I agree it was legal and I even agree it wasn't a great look which is kind of the Clintons in a nutshell. I just think you're projecting and exaggerating most of the alleged nefariousness of it. What it boils down to is that the Clintons caused billions of dollars to flow to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have. No one has been able to demonstrate any actual corrupt acts, any corrupt exchanges -the right just spins it up in their imagination; asserts it's true and then, jaw droppingly, try to one up on it when in power. It worked so well against the Clintons because they’d always been very skeevy but we’ve watched them throw it at every left wing political figure since: Biden; Bernie and, idiotically, even at Barrak fishin Obama (who is virtually the exact opposite of the Clintons both for good- he’s squeaky clean, and for ill- he’s always seemed to disdain retail politicking).
And that's where I bridle at the whole mess of it. You don't get to blame W's trillion-dollar war adventures or the way supporting his massive deficit spending obliterated libertarianism and neoconservatism in the hearts of the masses on Bill Clintons antics in the 90's. The neocons and the libertarians let W discredit them themselves. You don't get to blame Trump hollowing the GOP out and wearing it like a skin suit while being a convicted fraudster and nakedly (and legally convicted) being corrupt on Hillary Clintons behavior as Sec of state*. The GOP and conservatives sold their souls on that on their own.
And you sure as fish don’t get to blame the things Trump is doing now on the fishin’ Clintons- they’ve been off the scene for almost a decade now. Economic Sanity? The Clintons epitomized it and dragged the left along. Ethics? The Clintons committed appearances of impropriety but the right has convicted and unabashed corruption. And the Clintons never provoked constitutional crises and the GOP under Trump is churning it out on the weekly.
*Though anyone and everyone is entitled to blame her for losing to him. God(ess) damn it Hill, you. Had. One. Job.
Jay me lad, you know I love you. You say some of the darndest things but sometimes I have no idea what damn thing you're saying. (and that may well be on me)
The convenient thing about all this is it is dependant only on what the right (and you( imagine with no other proof required, and yet- since the foundation was above board which is to say it was confirmed as distributing those billions to the worthy and charitable causes it said it was- then the "corruption" you are claiming consists of the Clintons getting entities to contribute more money to charitable causes than they otherwise would with no nefarious quid pro quos or nefarious benefit to the Clintons ever being demonstrated.
In light of the characters the Right barfed up during and following the Clintons (The pack of pedarests, serial adulterers and dopes that chased the Clintons around, followed by Bush II- arguably the most destructive President to the Republic in modern history; followed by Trump I- easily the actual generationally corrupt one and now Trump II who seems set on giving Bush II a run for his title) that seems downright quaint.
I wouldn't wish the Clintons back, personally, because it's definitely true they wrote the book on dancing right up to the line on unseemly self promotion and because Hilldog fished up and lost to Trump which she'll wear for all of history; but the invective the right heaps on them has always been way more overwrought than the provable facts ever supported.
The Clintons certainly been portrayed as corrupt and I don't deny the Clintons behaved in a manner that didn't weaken those allegations. But being proven in court is, ya know, kind of a big thing. Especially when you throw around the billions number which, let's be clear, requires you loop in the foundation which was regularly audited and found to be above board. So, you're saying the allegations about the Clintons make then the most "openly corrupt politicians of their generation" even above politicians actually found guilty of corruption or politicians legally banned from operating, say, charitable foundations or educational institutions? Like our current President? Most corrupt in their generation? Please.
But, on the other hand, the Clintons are happily done and gone from the political scene with no successors or new candidates so I don't
see much juice left in wrangling over them. But the Signal chats' very existence is assuredly wildly illegal (because it's so insecure) even before we get into the fact that the nimrods invited in a journalist by accident. And it's much more wildly illegal than Clintons server was found to be.
First, your timeline is completely backwards since the pardons under Bill Clinton came a decade and change before the private server so unless HRC was time travelling the one couldn't have been in the service of the other.
Second, I simply am pointing out how you keep descending into talking about speculative or perceived Clinton crimes in response to genuine, convicted and materially factual right wing crimes.
I don't need to claim the Clintons are pure as the driven snow to observe that their the vast majority of their alleged crimes exist, overwhelmingly, as a matter of right wing spin and imagination and that is not, remotely, equivalent to crimes by their right wing counterparts that have been tried in court, convicted and sentenced.
I mean I lay the blame for HRC's loss on HRC first and foremost but the GOP did string it out through long drawn out investigations and the hypocrisy is shocking.
I'll also note that you have this amusing tic vis a vis the Clintons where, when a right wing figure is literally convicted in a court of law or otherwise caught red handed in something you shrug it off and then wax rhapsodic into speculative tea leaf reading about unsubstantiated crimes the Clintons are alleged to have committed to somehow balance it out.
Also, full credit, the idea that Clinton was running a private email server just like Colin Powel did before her so she could sell pardons (so Obama then was selling pardons? Really??) is a new and entertaining one for me.
Thoughts are cheap. If they said something like "I said publicly *link* that Lloyd Austin should have resigned; That's why I think Pete should." that's a strong and defensible position and one meriting respect.
But the standard position has been either they said one thing and it's now opposite now that it's their side doing it and why are you even bringing it up? Or it's "we've made a thousand idiotic and nakedly false assertions about your guys and one of them turned out to have some merit to it, how dare you have disregarded that one?!?!? *cough*Biden's age *cough*
Sure, and likewise, the current actors have put themselves in the same barrel now and, by dint of their past inveigling, all those "her emails" characters are in that same barrel too if their tune has suddenly changed to, for example, a dyspeptic bloodless appeal to political reality and nothing else.
Don't let the incompetence, mendacity and bumbling fool you- there is no deeper scheme- these really are idiots. And incredible hypocrites considering that they, to an individual, all screamed holy heck about "teh emailz" a decade ago.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
I agree it was legal and I even agree it wasn't a great look which is kind of the Clintons in a nutshell. I just think you're projecting and exaggerating most of the alleged nefariousness of it. What it boils down to is that the Clintons caused billions of dollars to flow to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have. No one has been able to demonstrate any actual corrupt acts, any corrupt exchanges -the right just spins it up in their imagination; asserts it's true and then, jaw droppingly, try to one up on it when in power. It worked so well against the Clintons because they’d always been very skeevy but we’ve watched them throw it at every left wing political figure since: Biden; Bernie and, idiotically, even at Barrak fishin Obama (who is virtually the exact opposite of the Clintons both for good- he’s squeaky clean, and for ill- he’s always seemed to disdain retail politicking).
And that's where I bridle at the whole mess of it. You don't get to blame W's trillion-dollar war adventures or the way supporting his massive deficit spending obliterated libertarianism and neoconservatism in the hearts of the masses on Bill Clintons antics in the 90's. The neocons and the libertarians let W discredit them themselves. You don't get to blame Trump hollowing the GOP out and wearing it like a skin suit while being a convicted fraudster and nakedly (and legally convicted) being corrupt on Hillary Clintons behavior as Sec of state*. The GOP and conservatives sold their souls on that on their own.
And you sure as fish don’t get to blame the things Trump is doing now on the fishin’ Clintons- they’ve been off the scene for almost a decade now. Economic Sanity? The Clintons epitomized it and dragged the left along. Ethics? The Clintons committed appearances of impropriety but the right has convicted and unabashed corruption. And the Clintons never provoked constitutional crises and the GOP under Trump is churning it out on the weekly.
*Though anyone and everyone is entitled to blame her for losing to him. God(ess) damn it Hill, you. Had. One. Job.
Ah I appreciate the explanation. I'm sorry, it hurtled so far over my head it didn't even ruffle my hair.
Jay me lad, you know I love you. You say some of the darndest things but sometimes I have no idea what damn thing you're saying. (and that may well be on me)
The convenient thing about all this is it is dependant only on what the right (and you( imagine with no other proof required, and yet- since the foundation was above board which is to say it was confirmed as distributing those billions to the worthy and charitable causes it said it was- then the "corruption" you are claiming consists of the Clintons getting entities to contribute more money to charitable causes than they otherwise would with no nefarious quid pro quos or nefarious benefit to the Clintons ever being demonstrated.
In light of the characters the Right barfed up during and following the Clintons (The pack of pedarests, serial adulterers and dopes that chased the Clintons around, followed by Bush II- arguably the most destructive President to the Republic in modern history; followed by Trump I- easily the actual generationally corrupt one and now Trump II who seems set on giving Bush II a run for his title) that seems downright quaint.
I wouldn't wish the Clintons back, personally, because it's definitely true they wrote the book on dancing right up to the line on unseemly self promotion and because Hilldog fished up and lost to Trump which she'll wear for all of history; but the invective the right heaps on them has always been way more overwrought than the provable facts ever supported.
The Clintons certainly been portrayed as corrupt and I don't deny the Clintons behaved in a manner that didn't weaken those allegations. But being proven in court is, ya know, kind of a big thing. Especially when you throw around the billions number which, let's be clear, requires you loop in the foundation which was regularly audited and found to be above board. So, you're saying the allegations about the Clintons make then the most "openly corrupt politicians of their generation" even above politicians actually found guilty of corruption or politicians legally banned from operating, say, charitable foundations or educational institutions? Like our current President? Most corrupt in their generation? Please.
But, on the other hand, the Clintons are happily done and gone from the political scene with no successors or new candidates so I don't
see much juice left in wrangling over them. But the Signal chats' very existence is assuredly wildly illegal (because it's so insecure) even before we get into the fact that the nimrods invited in a journalist by accident. And it's much more wildly illegal than Clintons server was found to be.
First, your timeline is completely backwards since the pardons under Bill Clinton came a decade and change before the private server so unless HRC was time travelling the one couldn't have been in the service of the other.
Second, I simply am pointing out how you keep descending into talking about speculative or perceived Clinton crimes in response to genuine, convicted and materially factual right wing crimes.
I don't need to claim the Clintons are pure as the driven snow to observe that their the vast majority of their alleged crimes exist, overwhelmingly, as a matter of right wing spin and imagination and that is not, remotely, equivalent to crimes by their right wing counterparts that have been tried in court, convicted and sentenced.
Oh no heheh.
I mean I lay the blame for HRC's loss on HRC first and foremost but the GOP did string it out through long drawn out investigations and the hypocrisy is shocking.
I'll also note that you have this amusing tic vis a vis the Clintons where, when a right wing figure is literally convicted in a court of law or otherwise caught red handed in something you shrug it off and then wax rhapsodic into speculative tea leaf reading about unsubstantiated crimes the Clintons are alleged to have committed to somehow balance it out.
Also, full credit, the idea that Clinton was running a private email server just like Colin Powel did before her so she could sell pardons (so Obama then was selling pardons? Really??) is a new and entertaining one for me.
Thoughts are cheap. If they said something like "I said publicly *link* that Lloyd Austin should have resigned; That's why I think Pete should." that's a strong and defensible position and one meriting respect.
But the standard position has been either they said one thing and it's now opposite now that it's their side doing it and why are you even bringing it up? Or it's "we've made a thousand idiotic and nakedly false assertions about your guys and one of them turned out to have some merit to it, how dare you have disregarded that one?!?!? *cough*Biden's age *cough*
Sure, and likewise, the current actors have put themselves in the same barrel now and, by dint of their past inveigling, all those "her emails" characters are in that same barrel too if their tune has suddenly changed to, for example, a dyspeptic bloodless appeal to political reality and nothing else.
Don't let the incompetence, mendacity and bumbling fool you- there is no deeper scheme- these really are idiots. And incredible hypocrites considering that they, to an individual, all screamed holy heck about "teh emailz" a decade ago.