Timing is everything.
On the same day The New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, The Associated Press is reporting that 22 of her emails on her unsecured server were top secret and Investor’s Business Daily reveals she also destroyed Whitewater records, just as she has with Benghazi. Irresponsible? Serial destroyer? Indictable?
“Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe,” the Timesmen/women enthuse.
Hillary Clinton (NYT photo)
The AP editorializes in its news story, “Independent experts say it’s unlikely Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on details that have surfaced so far and the lack of indications she intended to break laws.”
Intended? In this case the criteria might be reckless negligence.
IBD reports that Hillary Clinton’s subpoenaed but missing Rose Law firm billing records mysteriously showed up on a hallway table in the White House in January 1996 — after the statute of limitations had expired.
Those records had been in Vince Foster’s office at the time of his suicide, but Hillary Clinton and others hauled the records to a closet in her office, approximately 30 feet from the table where they were found two years later.
Also today the NY Times gave a backhanded endorsement to Ohio Gov. John Kasich for the Republican nomination. Yes, we are sure Republicans everywhere were anxiously awaiting the Times’ pick.
“Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race,” the Times opined.
4TH ST8 
A rag supporting a hag!
Touche`…
Americans knew nothing about Obama except the color of his skin and a glib tongue. Despite Americans knowing everything about Hillary Clinton they still give her consideration basically because she’s a female. She brings nothing to the table except having been the wife of Bill Clinton which gave her opportunities she wouldn’t have had otherwise. Even with the full court press of the media there’s no way she can out debate Cruz, Rubio, or Trump.In 2008 she said it was “so hard” and that was only against Obama, let’s see her goo one on one with either of the three.
Wow. You guys are something else.
Nyp’s feeling the bern…..
Tried to tell them that Hillary is the best republican running.
Just like her husband.
But they’d rather lose I guess.
How come you ignore Republicans? Ted Cruz for example, apparently reversed his position on amnesty for illegal immigrants and then lied about it, yet all I see here is a deafening silence. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/29/chris-christie-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-can-change-pos/ And the questions about his being a natural born citizen – or not – are closely parallel to those raised about Obama in this space previously. If Obama was not eligible for the Presidency, then why is Cruz eligible?
Another red herring flopping on the deck of both the left…and the establishment Republican vessels. Cruz strikes fear into the heart of both the progressive left (James Carville’s appraisal) and the RINOs…Dole, McCain, McConnell et al (and their donors!). If Cruz strikes the right chords with the disenchanted public as the genuine conservative in the race…then RINOs and the lily white old Democrat candidates had better be afraid…very afraid.
As I recall, Obama’s father was not a U.S.citizen, but it’s agreed that his mother is. Same as Cruz so far. The right has claimed that Obama was not born in the United States. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. So why did the right make such a big deal about Obama’s eligibility, but remain silent about Cruz? The answer of course, is that Cruz is on their team and Obama is not. Cretins. Be careful when consuming their poison.
Perhaps it was due to Cruz immediately releasing his birth certificate rather then taking the Obama delay and obfuscate tactic before releasing first his short form then later, the long form.
Cruz was on it right away. That has a tendency to defuse rather than confuse, like Obama did.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/
I am amused by the far right wing who so often tell us lesser beings that “our Constitution was written to be understood by anyone with a with grade education” and of course therefore needs no “interpretation”.
I suggest we therefore allow our sixth graders to tell us all why it is that, based on this language, a Canadian isn’t eligible to be president:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
If “Natural Born” doesn’t mean born in this country, it doesn’t mean what it says.
No C-sections?
Let’s see what Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz…the head of the DNC says about all this:
Cruz’s conservative positions on social issues and the role of government, issues such as health care, and bellicose rhetoric on foreign affairs make him anathema to Wasserman Schultz, who is a Democratic congresswoman from Weston in addition to her role as Democratic party chairwoman.
But, she said in response to a reporter’s question Monday at an unrelated event in Weston, she has no doubt that Cruz is legally eligible to serve.
“No, I have no doubt. Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wasserman Schultz said.
Yes, Cruz is a natural born citizen. Obama is too. Always was, and would have been even if the accusations were true. As for not releasing his birth certificate, he was a citizen either way, so he decided not to be bullied by stupidity. In the end, the right looked ridiculous, but they still haven’t figured that out Even when he released it, it was termed a forgery by the rabid right, so what was the point?
Obama’s birth certificate was = to Romney’s tax returns.
Good one Rincon.
Unlike Rubio, Senator Cruz has never reversed his position on amnesty. Rubio is lying and Fox news in complicit in advancing this lie.
From an article by Gaston Mooney:
The crux of Rubio’s argument rests on an amendment offered in the Judiciary markup that was intended to kill the Gang of 8 Bill before reaching the Senate floor, where passage was all but assured.
The Cruz amendment’s intent was to place amnesty supporters in an untenable position where their true motives would be exposed. The amendment stripped out all pathways to citizenship from the bill. This amendment, and the subsequent result of it failing, exposed the true intentions of the Gang of 8 supporters, that this was all about creating a permanent Democrat majority and not comporting with their own talking points about the bill.
The Fox News “conservatives” are scandalously taking this amendment out of context to imply that Cruz actively championed an effort to grant amnesty, albeit without a path to citizenship. In reality this was one of several parallel strategies Cruz employed to blow up the bill and this is why Jeff Sessions voted for the amendment.
Cruz, Sessions, Grassley, and Lee proposed several other amendments that limited or conditioned the amnesty – short of repealing the entire bill – to prove the same point. And every time amnesty supporters in both parties voted down amendments that reflected their espoused position it exposed another lie in the Gang of 8 bill. Which is exactly why Senator Jeff Sessions supported the Cruz amendment.
Read the full article here:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/does-jeff-sessions-support-amnesty
Jeff Sessions sets the record straight:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/12/the-sessions-cruz-video-fox-news-doesnt-want-you-to-see.
It should also be noted that Fox News Vice President Bill Sammon has a daughter working for the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio.Sammon’s daughter, Brooke Sammon, is Rubio’s national press secretary, Bill Sammon reportedly overseas the formulation of the debate questions.
Fox News should also have disclosed that Frank Lutz has financial ties to Senator Rubio:
http://mediamatters.org/tags/frank-luntz
Puts a new light on his “focus groups”.
I guess it depends on who you choose to believe:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015-12-17/ted-cruz-must-defend-his-stance-on-immigration-and-legalization
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-h1-b-visas/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/17/ted-cruz-s-two-faced-immigration-ploy.html
To believe that Senator Cruz changed his stance on amnesty, one would also have to believe that Senators Jeff Sessions and Mike Lee as well as Congressman Steve King (all anti-amnesty stalwarts) are lying.
No one disputes that Senator Rubio supported and actively worked to pass the Gang of 8 bill dispite promising Floridians that he would never support amnesty. And no one disputes that Senator Cruz voted against the bill in the Senate and rallied the House to ultimately defeat the bill.
It doesn’t depend on who you choose to believe so much as believing what you choose regardless of the facts.
His daughter apparently doesn’t like his stance….whatever it is.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pzf/status/693882335771676673/video/1