The Clinton Thread: All things Hillary

[Lois]

The economy is doing well again, unemployment is down, and the US government even had a surplus in January.

Something I can't comprehend...how can the government have a surplus when we are trillions of dollars in debt? 

It means the government took in more than it spent in January, so the debt did not go up (for once.)

[joan1984]

[MintJulie]

The economy is doing well again, unemployment is down, and the US government even had a surplus in January.

Something I can't comprehend...how can the government have a surplus when we are trillions of dollars in debt? 

Same way they don't count the unemployed after a while and say unemployment has gone down.

LOL

I'll agree with you on that one Chirp.   
And yes, Michigan is a perfect example.

[Lois]

Let's keep a little perspective folks...

The hysteria of the Hillary haters

Over the past few weeks, Republican politicians and party officials have begun the dreary and demoralizing work of reconciling themselves to the prospect of Donald Trump serving as the GOP's presidential nominee.

Conservative writers and intellectuals, by contrast, have been more obstinate.

A few have come out in grudging and grumbling support of the likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Most of the others, meanwhile, have expressed disgust at the prospect of having to choose between Trump and Clinton at all. This has inspired a small group of dissenters to fasten onto the fantasy of sparking a "true conservative" third-party challenge to Trump.

But many of the rest seem inclined to settle into a pox-on-both-your-houses position: Trump's unfitness to serve as president is obvious, running the gamut from wholesale ignorance about policy to temperamental volatility and authoritarian instincts that alarm every informed and responsible observer. But Clinton is no better. She's corrupt! She can't be trusted! She isn't qualified to be president! And oh boy, is she unlikeable!

This implies that the most responsible thing for a conservative to do is refrain from voting at all.

That would be foolish. Does Clinton have flaws? You bet she does. But the Hillary hatred that seems to motivate the right's most adamant objections to her ascending to the presidency is rooted in unfair and exaggerated animosity lacking any rational connection to reality.

The national threat posed by a potential President Trump more than justifies that conservatives promptly get over it.

I can certainly understand ambivalence about Clinton. I feel some of it myself, even though she's pretty close to my ideological (neoliberal) sweet spot on domestic policy. My hesitation comes mainly from the air of scandal that, as I've put it before, seems to follow her and her husband around like the cloud of filth that trails Pig-Pen from Peanuts. If I also opposed her economic agenda, as most conservatives do, I could imagine that concern curdling into something harsher.

On the other hand, I have strong objections to Clinton on foreign policy, where I think her hawkish instincts (on Iraq, Libya, and Syria) have led her badly astray on numerous occasions — and where conservatives probably find her outlook pretty congenial.

That's a mixed bag. But under present circumstances, it should be good enough to win her conservative support, however reluctant.

Those on the other side usually begin with the signs of corruption that trouble me as well.

The contrast with Barack Obama is instructive. Contending with a rabidly hostile Congress for five of his seven years as president, Obama has nonetheless managed to avoid becoming embroiled in any significant scandals. There have been no subpoenas of White House staff, no special prosecutors.

Is it even conceivable that a Hillary Clinton administration would be so clean? Not a chance. From the string of scandals during Bill Clinton's presidency (including an impeachment proceeding) to Hillary Clinton's email imbroglio to signs of questionable practices at the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clintons seem to be plagued by a mix of bad luck and congenitally poor judgment that we have every reason to assume would follow them back to the White House.

But here's the thing: Every single accusation is trivial. Petty. Penny-ante. Yes, even the business about Clinton's private email server. And especially the septic tank full of hyped-up, conspiracy-laden nonsense that goes by the name of "Benghazi." (If well-meaning members of the conservative movement want to explore how the Republican electorate ended up hoodwinked by a transparent charlatan-demagogue like Donald Trump, they could do worse than reflecting on their own complicity in publicizing, or at least failing to defuse, this endless, cockamamie "scandal.")

In an ideal political world, all administrations would be as clean as Obama's. But as the events of this election cycle have demonstrated quite vividly, this is most emphatically not an ideal political world — and in the deeply troubling world we do inhabit, the prospect of a president dogged by minor scandals shouldn't distract us from the far higher stakes involved in the upcoming election.

As for the other conservative objections to Clinton, they are even less compelling.

She's unqualified? Compared to whom? Clinton's been a successful lawyer. A first lady. A senator. A secretary of state. If that isn't a stellar resume for a would-be president, I don't know what would be. It's certainly far more impressive than Barack Obama's remarkably modest list of accomplishments when he ran for president — let alone Trump's background of inheriting a few hundred million dollars and using that wealth to play a real-life game of Monopoly in the richest real estate market in the country (while still managing to file for bankruptcy four times).

Can Clinton be trusted? Probably no more or less than any other politician. Public servants go where the votes are, and in a primary season in which she's had to fight a left-wing insurgency against the Democratic establishment and her husband's centrist legacy as president, Clinton has undeniably moved modestly to the left. The question is whether it's possible to imagine any presidential hopeful in the same situation not doing precisely the same thing. I think the answer is no.

Finally, there's Clinton's likeability. Follow conservatives on Twitter during a Clinton speech and you'll hear the litany. She shouts. She hectors. She condescends. She's shrill. She laughs in a really annoying way.

I'll give Clinton's conservative critics this: She isn't the most charismatic politician in the world. But you know what? That's her problem, not anyone else's. If the voters find her sufficiently off-putting, they won't elect her. The question is whether, when conservatives are presented with a candidate whose defects go far beyond style, they will be willing to put the good of the country ahead of what really is a merely aesthetic objection.

The path ahead for conservatives is clear. If they want to assure that Donald Trump loses, they need to assure that Hillary Clinton wins.

http://theweek.com/articles/624866/hysteria-hillary-haters

[watcher1]

Sad that Wall Street prefers Hillary over Trump or Sanders.  Must mean she will let them run roughshod over the economy and know she will bail them out if they cry "we are too big to fail."

[Lois]

IMO we should all prefer Hillary over Trump.

[Elizabeth]

I think we need a third choice........

Love,
Liz

[Lois]

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her

The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.

It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.

First, and foremost, it is simply not about classified email. It is about regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unclassified email. Yet it is the classified email, not these messages, that are the focus of the FBI investigation of Clinton. In other words, the report does not, and cannot, talk about the most serious issues. It is about a sideshow. If you are serious about the email charges against Hillary, you should keep your powder dry until at least Clinton is interviewed by the FBI in a matter of weeks, and then until the result of that probe is released.

Moreover, it is no accident that this report does not deal with the most serious issues: The FBI expressly told the State Department IG to stay away from classified records. That would have involved the State Department IG interfering with and possibly foreshadowing the FBI criminal investigation. But, this meant the FBI left the State Department IG with a subject involving much less grounds for potential criticism of Clinton, as we see in this report.

Second, there is not that much new information about Clinton in it. Certainly, the widely-reported fact that it’s an 83-page report makes it sound like it is big. But half is appendices. Half of the rest is not about the Secretary’s emails, but about cybersecurity. Of the two-dozen pages that are even remotely about Secretaries’ emails, a lot is taken up by retracing the dreary history of records and archival policy. The remainder involves all the secretaries going back two decades – not just Clinton and Powell, who are alike, but also ones of no particular interest, like Madeleine Albright, Condoleeza Rice, and also John Kerry. There’s just not a lot of new facts about Clinton.

Look at the press coverage. You will not find mentions of major new facts in the IG report.

Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard.

Fourth, the big criticism in the report is regarding the failure to print and file email in a retrievable way. But as the report shows, the Office of the Secretary of State has rarely succeeded in doing that. They either always have better things to do, or it is not a high enough priority, or there are technical difficulties, or turnover. Very likely a stingy Congress does not want to hire enough personnel to have crews doing that throughout the government. In any event, they rarely get that done. Since that is a general problem, why pin it particularly on Clinton?

Fifth, to the extent that she is criticized because “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report is making a legal judgment that is not particularly strong. Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies.

A report that says so little new against Clinton, amounts to a vindication.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/#3fd48c2c2c7d

[MissBarbara]

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her

Well, this writer is certainly wearing rose-colored glasses! And I, for one, have a very hard time seeing how this report "vindicates" Hillary Clinton. Consider:

It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts.

No, it does not add any "new" charges or adverse facts. But it does -- officially and objectively -- confirm all of the rumors, assertions, and allegations that have swirled around Clinton for the past few years. The report demonstrates that she did was she has been accused of doing, clearly and unequivocally. In what way is that a "vindication"?

First, and foremost, it is simply not about classified email. It is about regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unclassified email. Yet it is the classified email, not these messages, that are the focus of the FBI investigation of Clinton.

The author contradicts himself in succeeding sentences. First, he says it is not about classified email. Then he says the FBI is focusing on the classified email. Well, which is it?

No, it's not "only" about classified emails. But it still "is" about classified emails. It stands to reason that unclassified, unrelated emails would not be a subject of investigation, right? I mean, of course the FBI is only interested in the classified emails!

If you are serious about the email charges against Hillary, you should keep your powder dry until at least Clinton is interviewed by the FBI in a matter of weeks, and then until the result of that probe is released.

This statement made me laugh out loud. The author is suggesting that we ignore the results of an objective probe and, instead, wait for Clinton's explanation. That's akin to examining a murder trial, and ignore all of the evidence gathered in the investigation of the murder, and instead, ask the accused whether he did it or not, and then rely solely on that.

Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005.

Ah, the inevitable (and entirely predictable) "Hey! They did it too!" defense.

Which is not a defense by any stretch of the imagination, nor, for that matter, does it play any role in the course of legal jurisprudence.

Would you accept a claim by the hypothetical accused murderer above that the fact that many others have committed murder before him serves to mitigate what he, himself, has done?

. . . . .

If one wishes to assert that what Clinton has done isn't that big of a deal, especially in the light of historical precedent, then there's certainly a compelling argument to be made there. But let's not assert that nothing happened, and that Clinton didn't do anything wrong at all. Rose-colored glasses are most often sported by starry-eyed supporters -- and there's tons of historical precedent for that! -- but not by those wishing to make intelligent, fact-based decisions on whom they plan to vote for to represent them and their country.

[Lois]

It shows she did nothing wrong, and that using private email was not unusual.

Personally I'm tired of all the controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, but I will vote for her because the alternative at this point is a dangerous demagogue narcissist named Trump.

[joan1984]

Reason of the day Lois will vote for Hillary:

It shows she did nothing wrong, and that using private email was not unusual.

Personally I'm tired of all the controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, but I will vote for her because the alternative at this point is a dangerous demagogue narcissist named Trump.

[MissBarbara]

It shows she did nothing wrong, and that using private email was not unusual.

To the contrary, it shows she DID do something wrong. As I mentioned, just because others did it, it doesn't mean her also doing it wasn't wrong.

Personally I'm tired of all the controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, but I will vote for her because the alternative at this point is a dangerous demagogue narcissist named Trump.

That's precisely the problem. Hillary's sole appeal, for many, is that she isn't Trump. And that's about it. So, yes, I will vote for her as the least worst candidate.

Many people, myself very much included, are turned off by her arrogance. And this is yet another example.

[MissBarbara]

For all the people who decided to vote against HRC years ago, this will merely reinforce their bias.

I've voted in every single election, both primaries and general elections, since I turned 18. And I can't recall even once being presented with the opportunity to vote against someone.

When Clinton ran in the 2008 primary ("all those years ago") I voted "for" someone else.

...every administration since email was invested has had security breaches.  Certainly GWB's did, and deleted 1,000's of emails in the process.

So you, too, subscribe to the "Hey! They did it too!" defense?

Here' my point: The most consistent complaint of many Americans about our politicians and elections is that the process is rigged, or corrupt, or ruined by the hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from vested interests, leading to politicians who are corrupt, or beholden, or at least misguided. And enthusiastically promoting a candidate who is in that exact same vein seems a very poor way to remedy this situation.

[watcher1]

Hillary and Donald have been caught in lies many times.  It is a sad state of affairs when voters have to decide which liar they prefer. 

[vinney]

Hillary and Donald have been caught in lies many times.  It is a sad state of affairs when voters have to decide which liar they prefer. 

Ah they have a choice... either the big liar... or the biggest liar...

vinney

[joan1984]

  I have confidence most here will find a way to suck it up and vote for the woman that hardly anyone trusts, that many fear, and who will give us at least the level of Transparency we have come to expect from our dear leader.

  And will defend her at the second Clinton Impeachment, and help block the Senate from anything short of deification when they receive her trial. It is just what Democrats do, and would be impossible to do otherwise, right. Amen...

[Lois]

It is hardly a contest of which liar you prefer.  The real question is if you want;

Trump: narcissist, demagogue, serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther, and a bully who has incited violence.

Clinton: lots of controversy but same controversies may be largely blamed upon a 20 year campaign of vilification by the GOP.  As for lies, she has told only one that I know of, and the rest were her speaking without having all the facts first, but she provided the facts that she had at the time.  She did nothing wrong with regards to her emails, save that she may not have guaranteed that they were all archived pursuant to requirements.  There is no rule against using a private email server.

[Elizabeth]

Has Hillary ever apologized to the surviving family members of the Benghazi screw up.?  Just curious.

Love,
Liz

[Lois]

I think that would be Obama's job.

As for "screw-up", I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent it.  There are evil people in this world that do evil things.  We cannot stop all of them. Bush could not prevent 9-11 any more than Obama could prevent the Benghazi tragedy.  It was all over and our people were dead before anything could be done.

[MintJulie]

I'm not a Hillary fan.   I don't like Benghazi, but it was the way it was handled afterwards.   Nobody was going to be save that day.   There are many other things I don't like.    The private emails is a non issue to me.      But what is our other option?   There isn't one.