RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Yglesias writes: "If you agree with her on policy, vote with a clear conscience about the server."

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. (photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. (photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)


The Real Clinton Email Scandal Is That a Bullshit Story Has Dominated the Campaign

By Matthew Yglesias, Vox

06 November 16

 

If you agree with her on policy, vote with a clear conscience about the server.

ome time ago, Hillary Clinton and her advisers decided that the best course of action was to apologize for having used a personal email address to conduct government business while serving as secretary of state. Clinton herself was, clearly, not really all that remorseful about this, and it showed in her early efforts to address it. Eventually aides prevailed upon her to express a greater degree of regret, which they hoped would lay the issue to rest.

It did not. Instead, email-related talk has dogged Clinton throughout the election and it has influenced public perceptions of her in an overwhelmingly negative way. July polling showed 56 percent of Americans believed Clinton broke the law by relying on a personal email address with another 36 percent piling on to say the episode showed “bad judgments” albeit not criminality.

Because Clinton herself apologized for it and because it does not appear to be in any way important, Clinton allies, surrogates, and co-partisans have largely not familiarized themselves with the details of the matter, instead saying vaguely that it was an error of judgment and she apologized and America has bigger fish to fry.

This has had the effect of further inscribing and reinscribing the notion that Clinton did something wrong, meaning that every bit of micro-news that puts the scandal back on cable amounts to reminding people of something bad that Clinton did. In total, network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.

This is unfortunate because emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit. The real scandal here is the way a story that was at best of modest significance came to dominate the US presidential election — overwhelming stories of much more importance, giving the American people a completely skewed impression of one of the two nominees, and creating space for the FBI to intervene in the election in favor of its apparently preferred candidate in a dangerous way.

Why Hillary Clinton used a personal email account

When Hillary Clinton took office as secretary of state, she, like most people, already had a personal email account. Like most people who started a federal job in 2009, she was also disheartened to learn that the then-current state of federal IT departments was such that she could not connect her personal smartphone to a State Department email address. If she wanted ready access to both her email accounts, she would need to carry two smartphones.

As any reporter in Washington knows, this indignity was in fact visited upon a huge number of DC denizens for many years. Everyone working in government felt that this was kinda bullshit, but nobody could really do anything about it. (Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts has opined that carrying two phones could be reasonable grounds to suspect someone is a drug dealer.)

Clinton decided to do something about it. Namely, she told her top aides to just email her at her personal address so she could keep using whichever devices she wanted. This violated an internal State Department policy directive, known as a Foreign Affairs Manual, which stated that while it was okay to use personal digital devices to do work occasionally, “normal day-to-day operations” should be conducted on standard State Department equipment. Clinton chose to ignore this guideline and because she was the boss nobody could stop her. Career foreign service officers and other State personnel have every right to be peeved that Clinton opted out of an annoying policy rather than fixing the underlying issue, but it’s hardly a matter of overwhelming public concern.

And, indeed, it turns out Colin Powell also used a private email address for routine work. Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright didn’t use email, and back before Albright only weird nerds even knew what email was. So at the time Clinton took office, only one previous secretary of state had ever faced the question of what email account to use, and he reached the exact same conclusion Clinton did — just use your personal email address.

Why Hillary used a private email server

When Hillary tried the eminently sensible “I was following precedent” defense, Politifact dinged her answer as “mostly false” on the grounds that while Powell did use a personal email account, he didn’t use a private email server.

This distinction has attracted a lot of attention. And it’s proven politically damaging — because while lots of people maintain two email addresses and sometimes do work stuff on their personal email, very few Americans use a private email server as opposed to relying on a commercial email service. But legally speaking, this is completely irrelevant. As the State Department inspector general concluded in its report on Clinton’s conduct, the guideline Clinton violated was a principle that “normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System.”

Using a private server violates that rule, but so would using a Gmail address or simply checking your State.gov email address from your personal laptop rather than a Department-issue one.

But while the use of a private server is legally irrelevant, it’s certainly unusual. And it leaves people wondering: Why did Clinton go out of her way to set up a private server?

Clinton, as you may have heard, is married to former president Bill Clinton, who stepped down from office in January of 2001. Clinton was in the White House throughout the 1990s when the rest of us were being bombarded with AOL signup CD-ROMs, so he didn’t have a personal email when he left. Gmail didn’t exist back then, and his new job was, in effect, running a Bill Clinton startup. He launched a charitable foundation, he established his presidential library, and he made big bucks on speaking tours. He had a staff and he needed IT infrastructure and support. So he paid a guy to set up an email server that he could use.

Hillary Clinton — who is, again, his wife — also set herself up with an account on the same server. This is a bit unusual, but a lot about being married to a former president is unusual. What it’s not is suspicious.

The private server was not a transparency dodge

It’s become a bit of an article of faith among journalists frustrated with public officials’ constant FOIA-dodging that this is all obviously dissimulation and Clinton was really trying to evade the Freedom of Information Act.

Many people, for example, point to the fact that Clinton would routinely travel with multiple digital devices as debunking her supposed convenience argument. But this is silly. I’ve been known to travel with an iPhone, an iPad, a Kindle, and a laptop all at once. That doesn’t mean needing to carry two separate iPhones (one to check my work email and one to check my personal email) wouldn’t be inconvenient. After all, what if I was replying to a work email while a text came in to my personal phone and I wanted to check it.

I’d be left juggling phones and looking like an idiot, exactly how federal employees tended to look in the heyday of the double-fisting phones era.

I would not want to do that. Colin Powell did not want to do that. Hillary Clinton did not want to do that. Because that would be terrible.

By contrast, it’s a terrible solution to a desire to avoid having your emails disclosed to the public via FOIA. One way you can tell it’s a terrible solution is that Hillary Clinton’s work emails have been disclosed to the public. You can read them right here.

The specific timeline is that the House Select Committee on Benghazi requested Clinton’s emails in the summer of 2014, at which point the relevant State Department personnel realized they did not have the emails because Clinton had been using her personal address. State asked Clinton for the emails, and she handed them over later that year. It was only in March of 2015 that the New York Times broke the story of Clinton’s private server in a scoop by Michael Schmidt, which reported that the emails had been handed over to the State Department “two months ago.”

This is fairly clearly not an optimal approach to government record-keeping, as Thomas Blanton of the National Security Archive at George Washington University told Schmidt at the time:

It’s a shame it didn’t take place automatically when she was secretary of state as it should have. Someone in the State Department deserves credit for taking the initiative to ask for the records back. Most of the time it takes the threat of litigation and embarrassment.

According to the Inspector General’s report, Clinton “should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary.”

There are two possible interpretations here. One is that Clinton hatched the private email account plan as an elaborate dodge of federal record-keeping laws, but then months before the public became aware of the server’s existence complied with requests to turn them over. The other is that the federal records rule on the book was antiquated and a bit absurd, requiring officials to turn over paper copies of emails for no good reason, and simply got ignored out of sloppiness.

But she deleted 33,000 emails!

Suspicion at this point is then supposed to focus on the fact that she had her lawyers delete more than 30,000 emails from her server.

After Hillary left office, the State Department told her she had to turn all her work-related emails over to them, so she tasked a legal team with determining which emails were work emails and which were not. She turned the work emails over because that’s what she was legally required to do. She deleted the others, presumably because she did not want Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz to rummage through her inbox leaking whatever they happened to find amusing to area journalists.

Now, is it possible that Clinton’s legal team simply decided to entirely disregard the law and delete work-related emails?

In some sense, sure. But there’s no evidence that this happened. Generally speaking, in life we assume it would be moderately difficult to hire a well-known law firm to destroy evidence for you without someone deciding to do the right thing and squeal.

Besides which, it would be almost comically easy to catch Clinton in the act of systematically destroying relevant emails. The vast majority of the work-related email correspondence of an incumbent secretary of state, after all, is going to be correspondence with other government employees. Maybe she shoots a note to the Pentagon about Benghazi, or circulates ideas for a speech draft with her communications team. Any message like that, by definition, would exist on a government server as well as on her private one. This means it would be fully accessible via FOIA and also means that if Clinton’s copy were found to not be in the pile of emails she turned over, she’d be caught red handed.

The available FOIA workarounds are available to everyone

Now what’s true is that Clinton could, in theory, have conducted work-related email conversations using another person’s personal email address.

She could, for instance, have emailed Jake Sullivan on his Gmail address then deleted the email from her private server. We’d be in the dark and she’d get away with it.

The key thing to note here, however, is that the availability of this option has nothing to do with Clinton’s decision to use a personal account as her exclusive account and also has nothing to do with her decision to host her personal email on a private server.

At any given time, any federal employee can use her personal account to email any other federal employee at his personal account. If they receive a Freedom of Information Act request, they are legally obligated to hand that correspondence over. But in a practical sense, if they want to break the law they can probably get away with it. And as Ezra Klein has noted, there are a lot of workarounds here:

As every reporter knows, when official sources want to tell you something particularly delicate, they email you from a personal account — or, much more often, they call.

A lot of my reporting happens by email. But virtually none of my reporting with the White House happens by email. There, emails for clarification, or comment, quickly lead to phone calls. The reason — unsaid but obvious — is that phone calls don't leave an official record. White House officials can talk freely on the phone in a way they can't over email.

Similarly, the White House keeps a visitor's log. If you make an appointment to meet with someone, your entrance and point of contact are recorded for posterity and searchable online. When someone who shouldn't be meeting with you wants to meet with you, they tend to suggest an off-site location: a restaurant downtown, or a nearby coffee shop. Peet's Coffee doesn't keep a list of everyone who walks in or out.

We do not, however, generally treat all federal employees as having a massive ethical cloud over their heads just because they could probably use this workaround to break the law. There is zero reason to apply heightened scrutiny to Clinton just because she also could break the law.

Besides which, when you are secretary of state there is a much simpler and easier way to mask your correspondence: classification.

Here, for example, is an email Sullivan sent to Clinton on June 4, 2011, that was duly handed over to the State Department and made available by the FOIA office:


I’m not saying the contents of that message don’t deserve to be redacted for security purposes. The fact is that I have no idea. But the reality is the American national security state is really, really good at using official channels to avoid disclosure of information. Nobody needs a private email server to pull that off.

Indeed, the allegation that the server setup was an elaborate con to evade transparency law is doubly ridiculous. On the one hand, a private server would not be necessary to carry it out. (All you need is to have a private email address on the side, which everyone does.) While on the other hand, the exclusive use of a personal email account means that Clinton’s personal account has come under an exceptional level of security.

The classification thing is a red herring

It’s precisely because nothing about the basic setup of the email account was in any way wrong that the investigation ended up focusing on the question of mishandling classified information.

The key point here is that using a State.gov email account would not have changed anything. When US government officials have conversations about classified matters, they are not supposed to use email. They are supposed to use special secure channels.

Nonetheless, mistakes happen in part because classification standards are vague and ever-changing. Technically speaking, forwarding a Washington Post article detailing things revealed by Edward Snowden could constitute an improper discussion of classified matters.

As FBI Director James Comey concluded, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton over this matter. Almost all of the relevant statutes require an intent to mishandle classified information in order to bring a prosecution, a standard that Clinton’s conduct clearly does not meet. Critics have thus chosen to focus on 18 USC § 793, a statute that sets a lower “gross negligence” standard.

However, as Jack Goldsmith, one of the top lawyers in George W. Bush’s administration explains, such a prosecution “would be entirely novel, and would turn in part on very tricky questions about how email exchanges fit into language written with physical removal of classified information in mind.”

Ben Wittes, a veteran legal journalist and Brookings fellow who has spent the past several years specializing in national security law, wrote that Comey’s characterization was clearly correct:

For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time, both at the Washington Post and since starting Lawfare. I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law.

It’s true that to a layman the Espionage Act’s reference to “gross negligence” sounds similar to Comey’s characterization of Clinton’s actions as “extremely careless.” But as Philip Zelikow, a counselor to Condoleezza Rice during the Bush administration and currently the Director of the Miller Center at the University of Virginia explains, they only sound alike “unless you do a tiny bit of homework” on the history and caselaw of the Statute.

As the Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez writes, attempting a prosecution for non-malicious mishandling would likely result in the statute being held unconstitutional: “the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gorin v. United States (1941), which suggests that the Espionage Act’s intent requirements are an important feature that save it from unconstitutional vagueness.”

This legal analysis is important because it makes it clear that even if the Weiner laptop emails aren’t simply client-side copies of the exact emails the FBI already has, there is essentially no chance it will change the ultimate verdict. The reason Clinton isn’t getting locked up is that there was no malign intent. Finding another email with classified information on it won’t change that conclusion.

A bullshit scandal amidst a serious election

Network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.

Cable news has been, if anything, worse, and many prestige outlets have joined the pileup. One malign result of obsessive email coverage is that the public is left totally unaware of the policy stakes in the election. Another is that the constant vague recitations of the phrase ‘‘Clinton email scandal’’ have firmly implanted the notion that there is something scandalous about anything involving Hillary Clinton and email, including her campaign manager getting hacked or the revelation that one of her aides sometimes checked mail on her husband’s computer.

But none of this is true. Clinton broke no laws according to the FBI itself. Her setup gave her no power to evade federal transparency laws beyond what anyone who has a personal email account of any kind has. Her stated explanation for her conduct is entirely believable, fits the facts perfectly, and is entirely plausible to anyone who doesn't simply start with the assumption that she's guilty of something.

Given Powell’s conduct, Clinton wasn't even breaking with an informal precedent. The very worst you can say is that, faced with an annoying government IT policy, she used her stature to find a personal workaround rather than a systemic fix that would work for everyone. To spend so much time on such a trivial matter would be absurd in a city council race, much less a presidential election. To do so in circumstances when it advances the electoral prospects of a rival who has shattered all precedents in terms of lacking transparency or basic honesty is infinitely more scandalous than anything related to the server itself.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+53 # tswhiskers 2016-11-06 12:44
I have a question for all Hillary haters: just what specifically has she done that rates calling her a criminal and warmonger? Ever since Bill ran in 1992 for the presidency, the GOP and its allies have piled accusations and gossip on top of innuendo and more gossip so that I think no one can sort it all out any longer. Is she criminally liable if the GOP refused to send more security for Benghazi when she asked? Is she criminally liable because she felt it would be safer if she used her own email server that the govt. one? And what else is there in her "dark" resume that is criminal? Yes, she made a lot of money on her speeches to Wall St., but what politician is going to turn down money when it is offered? Compared to Trump, I think she has done almost nothing to deserve the ignominy and disrepute I have seen people on this website and in other places. Next to Trump, she will be a fine president.
 
 
+6 # GoGreen! 2016-11-06 14:09
How about the 'donations' to the Clinton Charitable Foundation? Were these bribes? The comparison between the donors to this Foundation and the list of people who had private meetings with Hillary is somewhat concerning. Might this be 'pay to play"? Looks like that to me.

I don't think either Hillary or Trump will be a 'fine president' far from it!! Both are very bad candidates.
 
 
+3 # candida 2016-11-06 15:20
Another bullshit story propagated by the powerful Republican propaganda machine.
 
 
+32 # markovchhaney 2016-11-06 15:31
I agree: the idea that what's wrong with a POTUS Clinton is her stupidity obscures that she's perfect GOP president. They're going to get what they want by keeping the media and hence the dumber members of the Democratic and Republican Parties focused on bullshit.

Sounds like you're one of those, #candida: completely duped into believing that if Trump loses, we win. Fact is, we've already lost whichever of the monsters is appoint. . . er, elected on Tuesday. My money is still on the Hillster, and then you and the rest of her useful idiot supporters can fool yourselves for the next 4-8 years that like Obama, she's a Real Progressive. The GOP will rage against her, the Teabillies will curse her, but the oligarchs? They'll be smiling all the way to the bank.
 
 
+3 # candida 2016-11-06 15:52
Quoting markovchhaney:
Sounds like you're one of those, #candida: completely duped into believing that if Trump loses, we win.


No, mark, I'm not a black and white thinker. This is not what I believe or think. Thank you for reading my posts. But please read them more carefully to get my meaning.
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2016-11-06 22:17
If Hillary would be the "perfect GOP president," why are the Rump and his lickers screaming "Lock her up!"?
 
 
+8 # anthraxripple 2016-11-07 19:53
The Bush family are joining hundreds of other ESTABLISHMENT Republicans in her support.

Remember the Bush's? THAT was a fun 8 years right?

Dubya wants to do it all over again, and Hillary is just what he's looking for.

They both have the same foreign policy agenda. Hillary might as well hire Dick Cheney as her Secretary of State.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-11-07 17:29
Quoting markovchhaney:
Sounds like you're one of those, #candida: completely duped into believing that if Trump loses, we win.

- 1) we can't win with rump - we lose

2) we can't lose with hill - we win

now tell me how hill losing or rump winning? how you can't tell which is which?

how messed up do we have to be not to draw the distinction?

please tell us all the good that rump will do for us? okay? - right off your scorecard! - we want to know! - what will rump win us? - what have you to sell us that we have to buy? to call rump - as you do - a win?

if rump wins the election - prophesy! from rump what good can we count on? - what evil can we count on? - you pretend to know s o m e t h i n g ? - pretend to explain yourself! - if Trump loses, how do we not win?
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-11-07 17:42
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting markovchhaney:
Sounds like you're one of those, #candida: completely duped into believing that if Trump loses, we win.

- 1) we can't win with rump - we lose

2) we can't lose with hill - we win

now tell me how hill losing or rump winning? how you can't tell which is which?

how messed up do we have to be not to draw the distinction?

please tell us all the good that rump will do for us? okay? - right off your scorecard! - we want to know! - what will rump win us? - what have you to sell us that we have to buy? to call rump - as you do - a win?

if rump wins the election - prophesy! from rump what good can we count on? - what evil can we count on? - you pretend to know s o m e t h i n g ? - pretend to explain yourself! - if Trump loses, how do we not win?

- don't you want to gloat? - to be able to tell us? - you told us before election? what, as prez, rump would achieve for america?
 
 
0 # Jaax88 2016-11-06 15:30
All you are doing is whining a destructive innuendo and breaking down any trust in open, intelligent and important public discussions.
 
 
+21 # madresabia 2016-11-06 16:21
Right! We do not have to choose between two evils. Let's go green and vote for the better good!
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-11-07 16:34
Quoting madresabia:
Right! We do not have to choose between two evils. Let's go green and vote for the better good!

- which green is not!

- do some still flog dead horse jillie?

if jillie had wanted to test her positions against those of other progressives, she would have run in the dem primaries against o'malley, bernie and hill - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her positions

jillie is the "stealth candidate" - the fact that jillie remains almost unknown is directly due to one, and only one, person - jillie

if rump wins, those who vote "jillie" will deny they had anything to do with it - that's who jilliebots are

maybe in 2020 greens will find a progressive candidate brave as bernie? - to fight it out - on the issues - with other progressives?

it's 2016 - it's too late for jillie to see the wizard - to get her heart - her courage - that was so 2015?

if you spot the way the wind is blowing among jilliebots here on rsn - they are all growing eager to kiss rump - lie down with jillie and you wake up with rump
 
 
-18 # Robbee 2016-11-06 17:03
Quoting madresabia:
Right! We do not have to choose between two evils. Let's go green and vote for the better good!

Quoting GoGreen!:
How about the 'donations' to the Clinton Charitable Foundation? Were these bribes? The comparison between the donors to this Foundation and the list of people who had private meetings with Hillary is somewhat concerning. Might this be 'pay to play"? Looks like that to me.

I don't think either Hillary or Trump will be a 'fine president' far from it!! Both are very bad candidates.

- jill who"- the stealth candidate! who cannot be named!
 
 
0 # ericlipps 2016-11-06 22:07
Quoting GoGreen!:
How about the 'donations' to the Clinton Charitable Foundation? Were these bribes? The comparison between the donors to this Foundation and the list of people who had private meetings with Hillary is somewhat concerning. Might this be 'pay to play"? Looks like that to me.

Well, what you need to look at is whether these donors actually got anything (other than, perhaps, face time) in exchange for their money.

If they didn't then even if they intended the money as a bribe, it was an unsuccessful one.
 
 
+1 # Karlus58 2016-11-07 11:33
Hey..wake up! Pay to Play has been around way before your birthday. It's called Politics plain and simple. But you're barking up the wrong dog because as you surely know, your Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United and let all the dogs come a barking, and loud. That's where the work must be..to overturn CU. So all this distraction with emails is pure BS. An easy distraction of the ignorant masses. Yes, I meant ignorant.
 
 
+38 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-06 14:48
Each of our wars is based on lies, and she supports every one of them. These wars wreck countries. They slaughter huge numbers of innocent people and greatly damage the lives of most of the populations. She is currently planning to escalate the devastation in Syria, which will likely draw, their ally, Russia into a more direct confrontation with our evil empire. HRC is a world-class warmonger.
 
 
+3 # candida 2016-11-06 15:26
Quoting AshamedAmerican:
Each of our wars is based on lies, and she supports every one of them. HRC is a world-class warmonger.


So is every (viable) presidential candidate. To AshamedAmerican and all many the others on RSN who criticize Clinton for her hawkishness, you hold her to a higher standard on this point than Trump or any other candidate. Why? Perhaps because she's a woman? We expect warmongering by a man. But by a woman it's especially distasteful, right? Besides, if you're looking for anti-imperial policy, your political strategy is off by looking to presidential elections for the answer.

And don't give me any bs that Trump is better! Anyone who can say that is willfully ignorant of his rich-white-male supremacy disorder that will bring more violence upon people within the US as well as outside of it. Just look at his rallies, his attraction of white supremacists like flies on shit, the fear and violence he is already fomenting, and he doesn't even have his hands on the means of state violence, yet!!

As a world class warmonger, Clinton doesn't even come close to George W. Trump is even more of a narcissistic, idiotic, and ignorant bully than Bush and will be much worse! But then, Trump is a rich-white-male , so we should give him some slack, right? I mean, they were born to rule and must know what what they're doing by virtue of being rich-white-male s (or any 1 of those 3).

(Accidentally hit thumbs up on AshamedAmerican . Count one off!)
 
 
+30 # Helen Marshall 2016-11-06 18:04
And I accidentally gave you a thumbs up on this. I can oppose Hillary's warmongering just as I did Shrub's and Cheney's and the rest of them. Her two X-chromosomes don't give her a pass.
 
 
+9 # dbrize 2016-11-06 19:08
candida:
You are entitled to your opinions but not to present them as fact:

1) "Besides, if you're looking for anti-imperial policy, your political strategy is off by looking to presidential elections for the answer." WRONG.

> Policy is set by the WH with advice and consent of Congress. The president has wide latitude to establish, set and maintain policy.

2) "And don't give me any bs that Trump is better!" WRONG.

>Trump is crass, unlikable, sexist and a number of other negative personal qualities. These are not however foreign policy positions.

> Trump is opposed to "wars of choice". Clinton supports them.

> Trump opposes policies of "regime change". Clinton attempts to carry them out.

> Trump favors working with Russia to combat terrorism. Clinton threatens Russia and makes unsubstantiated claims about them. (and we know how much YOU oppose unsubstantiated claims).

> Trump desires our "friends" do more to both provide and pay for their own defense. Clinton prefers to keep them dependent upon us. (gee, I wonder why?)

3) "As a world class warmonger, Clinton doesn't even come close to George W. Trump is even more of a narcissistic, idiotic, and ignorant bully than Bush and will be much worse!" WRONG.

> Under Obama with Clinton as SOS, we more than DOUBLED the nations where we have ongoing military operations. We expanded the GWOT in Africa. We are at standstill in Afghanistan.

Three strikes and out. Save the propaganda for HilBot Central.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:08
Perfect rejoinder.
 
 
+11 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-06 20:44
candida,

Nonsense. I was responding to whiskers, who asked about Clinton. HRC has a long record. Trump has next to none. It is virtually certain that we will get more war with HRC. It is much more difficult to predict Trump, but it appears that we would likely get less war with him. dbrize has explained this well.

What is your idea of a good political strategy to force on our govt. an anti-imperial strategy?

As far as the biggest warmonger: Clinton has not yet been "the decider". But she has supported, at the very least, every one of our wars, including George W.'s. That Trump is a "narcissistic, idiotic, and ignorant bully" is a lame argument for claiming he would be the worst of warmongers.

Vote for Stein, and decency.
 
 
-4 # RMF 2016-11-06 23:44
# candida -- well stated,

Simply put, Trump/GOP are not credible as the party of peace, no matter what con man Trump may say about his good relationship with Putin. Hysterical pronouncements that Hillary/Dems are anxious to start WWIII are reminiscent of the chicken little fable. Many here criticize Hillary on grounds of foreign policy, but really there is no sound reason to think that Trump/Pence/GOP would promote world peace to any greater extent, indeed the GOP and it's tea party base appear less trustworthy on questions about international affairs and military intervention than is Hillary. After all it was the GOP who took us into Iraq, and even with Trump in WH it would be the GOP in charge -- if he failed to dance to the GOP tune he would be replaced with Pence. And no matter the fears being voiced here about a Hillary/Dem foreign policy, it would pale in comparison to the aggression and hostile action likely to be mobilized under a Trump/Pence/GOP administration, esp since it would also mean that GOP would likely be in charge of all three branches of govt, emboldening the aggressive posture of the GOP and producing a very dangerous scenario indeed.
 
 
+5 # John Puma 2016-11-07 01:32
To candida:

You say, every viable US presidential candidate is a warmonger.

You see no problem with that?

I guess not, I read a bit further and your position, and presumably that of most of HRC supporters, is that OUR tribe's warmongering is less than THEIR tribe's warmongering.

How pathetic, how ultimately suicidal.
 
 
-18 # Jaax88 2016-11-06 15:32
You do not know she, Hillary, is planning
to escalate the devastation of Syria. You seem like you are full of bunk and a scare monger.
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2016-11-06 19:59
Quoting Jaax88:
You do not know she, Hillary, is planning
to escalate the devastation of Syria. You seem like you are full of bunk and a scare monger.


Ever heard of the fact that a wild statement with proof positive is pre-emptive lie?
 
 
-4 # Jaax88 2016-11-07 12:39
No. Whatever do you mean? Why don't you break that down into something resembling plain English?
 
 
+13 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-06 20:49
Jaax88:
You sound like you are either naive, uninformed and/or a troll.

It is no secret that HRC wants a no-fly zone. That has proven to be a prelude to an extremely destructive regime change, when employed by our govt. Given HRC's record, it seems obvious that her intended no-fly zone would not be an exception.
 
 
-6 # Jaax88 2016-11-07 12:57
So Ashamed American I put no credence in your ideas. "Planning to escalate devastation" is far beyond any reality.

Here is what I found from The Guardian of
8/11/2012. That is 2012 in case that did not catch your attention. That was before the Russians were fighting in Syria.

What we have here are a bunch of skunk trolls trying to sell false or distorted
information as seems to be usual for Trump supporters.
 
 
+6 # Johnny 2016-11-07 17:38
Evidence Clinton wants more war? Libya, Honduras, and promises to establish a no fly zone in Syria and to attack Iran. No person with a conscience could vote for Clinton or Trump.
 
 
0 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-09 18:46
Jaax88:

You say "Here is what I found from The Guardian of 8/11/2012". Did you forget to include something here? Or is this your way of admitting you have no information to support your premise? You offer a literally empty argument, which still may be your best to date.

You must either be willfully ignorant or you are a troll. The election is over. Hopefully you are off the payroll and gone.
 
 
+15 # dquandle 2016-11-06 17:36
She went out of her way to hide her emails and actions, and those of her criminal conspirators inside and outside her thoroughly corrupt and heinous State Department, from the people of the US. She believes, unalterably, that she is not answerable, in the least, to the American people, and that she can determine and execute policy, no matter how heinous and vicious, and how likely it is to endanger the people of the US, and ram it down our throats, and cannot be, and will not be held accountable
 
 
-7 # Jaax88 2016-11-07 12:59
Go back into your hole with your absurd blather.
 
 
+30 # fletch1165 2016-11-06 15:06
she was in the Green Zone in a director's chair agreeing with McCain 100% during that campaign and touting the wonders of the Iraqi invasion which was 100% illegal. The proven arch warcriminal Kissinger has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and so has Bush, Karl Rove and Kagan. She did not reject any of these endorsements.

She has stated during AIPAC that all options are on the table regarding Iran(nuclear) amnd that she would never negotiate with Iran. Also she promised to unravel the nuclear deal that Obama "caved in to", and which averted direct military conflict with Iran.

In reagrds ro SYria, Ukraine, and Honduras she she has been active in all three coups. A Honduran activist who voiced negative things abouot Hillary was assassinated shortly after.

Hillary's aid at the DNC wjho was purported to leak her e-mails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks was also assassinated by a Clinton gunman. Julian Assange himself has been targeted for death by Clinton against international law.
 
 
+27 # dquandle 2016-11-06 17:43
Kissinger's a family friend, along with all the head chopping Saudis, and Mubarak, and the coup conspirators in Honduras, and Netanyahu in Israel, and all the dictators of the world. All close family friends. She probably regards Caceres' murder as an early birthday present from the coup to her. And once she's finished shoring up ISIS, with Saudi assistance, Syria and Russia are bound to be hers, and then its "pivot to Asia" time
 
 
+8 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-06 20:53
Russia will be hers?
 
 
+16 # futhark 2016-11-06 20:19
Good points. If you are going to go after Donald Trump for not disavowing Klan endorsements or distancing himself from noxious racists of similar ilk, one should be consistent in critiquing Ms. Clinton for being the willing tool of neocons, who are, in my book, at least equal to the Klan on any scale of evil, not for firebombing churches and torturing and lynching innocent people for their skin color, but for engineering expensive and sadistic wars against the people of the Middle East under totally false pretenses. I don't appreciate any public servant, my representative in government, consorting with liars, sadists, and murderers.
 
 
-8 # Jaax88 2016-11-07 13:01
Oh for Christ's sake! Are you nuts? Your stuff comes across as whacked out lies.
 
 
+28 # fletch1165 2016-11-06 15:14
And also at AIPAC consistently spreading the lie that firebombing Gazan babies, schoolyards and hospitals is Israel defending itself. She has proposed increases in funding to the Israeli war machine responsible for the illegal Cast Lead operation that targeted civilians and engaged in Nazi-like collective punishment.
 
 
+28 # laurele 2016-11-06 15:22
She used a charity, the Clinton Foundation, as a money laundering scheme to make herself and her family wealthy, which equals racketeering.

She, the DNC, and the mainstream media colluded to steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders by election rigging in state after state. Cheating is not winning.
 
 
-16 # candida 2016-11-06 15:58
laurele, sources? You've taken some accusations and facts to extremes. Me thinks you're reading the right-wing sites with no critical filters.
 
 
-3 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-06 19:12
Candida, you simply haven't even bothered to keep up with the left leaning media! If you want sources simply go to your newschannel.
 
 
-13 # pegasus4508 2016-11-06 19:52
Liar. She has not and did not. It has already been investigated and proved FALSE.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:19
And OJ was innocent.
 
 
+12 # John Puma 2016-11-07 01:36
She has been investigated and the person whom she seeks to succeed quashed any thought of allowing criminal charges to be considered ... twice.
 
 
+36 # madresabia 2016-11-06 16:18
I suggest you educate yourself on what Clinton has done. Her tenure as senator was not notable; her tenure as secretary of state has terrible--her decisions have caused the deaths and displacement of thousands, especially in Honduras, where she backed the coup of an elected president. She did the same thing in Ukraine (about which very few persons are talking), where she supported the overthrow of an elected president and the replacement of that president with a neo-Nazi. Some of us have read--at length. What many respected journals have said is that, whereas Trump is a bigoted, racists, misogynist who has not least idea of policy--whether domestic or foreign--, Clinton's resume is spattered with blood.
 
 
+18 # A_Har 2016-11-06 18:29
Candida does *not want* any education whatsoever!
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:21
Education is above her pay scale.

Maybe after they fold up Corrupt the Record, she'll get a better paying gig.
 
 
+9 # dbrize 2016-11-07 08:28
Quoting Radscal:
Education is above her pay scale.

Maybe after they fold up Corrupt the Record, she'll get a better paying gig.


Since the rotation drill which saw roc and lights promoted elsewhere to a higher level of prevaricating, I've noticed the new batch fails to measure up to their ability to inject a pseudo-sincerit y to their deflections and shape-shifting.

Bad as roc/lights were, they at least occasionally provided a laugh or two.

This bunch is not only incredibly banal and humorless, they run like world class sprinters from factual challenges.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-11-07 11:59
definitely the B-listers .. boring and tiresome .. no entertainment value at all
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-11-07 20:30
Good observation. Perhaps Corrupt The Record realized RSN commenters tended to be well-informed, and since they can't argue factually, they just sprinkled us with these deflectors.
 
 
+28 # tm7devils39@gmail.com 2016-11-06 17:33
"I have a question for all Hillary haters: just what specifically has she done that rates calling her a criminal and warmonger?"
Well, I have some answers:
1. Iraq, Honduras and Libya, et al.
2. Subverting the Primaries in order to get herself nominated(along with the help of the DNC and Schultz) against the wishes of the electorate.
Want more? Read "The Queen of Chaos" - the list is almost endless.
If that woman told me that 'her mother was of the female gender'...I would demand irrefutable proof.
Don't like Trump either.
 
 
-12 # pegasus4508 2016-11-06 19:55
The assumption is that Hillary haters HAVE a reason. That requires logic, reasoning and intellect. You are still talking about primaries which are run by the fucking STATE. Not the DNC or the RNC.
There is not proof, just a lot of bs that has been touted for 30 years. 30 years of lies is prove for most idiots. Like you.
 
 
+5 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-06 19:09
Whiskers, you obviously put party ahead of country. I will presume that you simply haven't kept up with the clinton bullshit and therefore are ignorant of why anyone would call her a criminal and liar. And why would you worry about her putting our country's security at risk? And why would you worry about her making millions off of selling access to our government? And so on and on. If elected she will be expected to start paying back on some of the investments made in her by countries that are not friendly to the USA!! But why should you worry...if she get's too far down she can always push the trump button that you liberals seem to fear so much!
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:27
The way I see it, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and HRC all answer to the same supra-national financial interests. That's why they're so tight.

None of them care about our country, but more importantly, none of them care about anyone, except as they may provide more profits and power.
 
 
+14 # Skyelav 2016-11-06 19:38
She lied about the Irish peace process, her vote in favor of the Iraq war, her reason for illegally using a personal email server, that her family was dead broke when they left the White House, about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, where Chelsea was on 9/11, who she was named after, Benghazi… and the list goes on. We don’t need a liar-in-chief. We tried that already. It didn’t work.

For openers...
 
 
-12 # Bryan 2016-11-06 12:48
More sheep dogging. Ho hum.
 
 
+17 # GoGreen! 2016-11-06 14:13
"Sheep dogging"? What does that mean? Wake up Bryan and pay more attention. We are facing a crisis in our nation. Both of the major candidates are distrusted by the people of this nation...and your response is Ho hum?
 
 
+21 # kundrol 2016-11-06 14:27
I thought Bryan was commenting on the article, which is definitely ho hum. I think sheep dogging means trying to herd voters into voting democrat, which I will do when hell freezes. I'm SO sick of these vote for Hillary articles. I voted for Jill because both mainstream candidates are horrible.
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2016-11-06 22:19
Quoting kundrol:
I thought Bryan was commenting on the article, which is definitely ho hum. I think sheep dogging means trying to herd voters into voting democrat, which I will do when hell freezes. I'm SO sick of these vote for Hillary articles. I voted for Jill because both mainstream candidates are horrible.

I hope you did so in a state essentially in the bag for one candidate or the other. If so, at least your thrown-away vote will do no harm.
 
 
+8 # PCPrincess 2016-11-07 11:15
I wonder, seriously, how many posts you have posted wherein you state that someone is "throwing away their vote". Could you please cease intimidating voters?
 
 
+4 # anthraxripple 2016-11-07 19:58
I'm beginning to listen to him. I'm so afraid of "throwing my vote away" on Clinton, that I may vote for Trump instead.

GOOD JOB convincing me, Corrupt the Record Workers!
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2016-11-06 20:01
Quoting GoGreen!:
"Sheep dogging"? What does that mean? Wake up Bryan and pay more attention. We are facing a crisis in our nation. Both of the major candidates are distrusted by the people of this nation...and your response is Ho hum?


Sheep shaggin'????
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:29
Quoting reiverpacific:
Quoting GoGreen!:
"Sheep dogging"? What does that mean? Wake up Bryan and pay more attention. We are facing a crisis in our nation. Both of the major candidates are distrusted by the people of this nation...and your response is Ho hum?


Sheep shaggin'????


I knew it! You know why Scots wear kilts?

Because sheep can hear zippers a mile away. ;-)
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2016-11-08 12:27
Quoting Radscal:
Quoting reiverpacific:
Quoting GoGreen!:
"Sheep dogging"? What does that mean? Wake up Bryan and pay more attention. We are facing a crisis in our nation. Both of the major candidates are distrusted by the people of this nation...and your response is Ho hum?


Sheep shaggin'????


I knew it! You know why Scots wear kilts?

Because sheep can hear zippers a mile away. ;-)


OR;
What's the difference between Mick Jagger and a Scottish Shepherd?
Mick Jagger sings, "Hey you, get off my cloud" but the Scottish Shepherd sings "Hey McCloud, get aff my ewe!"
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-11-08 20:55
LOL. That one's new to me.
 
 
+28 # Anonymot 2016-11-06 14:29
As a writer, I know how much time it takes to write an article of this length and complexity. To waste that much time telling us half-truths and lying by omission is pretty sorry.

After reading such bs as the Clinton campaign pulled out of its PR sack as this put me off:
"...it turns out Colin Powell also used a private email address for routine work."

By omission, you fail to mention that the way he used it and the way she used it is like saying football & soccer are the same game because they're played on a grassy field. Or maybe you didn't really do your research.

You just have so much specious misleading statement that your article is not believable nor even close.

Here, try rebutting this subject. Maybe you'll do better:

In 2008, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the co-Chair of Hillary’s campaign. After Hillary was defeated by Barack Obama, she decided to rig the system from within by getting Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

In order for that to happen, the current Chair of the DNC (of that time) had to step down. How do you make a Chair of the DNC step down so that you can place one of your own corrupt minions in this powerful position, you may ask? By owing him a BIG FAVOR.

The former Chair of the DNC who stepped down so that corrupt Debbie could rig the system from within was none other than……Tim Kaine. Let that sink in….
 
 
-18 # candida 2016-11-06 15:48
Source, Anonymot? Please provide a link.
 
 
+11 # Anonymot 2016-11-06 18:21
My dear, I wouldn't bother giving you the source of sunshine.

But I received it from someone who quit the Democrat Party over the matter.
 
 
+19 # jimallyn 2016-11-06 18:22
Quoting candida:
Source, Anonymot? Please provide a link.

candida, I thought everybody with their eyes open was aware of that. I haven't seen any definitive evidence, but a number of people have laid out the facts that we know. Read some of these:

http://aprillajune.com/politics/tim-kaine-and-debbie-wasserman-shultz-puppets-in-the-hillary-clinton-presidential-scam/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/4uwle4/tim_kaine_stepped_down_as_chair_of_the_dnc/

http://rebrn.com/re/breaking-anon-figures-out-why-hillary-picked-kaine-as-vp-2718048/

http://qpolitical.com/hillarys-election-rigging-makes-house-of-cards-look-like-a-childrens-show/

No smoking gun, but there's certainly nothing there that isn't believable.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-11-06 22:24
Quoting Anonymot:
Here, try rebutting this subject. Maybe you'll do better:

In 2008, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the co-Chair of Hillary’s campaign. After Hillary was defeated by Barack Obama, she decided to rig the system from within by getting Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Well, how's this for rebuttal?

"She decided"? Either you've got a vivid imagination or you've been reading Hillary's mind. Since I doubt you're Professor X behind your screen name, I'd have to go with alternative number one.
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-11-07 07:20
Well, that's 32 words. If you took the first 32 words in the dictionary and strung them into a sentence or two you'd achieve the same logic. I guess logic isn't your strong point.

I am Prof X. And you are Prol X. Or is it Troll X?
 
 
+38 # economagic 2016-11-06 14:40
And what about those of us who DON'T agree with "Her (Royal Highness)" on policy? I voted for Jill Stein with a clear conscience, and the growing hordes that are STILL trying to guilt me into despair are just further pissing me off. And for those who haven't read any of my posts in the last 8-10 months, yes I agree that T-Rump is evil. That doesn't make Clinton good, nor does it mean that since both are evil one is necessarily more so and the other less, or that they are equal. Their significantly different evils are simply not comparable, and I am not willing to choose either one. If forced to do so -- an entirely absurd hypothetical -- I would probably choose to be shot in the head rather than in the stomach, a slow, painful death.
 
 
-20 # Jaax88 2016-11-06 16:11
"Pissed off" try this. If trump gets elected you may never get a free election again in your lifetime. If the militia and alt-right haters, white supremacy groups and other anti-democracy groups get loose under trump a civil war is more likely than your hypothetical.
 
 
+21 # A_Har 2016-11-06 18:32
Quoting Jaax88:
"Pissed off" try this. If trump gets elected you may never get a free election again in your lifetime. If the militia and alt-right haters, white supremacy groups and other anti-democracy groups get loose under trump a civil war is more likely than your hypothetical.
Hillary Clinton STOLE the primary from Sanders. Wikileaks demonstrated that as FACT. We already DID NOT GET a "free election." HRC is a whore for POWER.

HRC's points about "Our Democracy" are a sham and A LIE.
 
 
-13 # Activista 2016-11-06 19:40
"Hillary Clinton STOLE the primary from Sanders. Wikileaks demonstrated that as FACT. We already DID NOT GET a "free election." HRC is a whore for POWER"
Wikileaks/ Assange is a gospel for some of the "conspirators" here. All what they know is hacking - not much of information processing.
 
 
-4 # Activista 2016-11-06 23:31
Assange Predicts Trump Will Lose, Accuses Clinton Campaign Of ...
www.zerohedge.com/.../assange-predicts-trump-will-lose-accuses-clinton-campaign-tr...
Oct 28, 2016 - "I don't think there's any chance of Donald Trump winning the election, ......]
Can not wait when our "friends" here will tell us how Hillary again stole the election from their man Trump.
 
 
+2 # A_Har 2016-11-08 19:52
Yes, he did predict that. However, this election has revealed more about the so-called LEFT than the right. It is very unsettling to watch people *defend the indefensible* that HRC has run: her abject failures, her lust for power at any cost, her incompetence in securing classified information, and of course PAY TO PLAY.

It goes BEYOND DISGUST. What is the matter with such people ANYWAY??

Read UP:

Julian Assange's Most Incendiary Interview: "Hillary Clinton Is The Central Cog Of The Establishment"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-05/julian-assanges-most-incendiary-interview-hillary-clinton-central-cog-establishment

Nov 6, 2016 9:01 AM
 
 
+13 # economagic 2016-11-06 18:35
Jaax88:

NOBODY is denying that the possible consequences of a T-Rump presidency could be dire, although the chance that he would be able to implement half of the malarkey that spews from his mouth even with a Republican Congress, the usual caveats regarding campaign promises aside, is vanishingly small.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of people are denying unequivocally that a Clinton presidency could have any serious negative consequences, and that too is malarkey.

While I hold no brief for either of these unsavory persons, I view the most extreme predictions about what either would do with equal skepticism. But based entirely upon what is publicly known of both of them, I don't consider any of those speculations to be entirely implausible.

And THAT'S what's pissing me off: Both the MSM and most of the alt media have given themselves over entirely to endless repetition of the horrors one of them MIGHT commit (while claiming that he WOULD do so with certainty), while dismissing out of hand all of the equally possible horrors the other might commit as personal "hatred." That represents an irrational and dangerous fear to which even the great Professor Chomsky has succumbed and now embraced.
 
 
+2 # A_Har 2016-11-08 19:53
IMO, whoever "wins," We the people LOSE BIG TIME.
 
 
+25 # Helen Marshall 2016-11-06 14:50
RSN has some good material but when it comes to Clinton, the adulation is pretty sickening..
 
 
-20 # candida 2016-11-06 15:47
RSN is to be commended for providing reporting based on evidence on many critical issues of our day, including Clinton and Trump. Ignore the evidence at our peril.
 
 
+29 # laurele 2016-11-06 15:20
As a progressive, I DO NOT agree with Clinton on policy, which is why I plan on voting for Jill Stein. I also cannot and will not condone election fraud and cheating, which Hillary blatantly engaged in to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+16 # Inspired Citizen 2016-11-06 15:56
Stein is not nearly as likely to start a nuclear war as Clinton (intentionally) or Trump (unintentionally).

http://www.inquisitr.com/3657786/why-hillary-is-a-much-much-bigger-nuclear-threat-than-trump/
 
 
-12 # Activista 2016-11-06 19:49
Stein is not nearly as likely to start a nuclear war as Clinton (intentionally) or Trump (unintentionally)...
Stein is non consequential as foreign policy goes. I voted for her 4 years ago (in WA) AFTER I was sure that Obama leads.
Clinton is my pragmatic choice for the 2016. Sanders and Clinton rallies are inspiring.
 
 
-23 # candida 2016-11-06 16:10
Well, laurele, at least here you state a more-or-less documented fact and a clear statement of principle. I applaud your right to vote your conscience. I understand the impulse. But what is the greater good? Feeling good about yourself for holding on to a purist ideal with a protest vote (because winning is certainly not in the cards) or voting for a flawed candidate in a very flawed world with whom you have a much better fighting chance to actually achieve some of those purist ideals? If you want to protest, your time is better spent joining CodePink.

The purism of those arguing for Stein remind me of fundamentalist Christians holding on to their virginity while condemning the whores of the world who would otherwise starve to death along with their children. You live with the angels and will surely find eternal life for your goodness.

And, btw, Stein is no walk in the park for a Leftist Progressive (read: feminist/anti-i mperialist/anti -racist). Have you actually listened to her? And the Green Party? There is no there there. And until there is, we're stuck with the two parties.
 
 
+21 # A_Har 2016-11-06 18:37
If you vote for Clinton, you haven't got the faintest clue about what constitutes the "greater good."
 
 
-10 # Activista 2016-11-06 20:24
thank you candida for trying to keep RSN forum rational - most people here represent their ideology (aka religion) without the facts.
Just thinking - not one respected scholar, scientist expressed support for a Trump. His supporters seem to be only intellectually challenged white males.
 
 
+11 # Patriot 2016-11-06 21:11
It's a cinch you haven't listened to Stein speak--or, perhaps, her remarks went over your head.
 
 
+7 # PCPrincess 2016-11-07 11:25
Quoting candida:
... But what is the greater good?


Actually. I firmly believe that it is ENTIRELY in the countries best interest to NOT vote for the lesser of two evils once again. I believe that by sending this signal that we progressives will NO LONGER be strung along by the Democratic party, that we progressives chose our nominee, Bernie Sanders, and that we progressives will no longer allow corporate candidates posing as progressives to win democratic nominations.

This message is CRUCIAL. This is ABSOLUTELY more important that who is our president for one four-year term, because, without the complete abandonment of progressives from the party, the two corrupt parties WILL NEVER WORK for the interests of the people - EVER.

This is what is most important.
 
 
+17 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-11-06 15:24
Who was paid off to cover up Real Treason by the Bush Administration! Do you realize how you the people allowed them to get away with it? Open your eyes. We have a media that thrives on Blood promoted by Corporation ownership. Most pundits have their personal agenda. That is not news.They are vultures running to find the next body they can feed off of. Corporations for the most part own the County. Trump its cotton to the core. When he is elected, his supporters are going to have a very rude awakening! I have no pity for them. Then there are the rest of us. We get to eat it too. To some degree we are to blame. We should have taken out
all of the Partiy's criminals. But we put them back in
office. Bernie was the candidate to support. It would have been the first time in a long while that the people had a President that would support them and a House of Congress to go with that. However, as long as the any Party is only interested in Power & business as usual I say to you don't kid yourself. Where there is no real elections of those who will serve for the highest good of all, there is no real democracy. Be prepared to get out you mourning clothes.
 
 
+26 # djnova50 2016-11-06 16:04
There is only one candidate who has the platform of planet, people, and peace over profit. She happens to be a woman. I voted for her and her name is Jill Stein. She was the only Green candidate on my ballot; but, if there had been others, I would have voted for them as well.

Neither Trump nor Clinton are entitled to our votes.
 
 
+20 # Lucretius 2016-11-06 16:17
Amen!
 
 
+19 # Lucretius 2016-11-06 16:16
The investigation should have been out the Clinton Foundation and not the server. But the Podesta emails revealed a lot of interesting stuff. The FBI never got the chance to investigation the Clinton Foundation because that would have brought down the Obama administration. What a crock this article is. Hillary brought into the State Dept. Huma and other Clinton Foundation employees who were simultaneously working for the State and her Founation under an arcane law which she severly abused. Obama lied to protect Hillary. Of course there was a lack of transparency. The FBI is rigtneously angry because Comey refused to investigate the Foundation. So Comey responded by breaking some laws and doing more investigation. Then the heat got turned up and he obediently responded to this masters, not the law. The bigger they are, the bigger their crimes and the less likely they are to be prosecuted.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:40
I understand that the Clinton Foundation is under investigation, and has been for at least a year.
 
 
+8 # ahollman 2016-11-06 16:16
Ms. Clinton is very bright. The "inconvenience" argument doesn't hold. She, like other powerful people, is concerned with her place in history. Control over her emails gave her the ability to selectively edit what would become the historical record, and I believe that that was her primary motive.

Ms. Clinton and her husband have become part of the rich and powerful class. Members of this class gradually come to believe that they are exempt from the rules which apply to most people. In their world, this becomes normal, and is exposed as hubris only when an incident is publicly reported.

The rich and powerful transcend party affiliation. Two Democratic examples from Massachusetts: US Sen. John Kerry tried docking his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying Mass. taxes on it. On their federal income tax, State Auditor Suzanne Bump and her husband tried to claim the mortgage interest exemption on both their primary home and their vacation home by each declaring one of the two as a primary residence.

Hubris becomes hypocrisy when the reported behavior contradicts a class member's public statements. So Donald Trump, like Mitt Romney before him, publicly inveighed against illegal aliens and privately hired them.

I recently saw a sign: "Bernie has my heart; Clinton has my vote." I agree with that pragmatic response, and will hold my nose and vote for Clinton. But, make no mistake, the fewer rich and privileged we elect (or have at all), the better off we'll all be.
 
 
+26 # Wally Jasper 2016-11-06 17:00
You could just breathe deeply the fresh, clean air of the Green Party and vote for Jill. It feels wonderful to vote for what you really want. [Spoken from experience. I'm walking around with a big smile on my face while the shit is flying around both corporate-owned parties. Best vote I ever cast was for Jill.]
 
 
+19 # jimallyn 2016-11-06 18:00
Quoting Wally Jasper:
Best vote I ever cast was for Jill.]

Same here, only that was back in 2012. Felt so good, I'm going to do it again.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-11-06 20:32
I can accept that argument, framed in that way, but I still maintain that the only way we can have fewer of them is to refuse to play with them. And I consider the line between hubris and hypocrisy in the case of both Clintons to be so thin that I am not willing to vote for "Her," with the issues raised in a piece by Michael T. Klare from TomDispatch, posted on RSN a couple of hours ago, constituting another major reason.
 
 
+24 # eduardoben 2016-11-06 16:23
It is disgusting that RSN is clearly participating in a pre-election WHITEWASH of Hillary's criminal or highly suspicious activities. She had a team of attorneys not just delete what she claims were non-work related e-mails but hire computer experts to scrub her server and hard drives so they were irretrievable.

And we're expected to take her word that those e-mails were about her daughter's wedding. How many people would hire computer experts to scrub e-mails about wedding activities? SHAME on RSN for participating so clearly in a WHITEWASH for Hillary.

And we still don't know what AG Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were talking about for 30+ minutes after she invited the HUSBAND of someone her Justice Dept was investigating into her plane for extremely private conversation.

And what happened to the thousands of e-mails that Comey was able to retrieve that he then turned over to the State Department? Will THEY ever see the light of day? Unlikely! This is in your face corruption. Comey has been protecting Hillary for months. Possibly years. His history with the Clintons, and many of the banks and individuals partnered with either the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation are extensive and go way back in time.

Comey was a board member of a bank investigated for money laundering that has many clients which are major donors to the Clinton Foundation. See: http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/07/13/fbi-director-comey-board-member-of-clinton-foundation-connected-bank-hsbc/
 
 
+16 # Wally Jasper 2016-11-06 16:53
Yes, a "yuge" stench is coming from the Clinton campaign. Here is yet another MSM spin piece that the so-called progressive RSN is presenting to its too knowledgable, too astute progressive readers. And Marc is wondering why donations are suddenly falling off? Marc, don't you think your progressive base deserves true independent, progressive news? Not the corporate media spin that is working so vigorously to anoint its chosen shil.

If there is any "bullshit" it is this article. It's absolutely legitimate to question Hillary's private email server. Suddenly all those problematical things like the FOIA, like accountability, like transparency and honesty are gone and... well, surely everyone will agree that it's so much more convenient.

Yeah, right. So again, Marc, why are you feeding us this crap? You know your readers won't buy any of this. Do you think your Hillary donors will be more supportive to this rag than we progressives have been? If so, good luck and hasta la vista.
 
 
+7 # Bic Parker 2016-11-06 16:32
Comey just cleared her again! It was and is a BS story
 
 
+16 # hipocampelo 2016-11-06 16:41
This article was a complete piece of crap
from start to finish. It's simple. Mrs
Clinton is a criminal, and has been for some time.
 
 
+10 # Razzoo2 2016-11-06 17:09
When the national police (FBI) have out of control factions who effect ethical violations to favor a totalitarian for president, banana republic tactics have definitely moved northward.
 
 
+9 # lorenbliss 2016-11-06 21:29
@Razzoo2: Wake up, Mr. Van Winkle. The U.S. became a banana republic on 22 November 1963.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:46
And yet the faction that favors the fascist in the pants suit seems to have prevailed (for now).
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2016-11-07 03:38
But underneath the peel, whether Democratic (sic) or Republican, it's the same ole "Mistah Talley Man come tally me bananas..." though daylight doan come an we doan nevah get home.
 
 
+21 # Old Uncle Dave 2016-11-06 17:17
Hillary has stated publicly she wants to implement and enforce a no fly zone in Syria. That would be a war crime according to the Nuremburg Principles and the UN Charter, both of which the US signed.
 
 
+14 # dquandle 2016-11-06 17:48
war crimes shmore crimes, as long as somebody gets hurt and Hillary gets to cackle about it. That's what being president is all about.
 
 
+8 # Activista 2016-11-06 20:17
And Trump blames Obama for not bombing Syria when they "crossed" red line (chemical weapons) according to Pentagon. Fact is that very likely it was NOT Assad who used the chemicals.
No fly zone at present situation in Syria is wrong - even Pentagon does not like it.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:50
Drumpf has specifically said that his military plan is to bomb ISIL, NOT the legitimate government of Syria.

I think they're both cruel and insane (or ignorant) to seek military solutions to a war started by and for the same people funding the terrorists. But Drumpf has clearly opposed regime change and engaging in war with Russia.
 
 
+14 # tm7devils39@gmail.com 2016-11-06 17:43
Don't you wonder how much the Clinton campaign had to pay for this article...?
 
 
-12 # Activista 2016-11-06 20:01
Again projection - money can buy everything - RSN is open and transparent - do not put your values on them.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-11-07 00:19
I think tm7 was referring to Vox, where the article originated, not RSN,
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-07 00:13
On exclusive of two when she becomes _President. No big deal.
 
 
+18 # jimallyn 2016-11-06 17:58
Give it up, Matthew Yglesias. You are defending the indefensible.
 
 
+13 # Anonymot 2016-11-06 18:35
One thing is not being discussed. Why is the public & private disgrace, Tony Weiner not under arrest? He had no security clearance. Did he steal all of those emails? Did Huma knowingly let him have them? Did Hillary send them to him? That he simply possessed them is a criminal offense. Anyone who knew they were on his computer is indictable.

Huma surely knew it, but she's Hillary's body person so nothing can happen to her. But her beard, can he hide under her covers, too?

Comey covered, uncovered, recovered a coverup. Pretty sloppy.
 
 
+14 # economagic 2016-11-06 18:59
Yeah, makes Watergate look sort of like "Bush league."
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:54
Once I looked into Huma, I wonder how the hell SHE got a security clearance.
 
 
+14 # lfeuille 2016-11-06 19:05
The comparison to Colin Powell is disingenuous. He had a private account that he use mostly for private matters. Occasionally, he would forget to log out and log into his State Dept. account to send a work email. She did not have a State Dept. account. She exclusively used her private account on her private server for work and personal emails.

But, the main issue with the private server is not in the details of how many classified emails were found on it. She was told it wasn't allowed. She did it anyway. It shows her arrogance in assuming she doesn't have to follow the rules. Then she told Congress and the American People during the election season that she didn't know it wasn't allowed. She lied. She lies compulsively. It is impossible to take anything she says as truth.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-11-06 20:37
"Colin Powell . . . had a private account that he use mostly for private matters."

Does that mean he was operating mostly within the law? Can we assume that his daughter was only a little bit pregnant?
 
 
+13 # desertprogressive 2016-11-06 19:33
I haven't watched the entire interview yet, but one email from HRC to Podesta states that the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. That doesn't surprise me, but it seems that most people don't realize that US allies, and HRC's contributors, are behind ISIS/ISIL.

Julian Assange talks to John Pilger (Full)

http://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/secret-world-of-us-election-julian-assange-talks-to-john-pilger-full/
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-11-06 22:58
Yes. And HRC knew SA and Qatar were providing support to Jihadi nut jobs when she agreed to provide SA with record-breaking amounts of weapons.

Since the US had declared those Jihadi nut jobs our enemies in our War on Terrorism, that sure looks like actual treason to me.
 
 
+8 # John Puma 2016-11-07 01:48
To desertprogressive:

"Clinton Foundation confirms $1m donation from Qatar, denies wrongdoing." ...

"Spokesperson for charity says previously undisclosed 2012 contribution does not violate State Department ethics agreement."
---

Israel Times 5Nov16
tinyurl.com/hrgpgpt
 
 
+12 # dusty 2016-11-06 19:43
Clinton doesn't respect the Constitution and believes she is above the standards set for the rest of us. If we had secret documents on a private server we would be tried for espionage or some other charge.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-11-06 20:38
Note the comment from ahollman, above, and my reply.
 
 
-9 # Texas Aggie 2016-11-06 20:03
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
H. L. Mencken

And both the Hillary haters and the Drumpfbots are working as hard as they can to achieve that glorious day. Thanks all of you who are absolutely sure that there is no important difference between the two of them and will, like the christianist fundies, will live in absolute purity of conscience while contributing to the destruction that rains around them. Never compromise!!! To hell with the consequences!!!
 
 
+14 # dbrize 2016-11-06 20:41
Aggie:

For those who oppose war, global policing by the MIC/CIA protection machine on behalf of global corporations and banking interests. For those who oppose the continued unconstitutiona l denials of habeas corpus, secret FISA courts, spying and other extreme measures against US citizens, what "compromises" would you have them make?

You are willing to compromise our very constitutional liberties in order to possibly get what? Is Clinton going get you single payer health or "fix" Obamacare?

Clinton will "improve" TPP and amend abominations like Dodd-Frank?

These are worth sacrificing our Constitution to the national security state?

These are what we should compromise on?
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-11-06 21:12
Texas Aggie:

I've said all this so many times that from now through election day and the mandatory period of recriminations immediately following (strictly limited to one week), I will be referring people to my latest reiteration, my exchange with Jaax88, above, about halfway up the page. Not that I expect any of Clinton's admirers to read it, much less recognize it as a reasonable argument and a reasonable viewpoint, not necessarily the only one.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2016-11-08 12:31
[quote name="Texas Aggie"]On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
H. L. Mencken

You came uncomfortably close with Dan Quayle as VP and Sarah ("the wink") Palin, John McPain's running mate!
 
 
-15 # ericlane 2016-11-06 21:02
Clinton will make a great president.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-11-07 03:04
What will she make it out of?

Maybe she can use some of those "rainbows and unicorns" that she said progressives would NEVER GET.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2016-11-08 12:33
Quoting ericlane:
Clinton will make a great president.


You have to have straw to make bricks; in this case you'll get a "Strawman (woman)".
 
 
+10 # Ruth1940 2016-11-06 21:40
I fail to understand how anyone can discount the importance of her careless handling of messages. The State Department report was clear that she did NOT do what her predecessors had done, there were even guidelines in place that weren't there before, and she was warned repeatedly. Not enough evidence to prove intent to break the law (therefore don't prosecute) does not mean no guilt. If she'd still been in office, it would have been grounds for dismissal. Read the report:

www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039
 
 
+13 # Ruth1940 2016-11-06 21:43
I get tired of Hillary fans pretending that I believe the baloney the Republicans spread around about her, when there's plenty of legitimate problems. All my life (76 years) I've heard if you don't vote, you can't complain, but how could I complain if I voted for someone who supports what I've worked for years to right?
 
 
+10 # economagic 2016-11-06 21:52
Amen, Sister! And how could you NOT complain if you allowed the Hillary fans to browbeat you and guilt-trip you into voting for a person you felt was not a wise choice?

The problem is a common human failing, the inability to recognize that we may be wrong in our understanding of a problem, or at least that there are other reasonable interpretations of the available information.
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-11-06 21:57
“Some time ago, Hillary Clinton and her advisers decided that the best course of action was to apologize for having used a personal email address…”

So, this article decrying Bullshit opens with bullshit. The issue has never been her email account. It has always been about her using her own server, secreted away from both the government and FOIA requests in her basement.

“she would need to carry two smartphones.”

More BULLSHIT. She did not set up a private server “for convenience” so she wouldn’t “have to carry two devices.” Besides, she bragged to a group of tech nerds that she carried FOUR DEVICES everywhere she travelled. Well, not her personally of course. That sort of manual labor was left to her underlings.

“The private server was not a transparency dodge”

Then why was it that she held all of her communications in private for SIX YEARS? Why did it require SUBPOENAS and IMMUNITY OFFERS to get her to finally return to the government the government property she had been hiding? And why did she delete half of those communications?

This entire article demonstrates exactly why 3/4 of USians can’t trust her.

And it also demonstrates exactly why we note that so-called “progressives” will never “hold her feet to the fire.” They’ve been bending over backwards to deny reality, misrepresent facts and excuse HRC’s horrible judgement and past record.

This is highly unlikely to change if they manage to install her back into the White House.
 
 
+9 # lorenbliss 2016-11-06 23:52
I have said this before, no doubt so many times some will react with red-thumbed "oh god there he goes again," but I will say it again for those who have not voted:

The choice our overlords offer us is very simple: either Hillary Hitler (who believes she can top Adolf Hitler, Bonaparte, Charles XII of Sweden, the Teutonic Knights, the Mongols and the Persians in being the first-ever conqueror of Russia), or Donald Hitler, who promises to persecute African American, Hispanic, First Nations, LGBTQ and Leftist peoples.

Put more simply, for the likes of ericlipps and ericlane, a vote for Hillary Hitler is a vote for World War III, thermonuclear apocalypse and the extermination of our species, while a vote for Donald Hitler is a vote foe a new Holocaust.

Which is precisely why I voted for Jill Stein. That way, in that final millisecond of consciousness as I am turned into radioactive vapor, I won't be blaming myself for having voted
to turn our Mother Earth into a radioactive cinder.

Yes, it truly is that simple.
 
 
+7 # Anonymot 2016-11-07 07:37
You are absolutely correct. She'll be the end of us all. Say goodbye to your kids and grandchildren and go vote for Hillary tomorrow.

Or vote for Stein.
 
 
-3 # Jaax88 2016-11-07 13:50
Why do you write bullshit and expect readers to believe you?
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2016-11-07 15:31
Jaax88: why do you, like some anus with a disease-weakene d sphincter, spew incontinent quantities of fecal matter?
 
 
-5 # Activista 2016-11-07 15:40
Quoting lorenbliss:
Jaax88: why do you, like some anus with a disease-weakened sphincter, spew incontinent quantities of fecal matter?

what a sick - pathological response ...
 
 
-5 # Activista 2016-11-07 15:37
"That way, in that final millisecond of consciousness as I am turned into radioactive vapor"
This propaganda against Hillary Clinton with World War nuclear annihilation is irrational/tire some.
Intellectually challenged white males supporting fuhrer Trump?
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-11-07 09:38
The Real Clinton Email Scandal Is That a Bullshit Story Has Dominated the Campaign

- amen
 
 
+1 # Allanfearn 2016-11-08 03:14
Fascinating. Publication date - I get this in the UK on 8 Nov, two days after all these RSN readers commented - especially. I'd say Yglesias is three months late with this news. Or was he waiting to see what the FBI might come up with? I don't even vote in your election, but I seem to be infected by its paranoia. Or there is, perhaps, something wrong with your media?
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-11-08 12:36
There is a LOT wrong with our media, controlled by just SIX corporations.
 
 
-1 # JSRaleigh 2016-11-08 20:34
The Bush White House used private Republican National Committee email servers from 2003 to 2009. Twenty-two million emails required to be preserved in accordance with the Presidential Records Act of 1978 were "lost". Clinton's critics don't seem to be bothered very much by that.

When the State Department requested copies of Clinton's work related emails, she had her staff compile them and turn them over to the State Department. As the article points out, all email exists in at least two places - on the sender's equipment and on the recipient's equipment.

If erased emails from Clinton's server were in any way work related, it would be obvious because those emails would still exist on the sender's or recipient's end.

But they don't.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN