I'd be curious to hear the left's take on this article detailing some of the highlights of the Wall Street Journal editorial on Hillary.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-1 … ntons-sins
In case you don't feel like clicking the link here are some excerpts from the editorial
If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Drumpf made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.
But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.
It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Drumpf story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.
On the email scandal
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
On her stint in the State Department:
The Obama administration—the federal government, supported by tax dollars—was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.
Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.
The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”
On her media coverage
The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event. Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.
On her flip flopping on official positions
Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party.”
Apparently no one on the left can refute this. If they could, someone would have already come in to this thread, swinging.
I suppose it is simply more fun to condemn Trump than to talk about the truth of Hillary.
Satan news, I mean CNN (Clinton News Network) came out and said its illegal to posses these stolen documents from the Wikileaks, but its different for the media. So everything we learn about these leaked emails, we need to learn from them. I kid you not!
* https://twitter.com/WDFx2EU7/status/787 … 24/video/1
There is a war on for our minds!
I am consistently saddened by how many on the left refuse to think for themselves in an open minded manner. Being spoon feed what to think and say by a media bent on hiding facts, skewing truths and otherwise doing anything they can to prop Hillary up.
I suppose we deserve what is happening to us all.
Wilderness must be channeling through my keyboard...
"I am consistently saddened by how many on the Right refuse to think for themselves in Assn[SIC] open minded manner. Being spoon feed what to think and say by a media bent on hiding facts, skewing truths and otherwise doing anything they can to prop Trump up.
I suppose we deserve what is happening to us all."
Not me, I'm moving to Idaho!
But, before I go, consider this. Given your opinion of Trump as a person, and your support of the political message that Trump symbolizes; why do you defend him beyond the level of calling out bogus meme attacks? Why not just drop your eyes and mutter, "I know, I know..."
ps. Sorry Wilderness, looks like the right side of my keyboard wasn't being cooperative.
Please point out where I defend him beyond the level of calling out bogus meme attacks?
I will say I have always been sympathetic when someone appears to be the victim of hypocritical double standards. Trump is a tool., I've always said that but we aren't being fair and honest in regards to Hillary. I think we should be.
And I'm curious what leads you to believe you are channeling wilderness. I don't see that at all.
The "channeling Wilderness" part refers to pointing out how a simple substitution of Left or Right, Conservative or Liberal, in a statement does not alter the statement's truth.
"I am consistently saddened by how many on the Right refuse to think for themselves in Assn[SIC] open minded manner... "
Isn't that a statement that would be true on either side of the fence?
"...Being spoon feed what to think and say by a media bent on hiding facts, skewing truths and otherwise doing anything they can to prop Trump up."
Ditto the above.
As I thought of a response, I recalled several similar efforts by Wilderness - hence the channeling.
As for the level of your defense of Trump... we could really have a good conversation arguing about what "defense" is, (like Bill did with "is"), but I look at it like this; Pointing out hypocrisy is our civic forum duty. It is the blood of life coursing through the veins of this body of topic threads. (Damn! that was cute, the truth is, arguing is the reason I am here (and for you too, come on, admit it)).
But... when it includes a, "well, he did it too..." it then becomes a defense of the accusation. No nuance, no spin, it is a rationalization, a defense.
I agree with the first part. We can all, from our personal perspective, make that statement about the other side. I'm afraid this election cycle has shown me things about the left and the right that I don't find to be very pretty.
As to the 'he did it too' thing. It isn't the fact that one did it, so the other can too. It's a question of the reaction of the left when it was done by Bill. There was no moral indignation. there was no outrage. Not that I ever saw. And, when Hillary made that ridiculous Tammy Wynette statement and then did exactly what she claimed she wouldn't there was no head shaking on the left.
So, if you can't muster some moral indignation when it is done by the left why in the world should anyone listen to complaints when it is exposed on the right? There is no moral indignation it is simply a bone to shake in hopes that it will help lose Trump a few votes.
I'm afraid this type of hypocrisy makes it difficult to believe anything the people who are displaying have to say. It is obvious that they are turning a blind eye to indiscretions and it shows me why they cannot discuss Hillary's other indiscretions without pretending that they don't exist and claiming that anyone who notices them is somehow brainwashed by the right.
I've never made any bones about the fact that I think Trump is a tool. What I don't think he is is a crooked politician. Which is exactly what I think Hillary is.
One other thing. This thread was started asking opinions of the editorial in the Washington Post. Not to drudge through the Trump video. We do have threads, ongoing, to discuss that.
Satan News / Satancrats / Satancans
I run from these!
Many don't ...
The reporters will do some tiddying up of the stories as the speech is delivered/completed, but they will largely be filed as she goes on. In terms of TV, the first stories on health won't pop until 2. 1 pm is just when we will quietly approach the reporters. So that gives a window for the cables to (a) take the speech live possibly, and (b) for midday cable shows like Andrea Mitchell to talk about it afterwards ...
We expect the stories that pop at 2 pm to have headlines such as “CLINTON IN ‘EXCELLENT HEALTH,’ MEDICAL RECORDS SAY” … “CLINTON RELEASES HEALTH REPORT” ... "CLINTON CAMP AIMS TO ONE-UP BUSH IN DISCLOSING FINANCES". The lede of most of these stories will be the health records since they are being released in full, but the lower paragraphs of the stories will focus on how the campaign says it will
One of the reasons media outlets like NBC have not been reporting this much is because they haven't got the okay from the clinton campaign yet or how it should be reported even if they do okay it.
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
Office of Inspector General: 78 pages PDF https://cryptome.org/2016/05/state-oig- … emails.pdf Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements This is huge! I'm going through the report right now. The report says: "Secretary Clinton...
by ahorseback 23 months ago
Fake is fake and everybody knows the difference except the mainstream media .Any takers ? Even liberals must recognize the futility of the news media maintaining the plague of falsehoods.
by Susie Lehto 14 months ago
Judge Andrew Napolitano said, “The significance is an FBI acknowledgement that Huma Abedin, Mrs. Anthony Weiner, when she had a top security clearance as the number two assistant to Hillary Clinton when Hillary was Secretary of State, regularly sent copies of sensitive material to her own laptop...
by Greensleeves Hubs 2 years ago
So it's the final day. Let's be clear about the choice;Hillary Clinton is deeply unpopular. She may not be a nice person. There are so many negative reports about her, it is difficult to believe there is 'no smoke without fire.' However, some allegations are disproven, and most others are unproven...
by SparklingJewel 9 years ago
Right to Work Sues Obama Administration for Its SecrecyRecently in the Washington Examiner, National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix discussed the Foundation’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) attack against the shadowy Obama administration, which is refusing to let the American...
by Christian Burney 2 years ago
What have Hillary Clinton's leaked emails truly revealed?How damning are they actually?Would someone in a less powerful position be more likely to suffer legal penalties for the same actions Mrs. Clinton has performed?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|