August 5, 2016

The NYT editors pivot from assuring us Hillary's crushing Trump to warning us about thinking he's crushed.

They were putting their all into boosting her, which included minimizing him. Having done that hard work, however, they now must worry they've gone too far and people will drift away from politics, as if the election were already accomplished.

Suddenly, it's time to stress Trump's power:
He is speaking to people who disbelieve conventional politicians, who detest a Washington they think has betrayed them. He promises nothing of substance to ease their pain, but he gives voice to their rage.

So where does this leave Mrs. Clinton? It does not give her the luxury of sitting back and hoping Mr. Trump will implode, but it does present opportunities — to lure wavering Republicans and independents, not merely by stoking outrage at his statements, but by addressing in policy terms the economic anxiety and fear that underlie Mr. Trump’s appeal, as well as lingering distrust of her. Instead, she played into that distrust this week by repeatedly asserting untruthful claims* about her careless handling of government emails.

Mr. Trump’s bad week suggests he will not evolve into a politician whom anyone can count on or predict. This is Mrs. Clinton’s chance to present herself not just as a safe and conventional alternative, but as a morally serious leader determined to address the country’s real problems.
__________________________________

* AKA lying.

IN THE COMMENTS: Nonapod says:
It's pretty astonishing that someone with a functioning brain stem could actually write something like that about Hillary Clinton in 2016. "Morally serious"? Great googly moogly!
Well, they just said she has an opportunity "to present herself... as a morally serious leader."

It's like "asserting untruthful claims" — you lie. She can lie. She keeps lying. So this is the suggested lie: Instead of lying about what Comey said about you and the email, act like you're morally serious.

103 comments:

Paco Wové said...

"not merely by stoking outrage"

Well, that certainly seems to be the only plan thus far.

Nonapod said...

This is Mrs. Clinton’s chance to present herself not just as a safe and conventional alternative, but as a morally serious leader determined to address the country’s real problems.

It's pretty astonishing that someone with a functioning brain stem could actually write something like that about Hillary Clinton in 2016. "Morally serious"? Great googly moogly!

Darrell said...

Hillary's brain damage explained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s

Unknown said...

Trump thought he had this presidency thing all wrapped up when he won the nomination, but he found out the hard way that this is no longer the Primaries, we are now in the General. We aren't complacent, like he was.

MikeR said...

Sigh. Anyone could have beaten Clinton this time, but instead the Republican Party (or a sizable chunk of it) decided to throw a tantrum. The Democrats did too with Bernie Sanders, but they have super-delegates and a National Committee that fixes things. Probably wise.
The MSM is no longer bothering to say that Clinton is any good. Why should they? Trump insists on showing that no matter how bad Clinton is, he can look worse. How many of us are sitting here gritting our teeth, _waiting_ for him to notice that fighting with the family of a war hero is a bad idea?

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

I liked the Clinton Dirty Tricks Division releasing a story that a Psychiatrist is filing a petition for Trump to be picked up and examined by professionals as a dangerous to himself or others mentally ill person.

The Dems best work are projections of what they do.

eric said...

I said before the conventions that if #Nevertrump finally stopped trying to tear him down, he would win. It made sense to try and tear him down before the convention because the Primary wasn't yet over in a sense.

But if they didn't stop. If they couldn't get over their lose for their candidate, he is toast.

Well, they aren't stopping. Now they've just decided to pivot. Instead of replacing him at the convention,they now think if they depress his polling enough, he will just drop out of the race.

And when this ploy doesn't work, theyll come up with something else. All the while explaining how President Hillary isn't their responsibility.

Barring a complete meltdown for Clinton, I don't think the NYT needs to step in here on her behalf. She has got this one locked up.

sunsong said...

They're right - Hillary doesn't help herself with continued lying. She needs to be the one who rises to the occasion. Trump isn't going to...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Hillary has had 25 years in the public eye to rise to the occasion. Instead, she only sinks lower.

Sebastian said...

"she has an opportunity "to present herself... as a morally serious leader." The only thing she is serious about is subverting morality for the sake of power.

Temujin said...

Going into this political season I told friends and family that Republicans needed only to put up a sack of potatoes with a smiley face drawn on it, and they'd beat Hillary. The party, however, managed to blow even that by nominating Trump who cannot seem to talk about anything other than...Trump. This thing IS over. The only way it can change is if Republicans can talk Trump into saying "Nevermind", and if the FBI gets so tired of listening to Hillary tell everyone that the FBI found her statements to be truthful that they press other charges against her and her hubby for their fraud 'Foundation'. Then we'd have Kaine vs Pence. Two fairly normal people who are so sane it might just seem new again. We can only hope.

Brent said...

Best Post this politcal season anywhere. Thank you.

Amadeus 48 said...

"... but as a morally serious leader determined to address the country’s real problems."

After two terms of Obama, I'm surprised the NYT thinks the country has any real problems. I suppose they mean all those GOP senators, representatives, governors and state legislators.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

This is Mrs. Clinton’s chance to present herself... as a morally serious leader...

As they say, if you can fake that, you've got it made...

damikesc said...

I give Trump, maybe, a 5% chance of winning at this point.

cubanbob said...

Unknown said...
Trump thought he had this presidency thing all wrapped up when he won the nomination, but he found out the hard way that this is no longer the Primaries, we are now in the General. We aren't complacent, like he was.

8/5/16, 9:44 AM"

So instead you are complacent with electing and having as president a criminal and a traitor.


" sunsong said...
They're right - Hillary doesn't help herself with continued lying. She needs to be the one who rises to the occasion. Trump isn't going to...

8/5/16, 9:54 AM"

Are you even capable of understanding the implication of what you said?

Sam L. said...

Where is the asterisk in the text for *AKA lying? Also, it's not just conventional politicians, but the major media that so many do not trust (except to lie to them).

sunsong, Hillary can't rise to the occasion because she does not know how.

BDNYC said...

Trump's voters are people "who detest a Washington they think has betrayed them." How sill of them to think that, right?

Hillary and the Washington establishment are all sincere public servants who are very responsive to the needs of voters. It's up to Hillary to convince the dumb yokels of how stupid they really are.

eric said...

Then we'd have Kaine vs Pence. Two fairly normal people who are so sane it might just seem new again. We can only hope.

This is so ignorant it makes my brain hurt.

People are people everywhere. Clinton and Trump are no different than anyone else. The ONLY difference is the media focus on their lives. That's it.

Everyone else is normal. Or better. Or sane. Or not racist. Etc etc etc, only because the media and their enemies haven't focused on every aspect of their lives.

The best person to run on a national ticket in a long time was Sarah Palin. Mention her name to people and watch them laugh. Do you know her personal story? Grew up in a blue collar family. Pulled herself up by her own strengths. Rose to national prominence because of great things she did in the state of Alaska and..... Was promptly destroyed.

Let me repeat. The ONLY reason you think anyone isnt s terrible as Hillary or Trump is because you don't know them.

If my candidate Cruz had won, k ow what people would be saying right now? Theyd be saying, all we had to do was pick a normal candidate and we could have won this thing, instead we chose Cruz. Ugh! Why did we choose Cruz??! He needs to drop our for the greater good.

At least, this is what some foolish people might be saying.

I wouldn't have said it of him, nor of Trump, or of anyone else. Because I realize what media focus does to your life.

Hell, Mitt Romney is a racist, Misogynist, killer of his employees. How did we manage to pick such a terrible human being?

mockturtle said...

Right, Sam. I wish there were more polls on trust of the media. I'm sure they would fare worse than politicians.

traditionalguy said...

Why do we trust the new polls to tell the truth. They are easily rigged too.

The latest poll is saying Clinton leads Trump in Georgia. Believe me, that poll is faked.

The Globalist must be resorting to Globalist Warming Fake Data techniques. Georgia's real split is still 60/40 Trump.

As Uncle Joe said, "It is not who votes that decides the winner, it is who counts the votes.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

There must be some sort of catharsis that comes from jabbering about HRC's lies.

Obviously the motivation isn't a real concern about a politician that lies, otherwise there's a much bigger liar that would be really upsetting. And, I sense some sort of genuine personal satisfaction in jabbering about HRC being a liar. IMHO, this is more than normal political hackery. It feels good, or is some sort of psychological release, or something.

Anywho, carry on.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Thing is, when Trump loses there will STILL be tens of millions of Americans hopping mad about how Washington dismisses and ill-treats them. Their sullen attitude may turn to open defiance of the System. And, unlike the effete pussies and SJWs on the Left, they are armed.

The descent into political tribalism will mark a very dark and dangerous turn in American politics.

Fundamentally transforming America....

Paul Brinkley said...

This, to me, isn't about whether Trump or Clinton is winning. It's about the NYT. *They* probably think Clinton is winning. But they then realized that if they call it as they see it, everyone will get bored and find a newspaper that will tell them it's still a race.

So they have to call it a race.

Maybe it IS a race. But I doubt we'll know for sure from any media out there. Everything's too filtered now.

sunsong said...

Interesting thoughts from Peggy Noonan:

The Week They Decided He Was Crazy

Bill said...

Liar! Liar!
Pants on fire!

Untruthful claimant!
Pantsuit conflagrant!

Bruce Hayden said...

Yes, Crooked Hillary lies through her teeth. Everyone here knows it, even if her paid shills here try to deny it. Or pretend that Trump is anywhere close. But, my question is whether she is also delusional. She is still claiming that she was exonerated by the FBI. She got four Pinochios for thus, but continues. It is almost as if she believes that is if she tells a lie enough, it becomes the truth. Or that everyone believes she is telling the truth. But it didn't work for her with the Benghazi story she told so much, so not sure why she thinks that it will work this time. Except that she has been one step ahead of disaster since at least when Vince Foster died and her Madison Federal billing records conveniently went missing for a couple years. In a bit over three months, she could be getting ready to move back into the White House, with the Obama example of a tame Justice Department showing her how to protect herself from being held responsible for such niceties as pathologically lying, selling influence, etc.

Writ Small said...

This is smart strategy by the NY Times. Although the polls are well in Clinton's favor, there are a lot of undecideds out there and despite the apparent organizational mess over at Team Trump, there is time to turn this around. The debates are still hanging out there for one thing.

What the Times is doing is guarding against complacency. They are not doing what many Trump boosters have done, which is trumpet every positive poll as if it represented evidence of a revolution or movement. The "bounce" that Trump got following his convention was - given the mass numbers of undecideds out there - rather paltry, but Trump boosters acted as if the race was over.

Also, the Times calls Clinton a liar in the piece albeit with softened language. They recognize the flaws of their preferred candidate even as they air brush it. Contrast that with Trump boosters who insist Trump never says anything wrong and is always taken out of context. It's the media's fault despite despite all the earlier arguments Trump was a master persuader and media master.

If the Times were a neutral player, this piece would be gross evidence of bias. As they are far from neutral, it is merely sensible.

Mutaman said...

Ann and her minions getting desperate before our eyes.

Temujin said...

Eric- your brain should hurt. So should everyone else who pays attention to this election. We get the leaders we deserve. This isn't a matter of knowing the candidates better. We know both of these people. Hillary has a LONG track record. She's been a congenital liar (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html) since long before this decade even started. She's as corrupt as any Pol in recent decades, and that's saying a lot. And Trump? You only need to trust the evidence of your senses. He's completely unable to do this. He has no poise, apparently does not learn as he goes, is far too full of himself to see what's actually happening. And let's face it- he doesn't appear to be very smart. I think he has to have more smarts than he's showing- just to have done what he's done in business. But he's limited as a person, not to mention as a politician.
It's not about who calls Trump a racist. It's about what he says, how he performs, and how he grows- or not. He is not. He's floundering in what should have been an easy victory. And- this will kill you, but a Marco, or Paul Ryan, or John Kasich would have cleaned Hillary's clock. Not a doubt in my mind.
Here's the thing: The Republican base is looking for perfection. Everyone has to have a 100% grade to be acceptable. And of course, no one is, so you end up with a Trump. The Dems? They just want to win. And so they do. They'll put up with anyone saying anything to get elected. And, they win that way, while Republicans sit at home huffing and scowling for another 4- 8 years. At some point, the Repubs will either get it, or disband and re-create.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Bruce,

You should check out the wapo link I put in the adjoining DJT post. He's the bigger liar.

Beyond lying, it seems troublesome when he justifies Russia killing journalists by blaming America. You would say that BHO or HRC would get a pass doing that, would you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/18/donald-trump-glad-to-be-endorsed-by-russias-top-journalist-murderer/

TRUMP: When people call you "brilliant" it's always good, especially when the person heads up Russia.

HOST JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, I mean, also is a person who kills journalists, political opponents and ...

WILLIE GEIST: Invades countries.

SCARBOROUGH: ... and invades countries, obviously that would be a concern, would it not?

TRUMP: He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country.

SCARBOROUGH: But, again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him.

TRUMP: Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.

A bit later, asked if he would condemn the killing of journalists, Trump replied, "Oh sure. Absolutely." And in the next response, "I've always felt fine about Putin. He's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader." Putin, Trump said, was respected as a leader -- his approval is in the 80s!

I Callahan said...

The Democrats did too with Bernie Sanders, but they have super-delegates and a National Committee that fixes things. Probably wise.

So the hell with the voters' wishes. Boy I'm sure glad we have such intelligent sages such as MikeR to tell me what's best for me.

I Callahan said...

I sense some sort of genuine personal satisfaction in jabbering about HRC being a liar. IMHO, this is more than normal political hackery. It feels good, or is some sort of psychological release, or something.

2 things: Sure, politicians lie. But NONE lie as much and with natural ease like Hillary Clinton; second, you know she is running for president. Don't you think that may have some bearing on why Hillary Lying is such a big trending topic?

Amadeus 48 said...

What Temujin said at 11:05. The GOP had a golden opportunity and they gave us Trump...but even worse, at the end it was Trump or Cruz. Cruz has his virtues, but he needs a Dale Carnegie course. I think it is going to be a long winter for the GOP.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

I C,

If she's such a big liar, why does it take dozens of investigations and tens of millions of dollars to gather a handful of supposed lies that are regurgitated over and over?

If HRC was such a repeat liar wouldn't it be really easy to find something like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/

Guildofcannonballs said...

"And- this will kill you, but a Marco, or Paul Ryan, or John Kasich would have cleaned Hillary's clock. Not a doubt in my mind."

Interesting, that you are without doubt about your hypothetical.

You must have a lot of faith that all of the (actual not theoretical) Trump voters would have hopped on board with each of the named not-nominees.

Yet you understand Never Trumpers with nuanced empathy I presume, not making the assumption they should support the nominee.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"The Republican base is looking for perfection."

Perhaps, but the Tea Party base within the GOP were told they are racist and freaky wierdly lacking intelligence and were going to be "destroyed" by Mitch McConnell.

And I don't recall Dave Brat being sold as perfect, but many in the Tea Party base would agree with me he helped lead the GOP toward a stronger reflection of the constituents constraints from on high on free enterprise.

mikeski said...

MikeR: "The Democrats did too with Bernie Sanders, but they have super-delegates and a National Committee that fixes things. Probably wise."

I Callahan: "So the hell with the voters' wishes. Boy I'm sure glad we have such intelligent sages such as MikeR to tell me what's best for me."


He said "wise", not "best for you". From the perspective of what's good for the (D) insiders, it's wise as all get-out! From the perspective of what's good for America, not so much...

damikesc said...

Obviously the motivation isn't a real concern about a politician that lies, otherwise there's a much bigger liar that would be really upsetting.

They're really isn't a bigger liar whose lies are more upsetting than Hillary. There just is not one.

If she's such a big liar, why does it take dozens of investigations and tens of millions of dollars to gather a handful of supposed lies that are regurgitated over and over?

Because she stonewalls incessantly. SHE. HAD. A. PRIVATE. EMAIL. SERVER. Nobody would've considered that as a possibility until it leaked out that it was. She did documents for an investigation in the White House for YEARS.

JPS said...

PBandJLeDouanier:

"If HRC was such a repeat liar wouldn't it be really easy to find something like this:"

Did she and her people e-mail information classified Top Secret at the time they e-mailed it, via her own server? (Yes.)

Is it possible to accidentally e-mail such information from where it's properly stored to an unclassified network? (No. You have to make a considerable effort to transfer it and to avoid detection in doing so.)

Did she and her people say they didn't do any such thing? (Yes.)

Did Comey say otherwise? (Yes.)

Is she now repeatedly saying that what she told the FBI matches what she told the American public? (Yes.)

Maybe it takes dozens of investigations and tens of millions of dollars to gather a handful of supposed lies because she and her disbarred husband have been practicing for decades the art of lying in a way that they can later claim they weren't technically lying, have lots and lots of incredibly loyal subordinates who go out to obfuscate or if necessary take the fall for them? Because they lie and cheat on a scale so huge it's hard to know where to begin, or to get much of anywhere before someone important says, "You really don't want to pursue this"?

rehajm said...

What the Times is doing is guarding against complacency.

They're worried Trump gets blown out with 90 days to go and steps down. Someone saw Mitt limbering up...


Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

LOL, Hillary can't even resist lying about what the FBI said about her lying.

Unknown said...

"Hell, Mitt Romney is a racist, Misogynist, killer of his employees. How did we manage to pick such a terrible human being?"

And he hates Trump! Romney is a baaaaaad man.

Anglelyne said...

wholelottasplainin': Thing is, when Trump loses there will STILL be tens of millions of Americans hopping mad about how Washington dismisses and ill-treats them.

Lotta people say they understand that, but they don't seem to really understand that. It's not about Trump.

Temujin: And- this will kill you, but a Marco, or Paul Ryan, or John Kasich would have cleaned Hillary's clock. Not a doubt in my mind.

And? And then we'd still have tens of millions of Americans hopping mad about how Washington dismisses and ill-treats them. Trump is a symptom. It's very odd that at this stage of the game people are still thinking about Trump entirely in terms of "gee, how could the Republicans have beaten Hillary?", and, well, Trump himself - as if getting a Republican like Rubio or Ryan or Kasich elected would address the sources of what portentous ninnies call "Trumpism".

It wouldn't have. Sorry.

Anglelyne said...

On a lighter note, my morning newsfeed headlines have been hugely entertaining these last couple of weeks.

Everybody complains about the media being woefully biased and full of shit, but everybody seems to believe every word they say.

Unknown said...

Amid widespread chatter that Donald Trump could drop out of the presidential race before Election Day, Republican insiders in key battleground states have a message for The Donald: Get out.

That’s according to The POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states. The majority of GOP insiders, 70 percent, said they want Trump to drop out of the race and be replaced by another Republican candidate — with many citing Trump’s drag on Republicans in down-ballot races. But those insiders still think it’s a long-shot Trump would actually end his campaign and be replaced by another GOP candidate.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/insiders-to-trump-drop-out-226689#ixzz4GTmIzZGV
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

mccullough said...

The NYT concern for Hillary isn't that she will lose. It's that her presidency will be ineffective since most people don't trust her. She will be a lame duck president since the people won't support her. She can't normalize herself with the public anymore than Trump. They both are who we think they are.

mikee said...

I've quit politics except as entertainment news until, say, the day after the election. There is nothing real about it, nothing productive about it.

I am glad some people are getting rich off the campaigns, horrible as they are, but would it kill reporters to notice other things going on in the world around us other than this rain-of-feces fest?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Did she and her people e-mail information classified Top Secret at the time they e-mailed it, via her own server? (Yes.)"

Of the 110 sent or received emails that were marked classified, HRC only sent three. Those three had the letter "C" written next to subsections contained w/in the body of the text. "C" stands for "classified" which is the lowest level of classification (it is lower than secret and top secret). Of these three emails w/ sub-text that had a letter "C," the State department says that two of them were mistakenly characterized as classified.

So, HRC sent one email that contained some subtext that correctly had a "C" (for the lowest level of classification) written in the margin.

Quite the smoking gun ya got there.

Unknown said...

Something else to make Trump's head spin.

Trump didn't count on ithe race getting so difficult, he thought he could just skate to the presidency, he thought wrong.

MikeR said...

'So, HRC sent one email that contained some subtext that correctly had a "C" (for the lowest level of classification) written in the margin.' Pretty badly incorrect description of what happened, if you have any interest in giving a complete overview.
But regardless - anyone else but Clinton could well have gone to jail for that one email.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

MikeR,

That is what Comey said to Congress. Are you saying that Comey is a liar?

cubanbob said...

PB&J national security information documents aren't classified while they are composed. It's the content that makes it classified, not the stamp. She is a criminal and a traitor. Period. Full stop. There was no legitimate reason whatsoever for her conducting her official duties on a private email server. Shame on Director Comey for wimping out and shame on AG Lynch for suborning criminal behavior. And most of all shame on you for being such shill for such a POS.
Trump is crap but she is the mother of all turds.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

MikeR,

Here is the big scandal that cons think is going to win them the White House:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Cuba,

Here's your somking gun:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

Put that in your pipe.

Joe said...

"he justifies Russia killing journalists"

Your reading comprehension is pathetic. Explaining why something is the way is does not mean justifying it or supporting it. I've seen this phenomenon often and see it as one of the most bothersome things about Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama--they both are profoundly incurious. Things are the way they are just because.

For example, recently much is being made of the unsourced claim that Donald Trump recently asked an alleged national security expert why we can't use nukes. Why can't we? I suspect that most people would say "well, that's obvious" or something equally as dismissive because it's actually a very difficult question to answer. (And if the answer is, "never", then why do we have them? What good is a deterrent if you guarantee never to act?

I would like to hear Hillary Clinton's thoughtful answer to that question. Hell, I'd like to hear Hillary Clinton's thoughtful answer to a whole lot of things SHE DID, but nobody's asking and she isn't telling.

In the end, my analysis for one reason Trump did will in the primaries and is going to do well against Hillary, win or lose, is that a lot of people are tired of being told "it's obvious, now shut up." People KNOW elites, especially politicians and journalists, are morons and listening to them lecturing us is grating.

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

Everybody is picking on poor Trumpie:

"The Harvard Republican Club announced Thursday afternoon that “for the first time in 128 years,” the group will not be endorsing the Republican nominee for president.

In a scathing statement posted to its Facebook page, the Harvard Republican Club said Donald Trump is “a threat to the survival of thke Republic” and holds views that are antithetical to the group’s values “not only as Republicans, but as Americans."

“His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy,” the statement read. “He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children.”

The statement claimed that late President Ronald Reagan, who “called on us to maintain decency in our hearts by loving our neighbor,” would be ashamed of Mr. Trump.

The Harvard Republican Club concluded its statement by calling on GOP leaders to renounce their support of Mr. Trump."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/4/harvard-republican-club-declines-to-endorse-republ/

mikeski said...

Wow, you really don't get much for Harvard education $$$$$$ these days. They can't even tell Trump from Obama...

Joe said...

BTW, Bruce raises an important question: is Hillary Clinton mentally stable? Is it possible that she honestly believes that Comey and the FBI found her innocent of all charges? Is is possible that she honestly believes she landed under fire? Is it possible that Hillary has lost the ability to retain long-term memories? Does Hillary Clinton have dementia? Does she have a personality disorder, of which dissociation is a symptom?

damikesc said...

Of the 110 sent or received emails that were marked classified, HRC only sent three.

Did she report the people sending her top secret emails?

No?

Then she is guilty.

It is illegal to receive that as well on non-secured servers. How did she receive them on a non-secure network? You don't ACCIDENTALLY send classified material from the secured network to an unsecured one. She emailed her minions to remove the markings and email them --- which might explain why the markings weren't there.

Glad to know so many are so willing to bend over backwards to defend a known, repeated liar. Will make your outrage over future lies all of the more amusing.

Are you going to like having no paper trail, whatsoever, of anything she does as President? Because she's going to use private servers again...because people like you will allow it and not have an issue.

Qwinn said...

Joe:

Personally, I doubt it. I think she knows full well every time she lies. The more disturbing aspect of your question, though, is that we do need to ask it. Because if the answer was yes, and she lives in a total fantasy land, and one statement after another is provably, obviously false, it wouldn't matter one bit to her supporters. The *only* ones willing to ask the question are her political opponents, and of course their questions can only be for venal purposes. So, since her supporters have abdicated even the most minimal standards for her, and no one else is allowed to have any... actually, that sounds like it all applies to Obama too. And every other Democrat. Damn. I need a drink, and I don't drink anymore.

MikeR said...

"That is what Comey said to Congress. Are you saying that Comey is a liar?" No, I'm talking about you: saying you picked one detail out of what he said and skipped the rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I think a fair-minded person reading all the facts will conclude that (a) Clinton has been lying straight-out to the American people for a year about this, with lies that depend on what has become known so far, and (b) she has been egregiously careless with America's secrets and shouldn't be trusted with any more of them, and (c) all we have from Comey is a statement that a prosecutor probably wouldn't want to try the case with what they have, because - even though being egregiously careless with classified information is in fact a crime - it's not one they customarily prosecute.
In other words, guilty of serious crimes but they can't catch her right now. I see that doesn't impress you, but in that case I don't know what would.

Joe said...

"The Harvard Republican Club announced Thursday afternoon that “for the first time in 128 years,” the group will not be endorsing the Republican nominee for president."

Big loss.

This supports the contention that the pissing contest over Trump is all about power and the fear of the ruling class that they are going to lose some, regardless of political persuasion.

eric said...

MikeR,

So what? What are you or anyone else going to do about it?

Thanks to #Nevertrump, the chances she will be held accountable for what she has done are slim.

Darrell said...

Globalists shun Trump.

Shocker.

Darrell said...

Every email that was not on the official government server is a felony.

hombre said...

"Morally serious candidate?" Seriously?

I just watched "Clinton Cash." Hillary is lucky to have the email scandal. It pales by comparison to the billions of undeniable graft she and Bill have facilitated resulting in millions to themselves at the expense of the poor. Haiti, Africa, India, Columbia, Keystone,Ericsson, etc.

Not surprisingly, the media exposés of their sleaze seems to be largely confined to overseas media and Fox News.

She is the best candidate money has bought and her supporters are amoral enablers of influence peddling.

Bruce Hayden said...

PB&J - your attempts to whitewash what Crooked Hillary said and did are verging on the pathetic. Yes, maybe she didn't send that much classified information, but she received it, and set it up so that the only way that she would receive it by email was via her illegal, insecure, private server. She was personally responsible for all of the classified information within the State Dept (including all our embassies worldwide) as one of 4 or 5 original classifiers in the govt at the time. Anyone with a room temperature IQ (and this probably includes her succ story) in her position would have known with a surety that her job as Sec of State involved dealing with classified information on a daily basis. And that meant that others in the govt were going to email such to her if the only email address she had was the one for her on her illegal, insecure, server. We have emails from her about why she used that server, instead of the State Dept ones (FOIA and the VRWC), and instructions to strip security markings so that already marked classified information could be sent to her insecurely. Stop trying to pretend it didn't happen. It did.

But the reason that her lying is obviously pathological is that we have all read the statement by Dir Comey, and know what he said. He said that he couldn't prove intent, over mere extreme negligence. But that was far from being the exoneration she claims. And when asked before a Congressional committee about it, specifically said that he hadn't said she hadn't lied. But she continues to claim the opposite.

Why has it taken years and millions of dollars is that it was so well hidden. If Blumenthal's email had not been hacked, we may never have known why the State Dept could report with a straight face, and even state under oath that they had no relevant emails of hers, or, even any emails at all. And, lo, and behold, there were emails to and from her that were relevant to the FOIA and Congressional requests. They just weren't (intentionally, as we found out) where they legally were supposed to be. You can't blame that on Congress, in their oversight capacity, nor of those who filed the FOIA requests. You can only blame Crooked Hillary, and the Obama Administration that aided and abetted her in hiding her emails.

hombre said...

"Morally serious candidate?" Seriously?

I just watched "Clinton Cash." Hillary is lucky to have the email scandal. It pales by comparison to the billions of undeniable graft she and Bill have facilitated resulting in millions to themselves at the expense of the poor. Haiti, Africa, India, Columbia, Keystone,Ericsson, etc.

Not surprisingly, the media exposés of their sleaze seems to be largely confined to overseas media and Fox News.

She is the best candidate money has bought and her supporters are amoral enablers of influence peddling.

hombre said...

2:18: "... at the expense of the poor [and the environment.]

Levi Starks said...

Well at least we're not being played.

Unknown said...

"Well at least we're not being played."

LOL!

JPS said...

PBandJ_Ledouanier,

From the FBI's transcript of Director Comey's statement:

"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification."

Quite the defense you've got there: She didn't send most or the worst of those herself, and she bears no responsibility for what others sent to her via the setup she insisted on.

Responsible for everything the unit accomplishes or fails to accomplish. I learned that as a platoon leader. Guess it's not important in a Commander in Chief.

Clyde said...

Electing Hillary Clinton as president would be like electing the Joker as the mayor of Gotham City.

Unknown said...

"Excellent. Donald Trump has introduced his blue-chip economic advisory team:

The list includes strikingly few academic policy experts, usually the bread-and-butter of campaign policy teams. Instead, the advisory team of 13 men — and no women — consists largely of personal friends or longtime business associates of Trump. The median net worth of Trump's official economic advisers appears to be at least several hundred million dollars.

....Trump's outsider crew at times conflicts with his message of economic populism....His team is filled with hedge fund managers, bankers and real estate speculators.


Tell me again how you're not being played.

Unknown said...

Trump Campaign Releases “Economic Advisory Council” That Is Short On Economists. According to a document released by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign on August 5, the candidate has created a 13-man “economic advisory council” to guide and craft policy decisions. The list features nine CEOs -- Tom Barrack, Andy Beal, Stephen Calk, Dan DiMicco, Steven Feinberg, Howard Lorber, Steven Mnuchin, John Paulson, and Steven Roth -- two GOP policy professionals -- Dan Kowalski and David Malpass -- and just two economists -- Stephen Moore and Peter Navarro. The team will be lead by Trump policy director Stephen Miller.

Sydney said...

I'd trust a bunch of CEOs before I trusted a bunch of economists, by the way.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Ann Althouse says Hillary Clinton lied on the email issue, I say Hillary was 99.99% truthful. In general, I'd put Hillary Clinton at the 95% or higher truthful level as opposed to around 60% for the average politician. I'd put Donald Trump at about 25%, which is to say that he is untruthful about fifteen times for every one time that Hillary Clinton is. You may disagree, but the empirical evidence would support my claim.

So, in the context of Trump v. Clinton, is it truthful to tag Hillary Clinton as a liar? After all, Trump got tagged with 4 Pinocchios this week too, not to mention all the Pinocchios he's gotten tagged with in the past. Cherry picking of that sort is the same category error of which Hillary is accused.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Bruce and JPS and others that make a fuss,

You all prove that you don't really care about the classified stuff that was sent. If you did you'd care about the people who were sending classified stuff.

I get scams in my email. By your logic I'm guilty of sending out scam emails because somebody sent these emails to me.

The more the public and media understand exactly what HRC did (as opposed to what other people at State did) w/ classified info and the server in HRC's basement, the better she'll look. The public don't think they're guilty of sending scam emails when they receive them, it's a stretch to believe that the public will conclude that HRC is guilty of sending classified info when she didn't send classified info. If cons want to go after the folks who did send classified info to HRC's basement email, more power to ya. Even if you are only hyping this to go after HRC, you should make some noise about the people who actually sent classified info, to cover your hackery tracks.

buwaya said...

"The more the public and media understand exactly what HRC did (as opposed to what other people at State did) w/ classified info and the server in HRC's basement, the better she'll look. The public don't think they're guilty of sending scam emails when they receive them,"

The more you look into it that way, the more its logical to conclude that the current US administration is grossly incompetent, or worse, including just about everyone who will continue to exercise power under Clinton.

And it doesn't absolve Clinton. If you expect to do official government business on matters of State - literally - you have a responsibility to secure communications on your end. Secret and confidential matters are sure to be transmitted to you, so you are responsible for their safe transmission to you and safe handling when in your possession. That is SOP for any such system in private and public hands.

The lot of these people, beginning with Mrs. Clinton, should be dismissed and barred from government service. At least.

And you are much too smart to miss these points. I am disappointed in you, PB&J.

TCom said...

PBandJ thinks Hillary SETTING UP A SERVER purposefully to receive classified info is the same thing as receiving junk mail. And others could see it, including other countries since it wasn't secure.

People like him think you're stupid. They know exactly what the game is about, power. And getting true power requires a lot of lying. So they're fine with it. They'll make up bullshit all day just to get you to sit down and shut up.

Sorry. Not going to happen. Your game has been exposed. The fraud is out for all to see. Anyone with two functioning brain cells can see the rampant collusion happening all over, right in front of their faces. Especially before the internet, your kind got away with this astroturf flim flam a lot better. But your girl Hilldawg is stuck in a 90's campaign mode, except she added a team of shills to go all over the internet spamming anti-Trump stories and to comment and take over message boards such as reddit.

Have you seen the shill accounts on twitter? All saying the same messages, with the same Firstname.Lastname format? Same on reddit. All your power loving kind has is astroturf and plantations you make for 'social groups' like LGBT, black, hispanic, and so on. You pander to these groups and tell them what they want to hear, and toss them a bone every now and then, in return for their loyalty.

Then you slime your opponent no matter who it is, and make it so people who don't have free money to gain from the election get disdained and don't vote. This is how you win. Ride's over, fella. We know.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Tcom,

If you want to claim HRC purposefully set up a server in her basement so she could receive classified info, go for it.

As if it would have been cool if this stuff was sent to a .gov HRC email.

BTW, it would not have been cool. This stuff shouldn't be on normal email, at all. The reason HRC wouldn't send out classified stuff w/ normal email (in the basement or not) is because you're supposed to use non-email secure systems in the gov. You folks must realize that the real business of the State Department doesn't happen on email. Right? How do you think the other Secretaries got by w/o any email (technically, Powell dabbled w/ using private email)?



buwaya said...

"If you want to claim HRC purposefully set up a server in her basement so she could receive classified info, go for it."

She set up a private server so she could control archives of all her recorded communications and shield them from FOIA and internal investigations. She absolutely knew she (and her office) would be using that for government business, because they did a huge volume of it. The FBI statement goes to great detail.

As for using email, yes that is used for gov't comm, including secret/confidential. Other SS's had their staff use these (secure) systems. The way they usually do this for the more old-fashioned senior business executives is the staff prints emails in batches, filters out the junk, and hands over a pile of paper periodically. And the old gentlemen dictate emails to their secretaries ("executive assistants" these days).

I have worked for several F500 firms. If an executive of one of these had done what she did, he would have been caught in days if not hours, and he would be marched out the door.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

buwaya,

"As for using email, yes that is used for gov't comm, including secret/confidential."

If you're saying it's ok for gov folks to send classified info over their .gov emails, you're lying.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Maybe the new con attack on HRC will be that she should have been sending classified info over a .gov email. That's the direction recommended by Buwaya.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"In the end, my analysis for one reason Trump did will in the primaries and is going to do well against Hillary, win or lose, is that a lot of people are tired of being told "it's obvious, now shut up." People KNOW elites, especially politicians and journalists, are morons and listening to them lecturing us is grating."

Very much so and I find the current panic and it's corresponding Democrat triumphalism very odd.

I've always said that their wildly successful expansion of the Dependency State makes any Democrat extremely difficult to beat, but the fact is that the election is still three months away. While it is possible, if perhaps unlikely, for Trump to change, it is not possible for Hillary to change. She is entirely dependent on the media to bury her past and obscure her present. In herself, she has nothing. And I'd bet almost anything that the next three months will bring fresh revelations of Clintonin hi-jinks.

Even prior to the RNC, Trump was competitive in the polls. Clearly, many of the things he was saying were resonating strongly with a significant portion of the electorate. I find it doubtful that in 90 days those people won't be reminded of why they expressed support for him at one time. Not saying he'll win, but Trump will outperform his polling numbers more than any candidate in the postwar period.

n.n said...

Clinton, as Obama, as other "good" Americans are Pro-Choice. Their support for women's rites in a "final solution", Planned Parenthood channeling Mengele, class diversity schemes, selective exclusion ("="), anti-native policies, and progressive wars are morally virtuous in following their faith.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"So, in the context of Trump v. Clinton, is it truthful to tag Hillary Clinton as a liar? After all, Trump got tagged with 4 Pinocchios this week too, not to mention all the Pinocchios he's gotten tagged with in the past."

For lying about betraying the public trust while serving as a high government official?

Try again.

buwaya said...

FYI - this is getting monotonous -

The FBI reported recently that it processed nearly 2.2 million gun background checks last month, making it the busiest July on record and 15th consecutive record-setting month.

buwaya said...

PB&J, I do not know what method is specified in State Dept procedures for what level of classification. However, Secret, top secret, and classified information was found on her personal, insecure server, where they shouldn't have been. You can look this up yourself, don't be difficult, don't be an ass.
Just bloody well admit what we all know.

hombre said...

"You can look this up yourself, don't be difficult, don't be an ass." 7:00 p.m.

It's not really about being difficult. It's about lying to avoid cognitive dissonance while supporting a candidate who lies to cover her ass so she can retain positions from which she peddles influence which also involves lying.

It's about avoiding the appearance of amorality.

Unknown said...

Trump captitulates to the RNC and endorses Ryan, McCain and Ayotte. That must've stuck in his craw, lol. Poll after poll has him losing, so does he think this will help? It'll only be a matter of days before he goes off the rails again.

aritai said...

It's less a tantrum than paybackfor 2008 elections on both sides. The GOP could have surrendered to the Taxed Enough Already crowd and let most of the Rinos go even while giving the Dems their victories. Now whereat a point where the totally disinterested electorate has been kicked awake and said "mom and Dad" are both senile and idiots who can't stop telling us what to do. So we're going to kick them both out and put them in a rest home and give a real outsider a chance. He was funny on TV, maybe he'll let us go back to sleep. Throw he bums out burn down their houses and everything else they depend on and say "never come back" .No wonder the establishment and press even existing party members are in such a panic and fighting to kill your ptb at every turn. They know if he's elected their days of easy living and probably even their jobs are gone. And given the 100 pAtco-moves he's made and his insistence on creating strategic ambiguity, even our enemies won't dare cross him. Who knows what that madman might do. He also goes by TR, Walk softly (and hide how gigantic that stick he is carrying is.) No stranger t ambiguity and never ever publishing a policy which is just another word for weakness.

JPS said...

PBandJ,

I was going to explain that I care about anyone's endangering national security, but that her running for chief executive makes it all the more important that she not get a pass. Second and third order effects, and all that.

But you know, as Ed Koch put it: I can explain this to you. I can't understand it for you. So you have a good night, now.

Jon Burack said...

aritai,

If Putin is worried about Trump's madman "strategic ambiguity," he has a real funny way of showing it.

I also have to laugh at the idea of the Times "pivoting." At least somebody has the sense to do that. Too bad it's not the man who is going to lose to, of all people, Hillary Clinton. That is a sort of accomplishment, I guess.

hombre said...

Just like the lib trolls here and elsewhere, the Democrats and their mediaswine will be on Trump and his family non-stop. It will make the Palin family roast pale by comparison.

It is imperative that they preserve the Washington Way they know and love by distracting the voters from the plethora of Hillary's warts and crimes.

For those of us who cannot see the morality and/or wisdom of $20+ trillion in debt, an open southern border, same sex marriage, abortion on demand, subversion of the Constitution, admitting military age, male, Muslim refugees, ignoring genocide against non-Muslims worldwide, a criminal in the WH, etc, Clintonistas say, "STFU, hand over your guns and money and bake the wedding cake."

Unknown said...

Nice shout out Trump gave to Putin in Green Bay! Trump sure does love him some Putin. Mmmm mmmmm.

Unknown said...

Jon Burack, you have a dagger to stab her with, i.e., your vote, and you're making noises like you won't use it for that purpose.

Democrats correctly calculate that people like you will come home in the end. That's one reason why they're panicked.

Bruce Hayden said...

PB&J conveniently forgets that most of the emails containing classified information were from people working for her. He is essentially saying that she should be absolved because she didn't actually send much email with classified information, but rather merely ordered them to send her the email that contained the classified material. She couldn't do her job without access to that classified information, and her employees couldn't do theirs without sending it to her. Furthermore, she was ultimately responsible for the security of the classified information in her department. All the information in her department that was ultimately classified, was done so under her authority as one of 4 or 5 original classifiers in the federal govt. She should have known this - she signed an NDA stating that she understood her responsibilities in this area. But of course, in order to maintain the plausible deniability, she completely avoided the security classes and briefings that were mandatory every year, as did her closest staff. Crooked Hillary never took a single one of the mandatory yearly security classes and briefings in the four years that she was the original classifier for the State Dept., when she was the person in charge of all the classified material in all of our embassies around the world. Not one. Oh, and don't forget that it was illegal under one statute for her to store classified information on her private server, and under another statute to store any work related email there. And, then compounding it, it was also illegal to delete it. Of course, we will never know how many work related emails were (illegally) deleted without turning them over to the State Dept, because they were deleted and thie server wiped. Unless the Russians want to send us their copy. We do know there were some (from getting the emails from others, but not her), but expect that if over half her emails that she had on the server were not work related, she was doing something at work other than what the American people were paying her for (maybe selling official favors for cash?)

When trolls like PB&J try to confuse you by trying to equivalence the classified (or even work related) emails that Crooked Hillary received on her illegal, private, server with Nigerian scam emails you receive yourself, keep in mind that the Nigerian scammers are not your employees, and you don't need their offers of free millions in order to do your job. What he is engaging in is rank dishonesty, trying to minimize her culpability by using grossly inappropriate and inaccurate analogies. Don't fall for it.

Bruce Hayden said...

@PB&J - not exactly as for classified information on a .gov account. We have two issues here, involving two sections of the US Code. By law, she should have been using government email accounts to conduct govt business. If she was conducting govt business by email, it was required, by law and by regulation, to be on a govt email account. She never applied for an exemption to these laws and regulations, nor would she have been granted one. This is the big reason that the investigation into her emails has gone on for so long and been so expensive - her emails weren't where they legally were supposed to have been when she was working as Sec of State. And because of that, they couldn't be found or produced, when the State Dept was legally required to do so.

As a side note - we probably never would have known about Crooked Hillary doing her work as SoS on her illegall private server if she had not lied through her teeth about Benghazi. Of course, she wasn't the only one lying, and may have been doing so under orders from the White House. Nevertheless, her employee, UN Ambassador Rice went on all the Sun talk shows telling the lie that Crooked Hillary had helped produce, and then she told it to the families of the four fallen that night. And after nearly four years of digging, we know that she was in on the lie from the first, telling her daughter that night the truth, and then helping to perpetuate the lie. We know that from the emails that were only produced after Sydney Blumenthal's emails were hacked and dumped, exposing why all of the FOIA and Congressional requests for the relevant emails had come up empty - because she had never used government supplied email like she was legally required to.

As I understand it though, she should have essentially had two govt email accounts - one for classified material, and one for non-classified material, and it should have been hard to send classified material to her, because it should have been on the classified system. So, no, classified information shouldn't have been sent to her on the external .gov email account that she was supposed to have had and used for govt business. That should have gone to her classified account on a completely different system. Except that much of the classified information she received was too new to have actually been formally classified yet. It was considered Sensitive, and much of it she should have known would ultimately be classified. Of course, she couldn't have received email from a classified email account at home, or on her insecure Blackberry in a foreign country, etc.

damikesc said...

The list includes strikingly few academic policy experts, usually the bread-and-butter of campaign policy teams. Instead, the advisory team of 13 men — and no women — consists largely of personal friends or longtime business associates of Trump. The median net worth of Trump's official economic advisers appears to be at least several hundred million dollars.

Hillary, no doubt, has an economic advisory team consisting solely of paupers. And none are long-time associates or friends. That ain't how Hillary rolls, y'all.

Ann Althouse says Hillary Clinton lied on the email issue, I say Hillary was 99.99% truthful.

So you're batshit insane. Good to know.

If you want to claim HRC purposefully set up a server in her basement so she could receive classified info, go for it.

Feel free to provide any alternative explanation as to why ALL work-related emails went thru her private server that nobody but her controlled and where she deleted 30,000 emails, many work-related.

As if it would have been cool if this stuff was sent to a .gov HRC email.

It'd have been a non-issue if the emails went thru the secured government servers, as the law required.

The reason HRC wouldn't send out classified stuff w/ normal email (in the basement or not) is because you're supposed to use non-email secure systems in the gov.

That is the scandal, son.

I thought Trump supporters were blinded ideologues, but fuck, you Hillarybots are a whole new species of blinded hacks.