MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 4 days ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
- PeraclesPlease (58)
- William K. Wolfrum (51)
- artappraiser (49)
- artappraiser (48)
- artappraiser (46)
Loretta Lynch shows us how it's done
By HSG on Fri, 07/01/2016 - 12:58pm |After an ill-advised confab with Bill Clinton that he initiated, Attorney General Loretta Lynch took full responsibility for the meeting.
People have a whole host of reasons and questions about how we in government do our business,” Ms. Lynch said. “I understand that my meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”
While she insisted that the meeting was a purely social encounter, Ms. Lynch said, “I certainly wouldn’t do it again."
Lynch also stated that she would defer to the FBI's recommendation when it came to the decision whether to prefer charges against Hillary Clinton.
Without question, Lynch handled this as well as she could. She admitted error. She did not pass the buck and she provided a specific remedy for the error. Even more instructive than Lynch's classy response is what she did not do.
1) She did not blame partisan politics for the issue being raised. 2) She did not insist that she's an honest and trustworthy person or that 3) nobody has shown a connection between her meeting with Bill Clinton and any favors she did for anybody. 4) She did not insist that she complied with all the rules in effect at the time. 5) Likewise, she did not claim other Attorneys General did exactly what she did and nobody raised a ruckus. 6) She did not send out surrogates to attack the media.
URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
- Add new comment
- 18401 reads
Comments
I believe that Lynch and Clinton are friends, as she stated. I also believe that they did not discuss HRT's emails.
What I don't understand is this:
Why is she, as a friend of the family, in charge of this investigation at all? It doesn't make sense to me.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 10:19am
Is Lynch a family friend of the Clintons? I wasn't aware of that. They may be more than acquaintances but I don't believe they are close. Yes Lynch is nominally in charge as the department head - the FBI is part of the Department of Justice - but I believe her when she says she is playing no part in its recommendation. The only other option would be for an independent prosecutor to be appointed and I don't believe one is needed at this time for two reasons: 1) it's far from clear that Hillary violated the law, 2) if the FBI recommends prosecution, I think Lynch probably would be impartial since she has said she will abide by its recommendation.
Again, Loretta Lynch seems to have handled this as well as she could have except for allowing Clinton on board but it's tough to say no to a President.
Bill's actions were reprehensible. Style Clinton sans doute.
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:50am
I think that the Clintons feel that no matter what they do, there will be criticism. We have people who accept the story of Bill Clinton being a drug runner at face value. Clinton supporters note that the meeting between Lynch and Clinton was not held in secret. Supporters note that the email server scandal does not involve criminal activity, and move on. The link to an article in Vox expresses this viewpoint
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12079366/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-plane-me...
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 12:31pm
Do you believe that the fact that the Clintons "feel that no matter what they do, there will be criticism" excuses their many bad behaviors?
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 2:21pm
What reprehensible behaviors?
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 2:44pm
Exactly. It just proves what you said in the first place. Everything they do is considered "bad," even their charity (which has an 'A' rating, BTW) !
by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 3:28pm
I did not write "reprehensible behaviors". Could you please try to answer the question rather than asking a question?
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:37pm
Reprehensible
ˌreprəˈhensəb(ə)l/
adjective
deserving censure or condemnation.
"his complacency and reprehensible laxity"
synonyms:deplorable, disgraceful, discreditablby rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:40pm
Yes. The word has those meanings. I asked whether their "fear" of getting bad press justified their peccadilloes like, e.g., the private email server. You still haven't answered that question.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:05am
Does the fact that they have been criticized unfairly mean that no criticism of them is fair?
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:37pm
What criticisms are you talking about?
They have been accused of killing Vince Foster and drug trafficking in Mena
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:42pm
Here is a very very short list of criticisms leveled against one or both of the Clintons: 1) Criticism of the private email server, 2) the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill, 3) repealing Glass-Steagall, 4) voting for war on Iraq, 5) giving speeches at $225K per to Goldman Sachs and refusing to divulge the contents.
Does the fact that the Clintons "feel" the media is unfair to them mean they get to stiff the media and us when asked about these (and many other) actions?
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:09am
Hillary has spoken often about all those topics. The fact that you weren't happy with her answers doesn't mean she didn't answer. We face the same problem here. We've addressed your questions until we're blue in the face but you still claim we've never answered. The only answer you'd consider responsive is if we said, "you're right."
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:24am
We're talking around each other here. When asked, the Clintons have addressed occasionally some of these
mistakes,terrible errors of judgment, deal-breaking f-ups, the question I was posing, most inartfully I admit, is whether feeling unfairly beset by the media excuses them?by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:42am
Yes.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 10:20am
You know, I may have misunderstood her meaning when she said that it was a social visit and he talked about his grandchildren, etc. It makes sense that they would all know each other, considering who they are. I honestly think this "incident" is a big nothingburger because of several things:
-Bill C also hopped over to see Ted Cruz on the Tarmac during his campaign. It is just the way he is.
-If BC had brought up the email situation she would have immediately realized that it was wrong, and would have stopped the conversation and also would not have been surprised and unprepared when a reporter asked her about it.
-BC is not an idiot. If anyone knows that your actions are visible, he does -- if he really wanted to jump into this email mess (which in itself would be just foolish) he would never have done it so publicly.
-I disagree with your assessment that what he did was reprehensible. Really? That would only be true if, in front of her husband, his security and her security, he had tried to influence the Attorney General on behalf of his wife.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 1:57pm
Reprehensible was too strong. I accept your correction. It was wrong and stupid.
On another note, you write:
"If BC had brought up the email situation she would have immediately realized that it was wrong, and would have stopped the conversation and also would not have been surprised and unprepared when a reporter asked her about it."
This is pure speculation with zero foundation in fact. You may well be right but we shouldn't have to speculate on this.
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 2:30pm
Hillary may well consider Bill's decision to pay a call on A.G. Lynch reprehensible. From Ryan Lizza, a long-time Hillary Clinton sympathizer in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/bill-clintons-bad-judgment?i...
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 2:38pm
Which says five things, Hal:
1). Bill Clinton is not as bright as people thinks he is.
2). He has poor judgment.
3). He thinks he can get away with anything he likes.
4). He lacks character (the sex scandals).
5). He thinks the American people are dumb.
BILL CLINTON CASUALLY ENGAGED
by Wattree on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 5:00pm
But Ryan Lizza's entirely speculive comment about the situation is just fine?
by Jan (not verified) on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 5:31pm
Lizza wasn't speculating was he? Everything he wrote has in fact come to pass right?
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:39pm
It's a scandal. If Lynch and Clinton never met face to face there would be no way they could communicate. At least until science invents some sort of device that can transmit the sound of a person's voice over wire or radio waves. If we ever invent something like that we could call that device a "teletalker." Until a teletalker is invented the only way to communicate or share information is a face to face meeting.
I dream of a world where people can talk to each other over hand held devices they carry with them. I think it's even possible that electronic machines could be used to transmit both audio and video between people on opposite sides of the planet. I dream of a world where people can have a conversation without meeting face to face. I know, sounds like science fiction, right? But I believe that some day, maybe far in the future, such a thing could be possible.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 1:54pm
That "audio and video" thingy could be called "Scope" because you could scope someone out. Or "Picture Time," because you can look at someone's picture and they can hear you too. Maybe someday.....
by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 2:01pm
If Bill or Hillary had been emailing or telephoning Lynch, that would have been a serious ethical breach. Hillary's got lawyers and Lynch is ultimately responsible for prosecuting her. There should be no communications outside the presence of counsel for the Secretary. There's a much bigger political problem of course. It looks really bad since Clinton, if she wins, will be in a position to do big favors for Lynch. It's kinda like those Goldman Sachs speeches. Sure, everything might have been innocent but the sheep understandably rest uneasily when the wolves are meeting in secret.
But you are all missing the bigger point. Lynch took full responsibility for what happened. She didn't make excuses or blame others. She acknowledged the obvious appearance of impropriety. Would that the Democratic candidate showed such class when asked about her many peccadilloes.
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 2:39pm
Yeah, if only Hillary had said, “That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”
by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 2:56pm
What responsibility has she ever taken? Lynch said that she will accept the FBI's recommendation. Did Clinton ever say "it was a mistake because I broke federal regulations"?
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:43pm
I think you clearly laid out why this is a scandal. Bill knew that calling Lynch on the phone and having a private conversation that no one would ever know about to discuss the email situation would be an ethical breach. So he decided to discuss it with her face to face in her airplane on a public airport tarmac.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 3:44pm
Reminds me of that suspicious jogging by the burger joint in Little Rock pretending he's hungry. Whitewater rules.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 4:07pm
People probably would have known about it because Lynch would have advised the FBI.
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:43pm
Speculation!
You seriously said almost the exact same thing I said above, which you chastised me for.
I think we all speculate from time to time. As long as it is reasonable, and is not presented as fact, it is within bounds, IMO, and obviously you agree since you do it too.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:41pm
Whether Clinton got away with having direct communications with Lynch or not would not change the fact that he was wrong to reach out to her. That's not speculation.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:11am
Hal, you now say that B Clinton's meeting with Lynch was wrong, and therefore you weren't speculating. That is called a bait & switch, which is how you often try to deflect any criticism. When I said you were speculating it was because you said this:
"People probably would have known about it because Lynch would have advised the FBI"
...because Lynch would have advised the FBI...is pure speculation. As to your comment that the meeting was "wrong," once again we have to agree to disagree. It was not a good idea, but only as far as optics go. Wrong? Only in the eyes of you, Wattree, et al.
just to say again, I think speculation is ok if it is reasonable and not resented as fact, but since you call out others for it, I think you should realize that you do it too. And frequently.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 9:04am
Hal,
I think Bill's poor judgment and arrogance has turned out to be a good thing, because if the "fix" was in, he's certainly made it more difficult to pull off. Now, if Hillary is not indicted, all hell is going to break loose. It could even put Trump in the White House. It could even serve to wake up a lot of Americans. It'll let them know that the new paradigm in America is not Democrats against Republicans, but the 1%ers against everyone else. And finally, it could all but destroy President Obama's legacy. Because at the very least, Hillary should be indicted for perjury. She declared under oath that she had turned over all of her work-related email, but the FBI has found more that she tried to delete, and then there's her IT expert, Bryan Pagliano. He took the 5th over 125 times, so they'll never be able to convince America that there's no grounds for indictment. So there's a few new wrinkles in this plot.
by Wattree on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 10:10pm
tl;dr = wishful (bordering on magical) thinking.
by Austin Train on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:07pm
I never called it a scandal. It's just one more example of ethically dubious behavior by a Clinton contrasted with a morally upright (and decidedly un-Clinton like) acknowledgement of responsibility by the Attorney General.
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:46pm
I think when they spied each other on the runway they should have run away fast like Steve McQueen in The Getaway. If Lynch were ever in the same room...
Remember those fun days when Scalia would go duckhunting with people under his purview?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 5:20am
Yeah. They weren't very good were they?
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:12am
Hal,
I think this indictment is a done deal. It's a federal crime to lie to the FBI and Hillary met with them for 31/2 hours today. I can't imagine Hillary talking for 31/2 hours without telling a lie.
by Wattree on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 5:51pm
Wattree - are the Clinton defenders here congenitally incapable of acknowledging that she has done anything wrong ever?
by HSG on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:41pm
Oh what fun. A serious discussion with questions. Can I play too?
Hal - are the Sanders supporters here capable of comprehending what they read and retaining that information for more than 30 seconds after they finish reading a post?
by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 7:48pm
Hilarious that you didn't call Eric out for SPECULATION! You guys are beyond disingenuous!
So Hillary Clinton can't talk for 3 1/2 hours without lying? Who says? Someone who reposts the same drivel a half-dozen times (much which has been shown to be inaccurate, and was followed by retractions by those who published it in the first place) on the same site and is unable to face reality because of his blind hatred.
Subtle Reminder:
Hillary won. Bernie lost, and continues to lose any credibility with his behavior.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:50pm
First mention of Bernie Sanders in this thread. The relevance seems extremely tenuous at best but have at it.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:14am
It is relevant in this thread because Eric just declared that she would be indicted. He and perhaps you would like for Bernie to be the nominee so Eric, Synch, et al put the worst possible spin on everything in the sad desire and belief that Hillary will go to jail. That is the basis of every one of those rants.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 9:18am
I can't speak for anybody else. My only goal here is to have an honest discussion about the Clintons and to force acknowledgement of their ethically dubious behavior. If we can't be honest with each other, we can't work together to make America better.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 5:06pm
So you consider Eric's post about the Clintons actions in Mena, Arkansas valid?
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:57pm
Is there some reason you are raising a completely extraneous topic?
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:17am
Yes, I want an honest answer. You lecture us about ignoring facts. Do you believe the Mena story or is it delusional?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 9:45am
Are you a Hillary fanatic or are there areas where you acknowledge she has made mistakes? I want an honest answer. If you either admit to being a fanatic or set out specifically areas where you concede she has made mistakes, I will answer your question about Mena, AR.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 5:07pm
You have already given me your answer on Mena.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 6:03pm
Believe what you like. You did not answer my question either so I'll tell you what I believe. I do not believe you are a fanatical Hillary Clinton devotee. I believe you recognize full well her myriad deficiencies but you have staked out a pro-Clinton position here and you do not wish to lose face by admitting she has feet of clay.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 7:31pm
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:08pm
Sorry, the whole picture didn't show up. The last part says "Yet somehow Republicans have convinced you that she's 'Not Trustworthy.' Right"
Too bad that Bernie or Busters are in cahoots with the Republican Party, that truly wishes to undo every Progressive accomplishment of this and last century. And to those who say Hillary wants the same -- a reminder that she and Bernie voted the same more than 95% of the time, and she accomplished more or the Middle Class than Bernie ever has (because he has accomplished ZERO).
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 8:11pm
Hal, you have staked out a pro-Sanders position despite knowing that he cannot craft a multiethnic appeal and an inability to explain how his programs would be enacted. You are in a subgroup that buys the myth of the Clintons in Mena, Arkansas.
I support Hillary because Bernie Sanders would destroy the Progressive movement because of his incompetence. When faced with repeated postings of unsubstantiated anti-Hillary video rants, you said that calling those posts delusional was unfair. I know where you stand on Mena, Arkansas.
I am not Bernie Sanders. It is not my job to make continuous attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Edit to add
Changed "stayed" to "staked" in the first sentence.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 9:28pm
That's exactly right, Hal.
Just a short while ago a Clinton supporter on this site told me that there WAS no investigation of Hillary Clinton and I was being delusional, in spite of the fact that the investigation had been going on for a year. And that's another thing - if there was nothing there the investigation would have been dropped long ago. Just the fact that it's been going on for so long, and they had at least as many as 50 agents assigned to it, tells me that they had a lot to investigate. And why is it that Bryan Pagliano, Hillary's IT expert, find it necessary to take the 5th over 125 times during a 2 hour deposition? He refused to answer on the grounds that he would incriminate himself of what?
.
"Many Americans don’t understand the seriousness of this case. They think that it’s simply another witch hunt on Hillary Clinton that’s being blown out of proportion by conservative zealots and/or Bernie Sanders cultists over a relatively minor issue. But many (though not all) Hillary Clinton supporters have also become zealots much like those of Donald Trump. They tend to fall into two categories - establishment Democrats who crave the opportunity to jump onboard the Clinton gravy train, and low-information people who vote blindly based on name recognition alone, or vote their genitals over their intellect. Instead of thinking like traditional progressives and simply following truth wherever it leads, they've embraced a conservative mindset that tries to bend truth to fit their delusions of reality. So these people are turning a blind eye to any and everything that either Bill or Hillary does, even if it’s a direct assault on American democracy, and that’s exactly what this investigation is about - an attempt to save our democracy, in spite of such people. Hillary is scheduled to meet with the FBI on July 2nd, signaling that this case is coming to a climax."
by Wattree on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 4:59pm
"signaling that this case is coming to a climax" - I'm afraid you would have been better off banking on phone sex - there won't be much of a 'happy ending' to clean up if that's what you were gunning for.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 11:46am
Eric,
And if the FBI exonerates her? The FBI that you are counting on to send her to jail, presumably?
So, if they find her behavior was illegal the FBI is wonderful, but what if they find that she did nothing that rises to the level of illegality? Will you accept that they did a careful and exhaustive review with plenty of manpower, and find that she broke a bureaucratic rule, but no laws were broken, will you then accept that your assumptions are, um...wrong?
Or would you conclude that the FBI would be complicit in "the fix?" Would you conclude that the FBI also doesn't understand the seriousness of this? Or would they be one of two types of Hillary supporters:
Gravy train jumpers on-ers? Or would they be
Low information people who can't think themselves out of a wet paper bag?
As a Hillary supporters I am happy to say I am neither of the above (unless hoping that my Social Security continues qualifies as chasing the gravy-train). I believe she will advocate for the Common Good, and that she will have the ability to get it done. Having said it all before, I won't say more.
Oh, BTW, if the FBI does give you what you want, and Hillary cannot serve as the nominee, I sincerely hope that Joe Biden gets the nomination. I want someone who has the same goals as I do, who also knows how to get things done and can cooperate with a range of people to accomplish Democratic goals. There are enough delegates to accomplish that.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:31pm
Then Eric, and Synch, and Hal, all of them, will yet again move the goalposts, of course!
by Austin Train on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:13pm
Ha ha ha. I have written repeatedly that I doubt Clinton will be indicted and I'm unpersuaded that she should be given that I haven't seen evidence proving she was trying to keep public information private. No goal-post moving here.
So if Clinton's not indicted, that will confirm my view of what is likely to happen.
AT - 1) Do you think Bill should have gotten on Lynch's plane? 2) Do you agree with the IG's conclusion that Clinton violated federal regulations with her private home-brewed email server?
How long will Clinton acolytes continue their personal attacks on those who criticize her?
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 5:15pm
Hal I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure you're not on wattree's team and likely not even with sync. You're too smart and reality based for that. But you're like the smart republicans that never accused Obama of faking his birth certificate, born in Kenya, secret muslim, etc. but gave a wink wink nudge nudge to the ignorant base who believed all that nonsense.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 5:28pm
Bluntly, Hal, I don't give the proverbial Good Rats' f--- about either one.
by Austin Train on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 10:44am
What was Hillary's email server doing on Lynch's plane anyhow? Enquiring minds want to know.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 12:11pm
Eric, you continue to edit your posts without pointing out what you changed.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 5:09pm
Yes, well that is his way of getting his stuff to "appear" to be new. Not working, but it is annoying just the same.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 7:27pm
Wattree - I think you're overthinking this. All politicians are flawed. President Obama is. Bernie Sanders certainly is. The problem for Clinton's supporters is that she's incredibly flawed. I mean she's made any number of serious mistakes, small errors, and medium-sized boners over the years. Her backers know this and they also know that conceding any mistake would open the flood gates for more criticism against her. So they continue to hold their pinkies in the holes in the dike hoping ever more fissures don't appear in the disintegrating sea wall.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 5:28pm
Yes, Hal - as William Safire and many other conservatives have squandered their careers trying to put their fingers in the supposed dyke (yes, their witchhunt includes lesbian fodder), pin-the-tail-on-the-Clintons has proven a fool's errand, as the now long-departed Safire might admit and lament. Playing high stakes poker with a pair of 3's is another amateur move. So you might be right - somewhere in 2037 Hillary might take the fall. Most of her detractors will be gone by then, but there'll still be a few around to chortle if such an unlikely thing comes to pass. But a suggestion - dont bet the ranch. "Opening the flood gates of criticism" - sure, Hal, tell us what infinity squared looks like. I'm sure mere mortals couldn't tell us the difference between completely unlikeable and "really completely unlikeable", but we're petrified at the thought of such calamitous exposure.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 6:28pm
Keep on the attack PP. Keep going after me. It's gotta be hella easier and more satisfying than defending the Clintons.
by HSG on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 7:32pm
Hal
Although I understand you´re following the almost universal practice I disagree with the way you join Bill and Hillary together in your broad criticisms. Obviously I know that Bill used the approach but that
doesn´t mean EDIT it is intellectually respectable to employ it now.
When you or anyone attack ¨the Clintons ¨ with behaving dishonorably it´s impossible of course for anyone to reply that they´re not dishonorable if only because of Monica.
Bill is Bill ,you can attack him if you want and I for one won´t reply because I just don´t care.When you attack Hillary I do care because I would like to see her become President ,not just to avoid the national tragedy of a Trump presidency but also because I believe she´ll do a good job.
Turning to one of your specific criticisms of her -I personally am not in the least bit critical of her for not ¨taking responsibility¨ a la Loretta Lynch. In some other country , or some other time ,that might have been considered praiseworthy. Evidence of high moral standards etc. etc. etc. An electoral plus.
Hillary ´s trying to get elected in this country, now. Anything she actually admits will be magnified and be the basis for a claim that if she admitted to A then surely B, C and D should also be true. I remember her misguided frankness about not staying home to bake cookies. As she must do too.
Hmn. Didn´t intend to end there but I´ll save it and continue in a follow on.
by Flavius on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 11:59pm
Clearly this was intended as implied criticism of Hillary whom , you believe, would have behaved otherwise.
So what should Hillary have said/done?
1. ¨Damn straight it´s partisan politics.¨
2. Same answer
3. Doesn´t apply. There are special reasons why the AG should not do favors
4.¨I thought you´d never ask. What you really want to know is why I wanted to work at home on behalf of the country. Because the work load required it.¨
¨Oh, did I intend to flout the rules? Of course not. I intended to do my job. If the rules did not permit that
the rules were wrong. Next question.¨
5.¨ Yes I agree Colin Powell did the same. As he´s said. BTW, I´ve been somewhat amused that a certain number of people who praise Snowden have now become highly protective of security regulations.¨
6.¨ I´m running for office. Like every other office seeker I try to get along with the media since I would like to be elected.¨
by Flavius on Sun, 07/03/2016 - 11:55pm
Nice try, Flav but you can't separate this dynamic duo, they are a grifter team of two. Hillary has already designated Willie to handle domestic economic policy and HRC's minions are saying that he gets FP also so she can spend her time boozing with the other parasites who inhabit DC, This is straight from the minions mouths and reflects what a 'good job' the Red Queen intends to inflict on the country.
It seems that her promoters are worried that there is a 'trust deficit' among voters, read no one trusts her, except possibly her Bankster friends. Obama and others, who are just as untrustworthy, will now try to convince wary voters that she will become trustworthy somewhere in the future, just for them, HA!
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 12:04pm
Why should we trust voters? Why trust anyone? Peter - you're halfway there -lose the rest of your starry-eyed beliefs and you'll see the soulless universe for what it is.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 12:16pm
Thanks for the compliment. Almost enough to persuade me to enter into your fantasy world in which I suppose Monica seduces Hillary while Bill is chair of Save the Children.
By the way there are bankers and there are bankers. Republicans and Democrats, good guys or bums. In 2089 many of the good guys helped Obama deal with the mess he inherited. Partly why I have never joined in with the denunciation of Hillary's addressing a room full of Goldman Sachs executives . BTW surely their names are obtainable but since none of them are being quoted I infer she said nothing that could be used against her.
by Flavius on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 2:16pm
It's the dog that didn't bark; the GOP/Wall Street insiders who didn't give up a top Democrat, unlike the famed raving of the broker who inspired the Tea Party (how come *he* wasnt called on his Dean Scream? Double standards, no?). Where are all the mobile phone videos? Coulda been the rich man's Ferguson.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 2:25pm
No, Hal - I've been posting less because Hillary won - no need to "defend" - it's over, and has been for months. And Trump is his own joke. You, however, lost your cause. Must suck. But that doesn't buy you a do-over to re-arbitrate the primaries. Gotta go, life is calling.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 1:26am
PS - Bill's tarmac escapades. Just something he does.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/bill-clinton-tarmac-his...
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/04/2016 - 12:34pm