If she were actually being prosecuted, there would be a complicated legal discussion, and the voices speaking on behalf of Mrs. Clinton would be amplified and empathetic. They would laud her indomitable fighting spirit.
These people have nothing they can say now, except to try to say that she's been "cleared."
But Comey's statement does not clear her, it indicts her (politically). She sent email messages that "contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent," she "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," and she was "extremely careless in... handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Posts
186 comments:
That analysis makes sense to people paying attention.
But most voters are not political/legal junkies, and will only get the message that Hillary was exonerated.
The idea isn't to make it worse for Hillary but to try her for a crime. If that isn't functional, nothing works.
All the attack ads are the same regardless, in the political sphere.
Should the government just go ahead and repeal FOIA?
After all, nobody in government will EVER not go the route of using private email servers from now on. That law is dead and buried.
This reminds me of how you told us the great Romney and Ryan moment was only possible because of the direness of the Obama legacy.
But we got nothing out of that.
The law is always being shaded to a political result. Take gay marriage for a fine example.
These people have nothing they can say now, except to try to say that she's been "cleared."
And sadly, not true. Hillary Rosen was on CNN yesterday saying Comey had said Hillary was "honest". They can, and do, say anything.
The political result has appeal to women. It's like doing your feelings.
Things won't work that way. That's why you don't want women voting.
How can anyone reconcile the Martha Stewart James Comey with the Hillary Clinton James Comey?
Richard Epstein on rule of law, a refresher podcast that I rate as the best podcast ever.
You accept the law ruling you because you wind up ahead in that it also applies to everybody else, so you get a greater benefit from the latter than you lose from the former. Pareto optimum.
If it doesn't apply to everybody else as well, you have no reason to accept it ruling you. Everything breaks down and you get personal revenge ruling. Everything becomes drug deal justice. You're worse off but it's the best you can do under the circumstances when the law doesn't apply to others.
James Comey is 6'8". Wow!
I have a morbid fascination with the intersection of height and power, probably because I'm only 5'7".
And dog bites man...news at 11!
It's always been the case that the law is for the little people...and for big people who displease the wrong big people. This is not unique or new with Hillary Clinton and is certainly not particular to either major political party. Behind the sometimes-theatrical/sometimes-genuine heated political rhetoric and casting of invective by politicos at each other, they're all colleagues, members of a most exclusive club. They will almost always take care of their own...if only to guarantee their own protection!
The political solution does not solve the rule of law problem. Even if Trump wins, and fires everybody in the State and Justice Depts.
"These people have nothing they can say now, except to try to say that she's been "cleared.""
-- So, people have nothing to say except an extremely powerful statement that completely destroys any attempt to use this against her?
Seriously: Any attempt to use this against Clinton will be met with: "She did nothing illegal; even the FBI said so."
"The political solution does not solve the rule of law problem."
No, it makes the rule of law, the subject of the election.
Just as Brexit came to be about British independence rather than foreign policy, the FBI decision not to prosecute Hillary may, for some voters, change 2016 from a presidential contest to a referendum on the rule of law. It may no longer be about Trump vs Hillary but the Proles vs the Party.
I doubt the left will see it.
What this really drives home is that the Republicans are making a huge mistake nominating a person who Hillary is likely to beat, in a year when she should be incredibly vulnerable, and at this point the best bet for the country is a GOP House that at least has some chance of impeaching her when she inevitably does something grossly illegal (which she is absolutely certain to do).
Best question I saw yesterday, on this blog: So how does Hillary, if elected President, get a security clearance given her past behavior?
Forget Hillary Clinton - her fall will come sooner or later. Who I feel for are the unconnected and powerless members of our society who are waking up this morning in a jail cell for having done far less damage to our society than Hillary, but who lacked the education, financial resources, and connections to put up even the slightest defense against the Department of Justice, and are now paying with their freedom because of it.
And Hillary remains a free person, flying around in a custom 747 and makes appearances with a smug, self-satisfied look on her face, not the least bit concerned about these poor suckers in prison, or the appearance of her absolute immunity and its corrosive effect on a society.
Hillary has lost the moral authority to send a good number of our law-breakers to prison. So how does she or anyone else believe that she can lead the Department of Justice and send anyone to prison? That we as a society - of around 50% of us - don't seem to understand this point tells us a great deal of how heartless and merciless we've become.
(And so many said that loosening the sexual mores won't harm anyone. The unrealized or un-admitted truth is that rampant sexual immorality hardens one's heart. The end result is a society in which "nuanced" concerns such as how it feels to a person sitting in prison watching Hillary fly around free cannot be felt or understood. It is one way in which societies become unmerciful. The tragedy is not just the loss of rule of law; it is the loss of any mercy for those we now choose to condemn because of the rule of law.)
Agree with Matthew Sabian. That Hillary's supporters can say she's been cleared is such a major and devastating thing that most voters will not hear the rest.
It's a bit like the Candy Crowley incident in 2012. Someone who has the perception of a position that is supposed to be apolitical has put their finger on the scale. The public heard that Obama's false statement on Benghazi was deemed true, and it made it seem as though the people who were telling the truth about what Obama's administration did were the ones who were political hacks.
I can appreciate that perhaps Coney thought this was the least worst thing for him to do, and that his hope might be to throw this back to the political arena, but the reality is that this is wrong on so many levels.
"GOP House that at least has some chance of impeaching her when she inevitably does something grossly illegal (which she is absolutely certain to do). "
-- If you can't get an indictment on someone for obstructing justice, destroying evidence and knowingly giving classified information to non-cleared people, you aren't going to impeach her for anything. There'll be no political will there, and you'll need massive majorities in Congress.
No. If Clinton wins, she'll do whatever she wants.
I can't imagine a single registered Democrat in the USA will be persuaded to vote against Hillary based on Comey's comments. Because of Democrat and MSM constant appeal to identity politics, the court of public opinion is as rigged as the OJ jury.
"But most voters are not political/legal junkies, and will only get the message that Hillary was exonerated."
Exactly!
Again, Trump is the absolute worst vehicle er messenger re: attacking Hillary w/his off the chart unfavorables!
"the Republicans are making a huge mistake nominating a person who Hillary is likely to beat, "
The problem is that NOT ONE of the other candidates was willing to address the issues that people care about.
The penis of Damocles (new translation, Roman slang) hanging over Hillary, has been removed.
A second lockbox.
Again, if the criminal justice process doesn't work, there are other non-political means of rendering justice.
The gov't hates vigilantes, but they have a place.
Women want a penis-free election.
But Comey's statement does not clear her, it indicts her (politically).
What difference, at this point, does it make?
MadisonMan said...
Best question I saw yesterday, on this blog: So how does Hillary, if elected President, get a security clearance given her past behavior?
The president is automatically given a security clearance. Face it, had Obama been applying for a job at a defense contractor, he would never be granted a clearance. Neither would Hillary. (Source: I'm a contractor who has held security clearances for decades.). Not only does the president get access to classified information, he (or she) gets to determine when to declassify anything they want. An example was when Jimmy Carter revealed the existence of stealth development programs back in 1980 during his failed reelection campaign. He was being beat up for being soft on defense (and believe me, he was) so he revealed the existence of a program that was classified at the highest level since the Manhattan Project.
This must horribly painful for Hillary. I'm sure she would've much preferred to have been frog-marched off to jail.
the FBI decision not to prosecute Hillary may, for some voters, change 2016 from a presidential contest to a referendum on the rule of law
I really don't think enough people care anymore.
46 million on EBT cards, close to 50% of the country on some kind of government aid. Add new, poor foreigners to the mix, and you have enough to push over the 50%. Not to mention 4 more years of the greatest generation dying and young, indoctrinated skulls full of mush voting, and you have a recipe for the end of the experiment.
Enjoy the last of it folks; there won't be second helpings.
Best question I saw yesterday, on this blog: So how does Hillary, if elected President, get a security clearance given her past behavior?
Come on. Does anyone think the sitting President of the U.S. isn't going to get security clearance? And if she doesn't, does anyone think she couldn't appoint a Director of National Intelligence that would have full clearance?
This is moot.
Hillary isn't negligent or incompetent. She's just doing everything for personal wealth rather than for the nation. I don't know that the nation is even in second place in her priorities.
She's running a money-skimming fraud and that requires care and competence.
The power isn't wanted for itself but for its potential [ha] in money making.
The problem is that NOT ONE of the other candidates was willing to address the issues that people care about.
In fairness, there was - Ted Cruz. But people didn't think he was cuddly enough, so they didn't vote for him. As for the others, it would have been new boss same as the old boss.
Walker dropped out early; if I'm not mistaken, he suggested others drop out as well. But the egos were too big. If that had happened, maybe a stronger candidate would have won.
"-- If you can't get an indictment on someone for obstructing justice, destroying evidence and knowingly giving classified information to non-cleared people, you aren't going to impeach her for anything. There'll be no political will there, and you'll need massive majorities in Congress."
Maybe not--but it depends on the circumstances. What's clear is that no Democratic House will impeach her under any but the most egregious circumstances.
"The problem is that NOT ONE of the other candidates was willing to address the issues that people care about."
Even if that were true (which is another debate), it won't make a bit of difference if we're ensuring a Hillary victory. She's far more "establishment" than anyone in the GOP field and her level of corruption should have made her unelectable. It's mind boggling how much she can get away with, and how much she has lucked out in terms of opponents.
"While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he “committed or may have committed” while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency." http://www.history.com/topics/watergate
Yep. We learned our lesson there.
She's just doing everything for personal wealth rather than for the nation.
I hope so. Because Obama's reasoning sure wasn't. I personally think the money is just the means - I think she's an avowed leftist just like Obama, and will govern accordingly, and using tactics that are just as vicious (or moreso) as Obama.
I don't know that the nation is even in second place in her priorities.
Power is number one. The rest is just a shuffle of the deck.
"In fairness, there was - Ted Cruz. But people didn't think he was cuddly enough, so they didn't vote for him. As for the others, it would have been new boss same as the old boss."
It came down to showmanship, not issues. Trump knows how to dazzle, we have to grant him that, and when there's lots of dazzle and a 17-man field, no boring ordinary politician can get noticed.
The general election is a different battleground, and the celebrity and free media approach pay lower dividends now. The Clintons managed to line things up perfectly.
If only they could use that deviousness for good instead of evil!
"Yep. We learned our lesson there."
Oh, we learned a lesson all right. We learned that we must let partisanship overcome duty to country (as the Republicans of 1974 foolishly put country ahead of party), that a sense of shame is a weakness (Clinton would never resign like Nixon did--make them take you out!), and provided you have compliant media outlets, you can get enough of the country to blame your enemies instead and cover for whatever you do.
This will be one hell of a next four years.
Our media is an arm of the democrat party.
They are moving on now.
Honesty is a male thing.
For women, if anything, it once meant chastity.
Didn'tYourMr.O win several of his elections with abuse of the legal system? Grandma is still chuckling on his path to the most powerful man on yourplanet, even better than the early 1900s big men brushing all aside on their way to power. Driving out candidates, getting various court documents leaked if not directly unsealed, etc. Your pTb better be very careful else he'll see himself in handcuffs on the nightly news. Along with his children because with them on the loose there will be no containing the riots. Allyiyou need now is a convient Gasthaus.
"This political attack is made possible by the absense of a legal prosecution."
No, this political attack made necessary by the absense of a legal prosecution.
If Comey had recommended she be indicted, she'd be likely be out.
Sure, Comey said she did X, Y and Z, but then he said, essentially, "But it's all minor. Nothing to get worked up about. I'm satisfied. I'm moving on. You should too."
Why are they only talking about classified information. Isn't it a crime to contrive to avoid FOIA laws and record keeping laws? She clearly did that and others helped her do it. Why is that not problem?
And Brian Pagliano, the IT guy, took the 5th a bunch of times despite having been granted immunity. What the Hell?
What a steaming pile.
rh - Like Obama and the democrat men who owe millions in back taxes? Honesty - it's for dudes.
Honesty as a value doesn't come up for women. It does for men. It's part of the hail fellow well met thing that makes agreements possible.
I watch very little TV. No cable.
So I'm flipping thru channels last night on my way to passing out, and I see a Hillary campaign ad. The ad was about Hillary and girls and women and children and isn't she nice? The next ad was Budweiser with a beer can showing the word "America" on it. What was weird - there was NO break between the ads. There was no small gap or break and the ads were made to look like they melded together. So then I thought... - who did that? - the pro-D network, or was it Budweiser's idea?
rh - Your obsessive statements about men and women (and how women are so inferior) make you look like a guy who has never spent any time with a women at all.
At least we know the liberals in Madison have already moved on as instructed.
Do law schools in the United States teach students that the law only applies to some people and not others?
All animals are equal,but some animals are more equal than others.
To women the issue is the more interesting graphic design of campaign ads, and how women will respond to it.
Blogger rhhardin said...
"Honesty as a value doesn't come up for women. It does for men. It's part of the hail fellow well met thing that makes agreements possible."
"Honesty as value doesn't come up for women"? Seriously? Are women to be blamed for all of society's ills? Women are human beings, exactly as men are human beings, their moral compasses are no different than a male member of the human race. Their values depend on how they were raised as well as genetics, life experiences, same as men. Don't conservative women get their hackles up by this sort of indictment on women or do conservative women agree with this notion? Unbelievable that an educated intelligent man could say this with a straight face.
But what...really, please read me...what do they want?
If they are atheists, why do they care what happens after they die?
If they are atheists, why do they care how their children behave or thrive?
These are old questions.
Why does Hillary need a hundred million dollars? She's gonna be dead in twenty years. Why does she give a crap? For Chelsea? Why would that matter?
Wouldn't an honest atheist say to herself, Après moi, le déluge?
And if we're considering electing such a person, a person who may not even have thought about what happens after you die, shouldn't we wonder what the motivations of such a person might be, and whether they might be malevolent?
Their values depend on how they were raised as well as genetics
How about XX and XY?
A male makes an agreement regardless whether it's with a friend or an enemy.
A female makes an agreement with a friend.
"the Republicans are making a huge mistake nominating a person who Hillary is likely to beat,"
They kept telling us that Trump can't win but he kept on winning. They kept telling us that Hillary would beat Trump as she struggled to beat the socialist curmudgeon windbag Sanders and yet they still keep telling us that she will beat Trump. I don't so, I think Trump is going to win because Trump is a winner and Hillary is a loser.
Why are Barack and Michelle Obama building a monument to Obama's presidency in Chicago? What purpose could it serve?
Some day in a few hundred years, America will be plastered over with presidential libraries. Each new one will make the older ones less valuable.
@RH,
What does gender have to do with morals and values? The notion that the female is less moral than the male because of hormones is absolutely insulting and is medically and biologically ignorant. Where do you get these erroneous notions from? Your gonads?
Males and females have different imperatives.
Roughly, males are better at global system-wide things; women are better at neighborhood-sized things.
That's evolution for you.
"A male makes an agreement regardless whether it's with a friend or an enemy.
A female makes an agreement with a friend."
Hogwash. So RH you are some expert on females? What makes you qualified to throw out such nonsensical comments regarding the nature of women? Do you even associate with women on your everyday life or do you just watch them in movies?
Males abstract from what isn't known; women complicate and give weight to what isn't known.
@RH,
Complete garbage, junk science.
She should not be able to stand behind that seal as a candidate. That pissed me off about the campaign stop yesterday.
Movies have pretty much the opposite today. Women are heroes, even though the future doesn't depend on that. The future depends on their loving.
Junk science would be a male insult. Women embrace it.
Professor, I hope you don't think of me as one of those petty, self-righteous "language Nazis," but "absense"? Really???
Science is one of those system-wide, global things that men are concerned with.
@RH,
Now you assert how women must behave in order to ensure mankind's survival? Mankind's survival depends on HUMAN BEINGS loving one another enough not to kill off the species.
The great thing about junk science is that women get to add to it.
She stood behind a seal? That would be a good Trump ad. She stood behind this seal! Did nothing to save it from the shark!
The human survival depends on men being brave and women loving.
"Extremely careless" in ordinary daily-speak means "really stupid."
hijacked by the hormone expert.
"Women are not concerned with science"? Are you serious? RH, you may think you have women figured out in a "scientific" way, but obviously you are a one dimensional thinker and that has nothing to do with your gonads, that just a human flaw you've developed.
Women in science are concerned chiefly with the women's workplace issues committee.
Men who live alone with female dogs have issues with junk science.
@RH,
Since you have spouted your fair share of junk science this morning, congratulations, by your own standards, you've exposed your feminine side.
Men who live with male dogs and human females are more balanced.
April Apple, does RH have only female dogs? That might be a clue. Does he feel dominant over these females? Does he feel a lack of dominance over human females?
Not exactly hijacked. Althouse appears to be unaware when she's arguing as a woman. It would help to know that as a writer. An ironic edge, perhaps.
The best dogs are females. They tend to nurture.
The best cats are males. They tend not to give a crap, and therefore like to have fun with everyone.
Althouse, are you aware that your feminine brain handicaps you as a human being? Oh my.
Unknown is a Creationist, apparently. God created each sex exactly equal, and if you doubt it, you are medically ignorant!
It's not a handicap to be female. It just makes you good at neighborhood-sized things instead of system-wide things.
Which is worse, Clinton's emails or her vote for the Iraq war? One action had dramatic real-world consequences, including the holocaust of the world's oldest Christian population along with the rise of ISIS.
Neighborhood-sized expertise is why women in science are on the women's workplace issues committee. That's what they're best at.
Tim in Vermont, morals and values are not dependent on what hormones flow through your body. Do you have only female dogs also?
Why is it okay for Comey to smear Clinton even though he doesn't think there's enough evidence to prosecute? People are taking what he says at face value, but he doesn't have to legally support his claims.
Unknown said...
Althouse, are you aware that your feminine brain handicaps you as a human being?
Come on now. Take it easy. We all know that's only for one week a month.
"They kept telling us that Trump can't win but he kept on winning. They kept telling us that Hillary would beat Trump as she struggled to beat the socialist curmudgeon windbag Sanders and yet they still keep telling us that she will beat Trump. I don't so, I think Trump is going to win because Trump is a winner and Hillary is a loser."
Trump is going to beat her because some people ignored the polls during the primaries, but this time we should ignore the polls in the general election?
Look--both Trump and Hillary won their primaries, for reasons that go to their strengths--Trump's showmanship and celebrity status and ability to command attention drowning out the mass of opponents who could not overshadow him; Hillary using massive party apparatus to keep strong opponents from entering the primaries and then holding out against a kooky old socialist. They're both going to try and use those strengths in the general election, and exploit each other's weaknesses. It'll be close, I think, because they both have turned off so much of the electorate and most voters are already in lock step with their parties, but Hillary has the advantage here. There may be good reasons to think Trump could beat her, but simply his winning the primaries isn't really a reason.
@RH,
Yes of course, women's brains cannot grasp or deal with global issues, based on that junk science again. Did you observe this from your interaction with your female dogs?
Gusty Winds,
At age 65, Althouse is post menopausal. She is hormonally much closer to males than at any other time in her life.
Why is it okay for Comey to smear Clinton even though he doesn't think there's enough evidence to prosecute?
I think you should say "Obama's FBI" instead of "Corey" since he is the head of Obama's FBI.
Well, as an adult anyway. During development here is a time when males and females are indistinguishable.
"This political attack is made possible by the absense of a legal prosecution." (sic)
I just can't get over how dumb this is.
Comey must have a feminine brain.
Nels Nelson said...
Why is it okay for Comey to smear Clinton...
See. Comey is just another sexist white guy smearing a woman. He should obviously be fired for not following orders yesterday and embarrassing the President and Mrs. Clinton on the day of their big campaign.
Interestingly, Hillary's Campaign guy on MSNBC last night was seriously upset and was charging that because Comey did what he did that poor Hillary has been denied due process of law by not being indicted so she could get a fair trial.
He's right.
Female brains follow their interests, just like male brains. Interests differ, however.
Nels Nelson has a point. How does Comey get to pontificate on the errors Clinton made? Is this the role of FBI director in most cases? Can they give examples of wrongdoing that fall short of being criminal, or are they supposed to concern themselves with the criminal aspect of the case?
As my abuelita would say, this line of reasoning is a "consuelo de bobo" - a fools consolation.
As stated many times above, pettifogging details like this dont matter before the greater rhetorical point. I think Trump will use it for what its limited uses are, but hes too smart to bother getting in the weeds.
Unknown said...
How does Comey get to pontificate on the errors Clinton made? Is this the role of FBI director in most cases?
Exactly. He should have stepped up to the mic and exonerated Mrs. Clinton fully, as instructed. No ad-libbing beyond the approved script that Mr. Clinton went out of his way to give to Ms. Lynch.
The public should not be allowed to become confused seeing contradictory statements between the head of the FBI and a woman of impeccable honesty and integrity like Mrs. Clinton.
Comey should apologize. If people don't trust Mrs. Clinton it is now Mr. Comey's fault, not Mrs. Clinton's.
@RH,
Since we have hijacked this very good post of Althouse's long enough I won't engage you further. I will conclude with this advice, get out and interact with live human females and buy a male dog.
No Gusty Winds, that is not the case. No rational person will exonerate Clinton. She has exhibited very bad judgment and I was one of those hoping that she would drop out and Sanders would run against Trump instead. I am forced to vote for this very flawed person though, because Trump is even worse. It's "Sophie's Choice".
"Interestingly, Hillary's Campaign guy on MSNBC last night was seriously upset and was charging that because Comey did what he did that poor Hillary has been denied due process of law by not being indicted so she could get a fair trial.
He's right"
Comey doesn't have the power to prevent an indictment, he isn't the one stopping an indictment.
asi mismo, (how right you are) buwaya, this is no holds barred political warfare, not unlike ultimate fighting,
Unknown said...
No Gusty Winds, that is not the case.
Seems that's exactly the case and I completely agree with your previous post. And millions of Americans will exonerate Mrs. Clinton by voting for her in November, rightfully shaming Mr. Comey more than he already shamed himself. Perhaps as a sign of forgiveness Mrs. Clinton could offer Mr. Comey a job as the next ambassador to Libya.
The head of the FBI had no right to expand on any findings or draw any of his own conclusions. This shouldn't have been investigated in the first place and it is and insult to all women that Mrs. Clinton was not taken at her word. It was clearly sexist. The investigation should have stopped when President Obama assured us no critical information was handled incorrectly or compromised.
The part of his speech regarding others' who engage in the same activity could perhaps be stripped of security clearance and prosecuted (and have been) was especially egregious.
His statements as a white man just further serve to divide us and demonstrate the sickness of his privilege.
This is now all in the past and the American People are ready to move on.
You arent voting for a person, you are voting for a system. The President is a figurehead for a clique, a cabal, a set of associates and even a culture. Clintons set are in power now, different only in very minor ways from Obamas, and these have set the US and much of the world into a general decline and have paralyzed the economy.
Voting for Clinton is to vote for ultimate destruction.
Which is worse, Clinton's emails or her vote for the Iraq war? One action had dramatic real-world consequences, including the holocaust of the world's oldest Christian population along with the rise of ISIS.
The invasion of Iraq didn't need to have these consequences. They were caused by the left's determination to lose the war.
She reminds me of those smirking criminals on TV crime shows.
"There may be good reasons to think Trump could beat her, but simply his winning the primaries isn't really a reason."
I think we can judge people based on their past performance because its the best way to judge them given that there isn't any certainty "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results." but it helps and is a good thing to know.
Move On 2: Electric Move-a-loo
"I think we can judge people based on their past performance because its the best way to judge them given that there isn't any certainty "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results." but it helps and is a good thing to know."
To some degree that's true, and Trump has shown some campaign strengths which he'll try to use this fall. But if his team is competent, they'll also recognize the difference in the general election battleground and their own weaknesses there. A swing of even a few points could make all the difference.
Also, I pointed out yesterday that every time Hillary was on the ropes with some bit of bad news, Trump seemed determined to jump in and save her by changing the subject. This latest is his praise of Saddam Hussein for killing terrorists. Whatever the merit of his argument (and clumsy as he made it, there is a case for us being better off working with brutal dictators in some instances against a more dangerous enemy), why on earth go off message at just the time every Republican is united in disgust for what Hillary got away with?
If he's not actually trying to blow this election, he's doing a good job giving that impression.
"Trump seemed determined to jump in and save her by changing the subject."
It's almost as if Trump wants Clinton to win. Maybe he's gotten cold feet? Have all Trump's fuck ups been strategic? One does becomie suspicious after a while.
Rick said...
The invasion of Iraq didn't need to have these consequences.
In making this decision any rational person would have taken account of the perfidy of the left. So, which is worse?
Excellent post, Peofessor Althouse. The lead editorial in the Detroit Free Press (a Michigan Democratic organ) proclaims Mrs. Clinton as having been "cleared." That is more misinformation, than information.
In making this decision any rational person would have taken account of the perfidy of the left. So, which is worse?
When you're right, you're right. And the inconstancy of the American people to prosecute a war to a conclusion. It isn't there. So the first American kid shouldn't die in a lost cause. I supported the Iraq War. I was wrong, very wrong. We should have responded to 9-11 with some daisy cutters at Tora Bora and left it at that.
At least I didn't support trying to overthrow Assad and Qaddafi for basically the same repudiated reasons. I learned the first time America got its hand burned.
These people have nothing they can say now, except to try to say that she's been "cleared."
The talking point word is 'exonerated'.
Blogger Quayle said..."Forget Hillary Clinton - her fall will come sooner or later. Who I feel for are the unconnected and powerless members of our society who are waking up this morning in a jail cell for having done far less damage to our society than Hillary, but who lacked the education, financial resources, and connections to put up even the slightest defense against the Department of Justice, and are now paying with their freedom because of it."
I'm finding that what saddens me the most is our hostess is cool with that.
morals and values are not dependent on what hormones flow through your body. Do you have only female dogs also? - Unknown
Yes Unkown, I am sure that God created each sex out of clay, or was woman created from Adam's rib bone? Some people say that the actual translation is penis bone, as we are the only great ape without one, but I digress. God created each sex out of clay and was scrupulously fair and even handed!
Since it has only been six thousand years, the millions of years of selective pressure on each of the sexes, driven by the different reproductive imperatives imposed on each never happened!
Is that how it happened? Is that how feminist creationism works? Is that why both sexes make judgments with exactly the same genetic cognitive biases? Help me with this! I know you are a scientific literate and I am a troglodyte, but I would like to learn. Please share how this happened!
Or you could swish your pony-tail and disappear!
@ Brando
"..I pointed out yesterday that every time Hillary was on the ropes with some bit of bad news, Trump seemed determined to jump in and save her by changing the subject. This latest is his praise of Saddam Hussein for killing terrorists. Whatever the merit of his argument (and clumsy as he made it, there is a case for us being better off working with brutal dictators in some instances against a more dangerous enemy), why on earth go off message at just the time every Republican is united in disgust for what Hillary got away with? "
(!)
I keep wondering why Trump does this, time and time again.
Saddam was better than ISIS. Is this even in dispute? Invading Iraq was the stupidest foreign policy decision since Vietnam. Pulling out of Iraq was the stupidest foreign policy move since the Iraq invasion. W and Obama and Hillary are stupid people
She sent email messages that "contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent," she "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," and she was "extremely careless in... handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
That sounds like an airtight case under the criminal statutes Comey can't or won't read. And he may be 6'8" but yesterday he proved that he's a moral and ethical midget.
AReasonableMan said...
In making this decision any rational person would have taken account of the perfidy of the left.
Certainly the left believes the right is responsible for their mistakes as we can see from both this position and their Obamacare stance that the right should have fixed their POS bill. But since no reasonable people believe this one can only assume this is trolling.
Maybe he's really a Democrat! Maybe he's on Clinton's payroll. Is he a Moby? Clintons are truly Machiavellian....
Saddam was better than ISIS. Is this even in dispute? Invading Iraq was the stupidest foreign policy decision since Vietnam. Pulling out of Iraq was the stupidest foreign policy move since the Iraq invasion. W and Obama and Hillary are stupid people.
Here we go with this happy horseshit again.
We invaded Iraq to have an outside chance for a little bit of freedom and democracy to grow in the middle east. Also, to have a friendly country in the middle of terrorism's hotbeds to keep an eye on those hotbeds. A bit naive? Maybe. Stupid? Absolutely not. Yes, I know that wasn't how it was sold. The American people are too short-sighted (and stupid) to have understood it from that standpoint. Sometimes you gotta lead and do what the people don't want, if you think it's right. It's why we don't have direct democracy in this country.
It wasn't until the pullout that things went noticeably down. According to the locals, they wanted us to stay for awhile. Add Obama's purposely destabilizing Syria, Egypt and Libya, and giving Iran money and atomic technology, and you have a recipe for the entire middle east to go up in flames. So what happened? ISIS, and the middle east in flames.
The world is small now. Our interests do not just exist within our borders. There are business interests, personal interests and financial interests that affect all of us - retirement, investments, etc., that preclude this country from closing off our borders and ignoring the rest of the world. In retrospect, people seem to get this, because the Libertarians can't ever get more than a few percentage points.
Getting my drift?
For Democrats ineptitude and corruption in their politicians are not bugs. They are features.
Re: Iraq.
It's as if these critics have never looked at a map. What country lies between Iraq and Afghanistan?
Containment of Iran is now, however, on the back burner thanks to the Obama administration.
Blogger Bob Ellison said..."But what...really, please read me...what do they want?
If they are atheists, why do they care what happens after they die?
If they are atheists, why do they care how their children behave or thrive?
These are old questions."
They're ignorant questions.
"I keep wondering why Trump does this, time and time again."
He can't help himself. He's like the little kid who wants attention, whether negative or positive attention. This isn't about winning as a primary goal--if the GOP wanted a candidate focused on winning the general election, they would have picked someone else. Somehow, they figured if he was nasty enough to other Republicans, he'd be devastating towards Hillary, who is such a rich target. So far it doesn't seem all that devastating.
"Saddam was better than ISIS."
Saddam was certainly less bad than ISIS, but there's a way to argue that without speaking wistfully of a brutal strongman who had many thousands of innocent people murdered. I think we should have tried more to work with him against our common enemies, but I'm not aware of any evidence that he was actually eliminating any real terrorists (unless we grant that anyone opposed to Hussein was a terrorist).
She did it all deliberately.
``Can we think of a case in which something is done deliberately but not intentionally? Certainly this seems more difficult. However, there are cases.
``I am summoned to quell a riot in India. Speed is imperative. My mind runs on the action to be taken five miles down the road at the Residency. As I set off down the drive, my cookboy's child's new gocart, the apple of her eye, is right across the road. I realize I could stop, get out, and move it, but to hell with that: I must push on. It's too bad, that's all: I drive right over it and am on my way. In this case, a snap decision is taken on what is essentially an incidental matter. I did drive over the gocart deliberately, but not intentionally - nor, of course, unintentionally either...''
J.L.Austin "Three Ways of Spilling Ink" _Philosophical Papers_ p.278
"Here we go with this happy horseshit again.
"We invaded Iraq to have an outside chance for a little bit of freedom and democracy to grow in the middle east."
Talk about happy horseshit.
Hillary Clinton just now: "[Trump would] be for protecting a system where where the rich and the powerful stick it to everybody else."
What chutzpah.
Nelson wrote: "Why is it okay for Comey to smear Clinton even though he doesn't think there's enough evidence to prosecute?"
Stating what his investigators found is not "smearing" her. Take some deep breaths. Facts cause cognitive dissonance in Democrats, but it will pass.
Who's Gretchen Carlson? The newest Republican war on women.
Hillary, trading on women's understanding of finance, says Trump got rich while his investors got wiped out in Atlantic City.
Trump wasn't holding the debt or the stock. People who buy debt and stock take on the risk. They're paid for taking on the risk. They get the upside and the downside.
The thing about it is that you learn to stop doing what doesn't work, instead of doubling down on it, when something new is tried.
Hillary could explain how she does it, opening a trading account in futures and magically being on the winning side of every transaction, almost as if it's predetermined.
"Hillary Clinton just now: "[Trump would] be for protecting a system where where the rich and the powerful stick it to everybody else."
What chutzpah."
It's all chutzpah this year. We have two fantastically corrupt, lying, incompetent candidates with thin skin, no respect for the law and no restraint on their sense of executive power. Both tell everyone that the other one is a scheming crook and buffoon. And they're both right! Yet at no point are voters saying "THIS is our choice? How can we not reject both of them and demand better of our political system? How has it come down to two people so absolutely unqualified and dangerous to put in charge of anything?"
And now one of those people will be president.
Original Mike said...
Bob Ellison said..."These are old questions."
They're ignorant questions.
You're being rather generous. Replace "atheist" with "Christian" in the questions and they make more sense - Kingdom of Heaven and all that.
Brando
He can't help himself. He's like the little kid who wants attention, whether negative or positive attention. This isn't about winning as a primary goal--if the GOP wanted a candidate focused on winning the general election, they would have picked someone else. Somehow, they figured if he was nasty enough to other Republicans, he'd be devastating towards Hillary, who is such a rich target. So far it doesn't seem all that devastating.
His fans keep promising he'll drop the big bombs over Hillary soon enough. Any minute now. Trump is gonna really attack Hillary. Any idiot knows you strike while the iron is hot. He missed a huge opportunity yesterday. Again.
For the record, my local paper has this story as the headline and uses the words "CLEARS" and "EXONERATES."
I am trying to decide if this qualifies as "lying" or "ignorance." I also wonder if Hillary could sue them for libel.
As far as the media is concerned, if she's not behind bars wearing orange, she is completely not guilty.
Hell, reading it, it doesn't even "clear her" in terms of the law.
It just says it's not worth prosecuting her, because mere negligence has not "typically" (paraphrase with, I think, identical meaning) been used to press charges.
"His fans keep promising he'll drop the big bombs over Hillary soon enough. Any minute now. Trump is gonna really attack Hillary. Any idiot knows you strike while the iron is hot. He missed a huge opportunity yesterday. Again."
Their argument is they want to wait until it is too late for the Dems to put a much stronger candidate in her place. The problem with that theory is:
1) Who is this stronger candidate? Hillary is weak, but it's not as though Biden or Warren are all that strong either.
2) Even if the Dems could put another candidate in Hillary's place, setting up a campaign infrastructure in the final months of the campaign is nearly impossible to do right (as Trump's bungling is showing the GOP).
3) Hillary was always going to be the Dems' nominee, period. This was a coronation, and while Sanders made it a bit embarrassing, he never had much of a chance and it was notable that he did as well as he did. But hitting Hillary early and often would plant an image in the heads of voters that would keep her favorables down all year, and get much harder for her to counteract.
4) Plus, as Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Similarly, when your opponent is reeling, either say something on message (the killing blow) or say nothing. Stop saving her from herself!
When it's all over, we're probably going to hear about how say Jeb was too "low energy" to win anyway, so he wouldn't have done better than Trump. I'm not so sure--maybe "low energy" would have been just the sort of sober, stable candidate that would contrast well with the erratic, unprincipled crook Hillary. At the very least it wouldn't have meant trying to find someone with the exact same weaknesses as Hillary (as well as many more) to go up against her.
"Hell, reading it, it doesn't even "clear her" in terms of the law."
Keep in mind Comey never said there was no lawbreaking here. We have a lawbreaker, just one who will not be prosecuted for it.
I hear the GOP is going to hold hearings over this. I'd say that's a good development if I didn't have a strong hunch that they're going to misplay this hand as well, and leave Hillary more popular than before.
Hillary was "cleared" the way O.J. Simpson was found "innocent." A lot of black people knew Simpson was guilty but cheered the result -- just 'cuz -- and pointed to the verdict as proof. But after 350 seasons of "Law & Order," most people understand that being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent."
By the same token, the Hillary supporters will keep framing this as "she was cleared," even though they know that all she did was dodge prosecution for her clear wrongdoing. Millions of people will still understand -- I hope -- that "we won't prosecute" isn't the same as "she did nothing illegal."
Hussein invaded a foreign nation and lost. He was given an opportunity to repent and reform, but chose to remain belligerent and noncompliant. He was captured and brought to trial before a jury of his peers. Ironically, Gaddafi did repent and reform, only to be sodomized and aborted during Obama, Clinton et al social justice-inspired humanitarian disaster in the Middle East, North Africa, and Eurasia, which has progressed to a global humanitarian disaster as they attempt to hide the consequences of progressive wars, opportunistic regime changes, and other anti-native policies in Europe, America, etc. It's telling that Democrats, the party of abortion, is also the party of war throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Their Pro-choice religion (i.e. selective principles) is a cause of instability that has only be mitigated through creative destruction, redistributive change, and liberal doses of opiates.
Talk about happy horseshit.
Come on, Bob, you can do better than this. Where am I wrong?
OK, guys. Let's not try to be all philosophical here. It's a tough job. Don't get in this water if you don't know the depth.
But what motivates Hillary?
Bob Ellison said...
But what motivates Hillary?
Penis Envy
"Don't get in this water if you don't know the depth."
Look who's talking.
"But what motivates Hillary?"
Power, which in this instance kept her out of jail.
Any idiot knows you strike while the iron is hot.
You strike while the iron is cold with a scythe blade.
It's easily cold worked, and the new edge is both formed and hardened at once.
And peoplwho rely on the Boston Globe for news know there was no scandal and wrongdoing by Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, that the whole brouhaha was nothing more than another attempt by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to smear her. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/06/another-clinton-scandal-goes-poof/L0eJ2I5yGc9PYVTeEaDpmN/story.html
Look, professor: I don't give a damn about the political ramifications of this. We *used to be* a nation of laws, and (theoretically, anyway) NOBODY was above the law.
That is manifestly no longer true.
What *is* manifestly true is that you can flout the law with impunity if you're one of the *right* people.
Well to Hell with that, and to Hell with anyone who thinks that is OK.
I would like to think that a philosophical foundation underlies Hillary's moves. What could it be?
"I would like to think that a philosophical foundation underlies Hillary's moves. What could it be?"
I would like to think there is a God (I really would). That doesn't make it so.
Honestly, I see Hillary as pretty shallow. Money and power is what she wants. Is there evidence to the contrary?
Unless you believe she's doing it for the children. That's what the latest ad I saw said.
"I would like to think that a philosophical foundation underlies Hillary's moves. What could it be?"
I honestly think it comes down to the fact hat she can't stand the fact that Bill was president and she wasn't.
Of course, only a theist cares about the children.
"I honestly think it comes down to the fact hat she can't stand the fact that Bill was president and she wasn't."
And then there's that.
Why are they only talking about classified information. Isn't it a crime to contrive to avoid FOIA laws and record keeping laws? She clearly did that and others helped her do it. Why is that not problem?
A very good point.
And Brian Pagliano, the IT guy, took the 5th a bunch of times despite having been granted immunity. What the Hell?
Sure sounds like someone who was fearful of something other than self incrimination. Maybe Bill had a little chat with him about his grandkids and golf, too.
I'm actually more upset about the FOIA end-around than I am about the security considerations. That was about hiding her doings from "us" instead of "them".
Orin Kerr had a very similar assessment to Althouse's yesterday. That is, Comey's actions were sensible from a political standpoint. So, according to these law experts, we've sacrificed any semblance of Rule of Law because to do otherwise would upset the political process. There doesn't seem to be any consideration for the degradation of law in that determination (or if their is, they haven't expressed it).
It's more than a little disturbing that people who by all accounts should care about the law, who've studied and ruminated on law their whole lives, and are in fact legal pedagogues, apparently have so little respect for the law. Or at least they think it's a sensible thing elevate political stability above the law in this case. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Academics live in a privileged, ephemeral world of postulation. They rarely if ever have to feel the consequences that exist in the real world.
"It's more than a little disturbing that people who by all accounts should care about the law, who've studied and ruminated on law their whole lives, and are in fact legal pedagogues, apparently have so little respect for the law."
Yeah. I understand the political arguments, but My God (am I allowed to say that, Bob?), I was appalled at Althouse's take.
"The lead editorial in the Detroit Free Press (a Michigan Democratic organ) proclaims Mrs. Clinton as having been "cleared." That is more misinformation, than information." Preview of the "discussion" Althouse would like to have during the campaign. What is there to talk about?, say the Dems--end of discussion.
Original Mike, money and power are fun things to have in this earthly realm.
Hillary has worked hard to acquire money and power beyond her earthly scope.
Maybe she thinks Google will invent a thing that will make her live forever. If so, she's a dope.
What's her motivation?
Some people are just greedy.
"Come on, Bob, you can do better than this. Where am I wrong?"
Our illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with trying to plant and grow democracy in the region. You know as much, why pretend we had noble intentions? A few children or simpletons might still believe such fairy tales, but I don't think you are a simpleton or a child.
Robert Cook said...
Our illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with trying to plant and grow democracy in the region.... A few children or simpletons
Nothing's more childish than referring to wars as "illegal".
Robert Cook
I have the sense you are guilty about all the Halliburton stock you bought when you knew that the war in Iraq was fought for the purpose of driving up its price. That and oil futures.
Can't blame you. Don't blame yourself.
oh, please.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/
Back to Drudge (the original basis for this post).
Drudge is right now headlining a Jeffrey-Epstein-claims-to-have-started-the-Clinton-Foundation story.
Does that work? I mean, it might, if Bill Clinton were the only person in this campaign with a Jeffrey Epstein connection. But Donald Trump was probably better and closer friends with Epstein, than Bill Clinton!
Here is the story Drudge is flogging:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/06/billionaire-sex-offender-epstein-once-claimed-co-founded-clinton-foundation.html
Here is the Trump connection:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5556/7-things-you-need-know-about-trump-and-sex-slave-amanda-prestigiacomo
I mean, it should be a killer story versus the Clintons, if we had a halfway normal Republican candidate.
(Cross-posted):
It sure does.
Which is why conservatives complaining about the lack of an indictment should thank their lucky stars that he disqualified her politically in about the strongest and most authoritative terms you could expect.
And now Paul Ryan makes the completely plausible case that she should be barred from receiving intelligence reports after being nominated.
That FBI director handed you guys the strongest case against Hillary that anyone could make. Use it to your full advantage. She now goes into this more damaged than probably any favored front-runner I can think of in modern US history.
@chuck What garbage both your links are. Space fillers both.
Balls -
That FBI director handed you guys the strongest case against Hillary that anyone could make. Use it to your full advantage. She now goes into this more damaged than probably any favored front-runner I can think of in modern US history.
We are hanging our hopes that Trump will. So far, other than a video- it's been tepid. He did tell us he invented the word "rigged".
Our illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with trying to plant and grow democracy in the region
Cookie, I would provide links to refute your claim but I know there is no use trying to persuade an old Marxist.
Cookie, remember the ladies with purple fingers? George W. had them rolling, and Obama pulled the rug out from under them.
Michael K said...
Our illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with trying to plant and grow democracy in the region
"Cookie, I would provide links to refute your claim but I know there is no use trying to persuade an old Marxist."
Sorry Michael, I have to agree with Robert to some extent. Why did Bush allow the media to hang the soldiers that deployed and fought out to dry? Why did Bush allow the No WMD's lie? Why did Bush not defend our mission and motives?
I will not forgive the left for lying about us and our motives. But it is clear that Bush had other agendas as well by not fighting against them. Bush and Clinton are indistinguishable at this point as far as I am concerned. Obama is more virulent, but they are all part of the uniparty and democracy and freedom are not on their menu.
Hagar said...
"Cookie, remember the ladies with purple fingers? George W. had them rolling, and Obama pulled the rug out from under them."
Bush did nothing for the ladies with purple fingers. Bush did nothing for the people who fought to let them get purple fingers. Bush had his job which was to tell the truth about what we fought for and the truth about what we were doing.
He did not do it. He allowed the left and the media to trash the mission and undermine us. He had to know what would happen. It was just like Vietnam. At this point the Uniparty, of which all Bushes are clearly a part of, weren't truly interested in bringing freedom and stability to the middle east. They had other goals.
Speaking of George W. Bush, he turned 70 today. I for one wish him a happy birthday, and many more. It was nice to have at least one of the last three (soon to be four) presidents be a decent, honest (at least by politician standards), and patriotic human being, however many his mistakes and misjudgements. It would be nice if we could have one next year who is not a horrible embarrassment and down-right danger to all of us. I suppose it could still happen, thought it's hard to see how.
Professor while your thought has merit and I am sure that the Administration wasn't happy with the FBI director throwing out all of that red meat on the table, a bad precedent was set here. This goes beyond this election, beyond Clinton, Obama, Trump and the whole gang. This is the Saturday Night Massacre that wasn't. It's as if Richardson and Ruckelshaus hadn't resigned and Cox had said Ok you win. Nixon was taken down in part because there were members of the Republican party who weren't willing to look the other way. Where are the Goldwaters, Hugh Scotts and John Jacob Rhodes in the Democratic party today who can go to Clinton and Obama and say this won't work. Where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins in today's media.
"Nothing's more childish than referring to wars as 'illegal.'"
Childish, why? It seems everyone here is mightily exercised over Hillary's free ride for her illegal use of private servers to send and receive emails. Isn't the illegal invasion of another country--something we are never hesitant to condemn other nations for doing--at least as worthy of noting? I think you just don't like to be reminded that we committed a grave crime by invading Iraq, and the ongoing catastrophes (and crimes) across the middle east in the last decade and a half almost all descend directly from that crime.
I keep wondering why Trump does this, time and time again.
You assume that he wants to win. If the GOP had smarts and guts they would find a way to nominate someone else, of course the primaries proved that there is a lack of smarts and guts in the GOP.
"laws are for little people."
Minnesota Police Dept
@Lilac Haze
"laws are for little people."
Minnesota Police Dept
1. Not relevant to the discussion. While it is an important issue this isn't the place to discuss it.
2. It is not logical to defend one bad actor by pointing to another.(assuming that is what you are trying to do see 3 below)
3. Ambiguous, at best it is just an emotive blurp at worst your just throwing up flak, your not providing enough information to show how you understand the two events to be related.
Post a Comment