Very Damaging News Regarding Hillary Clinton’s Emails
The Left must stop pretending this is a nonstory
We’re just a month away from the election, so it’s obvious why Hillary Clinton’s campaign and her supporters in the media would want to ignore bad news from hacked emails in favor of decade-old comments Donald Trump made about women.
But the story isn’t going away—especially if Clinton becomes president.
On Friday we learned that the Obama administration actively worked to crush stories relating to Clinton’s emails after the story broke in early 2015. In one email, White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri emailed her counterpart at the State Department: “between us on the shows… think we can get this done so he is not asked about email.” Palmieri was trying to make sure Secretary of State John Kerry would not be asked about the email scandal on his Face the Nation appearance that occurred three days later.
The next day, State Department Communications Director Jennifer Psaki responded: “Good to go on killing CBS idea.” And guess what? Kerry wasn’t asked about the emails.
Also on Friday, leaked transcripts from Clinton’s Wall Street speeches were revealed by Wikileaks. The New York Times reported that “The tone and language of the excerpts clash with the fiery liberal approach she used later in her bitter primary battle with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and could have undermined her candidacy had they become public.”
Ouch.
Clinton said in the transcripts that she dreamed of “open trade and open borders.” She also spoke about how Abraham Lincoln twisted arms behind the scenes to get things done, and said it was important to have “both a public and a private position.”
This is exactly what Sanders warned about during the primary—that Clinton took money from Wall Street but was not adopting his position against the banks because it was politically popular. It was hard to believe that Clinton would be just as harsh against the banks privately as she was publicly.
Clinton awkwardly defended this comment at the debate on Sunday by speaking at length about Lincoln. But it certainly plays into the notion of Clinton’s corruption; that she will say anything to anyone to get elected. It also begs the question: Who is being told the truth? Is her private position the one that she will institute in the Oval Office or will she stick with the public position? How can we trust anything she says?
While Trump’s comments predictably dominated the news cycle over the weekend, more damaging information was linked about Clinton.
Other hacked emails revealed Clinton’s campaign privately insulting journalists who didn’t praise the Democratic nominee. In one email, campaign Press Secretary Nick Merrill called New York Times reporter Amy Chozick an “idiot” for writing an article about supporters becoming wary of Campaign Manager Robby Mook after Clinton narrowly eked out a win against Sanders.
Merrill also said he had tried “to shame” the Intercept’s Emily Kopp’s “lousy reporting” on Clinton using her campaign account as a slush fund.
More emails were released on Monday, and they were just as bad. In one email, former Bill Clinton aide Doug Band called Hillary’s daughter Chelsea “a spoiled brat kid.”
“I don’t deserve this from her and deserve a tad more respect or at least a direct dialogue for me to explain these things,” Band wrote in response to a dispute with Chelsea over the Clinton Foundation. “She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she’s doing.”
Band founded Teneo Strategies, which for a brief time employed Clinton aide Huma Abedin while she was also working for the State Department.
Perhaps most damaging of all, it appears Team Clinton was “petrified” of any GOP presidential nominee except Trump.
“Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump,” wrote Brent Budowsky, a former Capitol Hill staffer (and Observer columnist). “She has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify … even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me.”
Clinton’s own campaign knew she wasn’t a strong candidate and that the email scandal was damaging—that’s why they worked behind the scenes to crush stories about the emails and disparaged reporters who didn’t fall in line. They also worked to make Trump the GOP nominee because anyone else would have run away with the election against such a flawed candidate.
The Left’s response is always the same: Either this is a nonstory or it’s “old news.” The more they make such proclamations, the more it’s clear that they just want the story to go away because they know how bad it is for Clinton. Voters care about this issue; it’s part of why Clinton is routinely described as “untrustworthy.”
The Left wouldn’t be calling this a nonstory if the Secretary of State in question were Condoleeza Rice (and to be fair, Republicans would then be the ones claiming it was a non-story).
http://observer.com/2016/10/very-damaging-news-regarding-hillary-clintons-emails/amp/
On that pic, #DNR
I have a few VERY relevant questions since I was told I was "wasting my vote" by not voting for the DNC or RNC nominees for president. The answers are not exactly what you think they'd be.
1. At our founding, what political parties did we have?
2. When was the last time we had a president that wasn't democratic or republican (DNR)?
If you got the first answer correct you'll know the difference is more, not less than what 'separates' the two dominant parties today. You'd think a group of men that came together to write the declaration and Bill of Rights and eventually the Constitution had more in common than the D's and R's do today. If you got the first question right you'd know that's not the case. Whether you get it right or not you'd know it's not the two parties we have today. You'd also know that your vote for president, the highest office in the land shouldn't be which party, but which PERSON holds that office. That being said, we went through two primary elections and ended up with the two ABSOLUTE WORST PEOPLE for that or any public office. One side will agree with one the other side with the other but WHEN WILL THE PEOPLE LISTEN TO EACHOTHER? Does the party ever send you a check if THEIR CANDIDATE wins? And R's what happens if Trump is impeached after a few months should he actually win? Will you have an OUTSIDER who isn't a Washington insider or an ESTABLISHMENT politician? D's same question for Hillary, who's going to be running the show if she's out? Those questions have the same answer, NOT THE VP.
For the second question, at SOME POINT people got tired of the party platforms and made changes that redefined the party. I don't consider THOSE as wasted votes, neither did the people. As many times as it happened people missed something critical. Whether it was retiring an incumbent or rallying behind an upstart the PEOPLE very often were left with much less than they organized campaigned, protested etc for. We have two 'established' parties. One might have an unorthodox candidate with fresh ideas like the new deal or a peanut farmer but the parties themselves remained mostly unchanging or changed for the worst with new developments before the people figured out what was going on. Still two 'established parties' in control.
What good did it do to elect a CHANGE CANDIDATE, literally, Obama's slogan was Hope and CHANGE, key policies, health care and ending the wars Bush started. Trumps key things that are not policy are that he's a CHANGE CANDIDATE health care and ending the wars Obama (really Bush DNR) started. Trump meant exactly what he said
"I love the poorly educated"
Trumps campaign all the way down to Michele's/Melania's convention speech are the same. DNR
Why would the party allow him to continue if he made it perfectly clear that he was going to screw right through the tea party pilot hole straight to the guts of the RNC? They could have renounced him at any time before or after the first debate up to and even after the primary. It's all part of the DNR party plans. A mudslinging monstrosity. Tanking in the last 30 days and determined to ride it out amid the tax evasion and sexual assault/adultery scandal overshadowing the wikileaks emails and Bill's past. Sex sells, legal proceedings over classified info most people don't understand anyway is boring in comparison. that doesn't matter though. What matters is we get donkey or elephant 5hit, both stink. One criminal is more criminal than the other criminal, the other criminal is criminal more than the first criminal.
So I'm "wasting my vote" by not voting for a criminal? Or am I doing my constitutional duty as a citizen by not contributing to criminals in public office? If we all vote D or R it would be a wasted vote. What would happen if there were two or three more unflinching parties? We have two that aren't checking or balancing. We aren't meeting in the middle or towards one side or the other. We're pinned to one side or the other clamoring for change every 4 or 8 years. They recycle campaign strategy tax plans war foreign strategy and wealth distribution, amongst the political and rich. No rich person is going to give the POWER they have to all of US. Neither the democrats or republicans are going to do that either. STOP VOTING FOR THEM. De-ESTABLISH the ESTABLISHED parties. Previous gains of rights or laws won't be lost, only those that would take them from us. Case in point is the patriot act (unconstitutional). Obama expanded it, immensely. There's many more examples but that is the single biggest loss of rights and privacy in American history and 100% unnecessary. We are paying the government to spy on us. We didn't lose the constitution when the republican party formed. It was being chipped away slowly but nothing like what we have seen in the past 25 years. WE CAN CHANGE THAT. We CAN'T change it from within the DNR parties, we CAN change it by supplanting them simultaneously.
Use your imagination and be honest with yourself. If the debates were between Johnson and Stein how SUBSTANTIVE would they have been and how ashamed would you be to admit that either eventually represented our nation vs either of Trump or Clinton you like LESS? The DNR parties ARE adjusting the polls, to keep them below 15 so they dont get National attention. You believe they have no chance because of the polls and lack of coverage, and as long as you believe that you're condoning whoever the SELECTION turns out to be will have all the POWER you DON'T want THEM to have. Keep the DNR duocracy going. Guarantee you will NEVER SEE the CHANGE you are fighting for. I will not.
More to come.
