Patterico's Pontifications

3/11/2015

What the Left Is Saying About Hillary!

Filed under: General — JVW @ 2:31 pm



[guest post by JVW]

I always find it interesting when a Democrat politician is caught up in a scandal of some sorts to see how he or she is treated by media outlets that are otherwise generally supportive of that politician’s agenda. Hillary! is the quintessential front-runner whose support is a mile wide but an inch deep, so it’s not too hard to envision her support among the leftist media crumbling rather quickly as they come to understand the level of toxicity her candidacy brings. So with that, here’s a quick round up of how her recent email scandal is being viewed on the left:

The New Republic: “The story of Clinton’s private email and server has no woman angle, but that didn’t stop Clinton from trying to create one, and reporters and detractors from seeing one. Both supporters and critics will see everything about Clinton’s probable presidential candidacy through the lens of her gender.”

The Washington Post Editorial Board: “In the end, it is clear Ms. Clinton was acting in a gray zone, one created in part by the rapid pace of technological change. But it is also apparent that her decisions on her e-mail were based on what was best for her — what was ‘convenient’— and not so much for the public trust.”

Mother Jones: “The Clinton camp’s handling of the controversy was a sign that Hillary and her gang are stuck in the Whitewaterish 1990s when it comes to communications strategy, relying on always-be-combating tactics predicated on self-perceived persecution.”

The Nation*: “The Clinton machine’s real target audience, I suspect, are the media pundits and political reporters who will cover the next campaign and inevitably shrink the terms of debate by reducing the substance to a handful of insipid, shorthand clichés.”

Any Democrat who wants to be President one day but was going to sit out 2016 because the nomination belongs to Hillary! is too stupid to ever hold public office.

– JVW

* The Nation article, written by William Grieder and posted on March 10, makes no mention of Hillary!’s email kerfuffle. Instead, it focuses on her phony populism and suggests that she will happily abandon her newly-found concern about “income inequality” if she makes it to the White House. It doesn’t appear that anyone at The Nation has addressed Hillary!’s email woes as of this writing.

98 Responses to “What the Left Is Saying About Hillary!”

  1. I wanted to provide a representation from the full spectrum of the left, from the center-left like TNR and (at least recently) the Washington Post editorial board to the more rabid leftists at Mother Jones and The Nation. I am not willing to read editorials from the idiot crew at the LA Times or NY Times, nor will I visit Daily Kos or any of those other brain-deadening sites.

    JVW (c7473b)

  2. slogging thru the fever swamps so that we won’t have to. Now that’s a public service!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  3. OK, I took a quick peek over at the NYT and LAT. Neither paper’s editorial board has weighed in yet. Some of the columnists (Frank Bruni, Doyle McManus) have opinion pieces up, but they seem to be repeating the same things that TNR and Mother Jones already wrote.

    JVW (c7473b)

  4. If the opinion-makers on the left abandon Hillary! will the money-people be far behind, or are they already too deeply committed?

    JVW (c7473b)

  5. this one is for nk… http://t.co/T3oA5gXWj8

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. the WAPost bending over way too much.
    I also want to note the technology had changed considerably by 2010. There should have a process in place to review all such arrangements.

    seeRpea (181740)

  7. anybody here remember when Donnesbury was funny? if so,

    Guilty, Guilty, Guilty

    🙂

    seeRpea (181740)

  8. Let the record reflect that Hillary! toilet flushed the Ambassador to Kenya for using two different devices, one for the official State business, and one for personal use.

    Inconvenienced Ambassador Scott Gration right out of business.
    Gration corrected the record five days ago.

    “It is true that I used my Gmail account to access my alerts and unclassified personal emails. I had subscribed to three ‘alerts’ programs that sent me breaking news stories, analysis of important events, and Africa-related articles…I use Gmail because these services were not available on the State Department’s OpenNet computer network,” the former ambassador wrote. “Over the years, I had also built a professional network that used my Gmail address. I wanted to have access to these capabilities and contacts while at work.”…

    “Soon after becoming Ambassador, I tried hard to have my unclassified State Department emails and my Gmail messages displayed as separate accounts on the same State Department Blackberry. I had done this on BlackBerries in the past to eliminate having to carry around two devices. After four months of trying, I gave up and used two Blackberries to read my unclassified email traffic that could easily and safely been displayed on one,” the former ambassador added.

    “It is false that I ignored State Department instructions and willfully disregarded State Department regulations concerning the use of commercial email for official government business. I used the OpenNet for much of my official business as I had full access to this system in my US Embassy office and in my residence,” he said. “My official emails were fully captured in the State Department data bases. I used Gmail for unofficial business and for my personal emails.”

    As has been noted before none of Hillary!s emails were captured in the State Department data bases. NONE. As in NOT EVEN ONE.
    She claimed the emails were captured by the government in her UN statement.

    Pretty big lie. I’d put it up above “sent email to Bill” or “I wanted to use just one device”.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  9. Daily KOS apparently is Hades-bent for Hillary.
    Only front page mention is a link to this cartoon
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/11/1370074/-Cartoon-About-the-Hillary-Clinton-thing

    The leading “diary” entry sticks to the formula outlined in the first frame of the cartoon. KOS is too interested in denouncing the senatorial letter to bother about Hillary.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  10. I think Hillary showed up for their Daily Kos convention dressed as a Senator, so they’ll Ben Dover to kiss her Axelrod.

    Even if it meant the end of every life on Earth.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  11. The Left, broadly speaking, does not like the Clintons. Then-Governor Bill Clinton was a southern conservative who wanted to reform the Democratic party to reduce the power of the left in order to win elections. He ran against the left, and adopted policies that kicked the left in the teeth, and the left has never forgiven him for it.

    Former Senator Clinton is the *establishment Democrat* candidate, not the Left’s candidate.

    aphrael (34edde)

  12. Also, the press – who are distinct from the activist left – don’t like the Clintons because of the way the Clintons treated the press, and because of what they know (from being the press) of the dysfunction of both the family and the administration.

    aphrael (34edde)

  13. Aphrael – Obama treats the press like his little b@tches as well, why the difference?

    JD (86a5eb)

  14. Mother Jones is in the same league as the LA Times or NY Times.

    Dejectedhead (81690d)

  15. JD – I’m not close enough to the press to be able to answer that question, and the retrospectives haven’t come out yet.

    aphrael (34edde)

  16. The Left, broadly speaking, does not like the Clintons. Then-Governor Bill Clinton was a southern conservative who wanted to reform the Democratic party to reduce the power of the left in order to win elections. He ran against the left, and adopted policies that kicked the left in the teeth, and the left has never forgiven him for it.

    Former Senator Clinton is the *establishment Democrat* candidate, not the Left’s candidate.

    aphrael (34edde) — 3/11/2015 @ 3:58 pm

    Bill Clinton a “Southern conservative”? Compared to who/what? That is laughable. He may be a little less a lefty than let’s say, Elizabeth Warren, but that’s far from conservative. He was pretty much forced to knuckle under to the Republican-controlled Congress, the only reason he implemented some of their objectives. He may have been pragmatic, but his instincts are pure leftwing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. 12. Also, the press – who are distinct from the activist left – don’t like the Clintons because of the way the Clintons treated the press, and because of what they know (from being the press) of the dysfunction of both the family and the administration.

    aphrael (34edde) — 3/11/2015 @ 4:01 pm

    In the interest of complete accuracy, if we were to draw a Venn diagram there’d be quite a large group of people contained in the intersection of “press” and “activist left.”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/occupy-wall-street-new-york-242872

    …A freelance reporter for the New York Times, Natasha Lennard, was among those arrested. “’They can’t arrest us all, right?’ Asks protester. I think they can,” Lennard wrote on her Twitter a couple hours before her own arrest…

    Natasha Lennard wasn’t just a stringer covering OWS for the NYT.

    She was also an OWS organizer.

    http://www.mrc.org/articles/nyts-ows-reporter-talks-shop-radical-supporters-pot-shots-police

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  18. About a month ago on Facebook, I wrote a post in which I said, “Don’t think that 2016 is all wrapped up — Hillary gets the nomination and wins the election. Somehow, this smells like February 1991, when GHWB had 90% approval and no one wanted to run on the Democratic ticket — except for Bill Clinton.” Of course, Clinton had the advantage of having Ross Perot siphon off nearly 20% of the national vote, but it was still an unexpected result.

    Given how poorly HRC performed in 2008, and given the buyer’s remorse that I suspect a lot of independents feel for having voted for Obama in 2012, I think HRC is toast.

    By the way, my co-blogger Bruce Henderson and I have been doing technical analysis of the whole Clinton e-mail issue for a week (both ABC and Fox called me a week ago and got me digging into it); here are all our posts to date: http://andstillipersist.com/category/clinton-e-mails/

    bfwebster (fb2827)

  19. The Left, broadly speaking, does not like the Clintons.

    “The Left” doesn’t like Bill Clinton in the same way that “the Right” doesn’t like Jeb Bush. That said, the Left has processed enough of Saul Alinsky to understand that a Clinton is far preferable to them than any Republican. Hillary!’s natural constituency consists of women born before 1975 who have embraced the feminist theory that they learned freshman year at college, but reject the Marxism underpinnings of feminists like Katha Pollit or Andrea Dworkin. In other words, they want all of the attitude and self-righteousness of feminism, but they also want to make huge salaries in law, entertainment, business, or government without having to feel guilty about it. It’s not a huge faction, but it’s enough of a bandwagon that thus far it seems to have attracted most of the traditional Democrat coalition such as minorities, gays, labor, government workers, and people who rely upon government transfer programs. If she’s the nominee, they’ll crank up the get-out-the-vote machine for her, though it remains to be seen how effective it will be in the post-Obama era.

    JVW (854318)

  20. Hillary Clinton is inevitable in 2016, just like she was in 2008.

    The historian Dana (1b79fa)

  21. OK, OK, time for a really bad joke:

    What do you get when you drop a piano down a mine shaft?

    The comedian Dana (1b79fa)

  22. Gee, you’d have to be sharp to get this joke, Dana. It sounds pretty deep.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. I think I asked this somewhere but did not see a response (please forgive if someone did and I missed it).

    There was the revelation that after many months of waiting for the State dept to turn over relevant emails to the Benghazi investigation committee they learned that “oh, by the way, we don’t have them because she had her own server”.
    Gowdy: What?!?!?! Why didn’t you tell us before?
    State Dept: You never asked…

    If that happened in a civil or criminal case before a judge, would people smirk at that as being clever lawyering,
    or would the judge get irate over wasting his and others time?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  24. As one who frequently holds my nose and wades into the fever swamps I can say that both The Nation and Mother Jones are definitely at the Fauxchahontas end of the prog spectrum. I would expect them to be significantly harder on Hillary! than say, Kos. I did find this post over at Talking Points Memo written by Josh Marshall. He likes the Clintons. But he understands them too. And while he is hopeful, he is definitely struggling with this latest “classic Clinton” scandal.

    Though I have not plumbed all the depths of it, the email story is shaping up to be another classic Clinton scandal. On the merits, the hyperventilation seems way out ahead of the actual facts. It’s not clear to me that any law in effect at the time was violated. And numerous politicians at all levels of government, as well as appointees, have done similar things – indeed, even the top officials in the preceding White House. There’s even a lot of speculation about servers set up by Bill in the basement of the house in Chappaqua that seems to have no basis in fact.

    But Hillary Clinton seems to have taken it a bit further than all the others combined – or perhaps combined together all the things that others individually had done. In any case, at the end of the day – like with every other Clinton scandal – I doubt very much that there’s any there there. Did they actually do anything wrong or terribly embarrassing that they’re covering up? I doubt it. And I say this because I’ve been to this rodeo before. Many times. I’ve seen how it eventually plays out.

    And yet here we are again – with an almost infinite, process-driven scandal that can easily continue on into a Clinton presidency, if there is one. Consider it. Clinton and her lawyers have separated her work emails from personal ones and then sent the work ones to the State Department. But Republicans will never believe that the filtering was on the level. And by apparently destroying the personal ones, that means that Republican questions and press questions will meet a permanent question mark. Presumably even if she wanted to let a third party review all the emails now she can’t. So the deleted emails will remain the permanent fantastical repository for the decision not to prevent a rescue of Chris Stevens, give orders to erase warnings about safety at the Benghazi consulate and more.

    If you were around in the 90s you’ve seen this movie before. The Clintons are great. But there is always something. Always. Always a dance, always drama. It’s just inseparable from who they are.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-joy-and-the-drama

    elissa (e79aa2)

  25. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty

    “The President is smarter than you think!”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. Neither, really. You ask a record keeper for records in his possession and control, he gives yoy what he has. You may already know or suspect, or find out in the course of dsicovery, that there are others, so you widen your net.

    I’d make a discovery request to the prosecutor; and also send a subpoena to the police department for its file, parts of which may not have made it into the prosecutor’s file; and still knew that in Chicago the various officers’ notebooks and field cards never even got into the police file — they stayed in coat pockets and desk drawers.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. corn, at the Mother Jones, does a lot of squirrel, begging the question about Hillary’s status by marriage, yelling Rove, and other such tricks,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  28. nk,
    thanks,
    but, if someone knew there was a major file sitting on desk “A” and just ignored that info, that would be seen as OK?

    Sounds like an effort to keep lawyers and their secretaries with plenty of billable hours.

    Can you see a doc’s office run that way, “oh, yeah, I guess there was an xray report in the “in” box”.
    The lawyer would advise settling.

    I think it is a very dishonest and deplorable way to do things. I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry anyone who pulled such stunts.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  29. i wonder if she’s happy. She doesn’t seem like a happy person.

    does she like butter tarts

    happyfeet (831175)

  30. Mrs. Scott Beauchamp, also misdirects, at the former New Republic, the Turkish press have been taught to fetch, almost instinctively,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  31. Bob, who is certifiably old, old, old, remembers a time when Doonesbury was worth scanning.

    And I still remember Hillary!’s first (to my limited knowledge) adventure that threatened her with a felony: One week of commodities trading that turned $5K into $100K. She explained this almost impossible result by saying that she’d read the WSJ that week, and it wasn’t any big deal.

    Winston came to America in 1931 and spent a day “playing” the market. He did it on his host’s account. The broker who was his host instructed his agents to submit a buy order whenever Winston sold, and vice versa. At the end of the day, Winston had lost a fortune, which was a catastrophe since he was touring America on a speaking engagement to raise money. Once the broker established that Winston was suitably embarrassed, he told him not to worry, the whole thing was a wash, and he owed nothing.

    When Winston returned to England, after recovering from being struck by an automobile (he looked the “wrong” way when crossing a street) his friend chipped in and bought him a nice car, and his fees from his speaking engagements were substantial. So all ended well.

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  32. when was that the Raoul Duke period, it was ha ha,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  33. There’s sentiment building in the Dem party to have someone other than Hillary, but there’s no obvious alternative like Obama to coalesce around. Besides getting the blacks, he created this delusional aura of technocratic competence around himself, which attracted well off white voters, and he got the far left wing of the party of course. That’s three large segments of the Dem vote. And youth flocked to him because of the cool factor. Someone who could repeat that scenario would beat her, but there’s no obvious person at the moment. So despite the growing “Anyone but Hillary” vibe, she still has to be seen as almost inevitable.

    Gerald A (6b504a)

  34. MD, 31. Prosecutors have an affirmative duty not to be willfully blind; convictions have been overturned when they have been caught doing that. There have been lawsuits against the Chicago Police Department settled with promises to make the detectives turn in their field cards. But it’s hard to really go after a records clerk who, at best, is considered to be doing her job properly if she does not file everything under “S” for “Stuff”. The right way to do it is to be a detective and dig, dig, dig, both through process and footwork.

    I’ve used FOIAs. They’re just the beginning, and there’s kind of an art to them. One time, an Assistant U.S. Attorney walked up when I was at City Hall digging up old records. He had a subpoena and was very arrogant — demanding immediate service. The clerk gave him short shrift. To make a long story short, I got what I was after and he got a lesson on the right way to ask for things from petty bureaucrats.

    nk (dbc370)

  35. we all saw Presumed Innocent, it seems Chitown is much like Gotham,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. Scott Turow is from Chicago, narciso, and he worked there as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, including the prosecution of high-profile official corruption cases. The New York setting was to protect the …. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  37. look Janet Reno was from here, and she was the Southern Coakley with all that entails,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  38. So despite the growing “Anyone but Hillary” vibe, she still has to be seen as almost inevitable.

    I wonder if she and enough of the US’s electorate are going to be analogous to Argentina’s horrible, ultra-liberal (and very corrupt) Cristina Kirchner and her foolish fellow Argentinians or France’s horrible, ultra-liberal Francois Hollande and his foolish fellow French (or “frogs”).

    I grimace at the thought, but the 21st century does seem to have an increasingly and oddly idiotic tinge about it, full of two-faced political correctness. An era doused with a lot of “champagne socialist” lunacy—compared with the Iron-Curtain “Commie” quality of the second half of the 20th century, still fully evident in Cuba or, worse of all and of course, North Korea.

    Mark (c160ec)

  39. despite the growing “Anyone but Hillary” vibe, she still has to be seen as almost inevitable.

    That’s some wishful thinkin’, but I like it. From your keyboard to God’s ear.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  40. It boils down to this.
    The biggest reason not to vote for HRC is HRC.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  41. Colonel Haiku, Clinton was the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, an entity within the Democratic party who responded to the 1984 election by arguing that the party, as a whole, had drifted too far to the left in the years since 1968 and that it needed to move back to the center on social issues and adopt non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions to meet progressive ends.

    They were basically saying to the left: “the Democratic party has been losing continuously since 1968 *because of you and your political positions*, and the Democratic party needs to repudiate you to win.”

    From the outside, Clinton may look like a leftist. That’s not how he looked to the left.

    aphrael (34edde)

  42. JVW, I think Jeb Bush is a good analogy. I think you’re right that the Left will mostly hold its nose and vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee – but the left would *really* prefer that she not be the nominee.

    (I’d prefer that she not be the nominee, but not for the same reasons – I have major problems with the spouse of a former President running for the Presidency. This is *the explicit reason* why I voted against her in the primary in 2008, and in seven years nothing has shifted my view on the subject).

    aphrael (34edde)

  43. Aphrael, Clinton is a pragmatist and values winning more than anything. I’m well aware of his triangulation strategy, but don’t even try to sell that he’s a conservative, that dog don’t hunt.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  44. Colonel Haiku, to an optimist a realist looks like a pessimist.

    aphrael (34edde)

  45. I mean: imagine a Republican candidate who were saying “liberalism is the way of the future! to win elections we must be more liberal and abandon the conservative philosophies that are costing us elections.” To *you*, that Republican would look like a liberal. But to a liberal, he probably wouldn’t.

    Same thing for Clinton, only in reverse.

    aphrael (34edde)

  46. And the clinically insane rarely self-diagnose, aphrael.

    And never forget to remember, wherever you go, there you are.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. Squishy DINOs. Just kidding. aphrael is right. Reagan scared the pants off of them, and Dukakis put the seal on it. But they only had to lay low and the Shrub handed them back the Presidency gift-wrapped.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. All I know is that a woman who allowed her husband without repercussions to take advantage of a female intern is not exactly the most pro-feminist candidate in the running.

    This is not rocket science.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  49. Perhaps she was just obeying the law against murder?

    htom (4ca1fa)

  50. aphrael, the thing I recall about the democratic leadership council is that it was explicitly about winning power. Changing principles for power is populism and in a literal way, very democratic, so it’s not inappropriate for the democratic party. But I think it’s bad for the country that both parties do this.

    We’ve reached a point where solutions are badly needed, specifically on spending, but fixing that means being responsible in the face of temptation. Namely, the temptation to give people money in exchange for their support. Neither party will do it, and everyone will suffer for it.

    I am sure to liberals, that’s frustrating just as I’m frustrated by Republicans who increase spending and waffle on every policy. This country is better than that, and eventually we’re going to have to come up with a political party that stands for something beyond winning.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  51. O/T….Two police officers shot outside the Ferguson PD building at approx 03/12/0100 (FoxNews).
    I’m sure that Holder & Co. will take full responsibility for upsetting the community.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  52. That’s awful. That community is going to have a hard time keeping good enforcement. Those who are still there are being pretty amazing in my book.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  53. Evidently there was a two-hour – mostly peaceful – demonstration in front of the PD that led up to this situation.
    I just caught a brief alert on the 11pm (PT) repeat of Greta’s show as I was “signing off” for the evening, and it was sparse on details.
    And now, off to bed.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  54. looks like drudge dropped the ball on this ferguson thing so far

    that hardly ever happens

    happyfeet (831175)

  55. Dustin – of course the DLC was about power. But from the left’s perspective, the DLC was about obtaining power *by repudiating them*. That hardly endeared leftists to the DLC.

    aphrael (34edde)

  56. aphrael – claiming to repudiate them, and then advancing their issues once in office. Exact opposite of what Team R does. I would prefer the former.

    JD (86a5eb)

  57. Spot on. A leopard doesn’t change it’s spots.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  58. I think at the next protest, the entire police force should resign and then demand volunteers from the crowd to sign up.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  59. This is not rocket science.

    Not only is the rocket a phallic symbol created by the patriarchy for the ritual rape of the Moon which has always symbolized femininity, it is also a subtle sexist slur that women are not capable of advanced science and technology. I denounce Ag80 for his war on women.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. A real bunch of bad people in Ferguson… reaping what the DOJ has sown… http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/12/protester-taunts-cops-after-two-police-officers-shot-in-ferguson/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  61. aphrael, I know you’re young but since you brought up that era do you have any thoughts or comments on this revelation out of the opened KGB files that in 1983 Sen. Ted Kennedy (via his close friend former Senator Tunney) directly contacted and tried to use the Soviet Union to thwart Reagan’s cold war foreign policy and influence the 1984 election?

    “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

    Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

    Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers. First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

    Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

    Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.
    …“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”

    In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”

    “The document,” Kengor continues, “has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.”

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

    elissa (252da0)

  62. MD, they should call in sick but organize and protect the neighborhoods of the people who support them. Let the rest of the bitch burn.

    nk (dbc370)

  63. you really jumped the cow with that one, nk.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  64. another stain on her pantsuit… http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561407

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. Ag80 wrote:

    All I know is that a woman who allowed her husband without repercussions to take advantage of a female intern is not exactly the most pro-feminist candidate in the running.

    This is not rocket science.

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are the perfect, perfect! couple: both are pathological liars. They know what each other is, and set their expectations accordingly.

    The Dana who can see the truth (f6a568)

  66. Askeptic wrote:

    Evidently there was a two-hour – mostly peaceful – demonstration in front of the PD that led up to this situation.

    Other than that, Mrs Kennedy, how was Dallas?

    The sarcastic Dana (f6a568)

  67. The rocket science or the bitch burn, Haiku?

    nk (dbc370)

  68. the entire enchilada, nk. You jumped the cow what jumped over teh Moon.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  69. I’m in kind of an altered state on account I found that Keebler markets the Girl Scout Samoas, commercially, in grocery stores, as Fudge Shoppe Coconut Dreams.

    nk (dbc370)

  70. Blood Sugar Alert!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  71. And my local Jewel has boneless ribs at $3.49/lb so I can make my own McRibs.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. I wonder if the good people of America will pass the plate to rebuild Ferguson’s cupcake shop a second time?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  73. But you’ll never make a decent homebrew McTofu burger.

    Which part of the soy do you tug to get the milk to come out?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  74. Exactly, papertiger. We had a tagger in the neighborhood just a while back. The cops didn’t catch him. The neighbors did and held him for the cops. I want to see the “the good people” of Ferguson come out and counter-march against Obama’s sons. Then that city will be worth cops putting their lives on the line for.

    nk (dbc370)

  75. Soy? Animal feed is best when it’s reprocessed naturally into meat. By the animals.

    nk (dbc370)

  76. “boneless ribs”… where’s the crunch in that?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  77. ‘the era of big government was over,’ but behind the scenes, Clinton ‘nudged’ the banks, into the subprime bubble, Cisneros and Cuomo did their part at HUS,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  78. 70. Ag80 wrote:

    All I know is that a woman who allowed her husband without repercussions to take advantage of a female intern is not exactly the most pro-feminist candidate in the running.

    This is not rocket science.

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are the perfect, perfect! couple: both are pathological liars. They know what each other is, and set their expectations accordingly.

    The Dana who can see the truth (f6a568) — 3/12/2015 @ 6:16 am

    I agree with The Dana who can see the truth. Hillary! is perfect for Billy Jeff. Recall that back in the ’70s Hillary! got a child rapist off the hook for a major felony by attacking the credibility of the 12y.o. victim.

    This must have been good practice for later heading up the war room that dealt with Billy Jeff’s Bimbo Eruptions by attacking the credibility and assassinating the character of his victims.

    I do want to nip one allegation against Hillary! in the bud right now; Hillary! was never fired by Jerry Zeifman, general counsel and chief of staff for the House Judiciary Committee who was heading the impeachment investigation and preparations against Richard Nixon, for lying and unethical conduct.

    https://patterico.com/2008/02/06/jerry-zeifman-hillary-as-i-knew-her-in-1974/

    That is a vicious reich-wing conservative LIE!

    See, I’ve looked into it. Zeifman has said on numerous occasions that he would have fired Hillary! if he could have. When he evaluated her performance (as supervisors regularly do) he concluded she had lied and was unethical. Consequently he wanted to fire her, but he didn’t have the authority.

    He was able to let her go when there was a general reduction in staff. And unlike all the other people he had to lay off, he refused to give Hillary! a recommendation whatsoever.

    But he didn’t fire her because he couldn’t.

    In today’s Democratic party the foregoing is what passes for a positive endorsement.

    But one of the unethical acts Zeifman suspects Hillary! committed (there are many that he knows she committed) was this. Hillary! drafted a legal memorandum recommending that the committee deny Nixon the right to legal counsel. Zeifman informed her that went against precedent. The most recent impeachment procedures had been against Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, and he informed Hillary! that the Douglas impeachment records were available for public inspection in his offices.

    Subsequently somebody removed those records from the office of the general counsel where they were available to the public, and transferred them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff where they were no longer available to the public.

    Does this remind anybody of anything? (Cough, cough, Casa Grande, cough, cough, Rose law firm billing records, cough, cough, private server, cough, cough.)

    Yes, Hillary! and Billy Jeff were truly a match made in the cesspools of Hot Springs.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  79. a friend of mine, represented the first Watergate witchhunt victim, steamrolled by the Special Prosecutor, who none the less had his conviction reversed on appeal

    narciso (ee1f88)

  80. there’s an international edition of this sort of behavior:

    http://qz.com/360769/its-time-for-italians-to-forget-about-silvio-berlusconi/

    he’s a warlock, so he must burn, even if he floats.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  81. Steve57 @83 – That comment is a likely violation of the Logan Act. You have been warned.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. My dinner last night was a likely violation of the Logan Act, but I am hereby self-reporting in the hope for leniency.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. I’m a traitor, daley. Like Ted Cruz, who committed the treasonous act of disparaging our tax system.

    From the scripture according to the Letters of the WaPo Subscribers:

    Olivia LaRosa
    3/11/2015 7:00 PM CST
    The comparison is meaningless in reality, but it makes for a good propaganda message. Why the hell would a politician insinuate that the tax code is not legal? He’s a traitor in my eyes. This is the United States of America the greatest nation in the history of the world, and creeps like Cruz have no business undermining our taxation structure. I have clients who are OWED money and because the Service lost $1.6 billion dollars in funding during the last two years, it takes forever to get it back. Why not make what we have work, so we can get an idea of how to move forward?

    People who don’t comply will suffer down the road, no doubt about it. It’s my calling to help people relieve the burden of tax arrearages. People come to me when they start getting letters from the IRS and the State asking for an explanation of a deduction or their checking accounts are levied.

    I have blasphemed. I will repent, and throw myself on the mercy of the prophets such as Olivia LaRosa. I will not follow false prophets like Ted Cruz.

    Only the true prophets like Olivia LaRosa can relieve me of the burden of tax arrearages!

    But only after I go to my local IRS office and partake in the holy sacrament of the wealth redistribution.

    Obama forgive me!

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  84. 87. My dinner last night was a likely violation of the Logan Act, but I am hereby self-reporting in the hope for leniency.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/12/2015 @ 8:57 am

    They may let you off with only a six figure fine and a short prison sentence.

    Me? I doubt I’ll be so lucky. My dinner last night was undoubtedly a violation of the Logan Act, but in all likelihood also a violation of the Lacey Act and, considering I destroyed the tangible evidence of my crimes by eating it, Sarbanes-Oxley.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  85. re #74:

    I’m in kind of an altered state on account I found that Keebler markets the Girl Scout Samoas, commercially, in grocery stores, as Fudge Shoppe Coconut Dreams.
    nk (dbc370) — 3/12/2015 @ 6:41 am

    Relax. They aren’t the same. same bakery but not same ingredients and not same ratio.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  86. it was a fish or seafood item,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  87. I’ve said enough about that, narcisso. Besides, I’ve got other problems with the feds.

    It rained Tuesday and so I just got a letter from the EPA declaring my backyard a federally protected wetland. So I have to remove my tool shed and other improvements to the property or I’ll be racking up $28k/day in fines.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  88. re #92: unfortunately, I can not tell if that was a joke or not 🙁

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  89. Mr 57, you just don’t understand. Hillary Clinton was a young lawyer, oppressed simply because she was a Woman in a Man’s profession, struggling mightily against Discrimination and Sexism, and thus, if there were any lapses in her judgement — and I’m not saying that there were — we must understand and forgive them.

    Jerry Zeifman? He was a prejudiced male –and a Jooooo? — taking a biased judgement against an Empowered and Fearless Woman, and trying to preserve the Patriarchal Privilege.

    The feminist Dana (f6a568)

  90. Alternatively, Jerry Zeifman either discriminated against Hillary Clinton because:

    1 – He asked for sex with her and she turned him down; or
    b – She was astonishingly ugly didn’t look as attractive as he would have liked.

    Clearly, he was a sexist pig, and probably a raaaaacist to boot.

    The snarkily feminist Dana (f6a568)

  91. 93. re #92: unfortunately, I can not tell if that was a joke or not 🙁
    seeRpea (b6bbec) — 3/12/2015 @ 9:40 am

    That’s because for some people it’s not a joke.

    http://rhic.physics.wayne.edu/~bellwied/sandiego06/sd3.jpg

    A picture of Sandy Eggo Bay facing east from Coronado. See those mountains in the background? When I was working for a defense contractor one of my co-workers bought a parcel of land on the side of one of those mountains and tried to build a house.

    Along the way the county declared his property a wetland. He had to prove the piece of land he had on the slope of his mountain was not, in fact, a lake.

    They also declared it an archeological site. He had to prove it wasn’t an Indian burial ground.

    I worked on the same project with the guy for two solid years. He had already bought the land and started jumping through regulatory hoops before I was assigned to that contract. When I left he still hadn’t even poured the foundation. The property was basically untouched.

    He had spent all those years battling the county, state, and federal bureaucracy and their objections to him building on his property.

    That reminds me; I just checked back with a blog started by a guy facing similar (but even worse) bureaucracy.

    http://www.sloleaks.com/

    Why a blog about getting a building permit?

    August 12th, 2009

    …I actually started this blog in February 2011. I wish I had started back in August 2009 when Judi and I first decided to build a new house. But since August 2009 I kept every email, every letter, every report, and every drawing so I have been able to recreate all that happened. I also used the California Public Records Act to try to get all its relevant emails from the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department. From here on I will post things as they happen – because after over two five years of effort I am still far, far away from securing my permit.

    To someone who doesn’t live in San Luis Obispo County (SLO) all of this must seem crazy. After all, how much more difficult could it be to get a building permit in SLO than the rest of the state, or the country? The answer is, sadly, a lot more difficult…

    I had been following this guy’s travails off and on. I hadn’t checked back for months. The latest and no doubt final news on his attempt to build on his property is horrible.

    http://www.sloleaks.com/?m=201407

    We lost in Superior Court

    July 23rd, 2014

    …It is extremely discouraging. After five years of effort, and over $3 million in expenses, Judi and I own a lot in San Luis Obispo California that can not be built on. The property is literally worth less than zero since we can’t do anything with it, but we still pay to pay annual property taxes and pay for liability insurance for all of the people who are now trespassing.

    I don’t blame the judge for ruling the way he did. From his perspective all the Coastal Commission did was put some reasonable restrictions on the size and height of our house. What the judge didn’t understand is that there is no way for us to satisfy the Coastal Commission. Whatever we submitted as a design was going to be found to be too large, or too tall, or the wrong profile, or too many windows, or the wrong color, or bad landscaping, or whatever crazy reason they want to use to deny our project. We tried to satisfy the Coastal Commission for 2 1/2 years during the appeal process. Nothing we did was ever good enough.

    The bottom line is that the Coastal Commission doesn’t want anything built on our property ever, and so there won’t be.

    I am soooo glad I don’t live in Kali anymore.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  92. Steve57 @83 about Hillary.

    I think I should post something here from the Sammy Zone.

    This is a post from my protoblog in 1994: (I am lesving in the typos, and only hiding a name)

    Date: 05-08-94 (18:54) Number: 84 of 895
    To: P????? G??????????? Refer#: NONE
    From: SAMMY FINKELMAN Read: 05-08-94 (19:59)
    Subj: NIXON AND THE TAPES Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
    Conf: SAMMY ZONE (9) Read Type: GENERAL (+)

    PG> But Nixon has been very good at returning from political death. When

    JB> But this time we put a stake through his heart to keep him in there.

    PG> Funny how that vampire theme keeps coming back. Must be something to it.

    SF> One of these days the tapes are going to be released – and we are going
    SF> to learn that the White House transcripts are correct, the House
    SF> Judiciary transcripts wrong and that Hillary Clinton faked some of the
    SF> most incriminating passages.

    PG> Hillary Clinton faked the transcripts of the Nixon tapes, 20 years ago?
    PG> Busy little lady, wasn’t she?

    As I said on the Main Board – she was once called back in a hurry over
    something having to do with the tapes – but neither she nor anyone else
    can remember what it was.

    I have never believed that the statement. . .

    « I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment,
    cover-up or anytngse if it will save – save the plan. That’s the
    whole point »

    . . .is something that Richard Nixon ever said.

    Richard Nixon didn’t SAY that.

    And now we can say, that, in all probability, Hillary Rodham WROTE that.

    « A real measure of Hillary’s importance within the Doar inner circle
    came sometime that spring when she went off to visit Bill in Arkansas.
    Laughing about it later, she described the deference accorded her – not
    for her work on the impeachment committee, but because she was the
    candidate’s “girlfriend.” But it was nothing like the deference she was
    shown by John Doar, when, upon some new development in the case –
    memories are unclear as to the precise event – but it had something
    to do with the subpoena of more Nixon tapes – he summoned Hillary back
    to Washington. Immediately. He would arrange special transportation he
    told her, even send a plane. »

    – Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time by Donnie Radcliffe
    (Warner Books, 1993) page 128.

    When Donnie Radcliffe says “memories are unclear” that means that she
    was told different stories by different people. Somehow, nobody can
    remember what it was that caused Hillary to be summoned back to
    Washington. Hillary certainly can’t, any more than she can remember
    how it was she turned $1,000 into $5,300 in one day.

    But we do know one thing. All versions agree that it had something to
    do with the Nixon tapes.

    They say the SUBPEONA of the tapes, but it makes sense that it
    covering up what they said and straightening out their stories they
    would say that. Officially, her respowere purely procedural
    – to draft the procedures for conducting the trial in the Senate, and
    the articles of impeachment themselves, but that she didn’t have
    anything to do with the INVESTIGATION. No, she was on that legal issues
    task force. So that’s why they said SUBPOENA of the tapes.

    Hillary was not on the list of people who listened to the tapes and
    made up the trancripts, but she DID listen to the tapes, or some
    of them. She described this, or her version of it, in an interview
    in the Arkansas Gazette in 1990, quoted verbatim in two books, since
    she has apparently not spoken about this again.

    On one particular Saturday afternoon. . .

    « I was kind of locked in this soundproof room with these big headphones
    on, listening to a tape. It was Nixon taping himself listening to the
    tapes [you see when Nixon listened to it, he didn’t use earphones] making
    up his defenses to what he heard on the tapes. So you would hear Nixon
    talk and then you would hear very faintly the sound of a tapes prior
    conversation with Nixon, Haldeman and Ehrlichman. . .And you would
    hear him say “What I meant when I said that, was. . .” I mean it was
    surreal, unbelieveable, but it was a real positive experience because
    the system worked. It was done in a very professional, careful way. »

    – Hillary Rodham Clinton as quoted in an interview she gave to the
    Arkansas Gazette in 1990.

    Now, not just anybody could listen to those tapes. Not even the members
    of the Committee heard those tapoes. Four members verified them. One of
    them was Ray Thornton, nephew of W. R. Stephens – the brither of the man
    whose bank loaned Clinton $4 million in 1992 and made him President and
    the man who rescued Bert Lance’s finances in 1978 thereby keepingim
    out of jail.

    If Hillary was listening to any tapes, she was making up transcripts.
    But not only was she doing that – she was doing that OFF THE RECORD.

    Do you begin to get the picture?

    Why did Hillary have this job? She had the job because Bill Clinton had
    turned it down, preferring to run for Congress, and told them to hire
    this woman, Hillary Rodham, instead. Whatever she was doing there is
    what Bill would have done.

    PG> What else was she responsible for? Did she hide the typewriter in the
    PG> pumpkin patch, too?

    No, that was Whittaker Chambers – he hid it there right before he made
    them public. Hillary didn’t do that because it happened right about when
    she was born.

    Sammy Finkelman (302bdd)

  93. Is this the gift that keeps on giving?
    http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2015/03/31/clinton-used-multiple-devices-email-mixed-business-personal-topics/

    There is the possiblity that MSM is getting this story wrong.

    seeRpea (181740)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1124 secs.