It won’t go away

And while the DNC operatives with bylines are trying their best to ignore the reality, we are forced to use foreign sources to again point out that Hillary got away with a huge number of crimes because Obama would have gone down with her. From the article:

It appears US President Barack Obama lied to the US public when he said that he found out about Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal on the news, with new leaked emails from Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta seemingly contradicting Obama’s version of events.

Included the 18th batch of the Podesta Emails, released by WikiLeaks, is a March 7, 2015 email sent by Clinton spokesperson Josh Schwerin to communications director Jennifer Palmieri, press secretary Nick Merrill and others, referring to comments Obama made about the Clinton email scandal.

No, it doesn’t appear to be the case that Obama lied: Obama lied. His presidency, after promising transparency never seen before, has been about one where they have foisted lie after the lie on the American people. If you were still wondering why Hillary was running for the office of POTUS instead of making license plates in an orange jumpsuit, then you now have the obvious answer: Obama made sure she walked because he would have gone down with her.

Crooks the lot of them. They have destroyed our economy, wrecked healthcare, pissed away trillions buying votes with one government scam after the other, abused the office, destabilized the world and made it a far more dangerous place – the usual suspects will of course love you to buy their lies that was done by someone else I will not mention despite the fact that our Nobel Peace Prize winner now has 5 concurrent wars going onwrecked the relationship with America’s allies while kissing up to its enemies, with little or no success to change their hatred and hostility towards us or their abuses of that trust, ground our military into the dirt, and emboldened some of the most frightening and dangerous actors on the planet to challenge stability. The man has been a complete failure. And he was aided in doing all this crap by Clinton, whom now wants to double down on the same policies and go even further than Obama. But our election remains about people with little credibility saying Trump saying bad things to women!

Go figure…

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Were the emails in relation to”official State Department business”? Or were they personal? That would seem to be rather important (the whole point).

    President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton’s private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.

    “The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are available and archived,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-weighs-in-hillary-clinton-private-emails/

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    The White House has addressed this supposed inconsistency. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said after the CBS interview aired that Obama “was referring specifically to the arrangement associated with Secretary Clinton’s email.”
    “Yes, the president was aware of her email address,” Earnest said. “He traded emails with her. That shouldn’t be a surprise that the president of the United States is going to trade emails with the secretary of state.
    “But the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal email server and that this was the email address that she was using exclusively for all her business. The president was not aware of that until that had been more widely reported.”

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/obama-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-2016-10?r=UK&IR=T

    So there is no evidence of a lie here. Presumably Wikileaks would publish any email between the two of them discussing business, but to my knowledge they haven’t. If not, why not?

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    Were the emails in relation to”official State Department business”? Or were they personal? That would seem to be rather important (the whole point).

    Only in the mind of someone nitpicking to deflect. The fact s Obama exchanged emails with Hillary and knew she was not using her State Department emails and then lied about it. Personal or otherwise, the Clinton camp KNEW they were doing something wrong from the emails now released.

    At a minimum Clinton – your preferred candidate – got caught in another serious crime. That she is not behind bars is either because she has dirt on Obama or because he is implicated and would go down with her if this made it to court. Neither scenario precludes the fact that we are dealing with 2 of the dirties and most corrupt inept people on the planet. My take is that Occam’s razor applies here: Obama damned well knew she was doing what she did and protected her when he realized she would bring him down if he threw her under the bus.

    Not bothering to deal with the rest of your attempt to deflect from the facts. I know better.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    I assume Obama uses other email addresses too, as does everyone. If he exchanged personal emails with her through her non-State Department address, then why would he have reason to believe that she was using it for work purposes (which, again, is the whole point of the issue)? And, again, why have Wikileaks not published the actual emails in question?

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    No, it doesn’t appear to be the case that Obama lied: Obama lied. 

    My take is that Occam’s razor applies here

    Same yet again then – your opinion is the same as fact/proof. You don’t appear to know the difference. And when challenged you just resort to irrelevance and ad hominem.

    Thumb up 1

  6. louctiel

    If he exchanged personal emails with her through her non-State Department address, then why would he have reason to believe that she was using it for work purposes (which, again, is the whole point of the issue)?

    You are missing the point.

    The issue is that Obama claimed that he learned of the private server – not a different email address – when the press reported it.

    Yet Obama had in his possession emails from that private server prior to the release of the report.

    Furthermore, we know that Obama used a pseudonym to email Clinton on the private server.  Furthermore, according to Huma Abedin, the President can only receive emails from approved email addresses.  That means that the White House, contrary to their claims, knew that Hillary was using an email address other than the state.gov address and instead was “clintonmail.com.”

    If you think you can explain how the White House was unaware of the private server until 2015 when they made changes to accept and send emails to that server in 2012,  good luck with anyone believing you.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    But knowing

    (a) that she uses a different email address (because you’ve sent and received email to/from it)

    and

    (b) knowing that she’s sending email from it in a professional capacity as Secretary of State via an unsecured server

    are two different things.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, tried to clarify the president’s remarks, saying that he had, in fact, exchanged emails with Mrs. Clinton through her private account. But Mr. Earnest suggested that the president had no idea the emails could be a problem, because he had relied on Mrs. Clinton to make sure that using a private account did not break any laws.
    “The point that the president was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s email address — he did — but he was not aware of the details of how that email address and server had been set up, or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act,” Mr. Earnest said on March 9.
    “I recognize that some of the president’s critics have attempted to construct some type of conspiracy about the communication between the president and the secretary of state, but they’ve failed to put forward a conspiracy that withstands any scrutiny,” Mr. Earnest said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails.html

    Thumb up 0

  9. Hal_10000

    At a minimum Clinton – your preferred candidate – got caught in another serious crime. 

    What crime? We already knew about her e-mail server.  This is more of a scandal for Obama than for Clinton.

    Must be time for Trump to bite the head of a chicken or something.

    Thumb up 2

  10. AlexInCT *

    What crime? We already knew about her e-mail server.  This is more of a scandal for Obama than for Clinton.

    Blackmailing Obama to make sure the WH would guarantee nothing would come from the email server crime? Because if you doubt that happened, either that the WH played defense for her or that she used this to make sure Obama didn’t back-stab her, I think I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you. The amount of criminal activity, as with all these cases is in the cover up. Of course this time there was a real and serious crime committed in the first place.

    Must be time for Trump to bite the head of a chicken or something.

    Like I said: with you libs it is about carrying the criminal over the line regardless of what it takes. Trump biting a head of a chicken would be turned into the beginning of the apocalypse. Clinton and Obama’s crimes? YAAAAWWWWWNNNNN!

    DNC operatives with bylines…

    Thumb up 0

  11. Hal_10000

    Blackmailing Obama to make sure the WH would guarantee nothing would come from the email server crime? 

    Based on what? Imagination? If anything, I read this the opposite way: Obama telling Clinton to clean this mess up before it was discovered.

    Like I said: with you libs it is about carrying the criminal over the line regardless of what it takes. 

    Libs. Right. No, what I meant was that whenever some scandal erupts with Clinton, Trump runs out and grabs the spotlight again by say something idiotic or doing something idiotic or stabbing his fellow Republican in the back.  It will not surprised me at all if, after this over, we find out he was a Clinton plan the whole time.

    Thumb up 2

  12. louctiel

    CM wrote:

    But knowing…..

    …..

    …..are two different things.

    Except we aren’t talking about the email addresses or the use of them.  The question was when Obama KNEW of the private server.

    Got it now?

    You then go on to ridiculously quote the NYT’s and the White House trying to do damage control.  This is the same article that says:

    The F.B.I. concluded that while she had been “extremely careless,” ultimately she had committed no crime.

    The FBI concluded no such thing.  The statement only says that Comer would not recommend that Clinton be prosecuted due to a lack of intent.

    It really doesn’t help your cause when you link to articles that lie.

     

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    No, again, the issue here is whether Obama knew that Hillary was using that private email and an unsecured server to send work emails. He claims that he didn’t. The fact that he got an email or emails from her private email account doesn’t mean that he knew the extent of how it was being used.

     

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT *

    Based on what? Imagination? If anything, I read this the opposite way: Obama telling Clinton to clean this mess up before it was discovered.

    Of course this is exactly how you would like everyone to read it Hal, you are after all Team Blue. The only problem is that Obama didn’t do anything of the sort: he lied about not knowing and even went so far as to order the DOJ and FBI to give Clinton a pass. This administration is corrupt. Really corrupt, and Hillary is planning to take it to a new level. If this WH meddling had not been the case Clinton would now be under indictment and in court, not running for president. They could get Obama and Clinton on tape admitting this is precisely what happened, and you would still find a way to pretend it is not what is going on.

    Libs. Right. No, what I meant was that whenever some scandal erupts with Clinton, Trump runs out and grabs the spotlight again by say something idiotic or doing something idiotic or stabbing his fellow Republican in the back.  

    Which fellow republicans? The scumbag establishment types that tried to fuck him over and now openly say they are voting for Hillary simply because they associate more with her than with those of us that have had enough? Shit, he isn’t fucking those assholes over enough IMO. Neither party is worth shit. Sure there are some republicans with redeeming qualities, (and I can’t think of a single democrat today worth saying the same about), but in general these republicans Trump is giving the finger to are more about the establishment and their own power than they are about representing people. Of course Hillary is the ultimate finger giver (to the people that is), but her worshipers would eat the peanuts out of her shit if she rubbed their faces in it.

    Thumb up 0

  15. AlexInCT *

    It really doesn’t help your cause when you link to articles that lie.

    It’s the only articles he knows how to link to, because that altar he worships at is all about lies.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Hal_10000

    So, when did Paul Ryan announce his support of Hillary Clinton? Seems I missed that.

    Bingo. Anyone who doesn’t spend his time foaming at the mouth about Hillary Clinton is a big lib, working for team blue, stabbing real Republicans in the back. Ryan has bent over backward for Trump, condemning his behavior but not withdrawing his endorsement. And Trump is campaigning against him.

    This is the problem now. We have a “conservative” movement defined not by ideas, of which Trump has none. It is entirely by seething hate of the Democrats. They don’t care what Trump is planning to do since he can’t take a consistent position for more than two seconds. They care that he’s going to do … something … to somebody.

    Oh, and I was exactly right on Trump giving Clinton covering fire AGAIN.  At the precise moment this news breaks about Clinton’s e-mails, Trump has declared war on … Megyn Kelly.

    Thumb up 3

  17. repmom

    “Libs. Right. No, what I meant was that whenever some scandal erupts with Clinton, Trump runs out and grabs the spotlight again by say something idiotic or doing something idiotic or stabbing his fellow Republican in the back.”

    Does praising Newt Gingrich today during a Trump Hotel opening ceremony for his “great interview” last night with Megyn Kelly count?

    Thumb up 0

  18. louctiel

    No, again, the issue here is whether Obama knew that Hillary was using that private email and an unsecured server to send work emails.

    You can keep denying it, but all you are doing is deny facts and reality.

    From the NYT article you cited:

    In a March 2015 interview, President Obama  said that he had learned about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

    And from CBS, who did the interview:

    CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.

    “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” the president told Plante.

    (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-weighs-in-hillary-clinton-private-emails/)

    “System” is not an “email address.”

    “Private server” is not an “email address.”

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT *

    So, when did Paul Ryan announce his support of Hillary Clinton? Seems I missed that.

    When he decided to undermine the only other viable candidate to defeat her and the one voters picked but he was pissed off about? There is no distinction between doing that and declaring his support for Clinton.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT *

    Bingo. Anyone who doesn’t spend his time foaming at the mouth about Hillary Clinton is a big lib

    No the people attacking Trump and giving Clinton a pass – and an occasional weak attempt to pretend you don’t like her doesn’t pass muster – are the libs. The ones that feel Trump will start WW3 like that but ignore the documented fact that Clinton treats everyone like shit and has serious anger management issues for example. Or the ones that think Trump talking about women in some way the left pretends should not happen (while giving a predator and rapist on their side a pass because he is one of them) is far more disqualifying than criminals, the corrupt government we have, the failed economy, and invasion by illegals brought here to vote for democrats, Obamacare destroying healthcare as we know it, the abuses of power, and so on.

    The entire Hillary campaign has been about demonizing Trump and throwing softballs at Clinton, then acting all pissed when you point out the bias is obvious. That has been pretty much the MO of the people here that seem to get miffed for being called out as libs when they have done much the same. When your choices are binary attacking one candidate is tantamount to offering support to the other.

    Thumb up 0

  21. repmom

    I call bullshit on you, Alex. Ryan has in no way endorsed Clinton, no matter what you say. He is doing his best to save the Republican Party. The same party Trump is doing his best to destroy.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    louctiel the claim is that Obama lied, but the only evidence produced is an email from within the Clinton campaign where concern is raised because they know Obama received emails from the private Clinton account. But that proves nothing other than that he got emails from her private account, and knew they were from that account. Yet again, where is the evidence that he knew she was using an unsecured server and was using that account, via the unsecured server, for business purposes? I’m not denying anything, I’m just not buying the conspiracy based on so very little. But keeping going down the Alex route, that always ends so well.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Hal_10000

    When he decided to undermine the only other viable candidate to defeat her and the one voters picked but he was pissed off about? There is no distinction between doing that and declaring his support for Clinton.

    I see. Criticizing the Dear Leader is now supporting Clinton.  And Trump is not just being criticized just for things he said. He’s being criticized for things he’s done — groping women, running Atlantic City into the ground, running a bogus Foundation, refusing to learn anything about policy, abandoning our allies, elevating the alt-right.

    The Cult of Trump is getting scary.  You should David French on the kind of abuse he’s endured.  But, yeah, he won’t vote for Dear Leader out of hatred of the Great Satan, so I guess he deserves to get pictures of his daughter in a gas chamber.

    Thumb up 2

  24. louctiel

    But that proves nothing other than that he got emails from her private account, and knew they were from that account.

    So you think that the emails come from unicorn farts and faery dust?  That’s the sand upon which you are building your whole defense?

    Obama had to approve the email address prior to it being able to communicate directly with him.  That means that the emails that came from that address were known to him to be on a non-government server.

    That’s the server that he said he didn’t know about until 3 years after approving the email address  and therefore knowing about the server.

    Even the administration and the Clinton campaign saw Obama’s lie for what it is and tried to get out in front of it.  Luckily for them, they have people who don’t understand logic repeatedly saying “nothing to see here. Move along.”

    You seem to be one of those people as every time in this thread you have stated something, the opposite is true. You have been proven wrong and proven wrong by your own citations.

    Ignorance can be cured, but you have to want to be cured CM.

    Thumb up 0

  25. repmom

    The Cult of Trump is getting scary.

    Yes, very scary, especially with more and more threats of violence with Trump’s whining of a rigged election. He fuels it, encourages it.

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    So you think that the emails come from unicorn farts and faery dust?  That’s the sand upon which you are building your whole defense?

    It doesn’t matter where I think the emails came from, it matters whether Obama knew that Hillary was using her private email address as her main work email account.

    Obama had to approve the email address prior to it being able to communicate directly with him.  That means that the emails that came from that address were known to him to be on a non-government server.

    Right, so her private email address had been ‘whitelisted’ (by the White House Communications Agency). But then it’s another step to say that Obama himself knew that she was using that account to send emails to conduct State Department business.

    Even the administration and the Clinton campaign saw Obama’s lie for what it is and tried to get out in front of it.

    That’s what you and others are certainly extrapolating from the email. Of course it could simply be that they were sent into a bit of a panic because they knew he’d received emails from her private account, and felt they needed to investigate further to find more details (yeah, to arse-cover if needed).

    You have been proven wrong and proven wrong by your own citations.

    Not true.

    The NYT piece:

    President Obama  said that he had learned about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

    Again, the point is – did he know that she was using this private email server as Secretary of State (as her primary email address)?

    Despite the words used in he CBS piece, the question actually asked by Plante was:

    “Mr President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. Government for official business while she was Secretary of State?”

    The fact that he received emails from her from that address (likely personal) does not contradict his response to that question.

    Of course more might come out to show that he DID lie.

    Thumb up 0

  27. louctiel

    It doesn’t matter where I think the emails came from, it matters whether Obama knew that Hillary was using her private email address as her main work email account.

    Once again, NO.  The question is not about the email accounts but the server which is identified in the email addresses.

    But then it’s another step to say that Obama himself knew that she was using that account to send emails to conduct State Department business.

    You keep bringing up the use of State Department business.  That too is just a false trail.  Are you really trying to say that Obama didn’t read or know the email address containing the server name when he was sending her emails?  Is that really your position?

    Ignorance can be cured.

     

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    The State Department business is of paramount importance – that is the whole issue.

    Are you really trying to say that Obama didn’t read or know the email address containing the server name when he was sending her emails? 

    I’m saying the fact that he was authorised to receive emails from that account doesn’t mean he knew she was using it for State Department business. The email exchange between them could have easily been personal and not related to State Department business. Even if it was, on what basis should would he reasonably assume that she was ONLY using that address. It would be much more reasonable for him to assume she wasn’t doing anything wrong.

    Again, evidence could come out which demonstrates that he’s lying, and knew that “Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. Government for official business while she was Secretary of State” prior to it being made public. But that single leaked email isn’t it.

    It really doesn’t help your cause when you use ad hominem.

    Thumb up 0

  29. AlexInCT *

    I call bullshit on you, Alex. Ryan has in no way endorsed Clinton, no matter what you say

    Call whatever you want, repmom, but all Ryan has done is undermine his party’s candidate at every turn. Maybe you go by what people say, but I go by what they actually do, and what Ryan has done is not up for debate. It is public record. You can keep arguing about how many Angels are dancing on the head of that pin, but Ryan’s intent – and that from too many establishment republican types sore that they have been pushed aside by people tired of their lies and ineffectiveness – has been very clear to those of us that understand a Trump loss means a Clinton win.

    Thumb up 0

  30. repmom

    has been very clear to those of us that understand a Trump loss means a Clinton win.

    IT DOES? WELL, DANG!

    Do you ever give blame to Trump for running a shitty campaign, or in your mind the fact that he is losing to Hillary is EVERyONE else’s fault but his?

    Thumb up 0

  31. AlexInCT *

    Do you ever give blame to Trump for running a shitty campaign, or in your mind the fact that he is losing to Hillary is EVERyONE else’s fault but his?

    Trump could have ran the best campaign ever and the media would still have crucified him. In fact, they would have done the same with any other candidate and actually had an easier job at it. I must laugh hard at anyone that pretends any other republican, maybe with the exception of Rand Paul, would have stood a chance. Every one of them would have been buried by the DNC operatives with bylines just like McCain and Romney where. Remember when McCain was Hitler? What about when Romney was Hitler? Now they are moderate republicans again according the the DNC operatives with bylines because Trump really is Hitler!

    I do want to point out that I find it laughable that when faced with the choice of a criminal that is set to basically destroy the rule of law and the country and a clown running – according to you – a terrible campaign, you choose to focus on picking on the guy running the crummy campaign. I think Trump is a douche, but I know Hillary will be orders of magnitudes worse, so I will hold my nose and vote against her. If you think Obama was terrible, then let me predict that if Clinton wins, she will make Obama look awesome.

     

    Thumb up 1

  32. repmom

    I believe Hillary was beatable, but not by whiny Trump. But you keep making excuses for him, and preaching your high and mighty crap all you want, Alex.

    Thumb up 0

  33. AlexInCT *

    I believe Hillary was beatable,

    Really? By whom? And how? Please explain to me how, considering the media would gang up on any candidate on behalf of Clinton. We have not had a campaign on the issues since that idiot GHB lost to Clinton in another massively orchestrated DNC operative with bylines attack campaign back when. Any other candidate would have recieved the same treatment as Trump is getting, like what happened to McCain and Romney, and they would cave and lose because they were stupid enough to think people cared about them not going into the gutter to counter people that always drag the campaign into the gutter.

    but not by whiny Trump. 

    You sound just like the DNC operatives with bylines there, repmom. After all, they were the ones that wanted people to believe that Trump pointing out they are in the bag for Hillary is akin to being all whiny, and coordinated that attack. I see it resonated with you because you are ready to believe anything negative about him. Me, what I see is someone that finally used the democrat’s own playbook against them, and that is a good thing. But hey, you are not endorsing Clinton either I am sure. Just helping her win.

    Thumb up 0

  34. ilovecress

    Alex – you’ve got to see the position Ryan is in. Now I’m not his biggest fan, but Trump is affecting the chances of Republicans all over the ticket. Ryan needs to balance that. In terms of politics, I think Ryan has played it exactly right.

    So there’s two options. A grand conspiracy by the Democrat party colluding with the media over 20 years. Or there might actually be the fact that the Trump campaign can’t manage a media campaign.

    These things are strategic. As a campaign, it’s your job to manage the news cycles and the media to ensure the message is going to help you. the other side tries to do it too.

    McCain gambled his on Palin being the story of a refreshing outside change – playing on the Maverick narrative. The problem was that they couldn’t manage Palin. Obama had ‘hope and change’ and ‘first black president’ – both strong narratives that they weren’t knocked off. When the GFC hit, Obama’s messaging was so strong that McCain publicly agreed with it.

    Romneys strategy was tough to begin with, as he was up against an incumbent. His strategy was to hammer the ‘job creators’ theme, and appeal to Joe the Plummer (did you think Joe just walked into the RNC?) However, Romney couldn’t make that message stick with the minorities, much as he tried – and couldn’t pivot away from the 47% line. the goal of a media strategy is to get the country talking about the things you want it to talk about.

    So what’s Trumps media narrative? He’s had about twenty. The only one he’s had consistently is #neverhillary. But it’s tough to keep an protest message going for a whole campaign. Clearly Conway was trying to pivot her candidate towards the issues around the time of the first debate – and the #draintheswamp thing is a similar attempt. But Donald nukes that plan by proclaiming that the election is rigged, that his accusers are ugly liars, by opening a fucking hotel 2 weeks before the election. You get in the game by attacking your opponent, you win it by making a case. Trump has been incapable, or unwilling to do this. (Actually he’s been doing it this week, but it’s probably too late.)

    So who could have beaten Hillary? Well in the political game of a campaign, anyone who was a skilled politician and an experienced campaigner could have. (Hint: Paul Ryan)

    Instead of attacking a Gold Star family, he could have reminded the country that his son died in a war HRC voted for.

    He could have named a supreme court nominee that would get conservatives excited, instead of whingeing about RBG

    He could have used Wikileaks to pain Hillary as an insider, and a 1%er – rather than overplayed his hand by claiming she needs to be jailed.

    He could have played to the Pro Life crowd in the debate, if he’d prepped on Heller.

    He could have focused on Obamacare more than two weeks out from the election.

    He could have campaigned to split the HRC vote towards Bernie/Jill Stein.  And courted libertarians.

    Let me tell you from behind enemy lines – Liberals were dreading a HRC candidacy. That’s why Bernie did so well. It was never going to happen, and it would have been a disaster. But it was something to get excited about. Her votes were there for the taking. A young, outsider, change candidate would be able to charm their way to the whitehouse. (See Obama, B)

    Thumb up 2

  35. Iconoclast

    So there’s two options. A grand conspiracy by the Democrat party colluding with the media over 20 years. Or there might actually be the fact that the Trump campaign can’t manage a media campaign.

    I really don’t have much issue with the rest of your post, but the above is a false dichotomy, as both options are in play.  The collusion is real, regardless of your attempted dismissal by sarcastically calling it a “grand conspiracy”.

    Thumb up 0

  36. Iconoclast

    I’m saying the fact that he was authorised to receive emails from that account doesn’t mean he knew she was using it for State Department business. The email exchange between them could have easily been personal and not related to State Department business.

    Obama’s Blackberry is a high-security device, and white-listing is a high-security procedure — are you seriously trying to tell us that Obama never thought non-personal stuff would ever come through that address?  Are you telling us that Obama is so naive that he thought Hillary would use that address only for personal stuff, even though it had to go through the high-security protocol of being white-listed?

    Seriously?????

    Since she was Secretary of State, by definition, any correspondence between her and the President through that high-security channel would be State Department business unless you can demonstrate otherwise.  Claiming that it was only for personal chats is quite a stretch.

    Why would Clinton go through the trouble of setting up a private server for purely personal correspondence?  That doesn’t make any sense on the face of it.  Again, Obama must be pretty damned naive, if we are to buy into this narrative.

    Thumb up 0

  37. Hal_10000

    Really? By whom? And how? Please explain to me how, considering the media would gang up on any candidate on behalf of Clinton.

    They would have. And it would have gone nowhere. Because the other candidates weren’t lying, sleazy criminals who built their wealth on fraud, deception and shysterism.  The other candidates aren’t mentally unstable sociopaths who would tweet at three in the morning telling people look for a fictitious sex tape. The other candidates would have released their tax returns, rather than leaving open speculation about Russian business dealings. The other candidates would, you know, KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE FUCKING ISSUES instead of just winging it like a kid giving a book report on a book he hasn’t read.

    Yeah, the media would be going after them. And it would go precisely nowhere. They would be trying to make a big deal of Marco Rubio’s wife’s speeding ticket instead of, say, Trump’s giant scam of a “university” that deliberately targeted struggling middle class people and encouraged them to take out giant loans. They would be talking about that time Jeb Bush burped instead of Trump’s criminal foundation that mainly funnels money to him.  They would be talking about Ben Carson’s surgical skills instead of the dozen women Trump has groped or assaulted.  Trump’s vileness is not a media invention Alex.  He’s a piece of shit and you know it. And he is a big-government liberal who will burn anything conservative to the ground.

    Thumb up 2

  38. AlexInCT *

    Alex – you’ve got to see the position Ryan is in. Now I’m not his biggest fan, but Trump is affecting the chances of Republicans all over the ticket. Ryan needs to balance that. In terms of politics, I think Ryan has played it exactly right.

    Sounds like a great after the fact excuse their Cress. What Ryan did was throw a tantrum because some outsider upset the nice establishment apple cart. Remember that Ryan, refused to endorse Trump when it became obvious he was going to win, publicly, and he did that because Trump was not one of the establishment types the party could control.

    The republican establishment isn’t that much better than the corrupt democrat party. We have Trump today and the republicans are suffering at the polls, not as the establishment would like you to believe because of Trump, but because of the fact that people have realized they are being played by a republican establishment that cares more about their own perks, power and graft than fighting the corruption in DC. The republican party is at a crossroads now: it either really changes to oppose Leviathan and the policies of the left, shrinking government, simplifying the system, and working to fix the problems caused by 50 years of this idiotic collectivist expansion, or it becomes even more irrelevant than it finds itself at today.

    So there’s two options. A grand conspiracy by the Democrat party colluding with the media over 20 years. Or there might actually be the fact that the Trump campaign can’t manage a media campaign.

    I am sure you would like people to actually eat that up except for the part that we can go back to previous elections and see much of the same we see today there. Remember when GWB was Hitler? How about when McCain was Hitler? And even more recently Romney was Hitler. Even you have to admit something can’t be right if republican candidates are always the bad guys, even when they run against inept, corrupt and downright diabolical people. The fact remains that anyone that runs against the democrats would be demonized.

    Even if Jesus himself came down to do the job for the republicans and was running against the devil himself (and Clinton is close enough to be that), the media would end up painting Jesus as an evil person (Jesus only had male disciples, the misogynist!). It is not a coincidence that the media has steered the debate to talking about Trump’s talking dirty while ignoring the fact Hillary enables a rapist or the destroyed economy and country caused by the same policies Hillary is peddling.

    But you can pretend that is just people being crazy. Lucky for me, I think there are enough of us that have wizened up to this manipulation and propaganda and are fighting back that things are going to come to a head.

    Thumb up 0

  39. AlexInCT *

    They would have. And it would have gone nowhere. Because the other candidates weren’t lying, sleazy criminals who built their wealth on fraud, deception and shysterism. 

    Are you talking about the Clintons there “Commorade” when you talk about deception, fraud and shysterism? Because while I see the good little marxist talking there, I couldn’t help but feel the irony….

    And I refer you to the Romney and McCain campaigns for evidence of how every other republican candidate would have been treated this time around, and how effective avoiding going down into the gutter to fight the democrats on their own turf has worked out for them.

    Stop playing and just admit you are a democrat pretending to be something else please.

    Thumb up 0

  40. louctiel

    The State Department business is of paramount importance – that is the whole issue.

    The issue is when Obama knew of the server.  He says he found out about it 2015 but yet was using the server to communicate with Hillary in 2012.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    The issue is when Obama knew of the server.  He says he found out about it 2015 but yet was using the server to communicate with Hillary in 2012.

    No, again, he said he only learned about “Hillary Clinton’s private email address use for official State Department business” in 2005.

    Obama’s Blackberry is a high-security device, and white-listing is a high-security procedure — are you seriously trying to tell us that Obama never thought non-personal stuff would ever come through that address?  Are you telling us that Obama is so naive that he thought Hillary would use that address only for personal stuff, even though it had to go through the high-security protocol of being white-listed?

    Even if he did receive emails relating to work, why would he assume she was using the address for ALL her work email, let alone via an unsecured server? Why would he even have put much thought at all into it at all (pretty sure he’s had other things to do)?

    Claiming that it was only for personal chats is quite a stretch.

    Where I wrote “Even if it was” it should have been “Even if it wasn’t” (sentence following the part you quoted).

    Again, Obama must be pretty damned naive, if we are to buy into this narrative.

    Not really, the conspiracy narrative is all constructed with the benefit of hindsight. The most obvious likely situation is that the email exchange between the two didn’t raise any red flags with him. It’s not unreasonable at all to assume that she was doing everything by the book.

    Again, he COULD have lied about this (I can’t rule it out), but Alex is arguing that the leak of that email proves he was. But it doesn’t. That’s all I’m saying.

    Thumb up 0

  42. AlexInCT *

    No, again, he said he only learned about “Hillary Clinton’s private email address use for official State Department business” in 2005.

    Hope that is a typo, considering Obama didn’t become president until 2009 and Clinton was not SecState before that either. Or maybe they can also time travel?

    Anyway, the fact is Obama lied. Parse it however you want. He exchanged communications with her on the unsecured system using a pseudonym account for a reason. When the story broke, he came out and lied that he just realized this was going on.

    BTW, if someone truly wanted to grant the idiots making the case that Obama didn’t know some leniency (and this is one heck of  stretch based on the facts), I want to point out that the only way that could possibly occur was if the Obama administration were staffed with even more incompetent people than we already know it is staffed by. That certainly may be no crime, but it proves these people are worse than amateurs and need to be kept away from something that requires adults. The “We are not really crooks, just super dumb idiots” defense seems to be SOP with the democrat party…

    Thumb up 0