July 7, 2016

Hillary Clinton has not held a press conference since December 4th, when she answered 7 questions.

"That must change, and what better moment than immediately, given the news that FBI Director James B. Comey has recommended that no charges be brought...."

What kind of President would she be, hiding from the press like this? The email problem itself arose out of a strange and deeply flawed secretiveness. How is this quality acceptable in a President? I lived through the Nixon administration, and I've never seen anything like this in a person who claims to be presidential material.

Is she thinking: f I speak, I will sound guarded, phony, stilted, and evasive, so it won't even work, so why take the risk?

Meanwhile, Trump is garrulous and convivial — the opposite extreme. I see he's getting criticized for continuing to talk about the shape of a star in an image he tweeted. The theory is supposedly that he should shut up about that and proceed to a new topic-of-the-day. As if the star would be forgotten by his opponents! It will forever be on a list of evidence that will be thrown out as proof that he's a bigot. But he's advised to stop defending himself.

130 comments:

Fred Rawlings said...

The debates are going to be like watching an illegal dogfight in a pen.
Trump will excoriate Hillary, and the moderators will assault Trump.

And does anybody really think Trump is anti-Semitic. He is a businessman. He has probably never had time to be a racist during his hectic career.

Fred Rawlings said...

And Hillary will continue to look totally unappealing.

David Begley said...

1. How could Trump be a bigot? His son-in-law is Jewish.

2. Hillary is like Nixon tag. Try worse than Nixon. Her best trick was having David Kendall play Rosemary Woods. Instead of erasing 12 minutes of tape, Williams & Connolly erased over 30,000 emails.

tim in vermont said...

While your "Hillary is like Nixon" tag is doubtless evergreen. Your "Hillary is in trouble" tag is probably at end of life.

Martha said...

Does the Queen hold press conferences?
Press conferences are for the little people.
....... The Trumpen proletariat, as WSJ Daniel Henninger said today.

Curious George said...

"The email problem itself arose out of a strange and deeply flawed secretiveness."

Law prof and noted internet psychiatrist!

Snark aside, you don't know this. I think it's more likely she really has stuff to hide, and with here lifelong history of never facing consequences, and the media having her back, said "fuck it."

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

Why change if nobody holds you accountable?

It's exciting to be invincible!

tim in vermont said...

Remember how the press used to shout questions at Reagan every chance they got? Good times, good times. That's when the press seemed to be doing its job. But the press is like a Rottweiler that snarls and snaps at Republicans and rolls over for belly rubs around Democrats.

Bob said...

She's continuing to hide from the fact that she has been "extremely careless" with the security of the United States - the real charge, not 'extremely careless' about emails.

Original Mike said...

"Is she thinking: f I speak, I will sound guarded, phony, stilted, and evasive, so it won't even work, so why take the risk?"

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. Add to that she may say something that will come back to bite her. So why should she do a press conference? Who's going to make her? The suck-up press? Her in-the-tank supporters?

Tommy Duncan said...

When faced with a hard question, Hillary's first instinct is to lie. The longer she goes without a press conference the more likely it becomes she will face hard questions. But now even the mainstream press is looking for the lies. This has become a no win situation for her thighness.

Transparency is not one of Hillary's virtues.

She last had a press conference 7 months ago. She last drove a car in 1996. Driving cars and holding press conferences are for the rabble.

cubanbob said...

Speaking of Nixon tags, Althouse you dishonor Mr. Nixon. He was not traitor and he wasn't a crook. Hillary Clinton is both. That said, where the tag might be apt is the Hillary learned something while working on the Watergate Committee, that is if there is no evidence, there is no crime so make sure any evidence is unreacheable to the legitimate government. So far she has been shown to have been right. As for press conferences, why would she take a risk that one of her pet house organists goes rogue?

Sebastian said...

"What kind of President would she be, hiding from the press like this?" Just like O.

"The email problem itself arose out of a strange and deeply flawed secretiveness." Ah, that's what it was: "strange." Why "deeply flawed"? Carefully calculated for maximum personal power advantage, with full support from Dem politicos and most Dem voters. It's not a flaw, it's a feature.

"How is this quality acceptable in a President?" Not acceptable in a GOP Prez, no problem for a Prog. Who cares? What difference, etc. etc.

Freder Frederson said...

You are really going all in for Trump, aren't you? While Hillary should conduct more press conferences, Trump's treatment of the press is much worse. His "press conferences" are not to answer questions from the press but to excoriate them. Have you also forgotten that he has advocated changing the libel laws so he can sue people who treat him unfairly?

tim in vermont said...

You are really going all in for Trump, aren't you? While Hillary should conduct more press conferences, Trump's treatment of the press is much worse. His "press conferences" are not to answer questions from the press but to excoriate them.

Pointing out that Hillary is dodging the press is going "All in for Trump"

"If you are not with us, you're against us!" Remember the shit George Bush took for saying that? But we all know that all Democrat ethics are "situational" don't we?

David Begley said...

"The email problem itself arose out of a strange and deeply flawed secretiveness."

She was hiding the facts of her bribery scheme with Bill and the Foundation. She had to keep her CRIMES secret.

See the article in Poltico by the "Clinton Cash" author detailing the gaps in her emails. Zero emails for time period when she was setting up bribe deal regarding the uranium company sale to the Russians. The Canadian who paid the bribe paid millions. Similar gaps for other bribe opportunities.

Tom said...

This isn't an election. It's a coronation. Kings and Queens don't do press conferences.

tim in vermont said...

I think her advocacy for the invasion of Libya was also "extremely careless" Actually, it was just plain old stupid.

But Hillary gets a pussy pass on stupidity.

Giving weapons to one side in an all Arab civil war was "extremely careless" well, no, it was stupid.

But give her a pussy pass!

cubanbob said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
You are really going all in for Trump, aren't you? While Hillary should conduct more press conferences, Trump's treatment of the press is much worse. His "press conferences" are not to answer questions from the press but to excoriate them. Have you also forgotten that he has advocated changing the libel laws so he can sue people who treat him unfairly?

7/7/16, 7:47 AM"

So you are looking to justify your voting for a criminal and a traitor. Trump treats the house organist monkeys like what they are but even they will occasionally ask a real question that Trump will answer. Hillary can't even pretend to do a sham propaganda show, it is beneath her, a criminal and traitor of her stature. Good Lord, one of the monkey's might forget who they are and ask a real and unscripted question.

The Drill SGT said...

What kind of President would she be, hiding from the press like this?

You know the answer. We have a word for it already. Nixonian

Drago said...

Freder is very very very upset someone had the temerity to note that Freders future Queen and Soveriegn fails to speak to the press.

Freder is hoping to play his part in ridding her royal highness of any and all troublesome souls.

Xmas said...

Tim,

Shouting questions at Reagan? How about shouting questions at Romney, while he was at Poland's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

According to Salon, it's now perfectly alright for the Press to start screaming questions at Hillary anywhere she goes.

Freder Frederson said...

Pointing out that Hillary is dodging the press is going "All in for Trump"

No, pointing out that Hillary is dodging the press is not going All in for Trump.

However, contrasting Hillary's dodging with Trump being "garrulous and convivial— the opposite extreme", along with the string of posts over the past couple days, is going all in for Trump.

Brando said...

Clinton is Nixonian in a far worse way than Nixon ever was. Perhaps she figures if she lays low and lets Trump scare enough voters into backing her, she can coast to election in a way she could never do by actually connecting with or appealing to voters.

Trump does need to shut up about the damn star. He could have turned the whole thing into a positive for himself, by giving a (well planned and researched) speech disavowing any racist elements that may be mistakenly supporting him, and then calling on Hillary to do the same regarding racists who support her (notably, BLM activists, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) and citing specific examples where Jackson, Sharpton et al have exhibited racism and anti-Semitism (e.g., "hymietown", "diamond traders"). Turn the whole thing around, and let Hillary stew in it in the same week she's taking heat over the FBI's ridiculous decision to let her simply break laws without consequences (which politically could be worse for her than actually being indicted--it would have been different if the FBI had simply found "no evidence of lawbreaking" rather than "no reason to prosecute").

That's at least what I'd expect from someone who "punches back twice as hard".

Brando said...

"However, contrasting Hillary's dodging with Trump being "garrulous and convivial— the opposite extreme", along with the string of posts over the past couple days, is going all in for Trump. "

I think Althouse has in the past couple months gone from thinking Trump is a nut and a lightweight to buying into the idea of him as some sort of savior for the country, judging from the tone and content of her posts. Maybe she met with Scott Adams (who claimed to be a trained hypnotist) and got hypnotized!

Of course, she also may have just decided Hillary is by far the worse evil and so Trump should be given extra spin. I think a lot of people feel that way and it'll keep things competitive this year.

Brando said...

I think at least since Bill Clinton Democrats have learned not to bother with "good government" or "transparency" or "honesty" as those things win you no points. They look at Jimmy Carter (who wasn't all that transparent or honest, but projected that image) and they assume he failed because he was just too "good" while the Republicans played hardball. Two more presidential losses later, and they figured time to bring on the slime, fight dirty, and to hell with good government values. Bill Clinton fit the bill perfectly, and every nominee since then mouthed a bit on transparency and openness and ethics, but ultimately tossed that all out for expediency (even Obama, Mister Idealist). Hillary is taking that to the next level. Why give a press conference if you can get away with not doing so?

After she's done in the White House, I think reading any history of Nixon's downfall will make us wonder just how innocent and quaint we were back then. We'll be thinking "THIS was so scandalous?" about Nixon, around the time Chuck Schumer blocks Hillary's removal from office when it comes out that she traded cash for favors for some unsavory characters, domestic and foreign.

PB said...

She can't change, so she won't engage. All we'll see is what we've seen and I doubt she'll agree to debate Trump, making a claim of how he soils the process.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The next Hillary Clinton press conference is gonna be a barn-burner.

I doubt it. If you check out the twitter accounts of the "journalists" listed in the article, you'll see they are both Hillary/DNC fanboys.

Original Mike said...

"along with the string of posts over the past couple days, is going all in for Trump."

Wow. You're referring to the posts on Hillary's emails and the FBI investigation?

Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

Meh. The press conference is a relic of the past. I don't really see the point, and won't miss it when it's gone. The idea that a president should be able to answer off the cuff any question thrown at him is silly.

The Drill SGT said...

SteveBrooklineMA said...
Meh. The press conference is a relic of the past. I don't really see the point, and won't miss it when it's gone. The idea that a president should be able to answer off the cuff any question thrown at him is silly.


The Prime Minister's Question Time is one of the best features of a Democracy.


http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/parliament-government-and-politics/parliament/prime-ministers-questions/

Boxty said...

Freder Frederson: Have you also forgotten that he has advocated changing the libel laws so he can sue people who treat him unfairly?

Yes, Trump said it. It's to protect people like the UVA fraternity that's suing Rolling Stone Magazine over their fake rape story (their case was thrown out by a judge). Or George Zimmerman's suit against NBC for editing of the 911 tape to make him sound racist while he was facing trial for murder (his case was thrown out by a judge).

AprilApple said...

Our press is an arm of the democrat party.

rhhardin said...

Kings do not touch doors.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The email problem itself arose out of a strange and deeply flawed secretiveness.

It's not strange. It's perfectly understandable if you assume she wanted to, and expected to, violate the law, and she didn't want to inadvertantly leave, or have somebody else leave, incriminating evidence in the possession of the government. Or it is maybe that Bill Clinton didn't want that, and didn't trust her to manage her e-mail accounts perfectly, without making a mistake.

What's the mystery?

If you want a nicer motive, you can say she wanted to avoid anything involving herself turning up in a Freedom of Information Act request because anything she did or didn't do, or said or didn't say, could be criticized, especially in hindsight.

tim in vermont said...

So FF, Are you saying that Hillary could be described as "garrulous and convivial" so Trump is not "the opposite extreme"? Or are you saying that Trump is not "garrulous and convivial"?

Or are you saying that no contrast with Hillary's more troublesome qualities should be spoken aloud?

I don't get it, really.

Tell you what, I will list out the options, you just answer with the letter. It will save you typing.

A) Hillary is, in fact "garrulous and convivial" and not secretive to the point of being a misanthrope.

B) Trump is not "garrulous and convivial." I would love to see your definitions.

C) It is evil to help Trump in any way by veering from the anti Trump line in any way, even in cases where the facts are not helpful to Hillary.

D) None of the above, please specify.

tim in vermont said...

Meh. The press conference is a relic of the past. I don't really see the point, and won't miss it when it's gone.

The sooner the common run of men stop concerning themselves with the business of their betters and stick to their knitting, as defined for them by people such as we who live in Brookline, the better!

n.n said...

The country has a large minority of Pro-Choice religionists/moralists. With that Church's membership, the leverage of the welfare State, and overlapping and converging interests of each Party's establishment, Clinton has even odds of being elected. Not even Obama et al's illegal wars in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and creation and arming of terrorist groups will likely phase her constituency. Abortion rites and the liberalism they sustain are that important.

YoungHegelian said...

I understand why Hillary does what she does. She does it because she can get away with it.

What I don't understand is why the press lets her skate when she treats them like shit. Yeah, I know -- Insty & his "Democratic operatives with bylines" quote. But, this sort of abuse from the Clinton campaign moves them past "operative" into "wallowing in masochism", I'm afraid.

buster said...

"What kind of President would she be, hiding from the press like this?"

Her secretiveness is a symptom of a deeper problem: she's not a leader. Imagine that she was president at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Twin Towers. Do you think she would be able to rally the country like FDR or GWB?


She appears to be a solid policy wonk. But even there she lacks the imagination, creativity, and courage of, say, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Leaving aside disputes about the merits of her policies, she seems to be solid but pedestrian. Not what we need right now.

AprilApple said...

NN - you are correct.

The left do not care at all about the corruption, illegal wars, illegal killing of people named Qaddafi, or the economic deviancy on their side - because abortion.

chrisnavin.com said...

It's tough to lie well when your apparent behavior needs to be accounted for in front of the cameras, your reasons to behaving that way are flimsy, and your staff increasingly sycophantic.

Keep using Bubba to divvy up Dem party turf between you and the Obama gang in the back room, and in front, keep a still screen of you wearin' that traveling pantsuit in front of the rainbow coalition holding up a big Green Earth.

The press is pretty dim and many are playing the same career/attention game as you anyhow...so everyone attack the big orange brand Trump balloon the Republicans have floating down Main Street.

It's a mess.

AprilApple said...

The press are an arm of the democrat party. They do not care about abuse, or lack of access- the press exist to perpetuate the narrative.

tim in vermont said...

She appears to be a solid policy wonk.

Happy to sit here and listen to you regale us with her many policy successes!

"She purports herself a solid policy wonk" is closer to the mark. She has ambitions, which she cannot carry through due to her recklessness and incompetence.

AprilApple said...

I was in my car last night. AM radio on. The commercial news break was ABC news talking about how Trump MIGHT be anti-Semitic because of the star of David incident.

tim in vermont said...

She is simply not very bright. I know that's sexist, because she got into Wellesley and Yale somehow, and maybe she crammed her head full of received wisdom and was decent at vomiting it back up, but there is no indication that any intellectual spark ever fired that turned on her own brain.

It's also sexist because studies have shown that at least 50% of women think that learning and repeating other people's thinking equals thinking for oneself.

chrisnavin.com said...

It's like two ships passing by an 800 lb gorilla smoking a cigar that's just a cigar.

Picture it.

I Callahan said...

That must change, and what better moment than immediately, given the news that FBI Director James B. Comey has recommended that no charges be brought...."

Why should it change? According to all of the oddsmakers, this is working. The media don't seem to care that she doesn't answer questions - if they did, they'd react accordingly.

I'm going to lay some odds down myself: I'll bet we only have one debate this year, and it'll be shortly after the conventions, so that any weakness she has will be forgotten by November. And the media won't question that either.

They're all in for Hillary at this point. Unless Trump can find a way to go past the media and get his message out, the country is done.

exhelodrvr1 said...

How many press ocnferences has Obama had recently, where he actually took questions? She's just following his lead.

James Pawlak said...

Why bother with any press conferences? She would only continue to follow the tyrant's maxim: "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".

Bob Boyd said...

For convenience, Hillary doesn't use the public press conference system.
She's holding private press conferences in her bathroom.

tim in vermont said...

Can you imagine if George W. Bush were as clearly linked to a security scandal as this one as Obama is, if, maybe Donald Rumsfeld had set up his own server and behaved precisely as Hillary has, and sent unsecured emails to Bush, that people would just not say it?

Nobody will ask Obama if he ever got one of those emails. Nobody. We know he has, we know he is involved, but nobody will point it out. Not one person. We live in a banana republic now.

Brando said...

The left-leaning media does point out her lack of press conferences (they've mentioned it several times this year in the Post) but that gets overshadowed with all the Trump coverage. I think for the left, the fear of Trump is overcoming any reservations they might have had over Hillary. (Perhaps they would have also taken a "ho hum" attitude towards her misdeeds if say Jeb were the nominee, but we have no way of knowing that). What is clear is that if she gets elected, she will do so with a solid majority of the country not trusting anything she says and expecting so little of her ethics-wise that her entire term will be tainted.

No person who cares about ethics or good government can support either major party candidate this year. Doing so would mean forgetting all that stuff and resigning yourself to corruption.

buster said...

@ Tim in Vermont.

You're right. I should have said she wants to be a policy wonk, not a leader. But even if she were competent at what she wants to do, what she wants to do is not what the country needs:someone who can clarify to the people the problems we face and then do something about them. Trump is a leader like that.

Freeman Hunt said...

Taking questions only has downsides for her. She'll look bad if she takes the questions, and if she doesn't take the questions no one will hold her to account. The choice is easy.

Brando said...

"Nobody will ask Obama if he ever got one of those emails. Nobody. We know he has, we know he is involved, but nobody will point it out. Not one person. We live in a banana republic now."

Or how about the fact that Obama still endorses (and campaigns for) this woman when she went around his back to set up the private server, only to support her own (likely corrupt) ends and jeopardizing national security and Obama's own rep in the process. What does this say about him? Clearly he will exact no consequences for someone doing that.

(Never mind of course that after winning an ugly primary campaign against Hillary and successfully arguing that her foreign policy judgment was crap due to her Iraq War support, he decides....to give her the top foreign policy post in his administration. That alone should have signaled to the country that this man was never serious).

Steve Uhr said...

Most reporters ask several questions at once. Hillary will pick one to respond to. Of those she responds to she probly answers about 10%

AJ Lynch said...

"What kind of President would she be, hiding from the press like this?"

Uh just like Obama maybe? who typically uses 75 minutes to answer maybe 10-12 softball questions from his MSM fan club.

Michael K said...

"So you are looking to justify your voting for a criminal and a traitor."

Freder has already processed that and is convinced she is the future.

We are slowly returning to Feudalism. Hillary will protect the peasants and keep the cash coming. Student loans will be forgiven.

Abortion and birth control will be free.

Preschool will begin at conception.

Who cares if the country is for sale ? Millions of illegal aliens will get amnesty and welfare.

Those who object to the global warming rules will go to the new psychiatric hospitals she will build.

Winston Smith would understand.

Bob Boyd said...

Hillary's debates with Sanders were never held in prime time. When she goes on TV her poll numbers suffer.
The press is perfectly willing to carry Hillary's water without any help from Hillary so why should she pick up a bucket? She'd only slosh it on her cankles

eric said...

This is yet another reason you should always vote for the Republican.

The press is too g to go after Trump. All the time. Every day.

If Hillary is elected, the press is going to cover for her and go after the House and the Senate until one or both of those bodies are filled with Democrats.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Does the Queen of England hold press conferences?

Exactly.

Michael said...

You cannot be a successful real estate developer in New York and be an anti-semite. Trust me on this.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Bob Boyd said..."The press is perfectly willing to carry Hillary's water without any help from Hillary so why should she pick up a bucket?"

Heh.

Bob Boyd said...

If there is an active reporter situation, Hillary's policy is to shelter in place.

Yancey Ward said...

This was funny. She will hold no press conferences until after the election. I think there is a very good chance that she won't agree to debate Trump, too. All you will see from her are arranged interviews in which she will pre-approve any questions as a condition for allowing it.

And she will get away with it. Look, the journalist who wrote that article have covered their asses, and will not mention it again.

rhhardin said...

I have no questions for either candidate. I do have some economics instruction for them.

This suggests there ought to be economist conferences instead of press conferences.

Candidates are asked to defend idiotic economic positions they hold.

Achilles said...

Stroke victims are not notorious for their ability to listen to questions and respond quickly.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Can you imagine if George W. Bush were as clearly linked to a security scandal as this one as Obama is...

I'm so old, I remember when lefties were salivating at the possibility that Scooter Libby might be locked up for outing Valerie Plame.

I'm also old enough to remember that lefties either dropped the matter altogether once it came out that the leaker was, in fact, Richard Armitage, or continued to blame Scooter Libby anyway.

If it weren't for double standards, the left wouldn't have any standards at all.

rhhardin said...

Hypocrisy is the homage that virtue pays to mice.

Michael K said...

"You cannot be a successful real estate developer in New York and be an anti-semite."

An obvious response that Trump can't make.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Yeah, I mentioned that yesterday, but the context I put it is was: the Media doesn't care. She isn't punished for treating the Media badly. She has no reason not to! The same is true for Obama--more so, really, since the Media love him much more. He's used the Espionage Act to prosecute more leakers than all former Presidents combined, he's cracked down on reporters (his Admin has made reporters the subject of investigations, etc)...and still they love him to the point that they happily destroy whatever credibility they might have had left coming to his defense (even, for example, in the middle of a presidential debate).

Incentives matter. There is no incentive for Clinton to be open, or transparent, or honest. Dishonesty and even law-breaking in the service of keeping her stuff secret (in direct violation of the spirit and letter of existing federal law) doesn't hurt Clinton--the fucking FBI just proved that this week, definitively. The Dems still love her, the Media still loves her, so she pays no price.

Enjoy what that's going to do to the office of the President and the executive branch, America.

I Callahan said...

when she went around his back to set up the private server

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Freder Frederson said...

Trump is not "garrulous and convivial." I would love to see your definitions.

Garrulous I will give you. Convivial, no way. Mocking your opponents, saying they deserve a beating, calling them nasty, crooked, little Marco, Lying Ted, etc., is the opposite of being convivial

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...What kind of President would she be, hiding from the press like this? The email problem itself arose out of a strange and deeply flawed secretiveness. How is this quality acceptable in a President?

Never forget: if it weren't for the "ridiculous, expensive, and unnecessary" Benghazi investigation the secret personal server stuff never would have come out. A private group had to FOIA request email correspondence, then get told "nope, there aren't any," then try to investigate further, then have the congressional Benghazi investigation take up the matter for any of this to come out AT ALL. It's honestly just blind luck that we know about any of it! Think about that...it's crazy.

No one within the government would have made any of this public. No one in the Media was investigating or cared enough to bring this to light. None of the existing checks, balances, or institutional systems designed to prevent rule breaking or promote transparency did anything to bring this to light on their own.

But honestly, Professor, "how is this quality acceptable in a President?" Let's be frank - you'll all vote for her, so clearly it is acceptable, to you. SHOULD it be? Of course not. But here we are.

Saint Croix said...

While Clinton is ducking and hiding it might be helpful to ask some questions of John Kerry's state department.

Is John Kerry using a private server?

Why or why not?

Hillary Clinton says that she could not do her job without her private server. She says that all secretary of states do what she did. Is that true? Are you doing what she did?

If the press refuses to ask these questions, Congress should. They should also think about passing a law making it a felony for government officials to do what Hillary did.

Segesta said...

"Who is Richard Nixon?" is the response from the majority of Americans (and especially Democrats), who also cannot find New Mexico on a map.

mccullough said...

The media are easily pushed around by Dems. As long as she's ahead with n the polls, it would be dumb for her to give interviews or press conferences

Brando said...

"Hillary Clinton says that she could not do her job without her private server. She says that all secretary of states do what she did. Is that true? Are you doing what she did?"

It all comes down to a simple question--why did she go to so much trouble to set this server up? "Others did it" is not only incorrect, but it's irrelevant--it doesn't explain why she decided to do it. "Convenience" is also incorrect, and certainly doesn't explain why she would not run this through State Dept IT.

"I wanted to keep something private" is getting warmer, but then the follow-up--why did you need to keep it private? Why would a government official who wanted to keep their official communications--and who was a lawyer, and has access to many lawyers for crying out loud--not at least check on whether this was okay?

I think she can't answer it because the only answer is "I was planning to do a lot of shady stuff while in my position, so in advance I decided to take everything off-line so I could control it". It's like when a party spoliates evidence in litigation--we are justified in assuming the evidence they destroyed would have been harmful to them.

This should kill any campaign right there, and leave their party scrambling for a replacement. I suspect only the fact that the Dems fear a Trump presidency more than anything is what keeps them from jumping ship en masse. This is shameful anyway--fear of Trump does not justify covering for this crook.

David Begley said...

Brando

Hillary needed a private server to conduct her bribery scheme with Bill.

Go to Poltico and read the article by the "Clinton Cash" author. There are many emails missing key emails when bribes were being discussed.

Brando said...

"Hillary needed a private server to conduct her bribery scheme with Bill."

Oh, I believe it. But what I'd like to see is that exact framing in the media, and sticking directly to it--the "no legitimate reason for the server" rather than focusing on whether her e-mail was hacked by spies (no foreign spy is going to come out and say "yes, I hacked it, and I'll explain how!") or whether the sending/receiving of classified e-mail was intentional or negligent (that gets us into the weeds of whether that e-mail should have been classified, or what she could or couldn't have known at the time).

Republicans (and any honorable Dems left) should focus on the simple fact that just setting this whole thing up was no "mistake" or "sloppy carelessness". This whole thing stinks and should be disqualifying.

I didn't watch all the Benghazi hearings, but did the GOP ever come out and drill her down on that question? If not then there's your problem with the GOP right there, and that's why she's not only going to win but carry on the most corrupt administration ever, with no check whatsoever.

Michael K said...

"Mocking your opponents, saying they deserve a beating, calling them nasty, crooked, little Marco, Lying Ted, etc., is the opposite of being convivial"

Convivial usually pertains to friends, not enemies.

1660-70; < Late Latin convīviālis festal, equivalent to Latin convīvi (um) feast ( convīv (ere) to live together, dine together ( con- con- + vīvere to live) + -ium -ium ) + -ālis -al1

The "beating" pertains to violent protestors who administer beatings first.

I think one of your favorite politicians referred to it as "hit back twice as hard."

David Begley said...

Brando

Bengazhi questions were not good. Not effective.

Brando said...

And we've got to resist the temptation to excuse bad political strategy and poor PR messaging by blaming the leftist media. Smart politicians have figured out how to defy the media's biases--look at Nixon in '69, when in the wake of the biggest anti-war march of the Vietnam era, he goes on TV with his "silent majority" speech. Leftists groaned and chuckled, but he bumps his polls (and approval of his war efforts) into the stratosphere. He also got viewers to see the media as biased, which helped them see through broadcasts and give him a positive slant. Reagan did the same thing--using optics of flags and a rally for the day's news footage while the news tried to cover growing unemployment--people remembered the image, not the words (not unlike his use of "Born in the USA") and it benefits him.

Conservatives need to hold their leaders to a higher standard when it comes to this--otherwise boneheaded moves that make them more unpopular (or fail to take down their opponents) keep happening.

David Begley said...

And getting back to the topic, I saw Hillary five times in person. Bill twice.

They never took questions from the public or the press.

Royalty.

Francisco D said...

I am astounded to be voting for Trump. I cannot stand the guy, but four more years of the Clinton Crime Family running the country will be disastrous.

On another topic, does anyone here truly believe that the mainstream press are mostly objective? Really?

Glenn Reynolds rightly calls them Democrat operatives with a byline.

Charlie said...

Judicial Watch should be named the new White House press corps. They are already doing the job the press is not.

Matthew Sablan said...

Why change a winning strategy?

Brando said...

"Bengazhi questions were not good. Not effective."

That was my impression from reading about it.

And of course they made the mistake of focusing solely on the events that night in 2012, which made the average viewer think the only issue was whether Hillary and Obama lied for a few days about whether it was a spontaneous riot over a video, or a coordinated terror attack, which may have been slimy politics but could be excused by confusion in the fog of war or just election year spin.

But imagine instead if the probe focused on the Obama/Clinton decision to intervene in Libya itself, and whether it's "lead from behind" plan only made a bad situation worse (now Libya is chaos, with thousands dead and dying, and terrorists having a haven). It might have driven a wedge between Hillary and her dovish supporters.

But no, the GOP couldn't think like that--they instead figured everyone would be so incensed about officials lying about the cause of a tragedy that it'd do their work for them. And when it didn't--when most viewers were like "ok, who knows when their spokesmen knew the real cause of the attack"--they slid back to their tried and true excuse--blame the biased media! An easy crutch when your head is up your ass and you don't know how to handle messaging or political attack and defense.

The conservative movement needs a serious overhaul, and maybe this year will give it the jolt it needs.

shiloh said...

"over the past couple days, is going all in for Trump."

Althouse has been all in for Trump the past 6/7 mos.

Much like she was all in for Willard Mitt (4) years ago as her cruel neutrality lightness is showing.

As always, I applaud her consistency!

Brando said...

"On another topic, does anyone here truly believe that the mainstream press are mostly objective? Really?"

Generally I'd say there's bias there, but it's more complicated than that. First, there's a lot of conservative press, particularly since media is more democratized than ever before. Second, a lot of the "mainstream" press is more concerned with their bottom line--not getting scooped, getting clicks and reads, selling papers--than any other agenda. They may have some "professional" obligation to report accurately, but selling is still the primary consideration or they have no business any more.

Third, where there is a lot of bias, it's more subtle. It won't be "Trump is a total jerk, Hillary is awesome!" but rather you can notice it more in the choice of stories to cover, and the subtle changes of phrasing (you can also notice the opposite with conservative press).

But with all that in mind, conservatives can certainly get their messaging out, and fight back against any slant and bias, and lead the media by the nose when necessary. Some have been masterful at this, and others just use media bias as an excuse when they fail.

Gusty Winds said...

Shiloh said...

Althouse has been all in for Trump the past 6/7 mos

Is that true?

In the March 2016 Wisconsin Primary she voted for Ted Cruz hoping for a contested convention where Paul Ryan would be slipped in as a last minute savior.

khesanh0802 said...

I saw a photo of Hillary yesterday (can't remember where, unfortunately) that made her look just awful blood shot eyes, loose skin, wrinkly and tired. Made me begin to believe some of the people here who say she is sick.

mikee said...

Hillary had a private server to hide her activities from FOIA requests. That isn't strange it is criminal.

"Hillary-ous" will become a word often used to describe the laughingly blatant criminality and corruption of her presidential administration.

khesanh0802 said...

The Brits have a wonderful parliamentary procedure called "Question Time" in which the members are able to question the heads of departments. It occurs four days a week in the Commons and questions must be submitted three days in advance. Our committee system is akin to it but it would certainly be interesting if the President and department heads had to answer questions every week.

Trump may be assertive and confrontational in his press relations, but he does not hide from the press. I agree with those who think Hillary's strategy comes from a conviction this is a coronation not a campaign. Big mistake.

I heard a bit of Comey's testimony today - being questioned by Trey Gowdy. Comey was forced to really put the knife in.

khesanh0802 said...

Remember, everyone, it was "private servers" as Comey pointed out yesterday and today. This was no accident or casual commitment.

Brando said...

"In the March 2016 Wisconsin Primary she voted for Ted Cruz hoping for a contested convention where Paul Ryan would be slipped in as a last minute savior."

Althouse became a Trump fan around the time Cruz dropped out. I'm not sure why some commenters seem to think she was a Hillary fan, but I have the impression she can't stand Hillary and is supporting Trump for that reason. Which is fine, but holding water for Trump sort of looks silly when the guy keeps stepping in it. Some of us would have liked to see a nominee who would be walloping Hillary by now.

"Hillary had a private server to hide her activities from FOIA requests. That isn't strange it is criminal."

It's about more than that--most Americans don't give a crap about FOIA or technical violations of the law. The real meat of this is why she wanted to keep her data free from FOIA--and the answer is she was hiding something big enough to justify going to all this trouble. This wasn't an ad hoc security violation--this was a premeditated arrangement to keep everything out of reach. Whatever she was hiding was no small potatoes.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I agree with those who think Hillary's strategy comes from a conviction this is a coronation not a campaign."

-- It isn't even that. She simply has no need. The press will do what they do with Obama. Sigh and say, hey, could you make more time for us? And then, they'll say, look! We'll savage your enemies for you! Please, please love us!

She has them doing her bidding, why acquiesce to their demands when they'll sacrifice their journalistic ethics for her without actually getting anything in return?

Freder Frederson said...

The "beating" pertains to violent protestors who administer beatings first.

Even if it did, didn't your parents ever tell you "two wrongs don't make a right".

Regardless, he was referring to protesters who were merely being disruptive, not violent.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

What difference (at this point) would a Hillary Clinton news conference make?
You would be an idiot to trust one syllable oozed from that gaping pie hole of hers.

Hagar said...

Wikipedia
Prime Minister's Questions (often abbreviated to PMQs and officially known as Questions to the Prime Minister) is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom, currently held as a single session every Wednesday at noon when the House of Commons is sitting, during which the Prime Minister spends around half an hour answering questions from Members of Parliament (MPs).[1]
PMQs forms an important part of British political culture. Due to the drama of the sessions, it is among the best-known parliamentary business in the country, with tickets to the Strangers' Gallery (the public gallery) for Wednesdays being the most sought-after parliamentary tickets.

Hagar said...

Questions for the Prime Minister is on C-Span live on Wednesday mornings here in the U.S. and re-broadcast at 5 PM ET on Sundays.
It is indeed a lively show, starting off with a sparring section between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

gerry said...

But now even the mainstream press is looking for the lies.

False consciousness.

Michael K said...

"didn't your parents ever tell you "two wrongs don't make a right".

Regardless, he was referring to protesters who were merely being disruptive, not violent."

Your savior said "Hit back twice as hard"

Remember ?

And the protestor referred to had been violent.

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

You would be an idiot to trust one syllable oozed from that gaping pie hole of hers.

Notice that the FBI neither recorded or made a transcript of her interview because they knew she would most likely tell a lie that could force their hand to prosecute. Nobody trusts her mouth, especially not the smart political types high in the Democrat Party.

tim in vermont said...

More time wasting from Congress:

FBI Director James Comey, testifying before a House committee looking into his decision not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server, admits that many of her statements about sending emails -- some made under oath -- were 'not true,' raising the question of whether in doing so she committed a felony

Try getting the Obama "Just Us" Department to prosecute a Democrat for lying to Congress. File that under "Not Gonna Happen!"

mccullough said...

It has to be a knowingly false statement, not a negligently made false statement.

The feds tried to get Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice for giving a rambling non-responsive answer to a question asked in a grand jury. His conviction was tossed out. Roger Clemens was acquitted of lying to Congress. People with resources to hire good lawyers don't get convicted for lying to the FBI, the grand jury, or Congress.


khesanh0802 said...

@Hagar So that you will have confidence in my "research":

In the United Kingdom, question time lasts for an hour each day from Monday to Thursday (2:30 to 3:30pm on Mondays, 11:30am to 12:30pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and 9:30 to 10:30am on Thursdays). Each Government department has its place in a rota which repeats every four to five weeks. The exception to this sequence are the Business Questions (Questions to the Leader of House of Commons), in which questions are asked about the business of the House the following week, as well as any issue that MPs might want to raise to the government. Also, Questions to the Prime Minister takes place each Wednesday from noon to 12:30pm.

In addition to government departments, there are also questions regarding the Church, House of Commons reform and Law Rulings.[4] Additionally, each Member of Parliament is entitled to table an unlimited number of written questions. Usually a Private Member directs a question to a Secretary of State, and it usually answered by a Minister of State or Parliamentary Under Secretary of State. Written Questions are submitted to the Clerks of the Table Office, either on paper or electronically, and are recorded in The Official Report (Hansard) so as to be widely available and accessible.[4] from Wikipedia

MikeR said...

"1. How could Trump be a bigot? His son-in-law is Jewish." His _daughter_ is Jewish.

Freder Frederson said...

Your savior said "Hit back twice as hard"

I don't remember Jesus saying that in the Bible. I thought he said "turn the other cheek".

Or do you think someone else is my savior?

Freder Frederson said...

And apparently you don't understand the difference between a metaphor and literal speech.

Michael K said...

"I don't remember Jesus saying that in the Bible. I thought he said "turn the other cheek".

Or do you think someone else is my savior?"

Just a mild suggestion drawn from your responses.

Hillary was not under oath when "interviewed" by the FBI.

Jesus had something to say about selling things in the temple, though.

Unknown said...

"Althouse has been all in for Trump the past 6/7 mos"

No I don't think this is accurate. I saw a shift toward Trump after the WI primaries. Scott Adams' columns were posted ad nauseum. I think she was floating around in the sea of candidates and she needed an anchor. Another possibility, Scott Adams hypnotized her. Just my opinion.

tim in vermont said...

It has to be a knowingly false statement, not a negligently made false statement.

Remember when people used to call her "The Smartest Woman in the World (TM)" Now she's a clueless idiot that has no idea of what the words that come out of her mouth mean. Well, that is far closer to the truth, I will give you that.

Big Mike said...

What kind of President would she be, hiding from the press like this?

She shouldn't be President. I sometimes think she is running just so the words "President of the United States" can be chiseled on her tombstone. Like a dog chasing a car, what will she do when she catches it.

The email problem itself arose out of a strange and deeply flawed secretiveness.

Noticed that, did you?

How is this quality acceptable in a President?

It isn't. There are things that a President has to keep secret, and negotiations that have to be conducted behind closed doors. But not everything!

I lived through the Nixon administration, and I've never seen anything like this in a person who claims to be presidential material.

Me too. Paranoid as Nixon was, this lady seems to be vastly worse.

rcocean said...

And the MSM is OK with her not having press conferences. Because why does she need them? She's perfect.

Unlike Trump. If Trump stopped talking to the MSM, it could only be because he had something to hide, or was a coward, or had a serious illness. The options are endless, but it would be important news.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

" Just my opinion."

No, just your DNC talking points.

damikesc said...

As if the press would ask questions...

Rusty said...

Freder Frederson said.

Didn't your parents tell you that you are known by the company you keep. Your friends advocate violence shouldn't be surprised if they recieve violence in return.

Gahrie said...

Some of us would have liked to see a nominee who would be walloping Hillary by now.

Who is this magical person? Bush et al would be afraid to say anything "mean" about Hillary, and Cruz would be savaged by the press as a woman hating, knuckle dragging racist if he endorsed Hillary for president.

Michael K said...

"Your friends advocate violence shouldn't be surprised if they recieve violence in return."

Yes, your "friends" seem to be shooting at police in Dallas.

Qwinn said...

Not that I was ever a big fan of Nixon's (far too leftist for me), but when comparing how he was treated for far lesser infractions than what Hillary (and Obama, for that matter) get a total pass for, is it really fair to keep harping on him as "paranoid"? It's pretty obvious by now that they really WERE all out to get him. And every Republican since, of course.

Rusty said...

Yes, your "friends" seem to be shooting at police in Dallas.

Not mine, doc, Fredders. Me and my friends are all lovable and cuddly and consistently shoot one inch groups.

damikesc said...

Try getting the Obama "Just Us" Department to prosecute a Democrat for lying to Congress. File that under "Not Gonna Happen!"

Dems are amazing at finding the weakness in any law out there, don't they?

Curious George said...

"mccullough said...
It has to be a knowingly false statement, not a negligently made false statement.

The feds tried to get Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice for giving a rambling non-responsive answer to a question asked in a grand jury. His conviction was tossed out. Roger Clemens was acquitted of lying to Congress. People with resources to hire good lawyers don't get convicted for lying to the FBI, the grand jury, or Congress."

Scooter Libby....Martha Stewart...