Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign Discussion

I’d say that there is pretty good evidence that she’s quite healthy – the one good thing about the 12 month dog and pony show that is our primary/election campaign is that any candidate that can get through it has to have the constitution of an Olympian. Most of us go on a business trip, get home, and collapse for a day or two. The presidential candidates probably have barely been home in the past year. And Hillary, in particular, has been having to deal with a lot of incredibly stressful bullshit (some of it deserved) at the same time. I couldn’t have done it at 30 – Hillary is doing it at 68.

The RW has nothing else, so they’re going with the Dr. Who “Doesn’t she look tired.” strategy.

The idea that Clinton was ill was floated by Scott Adams at least a month ago.

Adams is a huge Trump shill. I suspect Trump’s team is trying to spread this idea through viral repetition.

But she can say it once, in a clear, fact-checked, authoritative, 100% truthful statement, and then just refer people to that statement thereafter and say she has nothing more to add. Repeat as necessary.

Every time she tries to wing it, she botches it and keeps the story alive.

Another 50 senior GOP officials come out against Trump.

Hillary up, 50-37%, in new Monmouth poll.

Do you really think a US Presidential candidate needs to go on the record and say, “I am not a murderer”? That’s not even in the realm of possibility.

No, “I am not a crook” pretty much set the limit.

How about “candidate who had an abortion”?

Very within the realm of possibility, in both likelihood of accusation and the need to defend against it.

Two family members of federal employees killed in the Benghazi attack are suing Hillary Clinton over the killings.

While this certainly a novel leverage of the private server issue, I have a hard time seeing how they’re going to prove it had anything at all to do with the attack. Not a bad go at leveling the playing field vs. Trump’s lawsuit, however.

“You ran a fake University!”

“Yeah, well, your e-mails got a couple guys killed!”

sigh

The suit against Hillary can be seen here, at the Freedom Watch site (which all by itself should tip you off that this is the work of rightwing nutjobs).

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/160808-Final%20Complaint%20.pdf

Here’s the introductary statement from the complaint:

Hit submit too soon.

Don’t government officials have immunity for their actions? Can the people killed on the original 9/11 attack sue the Bush admin, because they blew off the briefing about Bin Laden determined to attack?
Our democractic government is only possible because people volunteer to run for office. If they’re going to be sued for every mistake - even grave mistakes resulting in death - our government will not be able to function. Even if we grant that this complaint is completely factual (it’s not) - how can a person sue the Secretary of State for covering up the classified presence of the CIA outpost at Benghazi? Grieving families are not entitled to classified information (and don’t forget - the only reason that CIA operation became public is because Darryl Issa shot his mouth off on camera.)

It’s all bullshit of course. I guess I’m just frightened at the extent to which right-wing assholes are willing to threaten the workings of our government for what they perceive as partisan gains.

Yes, she should have official immunity, although it’s not absolute, and the lawsuit might drag out a bit while that’s being argued. I sympathize with those who lost family members in the Benghazi attacks, but I expect the lawsuit will eventually be dismissed.

The timing of this Complaint seems to have been designed to insure it won’t get dismissed until after November. On the other hand, I am sure a Motion to Dismiss will be filed quite soon. It will, of course, be dismissed eventually.

In what legal world is “highly probable” a prosecutable offense?

Father of Orlando shooter sits right behind her at an Orlando rally. She didn’t know he was there - no one did until he was interviewed after.

I saw a headline about that yesterday and thought it was going to be the Story of the Day. Then Trump went and suggested that someone shoot Clinton, and that sort of overshadowed questions about the seating arrangement.

Really? I have lost the plot of this year’s electoral campaigns. Is the story that the family of people who have been shot by crazy people attend the Democrat’s rally? Families of shot people support the candidate in favor of gun control? Seriously not getting why this should be a big thing.

Family of the shooter, not the shot people. Not that it makes a damn bit of difference.

Because he’s a scary Muslim? It should have been and is a non-issue, the rallies are open events and he got in. She disavows his support and repudiates his stances. The only people to whom this is a BFD are those that wouldn’t vote for Hillary no matter what. It certainly got overshadowed by Trump’s plea for a hit on Hillary.

In the meantime, Hillary is determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: NYT - Clinton Foundation and State Dept overlap.