I think that’s right. It is reminiscent of the classic '70s Robert Redford film, The Candidate. Redford’s titular character starts out just being a “real”, no-compromise, no-BS progressive, but as he starts to think he might actually win, in creep the compromises and hedging.
Another example of this came on another talking heads show this past Sunday, in this case Meet the Press:
Wow. :eek: That last line sounds exactly like the kind of minimizing rhetoric Republicans use in reaction to mass shootings.
That’s part of living in a democracy. I mean I sometimes feel as if some of the Bernie-folks I hear referring to Hillary Clinton as a Republican (which is always somewhat amusing to actual Republicans - who consider her a fairly leftist politician) are similar to the Tea Party folks in that their list of “important articles that shouldn’t be compromised” is a very, very lengthy list.
Yes, but Starr had a history as a Republican activist. Which is expected, a President is supposed to appoint someone adversarial when appointing a special prosecutor or else it’s not credible.
McCullough has no history of partisanship. Nor is his contention even all that controversial. Hillary Clinton is moving the goalposts, saying nothing she had on her server was marked classified. Which is true. But she’s the Secretary of State, she should know when she’s dealing with classified information, especially if it’s top secret.
Of course, if she’d used a government account, none of this would have been an issue.
However, there are some things which are automatically classified, and it’s the Secretary’s job to know. She was heavily briefed on this when taking office. If it was just a matter of “Is it marked classified?” then that briefing could have simply been a post-it on her computer. And anyone else could use that as a defense in court. “Sure I told a reporter about a secret missile program, but I didn’t get the info from a document marked “classified”!”
Hillary Clinton has a habit of making really stupid defenses of her actions on the assumption that people likely to vote for her are not that bright. Her defense of her actions against Bill accusers? “That was the 90s”. Oh, well that settles that then.
The habit of many on the right to fall on their face by being trip on the many exaggerations launched against Clinton never ceases to amaze me.
That then many do learn how asinine are those exaggerations is what leads many to realize that Clinton is not making the stupid defense, it is actually the stupid offense from outfits like FOX that makes many to repeat reheated baloney.
But … but … the pro-Hillary camp keeps saying that it doesn’t matter, that nothing Sanders can do, including perhaps winning the primaries in all 50 states, will keep Hillary from winning. Because she’s magical, ya’ll … she’s a Clinton!
So Clinton is being hounded by security classifications that utterly fail a simple common sense test? Pathetic, shows how far up its own ass our security apparatus is.
I wonder why Hillary felt the need to lie about all the stuff she deleted. Remember back when the scandal first started and she said that the her secret “private” emails were
Yeah, me too. Amazing how much non-yoga email they’re finding.
She is such a lying sack of shit that if it comes down to her or Trump, I’ll sit out my first election in like 40 years. I could hold my nose and vote for Bernie over Trump*, but if it’s Hillary or Trump, the only rational choice is “None of the above”
I hate this election cycle.
*I disagree with just about everything Bernie stands for, but he’s neither a pathological liar like Hillary or just flat-out brain-damaged crazy like Trump. Which puts him about 1000 points higher than either of them.
Where are you getting the information that the emails containing putatively classified info were among the ones Clinton deleted instead of turning over as work-related? That seems plainly wrong.
