It is impossible for the FBI not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. What she did was wrong! What Bill did was stupid!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2016
... and here's video, where you will see that tweet on screen, and Raddatz inserts the word "crooked"
I love the emphasis she puts on the word "crooked" as if she's stressing that's his word, not mine. But why did that word jump out of her head? Why did she imagine it there in the tweet? It could be that she actually thinks Hillary is crooked, but it at least means that Trump has — with his repeated use of the same adjective in front of Hillary's name — insinuated his way into our mind or at least the mind of Raddatz, causing us to see it when it isn't even there.
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
For the same reason, Trump should only refer to the current White House occupant as "Imam" Obama.
Nice work Donald
Perhaps a trump mole fiddling with the teleprompter?
John henry
Meanwhile, in speculating about whether the DOJ would decline to prosecute Hillary, Chuck Todd referred to that as "exonerating" her. There's quite a difference, but not in Clintonworld (Hillary once described a decision not to prosecute about Whitewater as exoneration), and apparently not in NBCworld either. Expect much more of the same from other reporters and pundits soon.
She's secretly shilling for Trump.
Only The Donald can get a new Birth Certificate issued for opponents. But Lyin' Ted's new one might be an American one, which helps. Little Marco's not so much.
"She's secretly shilling"
by the seashore.
Say that 10 times real fast and you too can have a crooked tongue.
Hillary has been branded by Trump and it will stick forever.
She's using Trump as a safe harbor.
There was a crooked Hill, and she shilled a crooked shill.
She found a crooked Bill who gained a crooked trill-
ion. He bought a crooked Socks and someone not his spouse,
And they all lived together in a crooked White House.
Maybe she thinks she is a hostage who has to be able to quote from Trump or she will be sliced slowly to death as blood sacrifices to allah, like the innocent Emory students who were caught helping starving Bangladesh Muslims.
Trump is not just living rent free inside her head, she's paying him to house-sit while he's there.
"Crooked" is an inseparable part of her name now, like Shoeless Joe Jackson or Screamin' Jay Hawkins.
The adjective crooked will be forever attached to Hillary. If there is a remnant of integrity in government she will be indicted. If the fix is in as it appears to be she won't be charged but she will never be (thanks in large part to Trump) exonerated. The stain on her will never come off.
Answer: what she was reading was not the same thing displayed on the screen. Someone retyped it for her and inserted "crooked".
The art of subliminal messaging.........say it enough times
I'm waiting for some talking head to blurt out Limbaugh's continual reference to "The Clinton Foundation" as "The Clinton Crime Family Foundation".
It sounds odd to me NOT to hear it Rush's way, just as I automatically continue statements about The Clinton Presidential Library, with "and Massage Parlour".
"Trump is not just living rent free inside her head, she's paying him to house-sit while he's there."
Yes, I was going to add that he should be paying rent to all the lefties whose head he occupies.
The Big Lie is a preposterous proposition repeated loudly enough, often enough, that some percentage of the population comes to believe it.
Is there an equivalent Small Truth, wherein one simple statement of fact (Hillary is Crooked) said publicly will resonate - even into the souls - for those who publicly deny it?
I said "Nice Star of David".
That's how the Holy Spirit works.
I just like how Trump solved the FBI case and already knows what they should do. Amazing expertise, if not quite at the level of many here.
Something similar happened to Harvey during the announcement of Miss Universe when his subconscious mind substituted Miss Colombia for the recorded winner. Obama has also demonstrated multiple "gaffes" (e.g. corpse man, his Muslim religion, punch drunk humor) on multiple occasions. Raddatz may be disillusioned by the Pro-choice Church but fearful of leaving it, so she found safe harbor in attributing her rejection of the Church (epitomized by the Obama administration and Clintons) to Trump.
harrogate said...I just like how Trump solved the FBI case and already knows what they should do.
In case you missed it, they found Top Secret SCI documents in her email. These had to have been modified by someone in a criminal way.
The question is, who did it, and why.
She's not gonna suffer any criminal charges for her behavior. The most that non-Hillary voters can hope for is the overall bad-taste-in-the-mouth that she and Bill cause. There's an oiliness about these people.
Hill may be crooked, but she calculates straight. Will therefore get away with emailgate, as she did with all previous scandals.
"Maybe she thinks she is a hostage who has to be able to quote from Trump or she will be sliced slowly to death as blood sacrifices to allah, like the innocent Emory students who were caught helping starving Bangladesh Muslims." Likely. After all, as the LGBT demonstrators in NYC showed with their banner following the Orlando attack "Republican Hate Kills."
I just like how Trump solved the FBI case and already knows what they should do. Amazing expertise, if not quite at the level of many here.
A simple reading of the evidence available in the public domain weighed against her feeble explanations is enough to "solve" this case. Hillary's only chance is if she can get the prosecutors to judge the facts differently than as they appear. She has been caught in lie after lie as regards to the facts. But I guess only an appointed Democrat can make that judgement ultimately! Just like only the jury could find O.J. guilty and anybody who thinks he did commit the murders is mistaken, amirite?
Democrat nullification. It's the only defense left to her.
Just like Bill Clinton never committed forcible rape on account of he said that five witnesses and the victim were lying because, for some unaccountable reason they didn't like him, and he certainly didn't need to show any evidence of where he was at the time to prove it. Democrat nullification.
Is there any moral scum Democrats will not drag themselves through to defend the Clintons?
From another blog:
Saw this great homemade sign painted on plywood here in the Adirondacks….
TRUMP- The White House
BERNIE – The Nut House
Hillary – The Big House!
She's secretly shilling for Trump - Unknown
Of course she is, that is the only possible explanation. I think Trump is even the one who turned off the security protections to her server and then planted information on there regarding intelligence personnel. That's just the kind of thing that Hillary has to put up with.
Persuasion works! Read Scott Adams' blog.dilbert.com for more information.
I've been saying for years that both of the Clintons (and probably Chelsea, too -- the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree) are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Donald Trump only recognized and stated the obvious. He has a knack for spotting his opponents' weak spots and going for the jugular.
Raddatz would have sworn on a stack of US Reports that it said crooked
I would caution you against challenging Marsha's crooked facts.
In her defense, she probably just assumed that Trump used it in the tweet. However, it was f**king hilarious nonetheless. You could literally see all the Clinton supporters watching that literally wincing on hearing it said by someone other than Trump, especially with the tweet itself up on the screen. Ouch!
But why did that word jump out of her head? Why did she imagine it there in the tweet?
Raddatz could have just read what she was fed and so the question is "why did the scriptwriter insert that word for Raddatz to read?"
Raddatz could have just read what she was fed and so the question is "why did the scriptwriter insert that word for Raddatz to read?"
I think there is a proof somewhere that you can always add an additional factor to get the explanation you want. I guess assuming a "third plane" is a way make it look more likely that a secret Trump operative was to blame. Presumably there will be a firing if somebody did that.
@tim in vermont: I'm not suggesting that -- I'm just questioning Althouse's assumption that talking heads actually write what they read. Is there any reason to assume that?
In this case Raddatz is clearly reading something written, but by whom?
Trump always says that - but here maybe he was faced with the 140-character Twitter limit, or is approaching it. Can someone take the trouble to count it?
I beleive the Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) counts toward the 140.
Rob said...7/3/16, 10:12 AM
Meanwhile, in speculating about whether the DOJ would decline to prosecute Hillary, Chuck Todd referred to that as "exonerating" her. There's quite a difference,
Especially, since there's a written Justice Department guideline that might preclude an indictment of her, or any of her close aides, before an election.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/j_christian_adams_tells_us_why_lynch_met_with_clinton_and_what_it_means
RUSH: Right. Well, where do you expect this to go now? As a seasoned veteran of DOJ and now running your election legal foundation, where do you expect this to go? What’s the endgame here with this story?
CALLER: [sic the caller is Adams] There’s two irreconcilable American values. One, we don’t criminalize politics. That’s what Third World nations do. And you don’t indict people because, you know, there’s some political differences. On the other hand, nobody’s above —
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. You mean in a campaign or something, our civilized way, we would not bring proceedings because that would taint the purity of the campaign, the election? Is that what you mean?
ADAMS: Yeah. And that’s actually a Justice Department value. They don’t want to influence an election by indicting before elections. That’s a written guideline.
On the other hand, nobody’s above the law. You know, Hillary’s not above the law, and the king should not be above the law. And so we have these two irreconcilable American values clashing in this, and I don’t know which way it’s gonna go.
Now, that guideline will probably kick in pretty soon. Bill Clinton needed to know whether or not the FBI was in the last stages before recommending an indictment, or if he was the target of a RICO case. Had that been the case, the Attorney General would have kicked him off her plane (because that would have been a clear ethiics violation) The fact that she did not kick him off the plane, indicated that the answer is no, they're not on the verge of an indictment. The fact that it the answer was no, meant that it was safe for Hillary not to cancel her interview with the FBI, tentatively scheduled for the following Saturday.
FWIW, State of the Union said the same thing.
KEILAR: Maybe that will be the dark horse. We have no idea.
The big news this weekend has been Hillary Clinton sitting down for this interview with the FBI. Three and a half hours. Really just extraordinary. And then afterward what we're hearing from sources telling CNN's Evan Perez, is that they don't actually -- they expect there is going to be an announcement of no charges here in the next couple of weeks or so. That is based on the idea that there was no additional finding of wrong-doing or that she didn't essentially mess up during this interview with the FBI.
Donald Trump, not surprisingly, seizing on this. He said, "It was just announced by sources that no charges will be brought against crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged."
So let's say the FBI doesn't recommend indictment. How can Trump turn that into an advantage?
Personally, I'd love to see him declare it as proof that the FBI is irreversibly corrupted and promise to defund the agency. Use it to make the argument that just as with free trade and immigration, the average American is getting screwed by the laws of this country while the powerful get all the benefits.
Oops. State of the untion - Different tweet. It's possible that MR was reading the twitter feed and saw crooked on the other (countless) tweets and inserted it. Who knows.
The discussion this weekend has been all about the e-mail scandal and the FBI.
How about the FBI and the financial corruption investigation?
I guess this unfortunate Republican crowd will take their tiny pleasures any way they can get them.
The unfortunate American people will have the Clinton Crime Family shoved down their throats.
Good government is dependent on people f good will being elected or appointed to office. If the Democrats succeed in pushing Hillary! across the finish line with all this stinking garbage still tied to her, and the people see that this happened just because of DoJ reluctance to charge her in an election year (and why wasn't she charged before?), I fear for what will come next.
Wait. Is Darrell just Paul Z without glasses?
Whatever. Paul's comment at 10:47 re Screaming Jay is astounding.
Threadwinner.
I meant is Darrell just Paul Z but WITH glasses. Wit is often destroyed by poor delivery.
Ah Ms. Althouse; any trial lawyer worth his or her salt (or what the heck in the LGBTQQ times--worth zis or zir salt) will tell you that this is the principle of primacy at work. If you can name the plaintiff "Lying Ted" or the defendant "Crooked Hillary" or the officious intermeddler "Fauxcahontas Warren" in your opening statement--and make that name stick, you are halfway to convincing the jury. Who after all wants to vote for "Crooked Hillary"?
Trump, outrageous as he is, understands that principle of persuasion.
Of course it helps that the stench off the corrupt baggage that Hillary trails behind her would gag a maggot--but then the Democrat voters mileage will vary.
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
I guess this unfortunate Republican crowd will take their tiny pleasures any way they can get them.
I am not a Republican and I thought it was hillary-us!
Get it? Hillary-us!
Sometimes I crack myself up.
Wait until they do this while swearing Hillary in on the Capitol steps as billions watch…
"Repeat after me 'I, Crooked Hillary Clinton, do solemnly swear……'"
If the DoJ does not file charges due to "reluctance to charge a politician with crime in an election year," there is no way they are going to keep that quiet.
They don’t want to influence an election by indicting before elections. That’s a written guideline.
LO FUCKING L. You mean like Cap Wienberger and Ted Stevens? Don't you love it when they piss on our backs and tell us it's raining?
The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinton did not willfully try to endanger National Security. It's the willful, knowing aspect that would've made it a crime. Criminal law experts knew this all along and have been saying so for months. Don't be too dissapointed, but really your expectations of an indictment have been almost hysterical.
So, if you've committed a federal crime, run for office. Even if you don't win, every year has an election of some kind.
is that your final answer.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/04/exclusive-general-jerry-boykin-on-hillary-exposing-intelligence-sources-lives-have-been-endangered-punishable-by-jail-time/
Unknown said...The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinton did not willfully try to endanger National Security. It's the willful, knowing aspect that would've made it a crime. Criminal law experts knew this all along and have been saying so for months. Don't be too dissapointed, but really your expectations of an indictment have been almost hysterical.
It should suffice to show that Rodham willfully set up an external server to conduct State Department business. Her motive was clear: to "own" the communications and to avoid nosy FOIA queries. The consequent breach of security was all too predictable. I agree, it might be too hard to prove that she sabotaged security with intent. But really, she should be charged with setting up (or having set up) the server in the first place. That explains her insistence that Colin Powell did it too (even though he didn't).
Blogger tim in vermont said...
They don’t want to influence an election by indicting before elections. That’s a written guideline.
LO FUCKING L. You mean like Cap Wienberger and Ted Stevens? Don't you love it when they piss on our backs and tell us it's raining?
The rules are different for Republicans. If you're a Republican, you get charged before the election and it isn't until after the election that those charges are dropped.
The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinton did not willfully try to endanger National Security. It's the willful, knowing aspect that would've made it a crime.
Thoroughly untrue. A sailor is being tried for sending pix of his sub to his family, thoroughly unaware of the security risk. Many have been punished for unintentional leaking of secure info.
They probably weren't Democrats, though.
And she set up her own server intentionally, knowing that it was illegal.
But she's a Democrat and your type don't care about illegalities. Which is why I laugh at the bloodshed, every weekend, in Democrat cities. Serves the lot of you right.
No -Intent is not required, at least for some of the espionage statutes. All that is needed is gross negligence. Which I think would be easy to prove. But I think that actual intent could also be proven from a couple of her emails, plus the trading that she got at State, the NDA she signed, and that she was apparently one of a handful of original classifiers in the federal govt (I think there were 4: Pres, State, Defence, and Nat Security). Maybe not specific intent (to violate the law, etc), but more general intent to do the acts that resulted in the mishandled classified information.
Thanks, Mike; Darrell and I both used the old Madmenizer. Wonder if that's still available anywhere?
"I just like how Trump solved the FBI case..."
Hell, Trump is a piker. Our POTUS determined there wasn't even a hint of scandal MONTHS ago.
No what was the rest of that blather you spouted?
Based on what we know today, there are likely two primary laws at the heart of the probe and two or three others that might be considered investigative fallout. Partisans alleging that Clinton may have violated as many as 15 crimes are either exaggerating or simply seeking to overstate the gravity for effect.The first and most discussed statute has been 18 U.S.C.A. § 1924(a), and it’s a misdemeanor.
There are serious legal hurdles to overcome for those who would seek to file a charge under this law. First, none of the information she possessed and/or presumably “removes” had officially been declared “classified” at that time. That matters.
But this isn’t a law school exam where we attempt to figure out how creative one can become in fitting a law into a particular fact pattern. We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. So proving that she “knowingly” removed “classified information” “without authority” at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today.
Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody?” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.
The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith”
For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.
But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
Unknown said... "We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. So proving that she “knowingly” removed “classified information” “without authority” at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
7/3/16, 10:24 PM
Crooked Hillary caused a separate, secret communication system to be set up, and used it exclusively during her tenure as SoS. She deliberately withheld from the State department and congressional investigators emails marked as "classified". She attempted to destroy and alter other emails marked "classified" She has lied and obstructed justice throughout this
investigation. Despite ABC's partisan interpretation of the facts of the case, it seems pretty clear that Crooked Hillary "knowingly" broke laws, and should be arrested and tried.
We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t.
Muddy the waters Unknown. Good for you. It's right in the DNC leak and it is your strategy throughout.
Hillary showed poor judgement, just as she has in so many other matters, some with far worse implications than this. She should have known that practically anything she handled in her job would possibly be classified, but instead she chose her own classification system, which was solely designed to protect her political future.
Trump is a blustering, bombastic simpleton, but I have never seen any indication that he thinks the law doesn't apply to him. In fact, he will be held to closest account by the press, who will give Hillary a pass on most anything.
Does "gross negligence" require "intent" to do harm, or is Unknown reading from more dishonest talking points?
1. Raddatz pulled a Reverse Ronburgundy.
2. Journolisters must be huddling now, plotting how to effectively ban the word "crooked."
Trump is so far inside their heads it's amazing... esp. the former Republican #NeverTrump-ers, but many Dems and the media (tho, I repeat myself).
They just splutter and fume and make no sense whatsoever, even as they think they are smart--people like Kristol and Will and Podhoretz and Kagan... they don't even realize what fools they are, because he's so deep in their synapses.
One question I've yet to see posed is: if given impunity for communication violations as SoS, would Clinton feel emboldened enough to do the same as POTUS. Exactly who -- in a hypothetical Clinton II Administration -- would stand up to her and say "no you can't"? Because what we're seeing in some media so far is tacit approval of continued lawbreaking. Isn't that troublesome?
It should be noted that the punishment for the sailor with the sub pics was 30 years in prison.
Despite lack of intent.
Really, though it comes as no surprise, a decision not to prosecute Hillary due to such bizarre excuses as "intent" or the election would be to ignore the rule of law.
"Crooked" is an inseparable part of her name now, like Shoeless Joe Jackson or Screamin' Jay Hawkins.
-- or like Stevie Ray Vaughan!
... oh, wait...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा