Sandy Berger now advising Hillary Clinton

[preservanation]

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillar y_Clinton.html
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers.

“It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.More of the same, Hillary is packing her campaign with felons.
Her administration will bring more of the same.

[Elrathin]

The fear from Republicans is growing, isn't it sweet? hehehe

[preservanation]

Fear is a great motivator, especially when it is so well founded.

[Elrathin]

It's not well founded. It's understood, but the fear is not well founded. The worst situation is that if she gets elected and gets her way we get another socialized program that conservatives will complain about it, but life will go on just fine.

As for national defense, no president I'm afraid is going to pull out of Iraq. In retrospect, I'm kinda hoping a Republican wins, because whomever is president is going to have this war dumped on them and their legacy is going to be cleaning up the mistakes that were made and figuring a war to pay for this war (which will end up in taxes being raised). I'd rather a Republican take the fall on that one, no offense given that it was GWB problem to begin with.

[preservanation]

I fear the continued "sicialization" of America.
Hillary is the closest thing we've ever had to a bald faced Euosocialist running for President.

a=b
b=c
Therefor;
Hillary=fear

[preservanation]

Hiring Berger, is reward for him scrubbing the Clinton's historical record on Terrorism.
Simple quid pro quo.
Even more shocking is that there is talk of him being her National Security Director, if Hillary is elected.
Do we really, as a nation want to go through all this again?
Don't you Dems tire of having to defend all the Clinton scandals yet?
Well fire up the denials and spin machines, cause here we go again.
Obama is a much better choice.

[ECW]

Don't you Dems tire of having to defend all the Clinton scandals yet?


Not as much as you are obviously tired of defending Bush and all his scandals... throw in the complete turnaround of America's values and you have Bush qualifying as Worst. President. Ever. That being said...

This is not a good move on Hillary's part. I'd be interested in hearing what the hell she was thinking.

[Elrathin]

Hiring Berger, is reward for him scrubbing the Clinton's historical record on Terrorism.
Simple quid pro quo.

Sorry, don't buy the whole conspiracy theory. I put that one right up there with Bush was behind 9/11.


Even more shocking is that there is talk of him being her National Security Director, if Hillary is elected.

Of course there is talk of it, but not by Dems, but by those that hate Clinton.


Do we really, as a nation want to go through all this again?

Again, I don't buy the rumor mill, especially when it is those that hate Clinton saying it. Kinda like those rumors about Bush being behind 9/11.


Don't you Dems tire of having to defend all the Clinton scandals yet?

Nope, just tired of those rumors started up by those that hate Clinton. There was only one scandal and it was a blowjob scandal. The rest are unfounded rumors and unsubstantiated claims that go nowhere much like the ones that Bush is behind 9/11.

[preservanation]

This is not a good move on Hillary's part. I'd be interested in hearing what the hell she was thinkingIt's such a politically boneheaded move, and you would think that she would know better.
That's why I think it has to do with rewarding him for destroying damning evidence from the National Archives prior to the 911 Commission.
Furthermore, I'm sure she wants to keep him close.

Berger knows what he destroyed, arguably the only one who does besides the Clintons. She cannot allow him to say what he knows. Keeping him close so he doesn't spill the beans is very important to her campaign.
Reminiscent of how the Corleone's dealt with people who knew too much.

If I was Berger, I would invest in a remote car-starter.

[Labrocca]

It's a partisan problem that the critics of Bush's cronyism are not calling for Berger's head. Clearly he is not a person that should be in the circle of a possible new President. Bush has been accused of a lot of misdeeds for hiring friends that were not competent. Here we have Berger who is a criminal who plead guilty to charges of stealing and destroying documents.

Clinton will be an incredibly corrupt politician. I have no doubt of that. Whether it's used for good or evil...I can't say. She will however be controversial. I almost hope she gets elected because politics will go NUTS. Clinton is a nightmare president for a whole lot of people out there.

[preservanation]

The problem with a Clinton presidency is that she will install liberalism in every possible branch and vesting of our Gov.
Once installed, liberal/socialism is inextricable and will eventually rule the day
This, imo is her desire and our nation will never be the same as a result. We are at a crossroads.
Will the American people choose socialism or not?
I pray they will not.

[BoogyMan]

I have to admit this one shocked me. Clinton doesn't do ANYTHING without checking with focus groups and I cannot imagine one that would advise her to let this guy join her team.

Berger is seen as having cleaned up evidence of "something" by Clinton in his theft of the documents at the national archive and this action is certainly going to validate that belief for many.

[Elrathin]

The problem with a Clinton presidency is that she will install liberalism in every possible branch and vesting of our Gov.

Versus Bush installing conservatism in every branch possible, including the supreme court.


Once installed, liberal/socialism is inextricable and will eventually rule the day
This, imo is her desire and our nation will never be the same as a result. We are at a crossroads.
Will the American people choose socialism or not?
I pray they will not.


LOL of course you have no problems with conservatism being done everywhere it can.

As stated before, Americans will choose socialism because there are no Candidates that will get rid of socialistic programs. You are already voting for socialism.[hr]
I have to admit this one shocked me. Clinton doesn't do ANYTHING without checking with focus groups and I cannot imagine one that would advise her to let this guy join her team.

This I will agree with. The whole Berger thing is a bad call on her part, THAT much I will agree.


Berger is seen as having cleaned up evidence of "something" by Clinton in his theft of the documents at the national archive and this action is certainly going to validate that belief for many.


Just as it is seen that Bush was lying about intelligence for the Iraq war. Does being seen as mean what actually happened?

Again, I'll state for the record, Berger being involved with Clinton on any scale is disappointing to say the least and it will possible hurt her in the long run. I don't know what she was thinking here.

The only thing I am disagreeing with is that his being involved is due to some "Conspiracy" of him getting rid of evidence for the Clintons. Either prove the link or chuck it as a conspiracy theory worthy of Bush was behind 9/11.

[preservanation]

Capitalism is status quo.
Socialism entails turning our system on it's ear.
A huge change in philosophy, social and economic structure.
I don't think Americans wants that sort of total upheaval of our national identity.

[Elrathin]

Capitalism is status quo.
Socialism entails turning our system on it's ear.
A huge change in philosophy, social and economic structure.
I don't think Americans wants that sort of total upheaval of our national identity.


You guys act that if Hilary is elected, everyone will have to give up all their money to be on par with everyone else. That is GROSS EXAGGERATION.

Yes, she may implement a social program but my god people quit acting like it is going to be communist Russia or something.

Doom and Gloom, Doom and Gloom. Reminds me of everyone saying that if Bush was re-elected our country is done for permanently. Gimme a break.

[preservanation]

Why is she hiring Berger onto her campaign?
I think I explained it well earlier.
Any other thoughts on that?

[Elrathin]

Why is she hiring Berger onto her campaign?
I think I explained it well earlier.
Any other thoughts on that?


Explained? No, you gave a conspiracy theory. I don't agree with her letting Berger in as an adviser.

How about we add another conspiracy, maybe she hire Berger on because she secretly wants to get back at Bill and have an affair with Berger eh? Just as likely as her hiring him because he has some dirt on them.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but yield little proof and only makes someone closer to buying that tinfoil hat.

[BoogyMan]

Why is she hiring Berger onto her campaign?
I think I explained it well earlier.
Any other thoughts on that?


To be fair, at this point, Berger is working as an unpaid adviser.

This one is going to be interesting to watch though, I am still amazed that a political animal like Clinton would have made such a move.

[preservanation]

I gather you think that it might not have been all that politically prudent, hiring Berger. As Boog pointed out she is very politically astute and have the smartest and toughest political advisers working for her.

Why did she do this?
She has to know that she is going to get lambasted by the right.(Not to mention bringing that whole situation back up to the surface).
I would think that Berger stealing, destroying, lying to the public the grand jury, and then pleading guilty to a felony would be better left alone.
It was slowly fading away, now it's back in spades.
What do you think her motivation to do this was?

[ViolaLee]

Berger took copies of documents, left the originals there and didn't scrub Clinton's record of anything. You rabid righties really need to get your facts straight. I'm not defending his breaking the law by taking documents...but tell the truth about it at least, don't make up lies that he's hiding papers that no one can find.

It's the Bush admin that's hiding documents and emails and being secretive. Everything Berger took, has a copy of it left behind.

[BoogyMan]

Berger took copies of documents, left the originals there and didn't scrub Clinton's record of anything. You rabid righties really need to get your facts straight. I'm not defending his breaking the law by taking documents...but tell the truth about it at least, don't make up lies that he's hiding papers that no one can find.

It's the Bush admin that's hiding documents and emails and being secretive. Everything Berger took, has a copy of it left behind.


:clapper: How quaint :clapper:

You can stop the name-calling right there Viola.

[Buck Laser]

What I think is funny about this whole thread is the canard that Clinton would be a "socialist" president. That is a lie made up out of the whole cloth. I think it simply represents a scare tactic used by republicans.

Remember, Alan Greenspan suggested that "Clinton was one of our best republican presidents." I don't think Hillary has staked out any positions significantly to the left of Bill Clinton, and she's certainly the rightmost of the leading democratic contenders.

The Sandy Berger thing, IMO is also simply a ploy to try to find something that will scare the voting public, much like CWN's little tirade about how Obama's middle name is Hussein. In other words, it's just a matter of trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. I know that at the time, lots of righties were screaming treason: I don't recall which sex scandal they were trying to divert attention from at the time, but it might have been Mark Foley. So basically, the whole thing is hogwash.

If you want a real issue with Clinton, it would be the dynastic thing--the potention for 30 uninterrupted years of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Now that dismays me.

[ViolaLee]

Berger took copies of documents, left the originals there and didn't scrub Clinton's record of anything. You rabid righties really need to get your facts straight. I'm not defending his breaking the law by taking documents...but tell the truth about it at least, don't make up lies that he's hiding papers that no one can find.

It's the Bush admin that's hiding documents and emails and being secretive. Everything Berger took, has a copy of it left behind.


:clapper: How quaint :clapper:

You can stop the name-calling right there Viola.
I don't know what this means boogy. I was just clearing up the inaccuracies and false statements on this thread.

[Elrathin]

Why did she do this?
What do you think her motivation to do this was?


I have no idea. But just because I have no ida what the hell she is thinking I am not going to start playing the guessing game with little information to go off of either.

How about you all just wait to see what unfolds a little bit before shouting conspiracy every time something happens with Clinton? Seriously.

Next thing you know conservatives will be saying that Hillary is having sex with Bill Clinton :lmao:

[preservanation]

That is not correct.
Most people believe they were originals.
But since they are gone....?
Ah the beauty of it all!
The more we learn about Sandy Berger's brilliant career as a document thief, the clearer it becomes that there is plenty we still don't know and may never learn. On Tuesday, the House Government Reform Committee released its report on Mr. Berger's pilfering of classified documents from the National Archives.

The committee's 60-page report makes it clear that Mr. Berger knew exactly what he was doing and knew that what he was doing was wrong. According to interviews with National Archives staff, Mr. Berger repeatedly arranged to be left alone with highly classified documents by feigning the need to make personal phone calls, and he used those moments alone with the files to stuff them in his pockets and briefcase.

One incident is particularly suggestive. By his fourth and final visit to review documents and prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Archives staff had grown suspicious of how Mr. Berger was handling the documents, so they numbered each one he was given in pencil on the back of the document. When one of them--No. 217--was apparently removed from the files by Mr. Berger, the staff reprinted a copy and replaced it for his review. According to the report, Mr. Berger then proceeded to slip the second copy "under his portfolio also." In other words, he stole the same document twice.

This gives the lie to Mr. Berger's story that he was taking the documents for his own convenience, to assist with his preparation for testimony to the commission. If that were the whole story, one copy of document 217 would surely have been sufficient. That document was an email pertaining to a draft of the Millennium After-Action Report on the attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. The episode suggests that Mr. Berger had some other motive for removing No. 217, even if he was ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. But neither his April 2005 plea agreement, nor the Congressional report, nor the report of the Archives' Inspector General shed any light on what that motive might have been.
Another telling revelation concerns Mr. Berger's access to original, uncopied and uninventoried documents from the files of former NSC antiterror official Richard Clarke, among others. At the time Mr. Berger made his misdemeanor plea agreement, we were assured by then-federal prosecutor Noel Hillman that there was no evidence that Mr. Berger destroyed or intended to destroy any original documents. That was, strictly speaking, true. But during three of Mr. Berger's four visits to the Archives in 2002 and 2003, the former National Security Adviser did have access to original documents of which no adequate inventory existed or exists.

This seems relevant, given the concern that Mr. Berger's breaches of national security might have denied evidence to history of the Clinton Administration's approach to al Qaeda and the threat of terrorism. And yet the Justice Department clearly gave the impression that there was no danger that Mr. Berger abridged the historical record. We now know that this was not true. Mr. Berger was in a position to remove documents from Mr. Clarke's files, and thanks to lax security, breaches of protocol and undue deference on the part of Archives staff, we may never know whether Mr. Berger took documents other than the five he's admitted to removing.

It is true that there is no affirmative evidence he did so. But it is equally true that he had opportunity and a demonstrated willingness to breach security in his handling of the documents. As for motive, this remains shrouded in mystery, in part because the documents Mr. Berger has admitted to taking remain highly classified, so the precise nature of his interest is unclear.
Thanks to Justice's and the Archives' leniency, or laxity, or both, Mr. Berger's plea deal expires in 2008--just in time, perhaps, for the next Clinton Administration.
Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters
By Ronald A. Cass

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?

Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.

Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.

Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the "learned professions" fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.

That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.



*******

President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.

Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.

Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.

*******
We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them. Berger's lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?

Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.

For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.

The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?

When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.

Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?

Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.

The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking.

*******
What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.

Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.

Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.

The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.

The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .

Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.

Because, in truth, it could affect us all. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/sandy_berger_and_the_clinton_c.html

[BoogyMan]

How about you all just wait to see what unfolds a little bit before shouting conspiracy every time something happens with Clinton? Seriously.


I wish you could realize just how funny this is El.

Insert the name of any conservative where you have Clinton in that sentence.

:D

[ViolaLee]

If you want a real issue with Clinton, it would be the dynastic thing--the potention for 30 uninterrupted years of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Now that dismays me.
That I completely agree with!

[Elrathin]

I wish you could realize just how funny this is El.

Insert the name of any conservative where you have Clinton in that sentence.

:D


And show me which conservative I have done that with Boogy.

Also I thought you were against others doing that with conservatives so why are you supporting it now with the Clintons? At least that is what your commentary is leading me to believe.

[BoogyMan]

I wish you could realize just how funny this is El.

Insert the name of any conservative where you have Clinton in that sentence.

:D


And show me which conservative I have done that with Boogy.

Also I thought you were against others doing that with conservatives so why are you supporting it now with the Clintons? At least that is what your commentary is leading me to believe.


I didn't say you did El, I was pointing out how funny it was when the order of the day seems to be scorched earth.

Read what I have written in this thread El, honestly, and then show me where I have condemned anyone. I have shown dismay at the choice and pointed out that it was going to bolster the conspiracy theorists, nothing else.

[preservanation]

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton Monday after learning that the campaign is taking advice from Sandy Berger, a former top aide to President Bill Clinton who admitted stealing classified documents and disposing them.

"I think it’s a bad move," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, speaking with FOX News. "He stole documents, classified documents, from the National Archives, destroyed them, lied about what he did (and) is not the kind of adviser that you would want surrounding a candidate for president of the United States. I think it’s a bad decision."

"I think anyone who would surround themselves with advisers like that is demonstrating bad judgment, and I think Sen. Clinton should reconsider," he added.

And Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said: "I am not surprised but I think it's a very inappropriate choice."

Hoekstra said Clinton's campaign "should clearly distance themselves from Sandy Berger. This person should not be a key adviser to one of the leading presidential candidates in 2007."

And Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz added this shot: "It is beyond belief that Hillary Clinton would have someone advising her campaign who has pled guilty to stealing and destroying national security documents. Sen. Clinton tries to sound tough on national security issues, but it seems that repaying old friends like MoveOn.org and Sandy Berger is her real priority."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300005,00.html

Why would she do this.
It is counter to what you would expect from a "smart" politician.

[ViolaLee]

OK so it's all just bullshit really. Turns out the original story had incorrect info.

"He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role," Clinton said.

But he's an unofficial adviser, Susan asked?

"I have thousands of unofficial advisers," said Clinton, "and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/sen-clinton-san.html

[preservanation]

BL:
What I think is funny about this whole thread is the canard that Clinton would be a "socialist" president. That is a lie made up out of the whole cloth. I think it simply represents a scare tactic used by republicans.Well, let alone her proposal for a $5000 taxpayer gift for every child or the 401k plan by taxing the rich of any of these other wealth re-distribution canards.
Her mentor was Saul Alinsky a well know socialist/communist who advocated taking over the gov from within. One way he proposes doing this is to misrepresent your intentions and appeal to the middle-class by engaging in class warfare. Kind of what Hitler did with the Jews.
Here are some nice juicy quotes by Hillary Clinton...
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

"I certainly think the free-market has failed."
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
"(We) ....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
"We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."
"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
If you don't want Hillary to fit the mold of a socialist, you will have to change the definition of socialist,
But that shouldn't be a problem...for a socialist.