added this:

We also need to ensure that our investments are reaching the communities suffering the most from decades of neglect. We have got to acknowledge that even though poverty overall has fallen, extreme poverty has increased. Tim Kaine and I will model our anti-poverty strategy on Congressman Jim Clyburn’s 10-20-30 plan, directing 10 percent of federal investments to communities where 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years. And we’ll put special emphasis on minority communities that have been held back for too long by barriers of systemic racism.​

This is actually not a new proposal from Hillary. Almost a year ago she penned an article in EBONY in which she outlined a plan to strengthen communities of color. As part of that agenda, she wrote this:

Ultimately, reversing the legacy of racism and underinvestment will require directing more federal resources to those who need them most. One appealing approach has been proposed by Congressman James Clyburn, who has piloted the “10-20-30” concept—in which 10 percent of funds are directed at communities where at least 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years or more. I believe the 10-20-30 model holds promise and this principle should be expanded to other programs.​

This comprehensive anti-poverty agenda is just one of the ways that Hillary Clinton is running on the most progressive agenda we have seen in decades from a major party candidate. It is important to keep in mind that reducing income inequality requires that we lift up those on the bottom and find ways to include those who have traditionally been left behind.

I like it but if enacted without fundamental changes in the underlying economy, all we will have is inflation giving us more of the same old problems of inequality. Everything from rent to foodstuffs will become even more expensive and always outpace wages, making the problem worse. We need to reign in the moneyed neo-corporate class with progressive taxation and aggressive regulation, reverse citizens united, reign in the police/surveillance state, enact a comprehensive immigration policy, and invest in our people and in new manufacturing capabilities and infrastructure. Good luck when we can't even seem to have fair elections.

 

[ReggieB]

If you gave the Dems a do-over I don't think HRC would win the primary knowing what we know now.

Likability aside...choosing a candidate who hasn't used the office for 'legal-everyone-does-it-financial-gain, remains true to his policies (doesn't flip flop like a caught fish), and is an outsider.... is what the public majority fashion show is looking for.

Before anyone raises the experience factor let me just say one word..... 'Obama'. Geez...if only we could have cloned him when we had the chance.

on the flipside, I wonder how many democrats would still vote for the guy if they knew he wasn't going to stay a democrat? seems to me he just wanted the votes any way he could get them, even if it meant compromising himself and calling himself a democrat.

 

[cybrguy]

Good luck when we can't even seem to have fair elections.

Hey, don't diminish the difficulty over fair elections. Much of the world isn't even close...

Never the less, it is critical that we continue to fight this fight and refuse to let the republican party make voting more difficult.

 

[Snappo]

Even that is not true. She didn't recall, in other words didn't remember, on an estimated 39 questions, this from the summary report published by the FBI. They did not publish the transcript, just a summary. So when they summarized, they lumped all the don't remember answers into didn't recall. This is not the same as saying "I do not recall" 39 times. We don't know precisely what words she used in each question. Ergo you are making stuff up again.

She was questioned recently on events that took place between 2008 and 2012, so some stuff was as long as 8 years ago. 8 years back would have been when she was briefed on email security procedures, whatever briefing they gave her. 8 years ago! The lady had a fairly busy job and dealt with ungodly reams of information, people, documents. She was questioned in the midst of a presidential campaign. Do you think maybe not recalling some specific details years after the events could possibly be, you know, not so sinister? Could it be overkill to call not remembering something from years before lying? Particularly when the question is some pettifogging gotcha...

Can you cite the 39+ specific questions to which HRC claimed her inability to remember the answers. Do YOU know the precise words as phrased in the questions posed to HRC? I'll bet you're scrambling now to catch up with them... Were they of significant national security importance, or was she asked how many sheets of pink toilet paper did she use on March 18th 2011 at 6:45am 49 minutes after finishing her breakfast bowl of oatmeal? If not, your protective maternal blanket defensive rebuttal against those here who question her veracity on these very specific matters concerning standard security protocols under which implementation habits are formed falls far short of qualification. HRC held positions that cemented her to much higher standards of accountability, integrity, security, and memorialization of facts than most of us, as she would be held to IF in the Oval Office. Repeated use of electronic communication devices in any capacity, civilian or official, becomes an established act of habit, not likely soon forgotten - especially, I would think, after many assorted tens of thousands. One wonders just how loose-lipped she was in open fields and gatherings of black AND white chess pieces. I do not know all the facts, but at least I hold to reservations against lambasting others who continue to question in the absence of all the facts.

 

[Joel W.]

Nope, even that is not true. She didn't recall, in other words didn't remember, on an estimated 39 questions, this from the summary report published by the FBI. They did not publish the transcript, just a summary. So when they summarized, they lumped all the don't remember answers into didn't recall. This is not the same as saying "I do not recall" 39 times. We don't know precisely what words she used in each question. Ergo you are making stuff up again. And you know what happens when you pass on falsehoods like that? The next person to repeat it elaborates just that little bit more. In a week or two the story will be: 'Hillary crucified 43 kittens!' You keep calling Hillary a liar. Take a look in the mirror. Plus you have an entirely different standard for yourself and for Hillary. When you tell a falsehood, you shrug and say "my bad". If Hillary gets something wrong, no matter how trivial (how many fucking phone devices did she have? Like that is a matter of national security now, years later! Gee cries.), she's a pariah. I believe the technical term for this is hypocrisy.

She was questioned recently on events that took place between 2008 and 2012, so some stuff was as long as 8 years ago. 8 years back would have been when she was briefed on email security procedures, whatever briefing they gave her. 8 years ago! The lady had a fairly busy job and dealt with ungodly reams of information, people, documents. She was questioned in the midst of a presidential campaign. Do you think maybe not recalling some specific details years after the events could possibly be, you know, not so sinister? Could it be overkill to call not remembering something from years before lying? Particularly when the question is some pettifogging gotcha...

. Are you confusing the 11 page summary with the 47 page report? Here is the report.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IW90dkTvEXtcPH7dQ&sig2=yTCDeqFAEwxHk1N_0aXu3A

 

[HighSeasSailor]

on the flipside, I wonder how many democrats would still vote for the guy if they knew he wasn't going to stay a democrat? seems to me he just wanted the votes any way he could get them, even if it meant compromising himself and calling himself a democrat.

Given how much lip service Democrats have given to choosing the lesser of two evils, one would certainly hope the answer is "most all of them."

It also has to be pointed out that Sanders ran and was elected as an independent but frequently caucused with Democrats, and received numerous endorsements from Dems. Due to the major hurdles you encounter by not being a member of one of the two major parties - even after elected - and of course the nonstop static both parties emit around the clock about how voting for any third party or independent candidate is a waste of a vote, a vote for a madman, unpatriotic, etc, it really should come as no surprise that he's also had a significant support base within the Democratic party for a long time, since whatever the "party line" is anyone left leaning has one and only one "real" party option.

Modern American political parties realistically end up representing a spectrum of individual views that would probably make up an entire coalitiion in most democracies.

 

[Gunky]

. Are you confusing the 11 page summary with the 47 page report? Here is the report.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IW90dkTvEXtcPH7dQ&sig2=yTCDeqFAEwxHk1N_0aXu3A

You can't even get this right. Did you look at the link you posted? Neither "39" nor "recall" appear in the document. You are just throwing out so much squid ink. The '39' estimated times not remembering are from the summary.

OK I give up. 1) You are not a reliable source of info. 2) You have a bad case of Clinton derangement syndrome. 3) To try to hold a discussion with you is to endlessly chase red herrings and internet conspiracy crap. It is not worth replying to someone with so little regard for truth.

 

[ReggieB]

Given how much lip service Democrats have given to choosing the lesser of two evils, one would certainly hope the answer is "most all of them."

It also has to be pointed out that Sanders ran and was elected as an independent but frequently caucused with Democrats, and received numerous endorsements from Dems. Due to the major hurdles you encounter by not being a member of one of the two major parties - even after elected - and of course the nonstop static both parties emit around the clock about how voting for any third party or independent candidate is a waste of a vote, a vote for a madman, unpatriotic, etc, it really should come as no surprise that he's also had a significant support base within the Democratic party for a long time, since whatever the "party line" is anyone left leaning has one and only one "real" party option.

Modern American political parties realistically end up representing a spectrum of individual views that would probably make up an entire coalitiion in most democracies.

Thank you, I didn't know about the wider support he had, so I wonder if the modern democratic party is actually more socialist than it likes to let on?

@Gunky page 8, she definitely says she did not recall but in context it actually doesn't look anywhere near as bad as 'I don't recall'. I don't know if there are more examples in there but simply quoting 39 'I don't recalls' doesn't paint the whole picture.

 

[Joel W.]

What is the the difference between don't, can't, do not, could not, couldn't, didn't ??? Nothing...

"Clinton told the FBI she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the bureau's notes of their interview with Clinton. The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not "recall" or "remember" at least 39 times — often in response to questions about process, potential training or the content of specific emails."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/

http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...-told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/

All of the below quotes are taken verbatim from the FBI notes of their interview of Hillary Clinton released this Friday:

1.

“Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to State via reciprocity from her time in the Senate.”

2.

“Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.”

3.

“Clinton was aware she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State. Clinton could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State.”

4.

“Clinton recalled being briefed on special access program (SAP) information but could not recall any specific briefing on how to handle information associated with SAP’s.”

5.

“Clinton was certain she signed an agreement memorializing her access to SAP material, but she could not recall specific detail.”

6.

“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process.”

7.

“When Clinton’s BlackBerry malfunctioned, her aides would assist in obtaining a new BlackBerry. After moving to the new device, her old SIM card was disposed of by her aides. Clinton did not recall how any data stored on the device was destroyed.”

8.

“While on international travel, Clinton never suspected her BlackBerry was tampered with, nor did she ever lose a BlackBerry while traveling. There were a few occasions where Clinton staff was provided with the secure cell phone, the Clinton did not recall the circumstances or frequency with which this event occurred.”

9.

“Clinton requested a secure BlackBerry while at State, but could not recall why they were unable to provide one.”

10.

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system.”

11.

“Clinton did not recall her specific conversations regarding the creation of the clintonemail.com domain, but around January 2009, directed aides to create the email account.”

12.

“Clinton did not recall receiving guidance from State regarding email policies outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual.”

13.

“Some aides had access to Clinton’s BlackBerry and email accounts, but she could not recall specifically who had access.”

14, 15.

“Additionally Clinton did not recall any specific routine for deleting emails from her account while Secretary of State, nor did she recall ever receiving any messages indicating her account was reaching a storage limit.

16.

“Huma Abedin also had an account on clintonemail.combecause she frequently assisted client in with personal matters. Clinton did not recall any other individuals being offered an account on clintonemail.com.”

17.

“After reviewing an email dated June 4, 2011 with the subject line ‘RE: Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian technology,’ Clinton stated she did not recall the compromise of State employees’ Gmail accounts.”

18, 19.

“After reviewing a State communication dated June 28, 2011 with the subject line ‘Securing Personal Email Accounts,’ Clinton stated all cables of a certain policy nature went out under her name and she did not recall the specific cable. Additionally, Clinton did not recall this cable correlating with Brian Pagliano upgrading theclintonemail.com server.”

20.

“When Clinton had technical issues with her server, she contacted [Justin Cooper]. She could not recall ever contacting Pagliano for technical support.”

21.

“She did not recall using an iPad mini until after her tenure as Secretary of State and has never used a MacBook or other computer to access her email.”

22.

“After reviewing an email dated October 13, 2012 with the subject line ‘This am Green on Blue,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

23.

“After reviewing an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

[Editor’s note: that exact phrase appears several time on this list. Each time is a separate instance.]

24.

“After reviewing an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

25.

“Clinton did not recall [Jacob Sullivan] using his Google email account for official business and could not say why it was used in this instance.”

26.

“After reviewing an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

27.

“Clinton did not recall a State policy on confirming classified information and media reports.”

28.

“After reviewing an email dated August 25, 2010, with subject line ‘FW: New York Times article on Salehi,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

29.

“After reviewing email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

30.

“After reviewing an email dated December 27, 2011, with the subject line ‘FW: SBU,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

31.

“After receiving an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED] Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

32.

“After reviewing an email dated June 17, 2011, subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

33.

“Clinton had no recollection of actually receiving a ‘non-paper’ or a secure fax and this instance.”

34.

“[REDACTED] talking points are typically classified, but Clinton did not recall in this instance.”

35.

“After reviewing an email dated April 9, 2012, with subject line ‘Call to President Banda,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

36.

“In December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot. Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received.”

37.

“After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2012 with the subject line ‘FW: Significant FOIA Request,’ Clinton stated she did not recall the specific request and was not aware of receiving any FOIA requests for information related to her email during her tenure as Secretary of State.”

38.

“Clinton did not recall being read-out of her clearance or any SAP’s by State personnel.”

39.

“Clinton’s email address was publicly disclosed in March 2013 when Sydney Blumenthal‘s email account was compromised. As a result Clinton was advised to change her email address and did so, but she did not recall specifically who made this recommendation.”

40.

“Clinton believed [REDACTED] was her primary BlackBerry phone number and she did not recall using a flip phone during her tenure at State, only during her service in the Senate.”

Opps, 40, my bad...