The Hillary Clinton thread

[Isgrimnur]

Including the stuff he says about himself.

[GreenGoo]

Including the stuff he says about himself.

Lol, that was my first thought as well.

[Pyperkub]

Looks like Clinton has wised up : Clinton campaign mandated to use Signal

[Rip]

Yet, much like her husband, her aide's husband hasn't.

This is baby-sitting — Anthony Weiner-style.

[GreenGoo]

Looks like Clinton has wised up : Clinton campaign mandated to use Signal

Been using it for awhile now. Wife and most contacts are also using it.

[El Guapo]

Remember how the media went nuts over Colin Powell's foundation?

[hepcat]

"Crooked Hillary" is a piker when compared to the monumental crookedness of Trump.

Expect a tweet from Trump on this soon. I will hazard a guess it will involve the words loser, hater and failing newspaper.

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, this is one of the most disconnected from reality election cycles I've ever being paying attention for.

When a known con-artist can non-ironically invoke corruption as his opponent's major flaw and reason for voting for him...it's hard to find words.

I think a lot of this is the result of having a 2 party system. With more parties there are more places that you might see eye to eye on certain issues, and with more targets you're less likely to hate everyone who's not you unthinkingly.

[Rip]

In a surprise to no one I hope, it is revealed that yes, Bob Menendez is a Clinton puppet.

Newly released emails suggest a senior Hillary Clinton aide stage-managed her first hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attack by feeding specific topics Clinton wanted to address to Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who at the time was acting chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

"We wired it that Menendez would provide an opportunity to address two topics we needed to debunk (her actions/whereabouts on 9/11, and these email from Chris Stevens about moving locations,)" Clinton media gatekeeper Philippe Reines wrote to Chelsea Clinton the morning of the Jan. 23, 2013 hearing.

[GreenGoo]

Shrug. I'm sure the 15 other investigations were legit.

And by stage managed, I'm sure they mean make sure these 2 topics get covered.

[Defiant]

Shrug. I'm sure the 15 other investigations were legit.

Clearly, each of those 15 investigations need to be investigated. Multiple times. And, if necessary, the investigations of those investigations need to be investigated.

[GreenGoo]

It wouldn't hurt for a new investigation be announced the night before the election because of "new, shocking evidence!".

What's interesting to me is that I was suitably pissed at how they handled the news of the Benghazi attack and what they said during the early hours of the event.

I haven't forgiven the administration for what I felt were deliberately misleading statements. At no point did I think they had hung their personnel out to dry nor mishandled anything other than the information they made public at first.

So even though I was seriously pissed, I never wanted, expected or thought it deserved a witch hunt of this magnitude. It's insane. That this much noise has been made over losing diplomatic staff on foreign soil (a big deal, to be sure, but it was 4 freakin' years ago now) or the misuse of a private email server to send/receive some seemingly classified but so far relatively harmless material is mindboggling to me. It's partisan politics at its absolute worst.

I expect political parties to hunt each other constantly. I don't expect those parties to burn millions of taxpayer dollars to do so, especially when there is ample evidence of limited or no wrong doing.

[Holman]

Compare Benghazi with the invasion of Iraq.

One of the first things President Obama did was make clear that he was not out to score political points from investigating the months of lies and intentional deception leading to the invasion. Remember, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed from a full-scale foreign policy debacle that didn't have to happen. Obama seems to have decided that domestic tranquility was better served by not enacting what would only have been justice on those who wrought all that suffering and waste.

Benghazi was a tragedy handled poorly in its aftermath. Iraq was an intentional scheme that ruined our country and the world in ways we're still just seeing.

[Defiant]

What's interesting to me is that I was suitably pissed at how they handled the news of the Benghazi attack and what they said during the early hours of the event.

I haven't forgiven the administration for what I felt were deliberately misleading statements. At no point did I think they had hung their personnel out to dry nor mishandled anything other than the information they made public at first.

Yeah, pretty much this, except that it wasn't just hours after the event, it was five days after

[GreenGoo]

Yeah "early hours" was just meant as the period of time that fact gathering was happening and reports from various news organizations weren't consistent. I probably would have put it at 2 days if I had to, but 5 days fits.

They kept trying to spin it and that's what pissed me off the most.

[Rip]

Compare Benghazi with the invasion of Iraq.

One of the first things President Obama did was make clear that he was not out to score political points from investigating the months of lies and intentional deception leading to the invasion. Remember, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed from a full-scale foreign policy debacle that didn't have to happen. Obama seems to have decided that domestic tranquility was better served by not enacting what would only have been justice on those who wrought all that suffering and waste.

Benghazi was a tragedy handled poorly in its aftermath. Iraq was an intentional scheme that ruined our country and the world in ways we're still just seeing.

Don't worry once Trump wins he will let Hillary and Obama off as well. Just has to do what O has done and act like the failure is assumed and no investigation is necessary.

[GreenGoo]

Wait, what? You think there is something about Obama's tenure that requires investigation that will go uninvestigated? What on earth could that be? That thousands of Americans and billions of dollars weren't flushed down the toilet on a whim?

[hepcat]

Don't worry once Trump wins he will let Hillary and Obama off as well. Just has to do what O has done and act like the failure is assumed and no investigation is necessary.

Trump will force them to attend Trump University after he absolves himself of all wrong doing on that matter...as well as issuing a pardon for himself for every other scam he's run.

Come to think of it, I believe that may be why he's running in the first place. What's the best way for a well known crook to get away with his crimes? Put himself in charge of the laws, of course.

[Defiant]

Wait, what? You think there is something about Obama's tenure that requires investigation that will go uninvestigated? What on earth could that be?

I'm just glad nobody is asking to see his long form death certificate.

[El Guapo]

National Review writer calls for pre-impeaching Hillary Clinton.

Sounds reasonable.

[YellowKing]

Meanwhile, in the real world, people just want to put food on the table for their families and get this shit show over with.

[Isgrimnur]

Dallas Morning News

There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.
...
Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest.
...
Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.

We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.

Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

[hepcat]

Only one email out of the 15,000 recently recovered ones even mentions Benghazi...and it's a letter of praise from an ambassador.

Keep diggin' folks!

[Isgrimnur]

With all this horseshit, they're bound to find a pony at some point.

[LawBeefaroni]

Dallas Morning News

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

That's pretty much all there is to it. I have never been more sure who to vote for going into November and I have never hated the candidate I'm going to vote for more.

I despise Trump for a lot of things but now more than anything, for forcing me to vote for Hillary Fucking Clinton. I can't in good conscience, do my usual 3rd party/Libertarian either because it would be washing my hands of having to vote for Clinton while praying that the rest of the country does.

Normally my outlook is, "Eh, it doesn't matter between the two nearly identical evils, so I'll vote 3rd party so I can feel good about myself."

[YellowKing]

I'm of the same mind, but part of my vote for Hillary is a protest vote against the Republican party in general. It's basically my way of saying a big "Fuck You" to a party who let me down by becoming more concerned with bathrooms and email servers than actual issues.

In fact, there's a very good chance I'll just vote a straight Democratic ticket, which is my version of nuking from orbit.

[El Guapo]

I'm of the same mind, but part of my vote for Hillary is a protest vote against the Republican party in general. It's basically my way of saying a big "Fuck You" to a party who let me down by becoming more concerned with bathrooms and email servers than actual issues.

In fact, there's a very good chance I'll just vote a straight Democratic ticket, which is my version of nuking from orbit.

Plus it seems like the North Carolina Republican party is a significant part of the broader problem.

[Blackhawk]

I still haven't decided. Indiana's electoral votes are going for Trump regardless of what I do (*shame*), so my vote is essentially irrelevant. And yet, for something completely meaningless, I've spent a ponderous amount of time and energy giving myself headaches over it.

Fuck this election.

[El Guapo]

It's honestly hard for me to fathom how anyone could seriously entertain voting third party in any remotely competitive state when the election is Trump vs. a conventional (if flawed) politician. Trump is a crazy demagogue with significant ties to a vicious despot (Putin) and who has demonstrated essentially zero understanding of significant issues nor respect for democratic norms. If this were Clinton vs. anyone else in the Republican field (even Walker, who I despise), I could understand it, but here...

I will add the caveat that in clearly non-competitive states it doesn't matter (though even there I would be uneasy voting third party), and that I understand supporting Johnson at this stage where there's at least a 1% chance that he could catch fire, qualify for the debates, and take off from there. But if Johnson (as is very very likely) stays more or less where he is...seems insanely reckless.

[Defiant]

It's honestly hard for me to fathom how anyone could seriously entertain voting third party in any remotely competitive state when the election is Trump vs. a conventional (if flawed) politician. Trump is a crazy demagogue with significant ties to a vicious despot (Putin) and who has demonstrated essentially zero understanding of significant issues nor respect for democratic norms. If this were Clinton vs. anyone else in the Republican field (even Walker, who I despise), I could understand it, but here...

I will add the caveat that in clearly non-competitive states it doesn't matter (though even there I would be uneasy voting third party), and that I understand supporting Johnson at this stage where there's at least a 1% chance that he could catch fire, qualify for the debates, and take off from there. But if Johnson (as is very very likely) stays more or less where he is...seems insanely reckless.

My guess is that, as in previous elections, the third party candidate support will probably go down some. Probably either after the debates (assuming Johnson doesn't get in) or in the voting booth in those competitive states. Though it'll still see a high third party vote (I'm guessing around 6-10% total for all the third party votes)

[GreenGoo]

So I read the actual correspondence between Powell and Clinton with regard to blackberries, email and communication in general. He literally tells her to dodge Government infrastructure because that's what he did and even ignores CIA/NSA warnings about what he's doing.

I knew he guided her in general but the details are pretty clearly "avoid doing it according to protocol". He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage while the country was gearing up for and executing a war, where classified things might actually matter, while spending millions to investigate the same behaviour of the opposing party's secretary of state during a time of relative peace.

Before I was like "this is nuts" but not really outraged. But now I'm pretty outraged. Particularly so because they have found nothing substantial, so not only is the double standard glaring, it's been a fruitless waste of money.

[Rip]

So I read the actual correspondence between Powell and Clinton with regard to blackberries, email and communication in general. He literally tells her to dodge Government infrastructure because that's what he did and even ignores CIA/NSA warnings about what he's doing.

I knew he guided her in general but the details are pretty clearly "avoid doing it according to protocol". He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage while the country was gearing up for and executing a war, where classified things might actually matter, while spending millions to investigate the same behaviour of the opposing party's secretary of state for the same behaviour.

Before I was like "this is nuts" but not really outraged. But now I'm pretty outraged. Particularly so because they have found nothing substantial, so not only is the double standard glaring, it's been a fruitless waste of money.

They should both be prosecuted.

[El Guapo]

He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage

From what I understand it's pretty clearly untrue. Evidently Powell has said that Clinton contacted her about the issue after she had already been Secretary of State for a year. Only the e-mails recently released show Powell giving her the advice you mention in an e-mail dated two days after she became Secretary of State.

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps, but it was clearly condoned until now. I think a better approach would be clarify what is expected, what is not allowed and what will result in legal action in the future.

Sure you can retroactively go after people for "business as usual" behaviour because they should have known better, but when it's the norm and been acceptable (to who, is the important question) it's often easier and more reasonable to make it clear that this behaviour will no longer be tolerated going forward.

Still, if you want to go back through all the Secretaries since email has been created and investigate each of them, I guess go for it. I think there are better uses for the resources. Like governing instead of forming a new partisan committee to investigate when the previous one winds down (this applies to both sides of the aisle).

Oversight is important. Using oversight for political sabotage is a shitty waste of time and money.

[hepcat]

I still truly believe she's being pilloried over something for which numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle are guilty.

[Rip]

Perhaps, but it was clearly condoned until now. I think a better approach would be clarify what is expected, what is not allowed and what will result in legal action in the future.

Sure you can retroactively go after people for "business as usual" behaviour because they should have known better, but when it's the norm and been acceptable (to who, is the important question) it's often easier and more reasonable to make it clear that this behaviour will no longer be tolerated going forward.

Still, if you want to go back through all the Secretaries since email has been created and investigate each of them, I guess go for it. I think there are better uses for the resources. Like governing instead of forming a new partisan committee to investigate when the previous one winds down (this applies to both sides of the aisle).

Oversight is important. Using oversight for political sabotage is a shitty waste of time and money.

It isn't about whether they have e-mails. It is about using them to avoid records LAWS. Laws are for everyone. If you don't enforce them there is little point in having them.

[hepcat]

That's an odd statement coming from you.

You rail against paying taxes, you rail against speed limits because you want to go vroom vroom fast on your motor-sickle, etc., etc., etc...

I'm going to remember this statement the next time you bitch about a law.

[GreenGoo]

He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage

From what I understand it's pretty clearly untrue. Evidently Powell has said that Clinton contacted her about the issue after she had already been Secretary of State for a year. Only the e-mails recently released show Powell giving her the advice you mention in an e-mail dated two days after she became Secretary of State.

But that's only important if you care who (and by who, I mean which side of the aisle) got her moving down this path in the first place. Whether Powell got her started or just did the same thing, the hypocrisy doesn't change, and therefore double standard is just as obviously partisan persecution.

My point is only that both sides did it. It appeared to be the acceptable norm. Yet Clinton is pilloried for it but not a peep about Powell (from the people who are (trying) to make a federal case out of it and with the power to actually do something about it. Rip need not apply ).

I guess all I'm saying is that we can remove the argument over whether Powell told her before or after she started doing it, because the answer to that argument is meaningless except academically. So when some people say "he sent it first" and others say "no he didn't" we should say "whenever he did it is irrelevant, lets focus on why it was acceptable for Powell but not for Clinton, because that will clarify how serious this behaviour really is (or isn't)".

[Rip]

He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage

From what I understand it's pretty clearly untrue. Evidently Powell has said that Clinton contacted her about the issue after she had already been Secretary of State for a year. Only the e-mails recently released show Powell giving her the advice you mention in an e-mail dated two days after she became Secretary of State.

But that's only important if you care who (and by who, I mean which side of the aisle) got her moving down this path in the first place. Whether Powell got her started or just did the same thing, the hypocrisy doesn't change, and therefore double standard is just as obviously partisan persecution.

My point is only that both sides did it. It appeared to be the acceptable norm. Yet Clinton is pilloried for it but not a peep about Powell (from the people who are (trying) to make a federal case out of it and with the power to actually do something about it. Rip need not apply ).

I guess all I'm saying is that we can remove the argument over whether Powell told her before or after she started doing it, because the answer to that argument is meaningless except academically. So when some people say "he sent it first" and others say "no he didn't" we should say "whenever he did it is irrelevant, lets focus on why it was acceptable for Powell but not for Clinton, because that will clarify how serious this behaviour really is (or isn't)".

It isn't acceptable for Powell either. I am happy to see both prosecuted.

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps, but it was clearly condoned until now. I think a better approach would be clarify what is expected, what is not allowed and what will result in legal action in the future.

Sure you can retroactively go after people for "business as usual" behaviour because they should have known better, but when it's the norm and been acceptable (to who, is the important question) it's often easier and more reasonable to make it clear that this behaviour will no longer be tolerated going forward.

Still, if you want to go back through all the Secretaries since email has been created and investigate each of them, I guess go for it. I think there are better uses for the resources. Like governing instead of forming a new partisan committee to investigate when the previous one winds down (this applies to both sides of the aisle).

Oversight is important. Using oversight for political sabotage is a shitty waste of time and money.

It isn't about whether they have e-mails. It is about using them to avoid records LAWS. Laws are for everyone. If you don't enforce them there is little point in having them.

But in this case we're talking policy, not laws. There is little evidence of classified material being wilfully mishandled, and what evidence there is, is such a minor infraction that even plebs would get off with a warning to tighten up their behaviour. At worst.

So you can make the same argument for policy (why have them if you're going to ignore them) which is valid, but far, far less serious than whatever the hell the Reps are trying to pin on her.