At Slate, Name Withheld sounds off: We'll file it under the colorful heading, "Can't get past the headline."
The headline(s) in question say this:
Why Isn’t Hillary Clinton Even Angrier?Name Withheld is very angry—today. Back then, she was the person who joined Chris Hayes in saying the New York Times' report about the scary uranium deal was a "bombshell."
In What Happened, Clinton takes on the obsessive demand that she assume responsibility for the 2016 election. But we can’t move on.
(The gigantic report was a world-class journalistic fraud. It had literally been funded by Bannon! But so what? The report had appeared in the New York Times! Deference had to be paid!)
It's hard to get past the headline on that. That said, our discourse is silly, incompetent, pitiful, faux pretty much all the way down.
The children have never been willing to fight. This helped put you-know-who where he is. On the brighter side, they have good jobs. Mother and father are proud!
Why isn't Clinton even angrier? We'll substitute a different question:
Why wasn't Name Withheld angry back then at all?
(The gigantic report was a world-class journalistic fraud. It had literally been funded by Bannon! But so what? The report had appeared in the New York Times! Deference had to be paid!)
ReplyDeleteAnd this is why all the commenters here who want to draw any sort of big course altering lessons for the Dems (capital D) are complete fools and have no idea what they are talking about of what they just witnessed.
Believe me, there are no huge lessons about reaching out to the WWC that the Dems should draw from this abomination of an election, because 2016 was played under special Clinton Rules. There will not be a Clinton on the ballot in 2020 so the insane media's feverish CDS will not come into play again.
Hey, mm. Two questions: What is the "WWC"? And...
ReplyDeleteThe media suffers from "CDS", granted, but do you think they also suffer from "TDS" (Trump Derange. Syndrome)? Bob might be inclined to agree with that.
To answer your second question, are you crazy! The Clinton Derangement Syndrome is completely off the wall, unique and unprecedented, and I doubt will ever be repeated. To this day the media denies they had any role to play in the 2016 debacle. They grade themselves A+ for their campaign coverage.
DeleteLeslie Moonves on Donald Trump: "It May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS"
WWC is white working class, the only identity politics that gets the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the New York Times, CNN, etc. I believe between the Wash Post, the NYTimes and the cable news stations, they have now interviewed every tRump voter in the Midwest.
Thanks for the info. I was also wondering what your take on Somerby was, how he says the msm shouldn't call Trump a liar, shouldn't discuss racism with regard to Trump voters, etc. I think Somerby is right about the War on Gore and the Clintons, but I can't decide what I think when he calls all liberals "stupid" or whatever, based on the behavior of the msm. Do you think TDH is still as worthwhile as it used to be? I'm just thinking while typing. No need to respond if you don't want to.
Delete"It had literally been funded by Bannon!"
ReplyDeleteIs that, your mind, the most convincing evidence of it being fraud? Talk about our fucked up discourse...
...or, are you, perhaps, going to insist that the whole purpose of the 'foundation' was financing charities? Enlighten, please.
No worries Mao.
DeleteThose countless Republican-led investigations of Clinton, will be finding something worse about her than she's just sloppy with her emails. You just wait (a few centuries), you'll see. If you don't have that long to wait, rest assured they'll find something, so you (and the entire corporate-owned media) my as well intimate she's crooked in the meantime.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/
Deletehttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646
These two articles indicate that Clinton could have been charged with a crime for her sloppy handling of e-mails. They pretty much imply that an ordinary person who did what Hillary did probably would have been charged with a crime
Why does an article carry more weight than the decision of an Attorney General and an FBI Director with you?
DeleteThe FBI director said that he was applying a special standard to Hillary because she was a Presidential candidate. My comment is pretty consistent with Comey's statement.
DeleteIronically, Comey did the Democrats no favor when he chose not to prosecute Hillary. Had he prosecuted her, she would have had to drop out of the race. I think Biden would have been the candidate and he would have easily defeated Trump.
The FBI director said that he was applying a special standard to Hillary because she was a Presidential candidate.
DeleteAs usual, you're completely lying Comrade DinC. This must be why you support so strongly the lying sack of shit pussygrabber.
Here's what Comey said:
DeleteIn our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Yeah, where's the part where he said he was "applying a special standard to Hillary because she was a Presidential candidate", you lying sack of shit.
DeleteHe treated her differently alright. In fact that was one of the reasons your pussygrabbing pervert president flim flam man used to fire him.
Here, let Rod Rosensteing explain.
****
•Comey refuses “to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken” to go public in July with his reasons for recommending no criminal charges again Clinton. During that news conference, Comey said Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” in handling classified information.
•Comey “was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority” to announce that the case would be closed. “The Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department,” Rosenstein wrote.
•Comey “ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation.”Although such information is sometimes disclosed, “we never release it gratuitously.”
•The conclusion that Comey acted inappropriately in the Clinton case is shared by “former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties.”
As Secretary Clinton wrote in her book, he then applied a completely different standard to his Russian ties investigation of the trump circus, choosing not to make it public before the election so as not to influence the election.
Comrade DinC, you really a a lying sack of shit.
"..our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
"...we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."
Facts, Comrade Lying Sack of Shit DinC. the Facts of the case. Not whether she was a candidate or not, you lying sack of shit. Facts.
Comey never interviewed Hillary under oath and did not record the interview with her. That's special treatment.
Deletehttp://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-no-sworn-oath
mm,
DeleteHow can you tell DAinCA is lying? Why, because he's posted a comment. In noting the "context of a person's actions," Comey wasn't talking about whether the subject of the investigation was running for office; he was talking about how forthcoming and cooperative she was.
The two articles quoted do not imply that Clinton could have been charged with a crime. Here's a quote from the second article about a US sailor charged with taking pictures of the submarine on which he served: "To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained." The sailor lied about taking the pictures and destroyed evidence that he had done so. So DAinCA's own source doesn't support his claims. Try to imagine my surprise.
The law in question is part of the Espionage Act, 18USC793f, which makes it illegal to remove information "relating to national defense" from proper custody or fail to report such removal when discovered. NB: nothing about "classified material", which could relate to national defense...or not. Any "removal" would have been done by the sender, and and in any case, in the 1940s, the Supreme Court imposed intent as an element of the crime.
To prosecute, the gov would have to show either that Clinton intended to use her server as a conduit for sensitive information or that she knew the classified emails were sensitive and then deliberately failed to report that. DAinCA would prosecute Clinton, but as somebody said, no reasonable prosecutor would do so.
Didn't Clinton testify under oath at those interminable hearings?
DeleteI can't even imagine a world where Conservatives give a shit, at all, about Hillary's emails. It's phonier than their concern about working class economics.
DeleteTrump gave them the bigotry they craved, and THAT is why they voted for him.
deadrat,
DeleteIt's good to see you comment, you're missed here.
Comey never interviewed Hillary under oath and did not record the interview with her. That's special treatment.
DeleteMoving the goal posts, eh Comrade? Can't back up your previous LIE, so now you would like to change the subject. This is why you are such a ginormous ass.
Even here, your dishonesty is remarkable.
From your own article that you linked to;
“Still a crime to lie to us,” Comey told the House Oversight Committee.
FBI policy is not to record interviews as part of its investigations.
So, Comrade LYING SACK OF SHIT DinC, by following standard FBI policy, you conclude that they gave her "special treatment"?
And really Mr. LYING SACK OF SHIT Comrade DinC, everyone can still read what you wrote up above, which you just pulled out of your sorry ass.
The FBI director said that he was applying a special standard to Hillary because she was a Presidential candidate. written by David in Cal September 16, 2017 at 12:59 AM, our resident LYING SACK OF SHIT.
Good day everybody,
ReplyDeleteI'm from United Kingdom (GB). This is my testimony on how I won 53,193,914 million pounds on Mega millions lottery. I want to use this opportunity to thank Dr IyaryI, for casting winning spell for me to win the lottery of 53,193,194 million pounds,lottery ticket. I have been playing lotteries for the past 5 years now and i have never won any. Ever since then i have not been able to win any lotto and i was so upset and i needed help to win this mega million lottery. so i decided to go online and search for help, there i saw so many good testimony about this man called Dr Iyaryi,of how he has cast lucky spell lotto for people to win the lottery. I contacted him also and tell him i want to win the Mega millions lottery, he cast a spell for me which i use to play and won 53.193,914 million pounds in mega millions lottery. I am so grateful to this man, just in-case you also need him to help you win, you can contact him through his Email: driayaryi2012@hotmail.com, and he will surely help you just the way he has helped me. i will forever be grateful to him and always testify the good work of him to the hole world. contact him via Email: driayaryi2012@hotmail.com, or you can also contact him through his email and he will surely help you to win any kind of lottery And also Reach him on WhatsApp Number: +2349057915709 Thanks Dr. Iyaryi
Good day everybody,
ReplyDeleteI'm from United Kingdom (GB). This is my testimony on how I won 53,193,914 million pounds on Mega millions lottery. I want to use this opportunity to thank Dr IyaryI, for casting winning spell for me to win the lottery of 53,193,194 million pounds,lottery ticket. I have been playing lotteries for the past 5 years now and i have never won any. Ever since then i have not been able to win any lotto and i was so upset and i needed help to win this mega million lottery. so i decided to go online and search for help, there i saw so many good testimony about this man called Dr Iyaryi,of how he has cast lucky spell lotto for people to win the lottery. I contacted him also and tell him i want to win the Mega millions lottery, he cast a spell for me which i use to play and won 53.193,914 million pounds in mega millions lottery. I am so grateful to this man, just in-case you also need him to help you win, you can contact him through his Email: driayaryi2012@hotmail.com, and he will surely help you just the way he has helped me. i will forever be grateful to him and always testify the good work of him to the hole world. contact him via Email: driayaryi2012@hotmail.com, or you can also contact him through his email and he will surely help you to win any kind of lottery And also Reach him on WhatsApp Number: +2349057915709 Thanks Dr. Iyaryi
Sally?
ReplyDeleteRemember Hillary's "coal gaffe"?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2017/9/15/16306158/hillary-clinton-hall-of-mirrors
Wow. Combine that with her "basket of deplorables" statement and you have to wonder if she actually wanted to win.
DeleteLeroy
But note that when mainstream critics talk about these things, it’s never the things themselves that are the problem. It’s always the optics: “how it sounded” or “how it looked.” If you unpack that a little — “she should have known how it would look” — here’s what it means: She should have known that anything she does or says that can be spun to look bad will be spun to look bad, and the MSM will pass along the spin uncritically, so she shouldn’t have done or said anything that can be spun to look bad.
DeleteI just don’t think that’s a standard many human politicians could meet. Analysis of Clinton’s political performance is full of airy counterfactuals in which she said a different thing, or emphasized something else, or campaigned in this state rather than that one ... and thus avoided this or that faux scandal, or avoided being battered in the media.
Clinton Rules.
Touché mm. Clinton Rules is a point Bob has addressed, repeatedly and rightfully, concerning how the Clinton’s have been treated by the press over the years. But it should be noted that Bob isn’t really taking sides; he’s simply reporting msm malfeasance, in my view.
DeleteTrump’s behavior during his debate with Hillary that Bob covered was seen as some as an endorsement of Trump. I don’t believe that for a second. Rather, he was showing us in real time how scripts are built by the vaunted elites who presume to lead our national discourse. Some people actually saw Trump “literally breathing down her neck” in that debate. Admittedly, my eyesight’s not great, but I didn’t see that.
Anyway. I voted for Hillary, but I didn’t want to. There seemed no real choice in the matter, but for reasons outlined in Greenwald’s observations about the election, I definitely held my nose.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is-largely-ignoring-the-vital-role-of-endless-war-in-the-2016-election-result/
Respectfully,
Leroy.
P.S. And goddamn if I didn't try to share the link above as a LINK. Got it to work on the coding-test website Cmike provided, but preview showed it as static text. Shoot!
I don't know what you mean about Bob not taking sides. Mr. Somerby is good people. He's fair and honest, there is no question in my mind that he would never consider giving his vote to the abomination tRump.
DeleteGreenwald is not a credible source. He has made a fool of himself post election.
I can't understand anyone who says they had to hold their nose to vote for this fine strong intelligent and accomplished woman with sincere religious convictions as well. I conclude that the 30year nonstop media campaign to destroy her character has worked with you.
I was living in a deep blue state so I could have voted Green Party without affecting the outcome. But the debates caused me to decide that Hillary needed to be supported with enthusiasm because she specifically stated she would protect and defend Social Security. If she had made her campaign about protecting the safety net and fighting for workers, she would have won. Instead, she focused on attaching Trump.
DeleteAgreed. Her television ads were terrible.
DeleteShe did both. I found her ads heartwarming.
DeleteSomehow you heard she would protect social security. How? Trump was also pledging that, but Trump is a liar. She had to attack that. He was making promises he couldn't keep. She keeps her promises so she can't outpromise him. She has to discredit him.
“I don't know what you mean about Bob not taking sides.”
DeleteThis was indicated by the fact that Bob excoriated the dissing of Trump for something he didn’t do. He was defending Trump – Trump of all people! – against the narrative we’re supposed to believe.
Corby, I heard the Social Security promise message during the debate. It worked for me, it kept me from wasting my vote. Told me she was going to protect the most vulnerable people.
DeleteSince I don't watch TV, I watched her ads on Youtube, and the only ones I was able to find were the ones with clips of Trump saying something stupid while little kids, or a disabled vet watched. They were well done ads, it's just that they didn't tell me what Hillary would do. Maybe I missed some other ads.
Different ads were run in different states. Some were by the campaign, some by PACs , some on the internet.
Deletemm, I’m curious as to why you state that Greenwald is not a credible source.
DeleteThanks,
Leroy
He has made a fool of himself post-election, as mm notes above.
DeleteI get that. How? I really want to know, because he's not a foolish man.
DeleteLeroy
Someone who supports Assange these days is pretty foolish.
DeleteHillary's support of endless war was a good reason to vote against her, but not a good reason to vote for Trump. We need a system that doesn't force us to choose the lesser of two evils.
ReplyDeleteHillary's support of endless war.....
DeleteZZZzzzzzzzzzz....................
That Iraq vote back in the day really ended up costing her.
DeleteNo, Clinton rules cost her. She voted the same as most other Democrats. But in her case it made her a war monger. Beyond that one vote, which was not to authorize the war, she voted identically to Obama.
DeleteBernie and the bros made a huge issue out of this, as did the Obama supporters in 2008. They couldn't go around calling her a "girl" so they called her a hawk instead. Thus showing that our side has its own despicables.
All eyes were on her. In a life and death vote that required a Profile in Courage, we got triangulation. In the end all she could do is com plain she was out-manuvered by a chimp.
DeleteBetter trolling please. Send in the trolls who were alive at the time or who have read some actual US History.
DeleteRe: Clinton's Iraq vote.
DeleteYou would think not being a "Saddam lover" and not "hating America" would be a feather in her cap with Conservatives and the corporate-owned media.
That's apparently what she thought at the time. She tried to appease the hawks, just as us anti-war folks were begging for a leader to stand up and say NO!
DeleteIf Hillary had gotten the same percentage of the vote that Obama got in 2012, she would have received 4 million more votes. She didn't generate the same amount confidence in voters that she would fight for them that Obama had. She allowed the focus of the campaign to become about her and her mistakes.
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Hillary had no control over the election. She didn't know how to change the propaganda on Facebook and she couldn't hack into the voting machines in those 3 keys states and she was probably the only candidate not receiving Russian money, and she couldn't do anything about Comey and there is no way to by broader and sillier than Trump in his dance with the media.
DeleteHillary would have received a huge percentage of the vote if our nation had cared about electing the first female president. Instead, that thought scared them into electing an idiot who talked about his huge penis on TV and wore ties symbolic of his manhood (made in China). Hillary didn't "allow" anything. She, and our country, were stolen by Russian oligarchs and we should all be ashamed if we colluded in any way with what happened.
She was valiant and persistent. What about you?
She sold out to Goldman Sachs. Now she needs to go off and spend her loot, and be done with politics.
DeleteShe demonstrably did nothing to benefit Goldman Sachs (who were constituents while she was a senator) and Obama took more money from them than she did.
DeleteThe people needed to hear her say that she would focus on lifting up a declining middle class and protect the most vulnerable people, like those on Social Security. They needed to hear her say that over and over again speaking into the camera. That's how you win those four million voters who turned out four Obama, but not for Gore, Kerry, or Hillary.
DeleteShe did that.
DeleteOK then, I guess I'm wrong and she ran the best campaign ever, and only lost due to the stupidity of the American. We'll just have to wait and hope that they wise up.
Deletestupidity of the American people
DeleteWhy do you skip over Russian hacking?
DeleteHillary represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage. No Democrat, and certainly no independent, woke up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just wasn't there.
DeleteThat’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage.
DeleteIt's fascinating that you would choose this as one example to compare Secretary Clinton unfavorably to President Obama who campaigned in 2008 against gay marriage. Should I call you Boris? It's so hard to tell these days.
Just yesterday, pussygrabber pervert tRump, a man who was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault, retweeted a disgusting fake video posted on twitter by a subhuman calling himself "Fuctupmind" in which the president is seen striking a golf ball which strikes Secretary Clinton in the back and causes her to tumble down the steps climbing to her airplane. I would bet money you probably thought that was amusing. You seem to be a textbook case of terminal CDS. Can't help you.
That’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage.
DeleteActually that's a direct quote from Michael Moore. So you can apply all your conclusions to him.
Michael Moore? Is that supposed to mean something to me? Funny how you forgot to quote Mr. Moore originally. I don't really give a damn who said it, I pointed out to blatant double standard hypocrisy in the statement, which you conveniently ignore.
DeleteIt always comes back to that age-old argument about whether we adopt the tactics of our opponents or walk the higher road.
ReplyDeleteSomerby says: "The children have never been willing to fight. "
Aside from the "optics" of referring to those on the left as children, we do fight. We fight using the courts and the streets (to influence public opinion) and using non-violence and calling on the conscience of our nation. We fight by doing good works in poor neighborhoods and helping those in need, by living our values, by thinking globally but acting locally.
We don't fight by becoming as bad as those we oppose on the right. We lose when we become them.
Somerby has been pretending that the left is just as tribal as the right, in his own version of both-siderism. Kevin Drum has an article today that shows that is untrue. But we will no doubt have to keep hearing these lectures despite such evidence.
ReplyDelete"Why isn't Clinton even angrier? We'll substitute a different question:
ReplyDeleteWhy wasn't Name Withheld angry back then at all?"
Why hasn't Somerby EVER been angry about anything except what members of the press earn in comparison to their willingness to take risks?
Why didn't Somerby actively support Clinton? Too busy liking Sanders and being inclined toward him as a candidate. Too busy worrying about why Gore lost to actively support Clinton.
Somerby joined the chorus calling her a flawed candidate, dishonest, and so on. That's bro-speak for "girls are not allowed to join the he-man woman-hater's club." Somerby has a lot to answer for these days, since he was one of the so-called liberals who helped put Trump in office. He had influence and he used it to undermine, not support the liberal nominee. He can rot in hell for that, and probably will once Trump gets through trashing our planet.
Why isn't everybody angrier?
ReplyDeleteWhy does almost half the Country accept Donald
Trump as an excuse for a man?
Is this the best Bob's got?