Althouse: "Can't we just drone this guy"

October 3, 2016

"Can't we just drone this guy"

Said Hillary Clinton about Julian Assange, according to Wikileaks.

65 comments:

holdfast said...: And yet some folks wonder why Assange seems to have a personal vendetta against HRC?; 10/3/16, 10:54 AM
holdfast said...: I mean, I don't disagree with her basic policy suggestion - though a Mozambique Drill would seem a little more appropriate in the middle of a friendly city. Assange ha effectively declared war on the US, and was essentially the handler of the spy Snowden.; 10/3/16, 10:56 AM
Chuck said...: "We begin bombing in five minutes..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSSRE27GQ0; 10/3/16, 10:56 AM
Caroline said...: She's human!; 10/3/16, 10:57 AM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/3/16, 11:03 AM
traditionalguy said...: That is really not a very funny line. She will ask the same thing about all of us Deplorables and Basement Dwellers. And moment she and Soros get the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights repealed by her new kangaroo Court of Supremes, there will be no stopping this lesbian dominatrix's version of Joe Stalin. It will be her Party, and we can do is cry if we want to.; 10/3/16, 11:04 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Since Trump is self-destructing-- His only life-line right now is a bomb-shell from wikileaks.

As far as the Clinton Crime family getting away with murdering their enemies - If I were Assange, I'd grow eyes in the back of the head and hire food testers.; 10/3/16, 11:05 AM
readering said...: Interesting new use of word drone. Many have probably wanted to accuse Clinton of droning her audience with her speeches.; 10/3/16, 11:06 AM
MadisonMan said...: The Imperial President.; 10/3/16, 11:06 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: 2009: Obama Jokes About Sending the IRS to Audit Opponents; 10/3/16, 11:12 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: The word "drone" got me thinking:

"What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" -Henry II

(Usually rendered as: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!"

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket>Wiki: Thomas Becket</a>; 10/3/16, 11:13 AM
Rick said...: Chuck said...
"We begin bombing in five minutes..."

The thing about playing a character is that you always have to stay in character. It's more difficult than casual players understand.; 10/3/16, 11:16 AM
rhhardin said...: Assange should be Vince Fostered.; 10/3/16, 11:19 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Well, at least we know why Assange seems to think it is personal.

Because, apparently, it is personal!

I wonder how much different the rape accusation against him would go in the court of public opinion today compared to when it did happen.; 10/3/16, 11:22 AM
Wince said...: Wikileaks is a problem for women Hillary's age.

Relevant to Hillary, TENA "bladder protection" ad: "Be the one with the crazy laugh."

And have you noticed the makers of Tena have adopted music from Sex in the City in order to pander to that aging demographic?; 10/3/16, 11:24 AM
mockturtle said...: LOL! Imagine the 'outrage' by the MSM had Trump made that comment.; 10/3/16, 11:34 AM
Known Unknown said...: "Assange ha effectively declared war on the US, and was essentially the handler of the spy Snowden"

Without Assange, you wouldn't know too much about the DNC's ugly habits. Unless you think The Grey Lady would pick up on such nonsense, right?; 10/3/16, 11:35 AM
Chuck said...: mockturtle said...
LOL! Imagine the 'outrage' by the MSM had Trump made that comment.

I am trying to do that. And I think that Trump's supporters would have loved it; and the MSM would have chalked it up as about #736 on the list of "One thousand idiotic things said by Donald Trump."; 10/3/16, 11:38 AM
wendybar said...: So a presidential candidate is THREATENING somebody with death??? Ho-hum.....nothing to see here...Bury your heads back in the ground...; 10/3/16, 11:39 AM
Matt Sablan said...: You know what would be ironic? Well, not ironic-ironic, but ironic-how-it-is-used-ironic?

If the only reason we got this is because of Clinton's illegal server.; 10/3/16, 11:39 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Eh, we know how the media would treat it. It wasn't that long ago.; 10/3/16, 11:40 AM
Known Unknown said...: That's Hillary's legendary temperament Trump was going on about.; 10/3/16, 11:42 AM
David said...: That's our girl.

Just wait until she is President. Because as Nixon taught us, "when the President does it, it's legal."; 10/3/16, 11:43 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Assange is doing the job the present day media used to do, but now doesn't. If we didn't have Assange, we would have to invent him just to save ourselves.; 10/3/16, 11:47 AM
Bill Peschel said...: While I hold no brief for HRC, I have to be suspicious how Wikileaks got ahold of this through its "State Department sources."

I wouldn't put it past her, but I'd need a higher standard of evidence before I accept his word. After all, if it was recorded in an email, why not release it?; 10/3/16, 11:47 AM
mockturtle said...: I am trying to do that. And I think that Trump's supporters would have loved it; and the MSM would have chalked it up as about #736 on the list of "One thousand idiotic things said by Donald Trump."

No, Chuck. It would have been more like: "This man is obviously unfit to be President because he wants to drone civilians." Chuck, you are such a Hillary dweeb!; 10/3/16, 11:47 AM
Lyle Smith said...: I suspect if Hillary or Trump get elected someone is going to try and "drone" them.; 10/3/16, 11:51 AM
Chuck said...: Perhaps I should have been more clear, mockturtle. Yes, the MSM would have written just what you say: "This man is obviously unfit to be President because he wants to drone civilians."

No argument there. And it would have been the 736th such time they have done that. And right now, the Althouse Trumpkins would be saying, "Yeah! Finally a guy with balls like Trump saying what we all really wanted to hear from leaders for the last four years!"

You'd also be saying (with some credence) that the Obama Dems shouldn't be complaining too much about droning civilians.; 10/3/16, 11:54 AM
CWJ said...: HoodlumDoodlum had the same thought as I did, and expressed it as well as I ever could. Once again may instinct to (usually) hold off imediately commenting pays off. Kudos HD.; 10/3/16, 11:58 AM
Curious George said...: Did she shimmy when she said it?; 10/3/16, 12:05 PM
Will J. Richardson said...: Hillary's solution would have worked for Nixon's Daniel Ellsberg problem.; 10/3/16, 12:06 PM
Chuck said...: Would this be a problem for Republicans, now, if Trump had released copies of his returns during the primary season?

Two possibilities:
1. Trump's tax issues (including the possibility that there is some other really questionable stuff in the full returns) would have caused him to lose the primary, and it would no longer be a problem.
2. Trump would have addressed/vanquished the issue in the primary, prevailed despite it, and would be past it now; no longer a problem.; 10/3/16, 12:16 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/3/16, 12:18 PM
n.n said...: He's no Saddam Hussein, the belligerent dictator. He's not eligible to stand trial.

Sodomy and abortion... It happened to Gaddafi, the reformed dictator. (and Stevens during the Libya-ISIS Affair)

Sure, why not. Obama and Clinton are Pro-Choice.; 10/3/16, 12:20 PM
buwaya said...: "And it would have been the 736th such time they have done that."

A non-Muslim terrorist Australian citizen in London?
In someone's embassy?; 10/3/16, 12:21 PM
Chuck said...: buwaya; No, it would have been the 736th time that the press has denounced something from Trump as idiotic and dangerous.; 10/3/16, 12:25 PM
Larry J said...: Bill Peschel said...
While I hold no brief for HRC, I have to be suspicious how Wikileaks got ahold of this through its "State Department sources."

Perhaps the State Department source was none other than Hillary's illegal email server.; 10/3/16, 12:37 PM
Fabi said...: Of course Real Republican Chuck comes to Hillary's defense by mentioning the Reagan quip. Unexpectedly.; 10/3/16, 12:49 PM
Quaestor said...: Last night I was re-reading H. P. Lovecraft's The Dunwich Horror and came across a phrase which moved me to drag a highlighter over it, so apt and evocative it was. After midnight [the] shrill notes burst into a kind of pandaemoniac cachinnation which filled all the countryside... Now, off whom could that be reminiscent?; 10/3/16, 1:15 PM
Quaestor said...: Carolyn Walker wrote: She's human!

As was every other villain in history.; 10/3/16, 1:17 PM
mockturtle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/3/16, 1:25 PM
buwaya said...: "After midnight [the] shrill notes burst into a kind of pandaemoniac cachinnation which filled all the countryside... Now, off whom could that be reminiscent?"

The comment sections on certain blogs?; 10/3/16, 1:26 PM
mockturtle said...: During a city council meeting in a town near where I once lived, a discussion ensued regarding the number of drug addicts in town and what could be done with them. One councilman jokingly replied, "Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them?" Well, imagine the newspaper headlines and the 'outrage'! "Councilman advocates shooting drug addicts". Of course, he was ousted from his position.

Even Hillary deserves to use the odd hyperbolic comment without people getting 'outraged'. After all, if she really wanted to drone Assange, she probably wouldn't admit it aloud. She would just make it look like a suicide-by-drone.; 10/3/16, 1:27 PM
buwaya said...: "During a city council meeting in a town near where I once lived, a discussion ensued regarding the number of drug addicts in town and what could be done with them. One councilman jokingly replied, "Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them?" Well, imagine the newspaper headlines and the 'outrage'! "Councilman advotates shooting drug addicts". Of course, he was ousted from his position. "

Where I come from we elect them President.; 10/3/16, 1:27 PM
eric said...: Blogger mockturtle said...
LOL! Imagine the 'outrage' by the MSM had Trump made that comment.

My first thought was to dismiss this due to lack of evidence. It's a sort of he said/she said accusation without any evidence.

Then I recalled, just today, reading the new Morning Consult poll. In this poll, they ask a question phrased like this, "As you may know, Donald Trump once called a former Miss Universe "Miss Piggy" and a "Housekeeper"."

My jaw dropped. No, it's been claimed. Or its been said. But, as you may know. They straight up accused Trump, in their question, of saying it.

This is why I support him now on new libel laws. This isn't a poll. This is a push poll.; 10/3/16, 1:30 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "This is why I support him now on new libel laws. This isn't a poll. This is a push poll."

-- Current laws would cover this if you were willing to spend the money to fight it. This is a demonstrably unproven statement made with knowledge that it is not confirmed to be true with malice.

It's just too pointlessly expensive to fight.; 10/3/16, 1:32 PM
Darrell said...: The only time Hillary did NOT want to use an armed drone was in Benghazi on the night of 9/11/2012 when they could have saved three American heroes, after the Ambassador was murdered.; 10/3/16, 1:40 PM
Matt Sablan said...: [Now, truth is the ultimate defense. So, if the Times, whoever, could PROVE Trump said those things, he'd lose in court. They probably can't prove it though.]; 10/3/16, 1:50 PM
eric said...: What if the laws were changed to make the loser pay the legal fees?; 10/3/16, 1:58 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "What if the laws were changed to make the loser pay the legal fees?"

-- My gut says this just encourages lawyers to be more expensive and promise their client: "Don't worry. That guy is going to pay for it." It could work, maybe, but it'd need to be more detailed than "loser pays."; 10/3/16, 2:14 PM
Mountain Maven said...: Only good idea Clinton has ever had. Shows what she wants to do to her enemies, tho'.; 10/3/16, 2:26 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Matthew Sablan said...

Current laws would cover this if you were willing to spend the money to fight it. This is a demonstrably unproven statement made with knowledge that it is not confirmed to be true with malice.

I believe you have current libel law backwards. Trump would have to prove that the statement was false, and that the NYTs knew, or should have known, that it was false. If it just comes down to a he-said-she-said, with the Times believing her over him, that is their right, and Trump loses.; 10/3/16, 2:33 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I thought them saying: Trump DID SAY this means they should have to prove he said it. If they report it as, Ms. Universe Says He Said That, then they are protected.

Could be wrong.; 10/3/16, 2:38 PM
JaimeRoberto said...: Will no one rid me of this troublesome leak?; 10/3/16, 2:43 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The legal standard for those who are famous is termed Actual Malice. Which requires either knowing that the statement was false, or gross negligence as to the falsity of the statement. So, if the statement were indeed false, Trump would need to either find a smoking gun, or show that essentially that a routine search would have proven the falsity of the statement. Intentionally a high hurdle. And, interestingly, the standard was set in a case brought against the NYT.; 10/3/16, 3:07 PM
Mary Beth said...: Now that they are attributing that quote directly to Trump, I expect in the future they will say, "Bill Clinton said, "You better put some ice on that" rather than saying it was something Juanita Broaddrick claimed he said.

Just kidding. I expect the media to continue to try to ignore how the Clintons have treated women.; 10/3/16, 3:57 PM
Jaq said...: Naturally anti-war activists are on Hillary's target list.; 10/3/16, 5:05 PM
Curious George said...: Hey, I'd be careful what you write. You're all soft targets.; 10/3/16, 7:30 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Only good idea Clinton has ever had. Shows what she wants to do to her enemies, tho'."

Well, I guess you think it's a "good idea" to assassinate someone if you dislike that person or his or her actions.

And why would anyone object to a source that will publish all the dirty secrets of our government that "we, the people" have every right to see...especially as it reveals the incompetence and duplicity and fraud and crimes of those who are supposed to be acting in our stead and with our well-informed consent?; 10/3/16, 8:25 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Wow. Un-fucking-believable.

Hillary needs to be kept as far away from the power to use that kind of deadly force as possible.

Yale-educated lawyer. Imagine that.

This excerpt should be sent to their dean and alumni outreach organization with a manifesto signed by millions of Americans asking where they get off educating lawyers to believe that this kind of thinking is in any way acceptable.; 10/3/16, 8:59 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: During a city council meeting in a town near where I once lived, a discussion ensued regarding the number of drug addicts in town and what could be done with them. One councilman jokingly replied, "Why don't we just take them all out and shoot them?" Well, imagine the newspaper headlines and the 'outrage'! "Councilman advocates shooting drug addicts". Of course, he was ousted from his position.

Even Hillary deserves to use the odd hyperbolic comment without people getting 'outraged'. After all, if she really wanted to drone Assange, she probably wouldn't admit it aloud. She would just make it look like a suicide-by-drone.

I'm sorry. To even joke around like that makes her (and him) totally unfit for office. In this day and age, when issues of security, privacy, freedom and the press are more important than ever - the last thing we need is a psychotic vengeance warrior who thinks that killing journalists or any other non-combatant is at all funny. She was educated at Yale law and this is the most direct thought she has about the matter? Talk about deplorable.; 10/3/16, 9:13 PM
Jupiter said...: I am sure Madame Secretary has attended or even presided over numerous meetings where "droning" one or more people was the chief agenda item. She may have been reminded of some meetings in the Governors Mansion back in Arkansas. Certainly, it is a problem-solving technique with which she has a lot of experience.

"Clinton’s State Department was getting pressure from President Obama and his White House inner circle, as well as heads of state internationally, to try and cutoff Assange’s delivery of the cables and if that effort failed, then to forge a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables. Hence, Clinton’s early morning November meeting of State’s top brass who floated various proposals to stop, slow or spin the Wikileaks contamination. That is when a frustrated Clinton, sources said, at some point blurted out a controversial query.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States."; 10/3/16, 9:37 PM
Dude1394 said...: Hillary is responsible for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of actual deaths and millions forced to be refugees. Now we see she really would contemplate dropping a bomb on someone who might embarrass her.

Trump is NOT the loose cannon in this race.; 10/3/16, 11:03 PM
Annie said...: 'We came. We saw. He died.' , said as she cackled.

If she wins, she will gleefully go Ruby Ridge on the deplorables and basement dwellers for daring to vote for anyone but her. She will make sure it will be as painful as possible; 10/4/16, 2:12 AM
mockturtle said...: Will no one rid me of this troublesome leak?

Yep, I thought of that. Henry II wasn't being serious, either.; 10/4/16, 11:43 AM