Hillary Clinton is Done

[Foolmewunz]

Allow me to help:



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/u...il-inquiry-weighs-if-aides-erred-at-send.html

Same **** different day. Should have been. Might be considered. Could have been. I've read the article. You chose the worst-sounding bits, didn't you?

Let's see if it has legs. Benghazi didn't work, and it segued into Emailgate. The great desire, as avid readers know, was that the emails would prove Crusader Gowdy's committee's contention that The Hill was in violation of national security, giving information to the enemy, and ordering up dead bodies in Benghazi. That seems to have fizzled, eh? Now they're working the side of the street that really amounts to "well, but it was sloppy and so what if nothing got out to the public and it wasn't really against the law... let's make it against the law, retroactively."

It's Whitewater redux. Keep turning over stones and hopefully something turns up or Linda Tripp drops a dime. Genbhazi to Email Treason to FoundationGate to AssistantGate to Can'tWeFindAnythingGate.

 

[Dog Town]

For the record, I didn't stay the story was dead, I said it will be because there is nothing there.

 

[Dog Town]

Keep turning over stones and hopefully something turns up or Linda Tripp drops a dime.

Careful for what you wish for...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Careful for what you wish for...

And yet, Bill remains a popular President.

GW OTOH, not so much.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Careful for what you wish for...

I'm getting what I wished for. This non-scandal to continue until the voting public is armored to ignore the smarmy insinuations. It's a thing of beauty. Like I said, Benghazi no longer gets even a single exclamation point. No one gave a rat's ass about the foundation funding finagle and few care that she finessed an appointment of a buddy who the boss in the big house didn't like. So now we're down to "Yeah, but if it wasn't illegal it should've been and maybe we could make it so but if not, at least we can target her aides, can't we?"

I love the smell of desperation in the morning. The battle cry is clear. Keep Hillary from getting the nomination. And it's not working. The ABH brigade is trying a Br'er Rabbit hustle. All their concern about Hillary not being the right candidate is because Hillary is the candidate they can't beat. They're drooling at the proposition of facing a socialist (Sanders) a buffoon (the popular perception, which is on the back burner, of Biden) or an unknown (O'Malley). What the current Clown of the Month contest in the GOP is doing is solidifying the overall impression of the Republicans as out of touch with reality. As they keep consolidating their nutbar right wing base, they've gotten so far from the middle that its existence is just a rumor.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A candidate that can't be beaten? She could win... maybe. I cant rule that possibility out. But i think you're confusing her with Obama, who had the advantage of running on the heels of an unpopular incumbent POTUS and the charisma to excite people as well as the grassroots ability to garner participation.

It might actually be bad for republicans if she DOESN'T get the nomination... considering bidens popularity if he runs.

Of course as always what i say comes with disclaimers... that its far too early to start thinking of general election results this early to call Hillary unelectable or Trump the wacko nominee

 

[Ziggurat]

I love the smell of desperation in the morning. The battle cry is clear. Keep Hillary from getting the nomination. And it's not working.

Your confidence is unwarranted.

Here's the thing: Bill could slip out of scandal like a greased pig because he was charming. That charm led people to look for excuses for his actions. But Hillary isn't charming. She's a shrill harpy. The more people see her, the less they like her, even without the scandals. And scandal fatigue is going to lead to Hillary fatigue. Perhaps people will start to ignore the accusations, but they're also going to want to ignore her.

Hillary's lead will evaporate, just like it did in 2008.

 

[wareyin]

you 90% sure of that?

wareyin was utterly wrong when he claimed that the story wasn't in the news.

Chicago Tribune today, do some research.

You are not aware that editorials are not "the news"?

Of course, a day after I claim that it isn't in the news, the outlet that brought us 'the criminal investigation that wasn't' chimes in. I'd say they are about as credible as Fox News editorials when it comes to all things Clinton, by now.

 

[BenBurch]

For the record, I didn't stay the story was dead, I said it will be because there is nothing there.

Vince Foster. Nothing there, and it took 15 years to quiet down.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are not aware that editorials are not "the news"?

Of course, a day after I claim that it isn't in the news, the outlet that brought us 'the criminal investigation that wasn't' chimes in. I'd say they are about as credible as Fox News editorials when it comes to all things Clinton, by now.

Bwhahaha! Chicago tribune new york times wapo. Right wing bloggy blogs! The lot of them!

Right this second the guy on the train in front of me is reading an article captioned hillary clinton v foia in todays wsj!

But the hillary fans told me it wasn't in the news! Talk about desperation and lack of credibily!

 

[wareyin]

Bwhahaha! Chicago tribune new york times wapo. Right wing bloggy blogs! The lot of them!

Right this second the guy on the train in front of me is reading an article captioned hillary clinton v foia in todays wsj!

But the hillary fans told me it wasn't in the news! Talk about desperation and lack of credibily!

Well, if one is desperate enough, one can continue to claim editorials count as the news. Avid readers see right through that, though.

 

[Upchurch]

It's an example of the risk taken by people making spontaneous predictions. She could "done" later on, but she hasn't been done yet. For one, by this point I would play it by ear and only finally call it "done" when there is a clear trend showing it.

Predictions are a funny thing. Make them ambiguous enough and almost any future can fit them.

Consider the prediction that Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party. Oh, sure, we laughed at it when it was made. We laughed at it much later when was about as washed up as she could possibly be. If you view "Palin" not as one flashy idiot candidate, but as representative of any flashy idiot candidate, then the prediction seems to have come true. Flashy idiot candidates have become the future of the Republican Party, its just the names and faces that have changed. Right now, Trump is the Palin. Later, the Palin might be someone else.

But, Brainster may have been correct. The Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party.

 

[Bob001]

Well, if one is desperate enough, one can continue to claim editorials count as the news. Avid readers see right through, that, though.

Facts are facts, whether they appear in a news story or a column. The underlying issue is what all this says about Clinton's character: She consistently behaves as if she has something to hide, even if she doesn't. The private server was clearly intended to keep her emails out of the reach of FOIA requests and Congressional investigations, not just a convenience so she wouldn't have to carry two Blackberries. She could have ended the email controversy before it even began by just releasing everything and saying "Enjoy yourselves." Instead, she has fought tooth and nail like a sleazy lawyer defending a guilty client.

And she's never stopped:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-vs-foia-1443136818

 

[The Big Dog]

Except, it's not really in the news. Check CNN, for example. Not a peep on their politics page. Fox "News" may be flogging this faux scandal, but nobody else is.

Well, if one is desperate enough, one can continue to claim editorials count as the news. Avid readers see right through, that, though.

I know you actually did not read the articles, but I think it is utterly adorable that you expect people to believe that Editorials somehow arise out of a news vacuum or something. From the Trib:

This week alone, four developments combined to demonstrate that what started with questions about Clinton's attention to government email rules also is exposing her judgment to scrutiny. ...
Those four developments:

•Bloomberg reported Tuesday that the FBI has recovered from Clinton's server an unknown share of the emails that she said had been deleted. ...

•The Washington Post reported that "State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton's characterization" that she had turned over her work-related emails in response to a routine-sounding records request to several former secretaries of state.

•Politico reported Tuesday that "more previously undisclosed State Department emails related to Benghazi have surfaced in a federal court filing, offering a public accounting of at least some of the records still being sought by congressional investigators."

•As noted above, one of several judges wrestling with records of Clinton-era documents appears increasingly impatient with State's pace of disclosure.

Wareyin? I'm worried, that sounds like "news" in an Editorial. Heavens to Betsy!

Of course the front page of the New York Times? Oh wait, wareyin does not trust them so they don't count.

Maybe you should amend your statement to read:

"Fox "News", New York Times, Chicago Tribune, WaPo, WSKJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, Politico (list here the other 2,745 more articles on google news) may be flogging this faux scandal, but nobody else is."

Non story folks.

 

[wareyin]

Non story folks.

At last, we agree.

 

[The Big Dog]

At last, we agree.

Now if we could get those 2000 plus writers to also agree with us, it will drop right off the front page....

Until next Wednesday when the next batch of Hillary's emails are released

 

[Dog Town]

"Fox "News", New York Times, Chicago Tribune, WaPo, WSKJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, Politico (list here the other 2,745 more articles on google news) may be flogging this faux scandal, but nobody else is."

Non story folks.

 

[DavidJames]

Facts are facts, whether they appear in a news story or a column. The underlying issue is what all this says about Clinton's character: She consistently behaves as if she has something to hide, even if she doesn't. The private server was clearly intended to keep her emails out of the reach of FOIA requests and Congressional investigations, not just a convenience so she wouldn't have to carry two Blackberries. She could have ended the email controversy before it even began by just releasing everything and saying "Enjoy yourselves." Instead, she has fought tooth and nail like a sleazy lawyer defending a guilty client.

And she's never stopped:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-vs-foia-1443136818

True, facts are facts, and I've highlighted and underlined the facts in your quote.

 

[Dog Town]

True, facts are facts, and I've highlighted and underlined the facts in your quote.

Um...NO!

 

[BenBurch]

Again it doesn't matter. The narrative gets repeated often enough that little positive HRC news gets out. Unless HRC can change the tone and get this behind her, she will not be President EVEN should she manage to eke out a win in the primaries.