I just came here to post the same story – I’m very happy to see Biden throw McConnell under the bus. That bastard has a lot to answer for.
There was a time, not so long ago, when a president considered the integrity of our elections so important that it was critical to get bipartisan support so as to appear above partisanship. Seems so charmingly naive, now.
Skimming this thread, I was amused to see that these two posts were by the same poster:
That three-syllable word doesn’t mean what you think it does. But please do go on commenting on simple exchanges you’re unable to understand. 
What great non-partisan need was there to have a public denunciation before the election?
You’ve misunderstood this issue. They said she did do something criminal but not something which has historically been prosecuted.
Emphasis added.
“Above partisanship”? There’s no there there anymore.
Let’s assume that the Obama Administration wished to release a statement like this:
“My fellow Americans: we’ve recently learned that the Russian government is directing a campaign to influence our national election through the manipulation of social media and the selective release of illegally obtained information. This is a direct affront to our national interests and our sacred right to free and fair elections. We have no interest in how you vote, but make sure that your choice is informed by accurate information.”
Anybody who has a problem with that is someone with a stake in the outcome and doesn’t care how it happens.
The problem is that there can still be evidence of bias in a statement like that. If Obama didn’t want Trump to win, he could have influenced the investigation to look into where his support comes from. But did he do the same for Hillary’s support? Maybe she’s being illegally propped up by Saudi Arabia, but Obama never investigated the source of her support. I’m not saying that happened, but people can easily view it that way.
Funny (sic) how it really all boils down to what you actually care about.
A statement like that is phrased in a neutral manner, but as a practical matter would be hugely damaging to Trump. Presidential statements don’t just sit out there, to be blindly accepted at face value. They attract enormous attention and reporting and commentary by informed experts and insiders, and had such a statement been released the storyline would have been that Trump was Russia’s guy (much as it is now).
Of course, if there was a genuine and important purpose in such a statement, then let the consequences fall where they may. That’s what I’m questioning.
Naturally, from the perspective of someone who preferred that HRC win anyway, that type of statement would be a win-win. From the perspective of someone like McConnell, it would have been a win-lose, and you need to balance one against the other. So the point again is what would have been won by that type of thing.
Well, if you don’t think the integrity of our electoral process is important, there’s not much left to say.
There’s always “Goodbye!”.
To make it simpler for you, my question would then be how much that particular statement at that particular time contributes to “the integrity of our electoral process”.
it’s an uglier world, now, isn’t it? thanks Repubs.
I take it then, that you were replying to the post immediately preceding yours, in which case I revoke my statement.
I’m not sure what the value was in not simply correcting me about what topic you had been referencing. Can you think of any reason, if I say, “Well, if you mean Gerald Butler…” To not reply back, “No, I meant Gerald Donahue.” ?
Feel free to be you, but I fail to see the wisdom in the path you chose.
There was a time, somewhat longer ago, when *both *parties would have considered the national interest and the strength of our democracy to be more important than temporary partisan advantage over fellow citizens with somewhat differing priorities. Now, one party can no longer even conceive of anything more important than partisan advantage, or that the other party can be something other than an enemy that must be destroyed.
Putin didn’t cause this. It started before him. He’s just taking advantage of it.
That’s a great argument in favor of the sources of support being 100% transparent.
Well for my part, I fail to see the “wisdom” in your asking “Which post were you replying to?” when in the very post you quoted, two sentences after the one you snipped, I had already written “E.g. my post #1885 - the one you responded to - was responding to post #1884 which preceded it” (emphasis added).
Unless playing cutesy games counts as “wisdom”. I don’t think so, but everyone chooses their own path.
Does a burglar alarm contribute to the integrity of your valuables?
I’m not going to get into picking apart analogies, in this instance. Simple but boring.
Nonsense. They fact that she didn’t commit any crimes doesn’t prevent Republicans from fantasizing any more than the fact that Scarlett Johansson probably isn’t interested in homely middle aged guys prevents… but I digress.
If you’re interpreting BobLibDem’s words in a hyper-technical way - that Republicans who want to prosecute her are people with fantasies that they themselves know are nothing more than fantasies about a prosecution that they themselves know is unjustified - then you would have a point.
But I’m thinking BobLibDem is probably capable of appreciating that Republicans who want to prosecute Clinton believe (whether justifiably so or not) that she is indeed guilty of crimes.