Wednesday, July 13, 2016

A Major Problem For HRC...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

The Clinton political drama has become perpetual, and, it is damaging to her political ambitions. While the bloodthirsty republican party has pledged itself to destroying HRC, foolishly so IMO, she has certainly reacted in ways that have heled to keep the drama alive. The following article from The New Yorker does a credible job of accurately pointing out why.

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President is widely, and aptly, described as historic. Here’s one of the reasons: If she wins, she will have spent a longer time under criminal investigation than any President in history. Why is this? Is she uniquely corrupt? Unduly targeted?


Clinton’s first experience with a criminal investigation came with Whitewater, the name given to various activities centered around a money-losing land deal that she and her husband invested in during the nineteen-eighties. Republican (and journalistic) claims of illegality in connection with the investment led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, Robert Fiske, in 1994. Fiske quickly cleared the Clintons of allegations of wrongdoing that had arisen in connection with an earlier investigation of Whitewater, as well as in the suicide of their friend and colleague Vincent Foster. Shortly after Fiske’s report, however, the court in charge of the case, under the independent-counsel law, replaced Fiske with Kenneth Starr, and Clinton’s true ordeal began.

Starr and his successors spent eight years, and more than seventy million dollars, on an investigation that began with the remains of the Whitewater probe and metastasized into an open-ended search-and-destroy mission into the personal and political lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Only true nineties-trivia buffs will be able to recall the full range of the accusations, which included Travelgate, Filegate, and the mystery of the missing (then found) Rose Law Firm billing records. The Clintons were pursued by a prosecutorial office fired up with political rage, but the investigation, as far as she was concerned, came to naught. The lesson she took was that Republicans used criminal investigations as a political weapon against her. In what remains her most famous utterance as a public figure, she asserted, with some justification, that there was “a vast right-wing conspiracy” out to get her family.

Starr did find pay dirt, of a sort, when he learned that Bill Clinton had lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern, in his deposition in a sexual-harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, giving the prosecutor the ammunition to present evidence purportedly justifying impeachment to the House of Representatives. A bill of impeachment passed the House, but the Senate failed to convict the President, and the experience hardened the Clintons’ belief that ethics investigations existed primarily to achieve political, not legal, ends.

It was against this backdrop that the story of Secretary Clinton’s private e-mail server came to light. That Clinton would even install such a rattletrap system suggests the influence of the Starr legacy. Clinton wanted a way to shield her personal business (which was her right) while also conducting State Department business on the same e-mail account. As a Washington veteran, she should have known that such a system was fraught with peril. Most government officials avoid the problem by keeping a separate account, like one on Gmail, for private e-mail. Clinton could have done that and avoided the problems, but instead she jerry-rigged a system that supposedly could handle both personal and professional work. It was a terrible idea.

When first confronted by reports about the e-mails, Clinton reacted like a cornered perp, denying everything. She had to know (as most everyone in Washington does) that the government vastly overclassifies information, so her flat denial that there had been any classified information on her server was destined to be disproved, as it was. Retreating from that line, she said that nothing “marked” classified was on her server, and that, too, turned out to be wrong. ...

Clinton has committed no crimes with regard to her e-mails, but she has developed an unhealthy relationship with her pursuers, who surely will only redouble their efforts if she becomes President. Burned in the past, she has become excessively defensive, and harms herself more than those who long to bring her down. The next time she’s under fire—and there will be a next time—Clinton would be best advised to forget her past and act like she hasn’t seen it all before. (Emphasis mine()

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.


  1. There exists a portion of the electorate which would prefer intelligent educated women to be silent and
    barefoot in the kitchen. There exists a portion which believes swiftboating is a legitimate tactic, a portion that finds the least progressive idea as 'commie', a portion which equates a personal arsenal a
    constitutional right, a portion that hates science and its findings portion which demands National Forests and Parks be privatized, and a religious portion that would like to control your morals. Blend them and mix them and yeah, I'd go a long with right wing conspiracy. We shall see how vast it is.

  2. Is it a vast rightwing conspiracy or just a lack of knowledge and enlightenment. I would posit it is the latter. Of course a relatively small number of political motivated self serving power hungry individuals (and groups) manipulate the masses to their own ends.

    Effective education is the answer. Short of a globally educated US population this kind of manipulating will continue to have far reaching effects.

  3. .

    "While the bloodthirsty republican party has pledged itself to destroying HRC, foolishly so IMO, she has certainly reacted in ways that have heled to keep the drama alive."

    To blame Mrs Clinton for the hounding of Mrs Clinton is absurd. The 'game' is to criminalize political differences. The right-wing hate-machines have been using a scorch-earth attack approach. Mrs Clinton has been the target of the merchants of hate for as long as she has because she has been around as long as she has.

    The issues of technology being used to try to paint Mrs Clinton as different from other previous Secretaries Of State is a game of expedient political point scoring. The available electronic communications equipment available within government agencies is recognized to be inadequate for the missions. So trying to hang one's hopes of destroying one's target on such a flimsy hope will leave one with nothing.

    At least one RepubliCan'T talking head is trying to say that Mrs. Clinton is not qualified to be president because she is a liar. This talking head is proposing that the answer to every and all questions for anything and everything is "Mrs. Clinton is a liar." Of course the hole in this strategy is that Mrs.Clinton's opponent has to be a 'not-liar.' Good luck with this approach when Drumpf is your candidate.

    "Clinton has committed no crimes with regard to her e-mails, but she has developed an unhealthy relationship with her pursuers, who surely will only redouble their efforts if she becomes President. Burned in the past, she has become excessively defensive, and harms herself more than those who long to bring her down."

    This is the world of politics today.


    Drumpf: Making Amerika Grate Again.

    50 State Sweep.


    ... Thanks Obama ...

    Ema Nymton

  4. I think she's better off just continuing to ignore the silly scandals and scoffing at her enemies. She's never going to win over dumb, gossip-page level voters.


  5. As far as I can determine the author of The New Yorker article is not blaming HRC for anything, nor am I. The point is, as I understand it, is that there are perhaps more effective ways to handle those who portray her negatively, almost as a knee-jerk reaction on their point.

    I ran the post because I believe what the author had to say is credible and valid.

    50 state sweep Ema? That is not going to happen. While you wish it to I think we both know it is just wishful thinking.

    If Trump picks Pence as his VP it may boost his standing. Certainly if the GOP convention is trouble free and they come out of it unified as a party Trump may be a formidable opponent (shudder).

    1. I'm thinking Newt (lizard) Gingrich...or did I have another nightmare last evening?

    2. Actually Trump/Gingrich would make the perfect republican "family values" ticket. Both have been divorced and booth have cheated on their wives. Yup, the GOP Evangelicals dream ticket. (sarcasm now off)

      It will be either Gingrich or Pence I think. Trump would be better served with Pence IMO. I think it balances a ticket with a bad presidential candidate better.

    3. Pence it is. Not a fan, but thought he had more sense than to place his reputation under the guidance of the Donald.

  6. It might be fun to guess which states will go for Trump and why. I will guess Arizona, Alabama and Nevada. Maybe Oregon and Utah. Hopefully Tennessee will be too close too call. The Carolinas should both go for Hillary despite recent efforts to suppress the vote. Texas could go either way, but it will effect their prestige as a serious business destination if they go for Trump. Obviously all of the blue states will fall to Hillary; Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. California, New York and New Jersey. Virginia and West Virginia.

    Perhaps the temporally challenged voters of Kentucky will favor Trump. Louisiana and Mississippi should fall into the losing count. Who could guess Missouri and Kansas? Oklahoma will surely fall into the wrong column. Arkansas could be a toss-up. Iowa.... Who really cares? Alaska? It might depend upon Trump's actions towards their beloved governor. Wyoming? Montana? Why not Hillary? Colorado? Probably Hillary. New Mexico? Definitely Hillary. Idaho? Why on earth would they vote for a dick like Trump? The Dakotas? Not very important. Nebraska? Maybe they can distinguish themselves as a state by voting for Hillary. Illinois? Hillary! Michigan? Hillary!

  7. That's a big enough prick to knock me out of my comfort zone. What's more, if neither candidate wins decisively, there will very likely be demands of recounts, claims of the system being rigged, lawsuits and who knows what other types of shenanigans. I think we are in for a rough ride.

    1. You are certainly right if the margin of victory is thin and Trump loses. Given that we know Trump always sees himself as being treated "unfairly" he will put the system through hell with his whining about the rigged system and claims of dead people voting and other alleged fraudulent practices by the democrats.

      I'm sure Trump has is strategy well planed out in the event of the above scenario.

    2. They will all do something similar Les. Heaven forbid if Hillary loses, expect similar ridiculous whining and fabulous fantasies from her side also.

      Election sore losers seem to get more and more common. And they show a great contempt for democracy by rejecting it when the people choose someone else.

      I'm hoping for an honest-to-goodness landslide. At least a 7% margin.

    3. That might be dmarks, will have to wait and see if HRC loses the election. An outcome I believe is fairly unlikely.

      If Trumpelstiltskin isn't the winnah he always brags about being we'll surely hear a symphony of
      whining and outlandish allegations.

      You're right, the only thing that might stop it is a landslide for HRC. An unlikely occurance given her lack of popularity.


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.