That's the most-liked of the NYT-picked comments on the NYT article, "Hillary Clinton’s 15,000 New Emails to Get Timetable for Release." The article begins:
The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F.B.I. collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release.That is, the timetable is what it is because Clinton didn't turn over all the email. It's not as though the judge is synchronizing the email with the eve of the election to try to affect it. It's more as though he's endeavoring to get through his work in time to thwart what looks like a scheme of depriving us of material we need until after the election.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department....
And I love the way the opening line of the NYT article is structured to eclipse the human actor: "The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign...."
Is Hillary the person even there? The subject of the sentence is the "dispute." Better watch out for the active and dangerous character called The dispute. It "threatens." What does it threaten to do? To shadow her. The dispute is a creepy stalker! Hillary is there in the sentence. Not where her name is. That's the possessive, modifying "practices," which is what the dispute is about. Hillary the person is there as the "her," the victim of the creepy stalker that is the dispute.
पोस्ट्स
११५ टिप्पण्या:
Bill and Loretta, on a tarmac, in a plane. Next thing you know- Comey has the right answer for her.
...even against the popular count.
We have an electoral college. The popular count is irrelevant. And the Supreme Court only got involved because the Florida Supreme Court was obviously and intentionally throwing out the rules in favor of Gore.
Of course, had Hillary turned over everything when ordered, this wouldn't be an issue. Even more, had she followed the rules and not established her homebrew email server to conduct official (and "pay-for-play" illegal) business, this wouldn't be an issue. But let's blame the judge! He's being a meanie for not delaying the releases until after the election.
Poor Hillary- stalked by her own lies and her own corruption. Boo hoo.
The entire email affair is just one, long, unforced error. But, I suppose, what is a girl to do when you leave the White House and you're broke? Purloined White House furniture will only get you so far.
Since they left the White House the first time, the Clinton crime family made $250 million dollars.
Selling nothing but influence and graft. Tax payer? Screw you.
And yet cnn runs homepage story that trump is a corporate raider. Barbarian at the gate. I never thought it could get worse than 2008 and 2012 but this year is shaping up terrible for the fifth estate.
It really is telling that people still believe the "Supreme Court gave the election to Bush" thing, when by any reasonable review, Bush just won. The Gore campaign lawsuit to have recounts asked for standards, under which Bish clearly won according to a post-e;ection review by BDO, commissioned by several news outlets.
But this is the NY Times, which turns night into day on a regular basis, and its low-info readers/fans.
Thing is, she'll get away with it. Regardless of any court order, there's no way the State Dept puts out damaging emails before the election. They'll put out some and claim "it was the best we could do.". And you can bet the ranch that the ones they put put will have been hand-picked for innocuousness.
The diagramming of that sentence by you cracked me up, Althouse.
Hillary would only get 30,000 years max, and there's always early parole. She can run for President when she gets out.
"hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department...."
Pimpin' ain't easy.
If I were a New York Times online subscriber, I would post a comment which goes: I have a great idea! Let's make it against the law for any presidential candidate - Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Libertarian, Green, whatever - to be subjected to any legal investigation during the campaign season.
In other words, give 'em want they (think they) really want.
Any good English nerd can break down that sentence structure. Does the NYT employ such a person? Is the pretzel written consciously, or is the staff unconsciously determined to see Hillary as victim?
Yeah, Trump might win the election if the full extent of Hillary's bribery scheme and law breaking is uncovered.
She never should have used private email from day one at State.
Hillary the Bimbo will set back feminism decades. An apparently clueless and dreadfully immoral and unethical woman focused on money and power naturally will have ugliness shadowing her forever. Now, when it is becoming clear that the NYT failed to due its job to report honestly on the despicable candidate Hillary, it blames the judiciary.
The dispute is that Hillary might lose the election. But not if the NYT can help it.
We've got to get rid of this "pay for play" phrase. It needs to be called what it is: bribery.
We need a label for the kind of journalistic writing Ann has diagrammed here. While it is "dishonest" and "deceitful", those labels just don't do it justice. Viewed from a certain perspective there is a passive aggressive aspect to it where the writer is resisting the truth. Is this "passive aggressive journalism"? Is there a better term?
"If this judge isn't careful, he might determine the course of the election and discredit the judiciary branch..."
That sounds like a threat.
Ignorance, Scott, and JCC,
I don't fault the NYT commenter - ignorant or disingenuous as he or she may be. It's the fact that this is the most liked comment that I find most depressing.
Imagine if Hillary had actually taken the people at State, the job, and the country seriously enough to just do the job.
That might require seeing power as a sacrifice, service and responsibility, not a gain, prize and just reward.
Imagine if Hillary had actually taken the people at State, the job, and the country seriously enough to just do the job.
There isn't that much imagination left, Obama used it all up making people think he would be, well, anything but what he actually was. We need to replenish the reservoir, recharge it, like a skunk's glands.
Hillary had "no country" and "no heaven" down, but
NO POSSESSIONS? Ack! Cough! Stroke!
"Is Hillary the person even there?" I take the point about the rhetorical deflection of responsibility, to be expected at the NYT Dem-protection racket. But the question also gets at the bigger issue: is she even there? She is the nominal center of a cabal, but there's no there there. And yet, all the money and power flow to the empty center. It's a marvel of political physics. Only in America.
Ignorance is Bliss at 8:04...
Exactly.
But those who keep the memory of Bush v. Gore alive are not remembering it correctly.
If the 2000 election were set up to be determined by a simple popular vote, everything would have been different. Different campaigns, different candidates, different party system, different everything.
And if it were close and a recount were needed... imagine needing 300 votes to swing it and the potential to search for those votes everywhere in the United States. We would still be counting.
"Any good English nerd can break down that sentence structure. Does the NYT employ such a person? Is the pretzel written consciously, or is the staff unconsciously determined to see Hillary as victim?"
Some exquisite mixture of the two.
It's an interesting question as to whether a President Hillary Clinton could be impeached for actions taken when she was Secretary of State.
What's all this I'm hearing about Hillary Clinton being involved in "Human trafficking?"
Oh... Huma. Never mind.
wouldn't want this to get out
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/emails-huma-abedin-left-classified-material-unsecured-in-the-front-seat-of-her-car/
As Bob Dole once said about Bill Clinton, "Where's the outrage?"
Hillary clearly broke "policy" designed to ensure compliance with federal law and thus broke the law. It was not her responsibility or right to determine what was government property and what was personal. A government records officer needed to be involved. Once she commingled personal and business email, she even lost the right to even delete personal emails, without approval. Delegating to other people doesn't alleviate her sole responsibility to turn over all emails by her last day of employment. She cannot extend her clearance to hired lawyers, particularly after the fact. Deleting emails and destroying original .PST files by her hired lawyers is destruction of government property and evidence.
Hillary is unfit for office.
These latest revelations and releases may not result in any formal hearings or **cough, cough** charges, but they're fuel for the continuum of her incompetence and corruption. All this is occurring as we round the corner of Labor Day -- when the masses begin paying attention to the presidential race. Sorry it didn't work out as you planned, Your Thighness. Better luck in your next incarnation.
Meanwhile, yesterday's news that a foreign power had to make a contribution to the Clinton Foundation to secure a meeting with the Secretary of State is completely ignored.
(I seem to recall, re the top-voted comment, that the NYT its ownself investigated the Florida vote count and concluded that Bush had won the popular vote if they had been counted the right way.)
Somehow, this judge should give Crooked Hillary special privileges because the special snowflake is the Dem nominee for President. They should wake up. She is here because she and the State Dept have been lying to this judge for years. She just got caught in another one - he had been told in open court, that all of her work related emails had been turned over. This was a lie. It looks like maybe 2/3 of them had been. Maybe less. This was, of course, after being told repeatedly, that there were none. Turns out, there were somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000. Oh - and these were likely deleted after he had ordered them produced. These new emails are apparently emails that the Crooked Hillary people deleted instead of turning over as required by this judge. If she and her people hadn't been shitting on this judge the last 3-4 years, he might be more receptive to their arguments. But now, ithis special snowflake defense just looks like just one more excuse, after dozens. After stonewalling for years, she and her people, minions, and surrogates, want the judge to just give her one more break, so that she can win, and declare the whole thing over. Of course, this isn't the first time that she has tried to run out the clock on legal proceedings and stayed one step ahead of the law (likely everyone here remembers the missing billing records that ultimately showed that she, Web Hubble, and Vince Foster were instrumental in engineering the collapsed Madison Federal Ponzi scheme).
Just a quick question for the world of media.....why is Judicial Watch the only entity pushing for this material? Where is the brazen Washington Post (the new Woodward and Bernstein)Where is the next Daniel Ellsberg? Isn't there any person in the media willing to ask for this material? The media is dying.
PB said: "Once she commingled personal and business email, she even lost the right to even delete personal emails, without approval."
Bears repeating.
On that "most liked" New York Times comment. It's apparent that New York Times letter writers adopt the motto--"What's a little lying between friends?"
Of course their friend is Hillary. Can't recall a Republican that they are "friends" with.
the media is only about taking down republicans, capisce,
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2016/08/23/cbs-omits-details-clinton-foundation-pay-play-e-mail-report
The takeaway has always been that the Rule of Law doesn't apply to Clintons, and if that comment's "likes" are accurate, a lot of people like it that way apparently.
It's fascinating that after all this time that there are so many supposedly intelligent human beings who crave monarchy. I was under the misapprehension that people who liked the idea of leaders with absolute power largely died off generations ago, but I think unfortunately it might be deeply ingrained in our DNA. After all, up until a few hundred years ago we were all ruled exclusively by monarchs and ruthless strongmem. And whatever law there was certainly didn't apply equally to them. So since the dawn of history, this time period is the anomaly.
"If this judge isn't careful, he might determine the course of the election and discredit the judiciary branch..."
If the judge isn't careful he might make our dear Billary look bad by providing people with information they should have before they vote.
"... as the Supreme Court did with its election of Bush even against the popular count.
That didn't happen.
Judges should stay out of the political process and let the people decide how much honesty or bombastery they want."
So judges shouldn't throw out voter ID laws. I agree.
And "bombastery" isn't a word. "Bombast" is.
Let me add that no judge likes being treated the way that the State Dept, Crooked Hillary, and all her minions and surrogates have treated this judge over the last several years. One lie after another. One stall after another. Year in, and year out. State county and municipal court judges may have to put up with this, and aren't as arrogant. But this is a federal district court judge. He has lifetime tenure for just this reason. And her people have been stalling and lying to him for years now.
I should add that the suggestion that the judge might diminish the stature of the Judicial Branch for this is exactly backwards. Dir Comey diminished the stature of the FBI by laying out facts that would convict Crooked Hillary under the Espionage Act, then essentially saying that the fix was in, and his dept. wasn't going to recommend her prosecution. Despite having a ten year term of office, the FBI Director showed that he could be bought and pressured by the Attorney General and the Clintons.
It is vitally important that the truth be withheld from the American people until after the election. That is only fair!
One of my favorite headlines this morning (from JSOnline):
Experts: New Clinton State Dept. emails show donor ‘access,’ not ‘favors’
Got that? Trusted "nonpartisan experts" have weighed in and ruled Clinton innocent. Doing the dirty work so you don't have to. Move along. Nothing to see here. Just another unfortunate misunderstanding involving Hillary.
And the media wonders why half of the country no longer takes them seriously.
The takeaway has always been that the Rule of Law doesn't apply to Clintons
Face it. The Democrats are a crime syndicate formed to squeeze money out of the people who actually get things done. I used to think I was cynical, but I wasn't nearly cynical enough. With Comey's press conference on Hillary, I gave up on our republic. I will still vote for Republicans straight ticket down, because it is better that if one party is going to control the media and the White House and the Judiciary, they should have at least one wooden clog in the gears to slow them down.
prof. exquisite is what you expect from the elite newspaper of record. they have their disclaimer on the masthead if they can fit it they'll print it.
Why do people want access if not to press their case for favorable treatment? And if they aren't getting that treatment, why give so many millions of dollars? The buried lede there is that donors act contrary to their self interest, wasting valuable and inelastic time and a great deal of money talking to politicians for no benefit. A psychological study of why people do that would be a very interesting read!
Yet more bullshit excuse making for their felonious candidate. If this was a trove of Bush emails showing that he pressured the intelligence services to lie about Iraqi WMDs, they'd be all about a judge letting us see them.
Just as a thought experiment, can you imagine any circumstance of corruption or influence peddling that would cause the NY Times to cease their support of Hillary. From past experience we know that there is no sexual transgression that would cause the feminists to cease their support of Bill Clinton.......If Hillary Clinton grabbed an AR-15, shouted Allah Akhbar, and shot up her next press conference, the media would blame America's lax gun laws and the culture of hate that Trump has fostered.
they have their disclaimer on the masthead if they can fit it they'll print it.
"All the news that's fit to print."
"All the news we see fit to print."
See if you can spot a difference in actual meaning between the two. Hint: there is none. The first implies rhetorically that they are somehow objective where the second is an accurate description of their editorial philosophy.
PB said: "Once she commingled personal and business email, she even lost the right to even delete personal emails, without approval."
Much of what we do and see here is the regurgitation of old facts and arguments, but this is something that I hadn't seen before. Nevertheless, it is true and significant.
I should add that she lost that right again by lying and claiming that she had turned over all of her work related emails, deleting the rest, when it turns out that she hadn't turned them over. Her claim that using key words to drive the deletions was sufficient was always highly questionable, but it turns into active sabatogueing and ignoring of a federal court order when the smoking gun of more emails is found.
Al Capone's illegal bootlegging and tax evasion seems to overshadow his relationship with Canadian distillers.
BTW, if the SCOTUS had stayed out of Bush v Gore, and let the Florida Supreme Court re-write the rules as they were doing, the Florida House would have sent a second delegation to the Electoral College, which was within their rights, clearly, and it would have been thrown to the House and Senate, where each elected representative would have had one vote, and the Republicans had a clear majority.
So the SCOTUS should have stayed out of it, let the whole thing play out according to Hoyle. There was no path for Gore to the presidency under the constitution.
"If this judge isn't careful, he might determine the course of the election and discredit the judiciary branch as the Supreme Court did with its election of Bush even against the popular count
In fact the US Supreme Court stopped the Florida Supreme Court from violating election law in its zeal to elect a Democrat.
"And if it were close and a recount were needed... imagine needing 300 votes to swing it and the potential to search for those votes everywhere in the United States. We would still be counting."
Though the Founders didn't have this in mind, it is a powerful argument for the Electoral College. It makes counting votes in a close election a tractable problem.
Of course, had Hillary turned over everything when ordered, this wouldn't be an issue.
That's key. This shit should've been handed over in 2013. This is ALL Hillary's fault.
Since they left the White House the first time, the Clinton crime family made $250 million dollars.
And produced nothing of value. But they did steal from Haiti, so yay progressivism.
If the 2000 election were set up to be determined by a simple popular vote, everything would have been different. Different campaigns, different candidates, different party system, different everything.
They also forget studies that show the early (and wrong) call of Florida for Gore cost Bush, minimum, 10,000 votes. Take away that and FL isn't all that close.
Experts: New Clinton State Dept. emails show donor ‘access,’ not ‘favors’
But that former VA Governor --- he was dirty, I tells ya
I'll just point out that Hillarys squeeze BJ was well known to be a serial womanizer before he got elected twice. And his wife is well on her way to election when we know she is serially dishonest. Draw your own conclusions regarding what this says about our electorate.
This Judicial Watch FOIA case is amazing. It was dead in the water, until the Sidney Blumenthal hack revealed that Hillary had her own mail server. That restarted the case and slowly the judge on the case began treating the State Department as if they were actively not complying with the FOIA.
The State Department has been covering for Hillary as much as they can, but the rot of the private email server is hard to overcome. Hillary is going to have to give responses to interrogatories from Judicial Watch. With the release of the FBI interview notes, her testimony in front of Congress and now these written responses, she's setting herself up for a perjury trap. I wonder if Colin Powell is going to be asked to testify if Hillary claims that Powell told her to use a private email account.
Just like Obama, why do bad things always HAPPEN to Hillary?
and the scrubbing of the veteran vote, and allowing ineligible voters in various counties to
participate, then they hired a public relations firm, to throw out the jews voted for buchanan, fooferaw,
William said...
If Hillary Clinton grabbed an AR-15, shouted Allah Akhbar, and shot up her next press conference, the media would blame America's lax gun laws and the culture of hate that Trump has fostered.
If you are going to offer a hypothetical, you need to make it plausible. You ruined the whole suspension of disbelief thing when you tried to place Hillary at a press conference.
A federal judge prodded the State Department to quickly review a batch of 14,900 recently discovered emails as the controversy over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s correspondence while she served as America’s top diplomat continued to simmer.
Judge James Boasberg, in an order, set a deadline for the department to complete the email review by Sept. 22 to determine which ones contain sensitive government information and which are strictly personal conversations. That could pave the way for the emails to be released as early as mid-October.
If as Hillary says, all relevant emails have already been turned over AND she had no secret, classified, or secure emails on her server, these emails should all be "safe" and should just be released "in mass" with no review needed, right?
What is the worst that could happen? Folks would know when Hillary went to yoga class? That Hillary thought Huma's ass looked good in that teal pant-suit outfit?
It appears that the New York Times is now a higher court-of-law than SCOTUS.
Their masthead should read: "TELL A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH AND IT BECOMES THE TRUTH".
Well, Hillary! is a lot more than just Hillary Clinton. It is a group of enablers and handers who act as a sort of an amorphous blob or hive mind that comes up with these courses of action. Hillary Clinton is the part that people see. Sort of like an iceberg, where Hillary is the one you see, but there is a whole bunch more under the surface. Only the borders of Hillary! and not-Hillary! are probably a lot more grey and undefined and shifting. There are some people who are sorta part of Hillary!, some who think they are part of Hillary! but really aren't, and some who are temporarily part of Hillary! as needs arise.
Hillary probably doesn't even control, or consciously make a lot of decisions. It often isn't just Hillary digging in and insisting that something happen the way she wanted. She might have suggested a desire, and that, filtered through several layers of people, came out to WE REALLY WANT IT DONE THIS WAY. IT SHALL BE DONE THIS WAY.
It isn't even that the Hillary! hive mind only has yes-men who enable her every whim. Hillary! does lots of stuff that Hillary Clinton obviously would prefer not to do. But the dynamics of groupthink mean that decisions can take a surprising turn, or many surprising turns, before they solidify into a plan, and once solid, they cannot be easily be changed.
as the Supreme Court did with its election of Bush even against the popular count.
No..that was the Electoral College, functioning as it was supposed to do.
If you see the Government doing favors to a select group of donors as merely a Free Market in favoritism, then it makes sense that both the GOP and the Dems are screaming holy hell about The Donald exposing this political game and demanding Free Trade.
A long term seller of influence will see Trump as the deadly enemy to their Political Party. Kasich in Ohio sees him that way, as does a Romney in Massachusetts. To them, he is the RAID can spraying for Roaches...TRUMP'S HERE!
Sale of political Favoritism is illegal, but only if you are extremely careless and leave proof of it around...which brings us back to Private Server Hillary.
Hillary is supposed to be the feminist candidate, the first woman nominated by a major party, and the media celebrates this fact in its declarations. Yet, the media in practice makes Hillary into a passive figure. They are protecting her. Things happen to her, around her. They portray her as helpless in need of comfort and defense.
It's an interesting approach because Hillary the person isn't passive. She's quite aggressive in getting what she wants. Even still, the media lets her hide behind a facade of always being acted upon, never responsible, "Computers are hard," indulging the very stereotypes her candidacy is supposed to burst.
Once again we see that the fix was in for Hillary from the very beginning.
"As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November."
Since when does a subject of an FBI investigation get to "voluntarily turn over" anything? Here in Illinois we have a lot of experience with FBI investigations of politicians. When you see those stories on the news they are often accompanied with a video showing a bunch of men in windbreakers that have "FBI" in 18-inch letters on the back carrying out boxes of files, computers, and what looks like everything that isn't nailed down out the front door of the subject's home and/or office. Then the FBI goes through it with a fine-toothed comb and ANYTHING that you've done that's illegal gets exposed.
But not here. The FBI didn't raid Mrs. Clinton's home or office. They asked for her to turn over what SHE judged was germane to their investigation. Since when does that happen? Who gets that deal? THAT is when you knew - or should have known - the fix was in.
tim in vermont@9:34am
"I used to think I was cynical, but I wasn't cynical enough."
------------tim in Vermont
"I Try to be cynical--but I can't keep up."
-----------Lilly Tomlin, Political Philosopher..
damikesc said:
"That's key. This shit should've been handed over in 2013. This is ALL Hillary's fault."
No. It shouldn't have been handed over in 2013. The FBI should have gotten a warrant, gone in and taken it. Just like they do to 1000's of people a year. Tell me why that didn't happen.
RonF said...
Tell me why that didn't happen.
8/23/16, 11:10 AM
LOL! You know why that didn't happen! Cause she is Hillary! and normal rules don't apply to her highness...
Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
William said...
If Hillary Clinton grabbed an AR-15, shouted Allah Akhbar, and shot up her next press conference, the media would blame America's lax gun laws and the culture of hate that Trump has fostered.
If you are going to offer a hypothetical, you need to make it plausible. You ruined the whole suspension of disbelief thing when you tried to place Hillary at a press conference.
8/23/16, 10:13 AM
Now, that's funny, right there.
More babies from the Democrats' twilight zone. That said, all is fair in leftist justice and elective abortions.
You know why that didn't happen! Cause she is Hillary! and normal rules don't apply to her highness...
Well, not just because "she is Hillary". She also gets the perpetual get-out-of-jail-free card because she's a Democrat. A Democrat with a chance to win the Presidency. If she were a Republican with a similar rap sheet she would either be in federal prison or hiding in disgrace out of the public view.
In my life time, the only other similar case would be Ted Kennedy. Killing a woman eventually ended his Presidential quest but it wasn't an automatic dis-qualifier. And the system and media were much less corrupt back then than they are now. In 2016, I can't imagine anything Hillary could do that would be allowed to stand in her way.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
It's an interesting question as to whether a President Hillary Clinton could be impeached for actions taken when she was Secretary of State.
Of course. Any official can be impeached for anything. Impeachment and conviction are political action, not a legal act.
If the 2000 election were set up to be determined by a simple popular vote, everything would have been different. Different campaigns, different candidates, different party system, different everything. "
Actually it would a different country altogether and not necessarily a union of fifty states.
There is a reason every state has two Senators no matter what the population of that particular state is and there is a reason for the electoral college.
That a criminal and traitor can even be a candidate for president never mind the presumptive (at this point) winner says a lot about the country and not in a good way.
RonF said...
The FBI should have gotten a warrant, gone in and taken it. Just like they do to 1000's of people a year. Tell me why that didn't happen.
Because these records weren't sought as part of a criminal investigation. They were sought as part of a FOIA request. FOIA requests always start with the assumption that the government agency will comply with all relevant documents. Things only escalate if the requesting party can show that the agency did not comply with the request. Even then it would take extraordinary circumstances before before it would reach the level of a search warrant.
Note- I'm not saying that these records should not have been sought by the FBI in relation to Clinton's handling of classified information, or in relation to the Clinton Foundations money laundering scheme. I'm just saying that the way they are being handled is in line with a FOIA request.
"And "bombastery" isn't a word. "Bombast" is."
I'm trying to find bombastard in my Websters. Must be in here somewhere.
"FOIA requests always start with the assumption that the government agency will comply with all relevant documents."
-- After the Obama administration's consistent obstruction of FOIA requests [and even before that, similar requests had their problems], I think this assumption needs to die, and we need a new approach to handling FOIA requests.
No. It shouldn't have been handed over in 2013. The FBI should have gotten a warrant, gone in and taken it. Just like they do to 1000's of people a year. Tell me why that didn't happen.
To be fair, I'd give her until the end of her tenure as Sec of State to turn over everything. Yes, it should've all been there, but by 2013, there is no excuse that anything is missing.
As far as the FBI, the government's ONLY concern is to keep itself running. Laws are for little people.
And the system and media were much less corrupt back then than they are now.
Sadly, they were. The NYT had Soviet agents on the payroll. It's always been bad.
-- After the Obama administration's consistent obstruction of FOIA requests [and even before that, similar requests had their problems], I think this assumption needs to die, and we need a new approach to handling FOIA requests.
Don't worry, "we" will.
But only for Republicans.
Ever notice that the press, which had few problems demanding an independent investigator for the nothingburger that was Valerie Plame, is WAY less demanding of one now for this nonsense?
Funny how the same argument isn't made about the lawsuit against Trump. Shouldn't the judge set that aside until after the election? The case may affect the race.
Well, funny isn't the right word: hypocritical fraud is the more appropriate phrase.
To be clear, I think Trump is utterly unsuited for the presidency. But the appalling bias of the media in their coverage of this campaign is amazing. They don't even try. We can discuss the mental health of Trump but no one can discuss Clinton's health? This is absurd.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year
No, no, no! Hillary said several times that she "turned everything over" so this must be wrong. It's in the NYTimes, though, so it must be true.
BZZT BZZT BZZT DOES NOT COMPUTE, ERROR ERROR!
Gotta love the casual euphemisms: "clearly unethical and possibly illegal coordination and corruption" = "sometimes awkward ties."
Yeah, it sure can be awkward when your corruption is exposed. What an awkward thing, a real faux pas, huh?
When Republicans say and do things that make people question the integrity of the system (of elections, say) it's dangerous and must be stopped. How dare Trump say things are rigged, that's outrageous and hurts the whole country!
When Democrats say and do things that call into question the integrity of the system ("selected, not elected" and "Diebold stole the election!"), well, that's different. Obviously.
"It really is telling that people still believe the 'Supreme Court gave the election to Bush' thing, when by any reasonable review, Bush just won. The Gore campaign lawsuit to have recounts asked for standards, under which Bish clearly won according to a post-e;ection review by BDO, commissioned by several news outlets."
Actually, no.
There were several recount scenarios studied after the fact, using several different recount methods. Some found that Bush would have won, others found that Gore would have won.
Of course, the closeness of the vote may make any such determination possibly impossible to ratify as the correct result. However, the vote would not have been so close if not for skullduggery that disenfranchised thousands of likely Gore voters in Florida. Many black voters went to their customary polling places and were told their polling place had moved. Many of these voters were unable to find the new polling places, or were turned away from several. Others were prevented from voting for other suspicious reasons.
More significantly, thousands of voters discovered when they tried to vote they had had their right to vote nullified by the state, as they had been named on a list (commissioned by the State of Florida under Governor Bush) of felons.
Thing is, these thousands of voters were not felons; they simply had names the same or or just similar to the names of actual felons.
In short, tens of thousands of (likely) Gore voters were prevented from voting, and from delivering Gore to the White House. If not for this massive voter disenfranchisement, there would never have been need of a recount, as the decisive winner would have been determined.
The Supreme Court had no cause to intervene when and as they did. They used the excuse that "time was of the essence," that is, that there had to be a determination of the winner by some artificial imminent date, and that somehow the nation was in peril if a new President were not determined with haste. One must suspect they were fearful Gore would be determined the winner, and so acted to insure Bush became President.
I do not offer any of the above as a partisan of Gore; I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, as I did not consider Gore any more worth to be president than Bush.
You all, again and again, are taking the NYT and its ilk the wrong way.
It is all a propaganda machine.
There is no-one to argue with over there, they are all paid to do and say as they do and say.
Damn Cookie. Names on lists that were not accurate or similar to other names...
You must really HATE the "common sense" gun control being pushed by the left.
"Yet more bullshit excuse making for their felonious candidate. If this was a trove of Bush emails showing that he pressured the intelligence services to lie about Iraqi WMDs, they'd be all about a judge letting us see them."
Who says the intelligence services lied? Their assessments were always more qualified and doubtful than Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Tenant claimed. It was Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld who lied about what the intelligence actually showed.
Cook:
Congressional Democrats heard all the same intelligence, then said all the same things to the cameras, during both Clinton and Bush. Hell, they were arguably even more apocalyptic about the evidence. So... why did they all lie?
"You must really HATE the "common sense" gun control being pushed by the left."
I have no idea what gun control policies are being pushed by the left. I don't know what this "common sense" gun control policy is.
I think persons must be licensed and vetted somehow before being able to buy guns, but I don't have any specific ideas what would be the best or most appropriate method. Gun control is not a fixation of mine.
Yes, cookie, some of tbe recount methods reviewed Gore winning. Specifically, the method Gore requested, which was to recount ONLY the districts that Gore wanted recounted, and not recount anywhere else. Which is obviously and on its face unfair and against election law. Bush won every legal and fair method.
As for the "disenfranchised" claims, lets see your evidence. Because I've seen previous attempts to make your claim (and I never saw ANYONE try "tens of thousands" before, lol) completely debunked. And finally, even if that were 1000% true (it isn't), I bet I could give you two disenfranchised military or those disenfranchised by the false early call for Gore while the polls were still open for every one of your false claims. Funny how those never come up.
"Congressional Democrats heard all the same intelligence, then said all the same things to the cameras, during both Clinton and Bush. Hell, they were arguably even more apocalyptic about the evidence. So... why did they all lie?"
Few--if any--in Congress availed themselves of the actual intelligence. They heard what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld told them the intelligence said. They acted as herd animals, accepting long-held bromides about Hussein being a "new Hitler" and an "existential threat" to the USA. He was neither, but few in Congress cared enough to question or consider the matter. Those who bothered to offer opinions simply parroted each other and the long-time received wisdom in Washington.(There were a greater number of Democrats than Republicans who voted against giving Bush the authority to wage war on anyone he chose in the "war against terror.")
Fuck...Al...Gore....
Robert Cook agreese with Cnn that felons vote for Democrats
"More significantly, thousands of voters discovered when they tried to vote they had had their right to vote nullified by the state, as they had been named on a list (commissioned by the State of Florida under Governor Bush) of felons.
Thing is, these thousands of voters were not felons; they simply had names the same or or just similar to the names of actual felons."
PB said...
As Bob Dole once said about Bill Clinton, "Where's the outrage?"
That is simultaneously exactly the correct example and depressingly predictive...she'll get away with it, too; of that there should be little doubt.
Robert Cook said...In short, tens of thousands of (likely) Gore voters were prevented from voting, and from delivering Gore to the White House. If not for this massive voter disenfranchisement, there would never have been need of a recount, as the decisive winner would have been determined.
Assertion without evidence. It was a very close election, unusually close, and all sorts of things that normally happen--like some voters being flagged because their names were close to a felon's--suddenly made a difference. Junk like that happens in every election, but most elections aren't close enough to matter. I'm not sure why you assume that people who have names similar to felon's names are more likely to be Gore voters. What you haven't proven is that there aren't any number of other quirks like that that could have pushed things the other way, vote-wise, and there are likely dozens of such things.
Not that I trust The Nation, but exactly how many people did they prove tried to vote but couldn't (due to incorrectly being purged from the roll due to a name problem)? "Thousands" is suspiciously vague. I don't think the purge happened between the last registration deadline and the election itself, did it? Wouldn't that problem have come up/shown up before election day? Didn't any of those "thousands" submit provisional ballots--isn't that what's usually done when there's a problem or dispute of this type?
However, the vote would not have been so close if not for skullduggery that disenfranchised thousands of likely Gore voters in Florida. Many black voters went to their customary polling places and were told their polling place had moved. Many of these voters were unable to find the new polling places, or were turned away from several. Others were prevented from voting for other suspicious reasons.
More significantly, thousands of voters discovered when they tried to vote they had had their right to vote nullified by the state, as they had been named on a list (commissioned by the State of Florida under Governor Bush) of felons.
Investigated by the Civil Rights Commission.
They found three cases where it COULD be argued that there was even the tiniest sliver of a chance that disenfranchisement happened.
The others? Utter bullshit. As usual.
In short, tens of thousands of (likely) Gore voters were prevented from voting, and from delivering Gore to the White House. If not for this massive voter disenfranchisement, there would never have been need of a recount, as the decisive winner would have been determined.
False. They were notified well in advance of a possible issue and provided more than ample time to correct any issues. If they did not do so, c'est la vie. It's not disenfranchisement. It's laziness.
And the press cost Bush tens of thousands of votes by wrongly declaring Gore the winner in FL (where he never once led in the count at any point).
Few--if any--in Congress availed themselves of the actual intelligence. They heard what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld told them the intelligence said.
The claims were made well before Bush came into office.
If the email issue dogs her throughout her campaign, it's because (a) she shouldn't have done it in the first place, and then (b) having done so, she avoided and delayed cooperating with the investigators.
Had she just come clean in the first place this would all be old stuff a year ago.
And, as for 2000, Bush would have comfortably won FL if several TV/radio networks had not called if for Gore when polling places in the Pensacola area (in Central Time Zone) were still open. iirc, comparing turnout to previous elections, this probably discouraged over 100K voters who would have given Bush a 20,000 vote edge.
None of which was what Bush v Gore was about, of course. The USSC decision held that the Gore campaign's pursuing recounts only in a handful of jurisdictions, thought to be favorable to Gore and based on no real evidence, was improper, and if recounts were to be done they should be statewide, which was manifestly impossible before the Electoral College met, esp as there was no evidence or even credible allegations that there was anything for a recount to uncover.
Even in the aftermath, the NYT and Miami Herald looked at the ballots and found that of several recount scenarios tested, Gore only might have won in one of them, which was so blatantly tilted that no court could have accepted it. The Gore strategy was, in essence, keep counting until we win, then stop. The USSC was absolutely correct to put its foot down.
Whenever people like Cook try to relitigate and refight that election, what is most often forgotten is that the Secretary of State, Republican Kathleen Harris, had already certified the Republican slate of electors before the FL Supreme Court issued their second opinion. If the US Supreme Court had not reversed the FL Supreme Ct, but had punted instead, what would have happened? At best, the FL court could have mandated the certification of a second slate of electors. And what happens, when there are two slates of electors for one state? The House decides, at least for the Presidency. In this case, the Republican House. The Gore electors were not about to get seated, after how Gore tried to win with selective recounts of only heavily Democratic counties. The Dems should have seen that coming, and tried to enjoin her from certifying the Republican slate of electors. They didn't.
Question -- Are the "new" emails emails that H did not produce to State because they were "personal?" Hard to follow things.
steve uhr said...
Question -- Are the "new" emails emails that H did not produce to State because they were "personal?" Hard to follow things.
8/23/16, 3:04 PM
All of the emails are/were "personal" cause they were on Hillary! PERSONAL email server, get it? So technically, she didn't have to produce any of them. Silly government keeps pressing the case (due to external pressure) cause some of the emails actually contain government work product even though that work product is never supposed to leave the government's air-gap network. Oh well...
The Democrats were perfectly happy to let the Florida Supreme court allow selective recounts. Even the NYTs own recount of the Florida election favored Bush. However, the Dems love to repeat lies.
Why have laws? Why not let people who believe they were rape victims decide how to retaliate against whom ever they believe is a rapist? I always thought there was too much rule of law hand wringing, but it has gotten to the point where I do believe a Clinton presidency will be the end of the country as we know it. They have politicized the justice department, the FBI, the IRS, and monetized high office like no others in our history. The media has abandoned all semblance of neutrality as have the Universities.
I will say it again, Trump, while not ideal, has no machine to entrench his interests in Washington, the Clintons will corrupt everything further.
Running for President and still a crybaby. Yikes!
And it just gets worse for HRC on the corruption! front! (H/T Insty)
At what point do the Democrats, who all got together & crowned this abomination go "Whoa! Enough's enough!"? 85 of 154 meetings!
I think modern Democratic politics is so corrupt that they don't even see it as corruption anymore. Their word for it is "governance".
Can't allow those voters to have access to too much information. It might corrupt their pea brains.
YoungHegelian,
Five will get you ten that tomorrow, Thursday at the latest, the Dems and our trolls will have talking points proving that Trump, Colin Powell, and or Condi Rice did the same thing.
Cookie,
Your source is "The Nation?"
Really?
Will they ever stop with this "the Supreme Court elected Bush" business? All the Supreme Court did was stop the Florida Court from throwing the election to Gore. Every respectable recount shows that Bush won Florida - even the NYT's own. The only way Gore could have won is if public employees in a couple of counties got to subjectively determine whether certain ballots were valid or not (i.e. to count them for Gore but not for Bush), which is what the Florida court was going to allow.
If you think that the national popular vote should be determinative, then amend the Constitution - which does it some other way for a lot of good reasons. But don't complain because the existing rules were properly enforced.
"The Nation" rag never met a Stalinist/Maoist mass murdering totalitarian that its staff members didn't absolutely adore.
Next up Cookie explains how Hiss was innocent! Innocent I tell ya!
It's an interesting question as to whether a President Hillary Clinton could be impeached for actions taken when she was Secretary of State.
Sure she could. The president can be impeached for any reason the House decides to do so.
" The president can be impeached for any reason the House decides to do so."
High crimes and misdemeanors is, I believe, the term of art. Lying to the House, perhaps the FBI. Failure to secure classified info, distribution of classified info to those w/o clearances, pay for play.....
A case could be made.
Personally I don't think it would fly. Of course, after listening to our SOS (oh so many times)I fully understand why banks would pay her a cool quarter million to listen to a speech where she scolds them severely.....
"Personally I don't think it would fly."
-- If it came out AFTER the election, it might. But since it came out before, the answer is: She was elected with everyone knowing this. The public does not care.
Robert Cook said...
I think persons must be licensed and vetted somehow before being able to buy guns, but I don't have any specific ideas what would be the best or most appropriate method. Gun control is not a fixation of mine.
In other words, you don't believe that individuals have thte right to bear arms. Rights aren't subject to licensing and approval.
I suppose you also believe that typewriters ought be licenses as they were in Romania. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19630320&id=VJBOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MwEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7120,4275506
And journalists and news outlets also. In order to make sure they don't disseminate dangerous information to the unwashed masses.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा