Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Oops, She Should Have Also Routed Her Calls Through Her Server
After years, Judicial Watch (a great organization by the way) was finally able to access records of then Secretary Clinton during the Benghazi Attack. Last month, their FOIA request secured this record of a phone call by Clinton the day after the attack. “S” is Secretary Clinton. In a call to then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil she said that the deadly terrorist attack on the US compound the day before “had nothing to do with the film.”
On the prior evening (September 11) Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
The 2012 presidental election was but two months away … Clinton lied. The White House lied.
Published in General
And then she can pardon herself.
Something for the #NeverTrump crowd to take to heart if, as appears more likely every day, he gets the GOP nomination.
I’m on the verge of #NeverTrump, but alternative is so horrendous.
Randy, Trump may be awful, but Team Trump would not do nearly so much damage to America as a Team Hillary would do.
Her dishonesty is not even close to the worst thing about her. I think she’s either unlucky or has really bad judgement, or both. Everything she touches turns to poop. I don’t wanna be here when the poop really hits the fan.
See Nixon/Ford.
She’s a liar and an incompetent. And she’s almost certainly our next president. Yea, democracy!
Wait! You mean she LIED?!?!?!
Wwooaahh! That means she really IS willing to throw her own citizens and staff under a bus in her naked quest for power. Maybe… And I dont mean to sound like a kooky tinfoil-hat whacko here, but do you think maybe she is just too dangerous to democracy and western civilisation to be POTUS at this critical hour?
What a terrible shock this must be for the Hillary faction of Ricochet. The last thing we need is for people to think there may be someone worse than Trump.
Yep, if it’s Trump v. Clinton it will be a very stinky choice, but IMO Trump is the (perhaps only marginally) less stinky candidate.
What makes you think you know what Trump is capable of doing? His rhetoric? His record? Do you think he’ll do anything other than what’s best for Brand Trump at the moment in time he makes a decision? If so, what would you point to as evidence to bolster your argument?
There is this.
Trump has a small team, and he will need to draw on a lot of new players. I think that he would not care whether they were conservative or Progressive, or libertarian, centrists, or anything. He will be more likely to bring in Republicans, since he ran on the GOP ticket. Trump’s brand includes a feature of competency, and he will not hesitate to fire anyone who screws up badly. I don’t expect that all those folk will get along, so there will be infighting and such, and little in the way of real accomplishments. But, even with awful Trump at the top, I do not foresee real damage to America.
I don’t. But so far his CV doesn’t include leaving a US ambassador for dead and allowing an embassy to be overrun by Jihadis. He also seems to grasp that the clash between Islam and the west is a bigger question for our time than gay marriage.
Im not saying he would be a good president. But there is no moral high ground in opting for Hillary, as some people think. To me she is clearly the bigger tyrant and a vote for national suicide.
On the other hand, Hillary will arrive with a horde of Leftists. They are all Democrat Party apparatchiks, and they all see things from the Progressive point of view. Many of Team Hillary’s leading lights will be holdovers from Team Obama. They agree that the American economy is so robust that they can raise taxes and increase entitlements. They are eager to expand the reach of the regulatory state and to limit individual liberties.
And, if Team Hillary is much like Team Obama, nobody will ever get fired for incompetence. This is the team that runs the VA, right? The guys who spent $400 million on a website that is still a steaming pile after five years of constant improvements. The folk who weaponized the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, and are working Leftist priorities down to the lowest level of every federal government program there is.
The Team Obama holdovers will be permanent fixtures, because they have dirt on each other, and so they have to be both protected and coddled, to keep them from publishing damaging info on social media. None of them have ever had a real job; they all came from media, academia and politics.
I think Team Trump could not possibly damage America as much as Team Hillary would.
Trump did not leave four people to die to hide misdeeds of the administration. She exchanged their lives for better political optics prior to the election.
The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.
Similarly, since Clinton has a record of treachery, avarice, and duplicity that would make the Borgias look like Mother Theresa, I’ll bet on Trump and hope for the best.
In practice, what does it mean where it says, “Please note: This is not a transcript of this call.”?
Is it that it’s not verbatim? A summary? And does that matter in this case? I ask because I want to be ready if the Left points to that and claims she never said this in the phone call.
Okay, certainly agree HRC is a disaster in the making on just about every level imaginable. I just don’t know why anyone thinks they’ve got a clue what Trump will do, except what’s best for his Brand as he sees it at that moment. It’s hard to say he’ll be worse than HRC (hope I don’t have to eat that prediction). But will he be better? If the bar is ‘hasn’t got Benghazi in his past’ isn’t that kind of low? As far as same sex marriage—as evidenced by his transgender bathroom position—he’s not going to be substantially different from Hillary. Basically, at best Trump is what passes for a Centrist in Manhattan. The only exception is immigration and border security, but that is based on his rhetorical stance. I just don’t think he’ll hesitate to abandon his stated position if it suits his purposes at the time.
Of course, Clinton is unacceptable on every level. If there’d never been a Benghazi she’d be unacceptable to me. My point is there’s no reason to think we have any idea what Trump is capable of doing. I mean, it’s very hard to imagine he’d leave an Ambassador to die and then lie about. But is that all the height we’re setting the bar at?
Well, yes, sadly. That is where we are. Madame Secretary Clinton will be the Democrat nominee.
Many of us who very much prefer Cruz to Trump are trying to persuade #nevertrump members that a Hillary presidency would be so damaging to America that they should support Trump if he becomes the GOP nominee. As that possibility becomes ever more likely, the awfulness of Trump seems to be magnifying. Low bar, indeed.
Nevertheless, Trump would do less damage to America than Hillary.
Yeah, it means this is only a summary of her call not a complete transcript. There will be a full transcript somewhere, but that’s not what got shared in her email. It does not mean that what is provided in the summary is inaccurate . . . just means less important parts are missing.
But don’t waste your time being ready for the Left . . . they’re not bound by the rules of logic, commonsense, physics, or anything else that interferes with their narrative. If sweet reason worked with the Left we wouldn’t need Ricochet.
Well, hate to be a logic purist here but IF we don’t know what the heck Trump will do, we can’t say one way or the other. What we’re really saying is the probability is Trump will do less damage. The problem is that probability assessment is based upon what Trump says he’ll do and what we presume he won’t do. But he’s got a record of doing things that are 180 degrees out from what he claims his positions are now. If we’re objective, we’d have to say he’s likely to behave very differently from what we might imagine based upon his campaign rhetoric.
Which means our probability assessment is biased . . . probably ‘cuz HRC is such caca-show we just wanna believe there’s a way outta this mess!
But, if we’re being analytical and not emotional, we’ve got to conclude Trump is as likely to be worse as he is to be better than HRC.
Which isn’t an argument for voting for HRC . . . we KNOW what we’re getting there. It’s an argument that Trump is a total gamble . . . I suspect few of his supporters see it that way, however.
It is no choice at all. It is the day I walk away.
To be honest, the way it is shaping up, I may have already voted in my last election. A Trump vs HRC election is like asking a person being executed what caliber bullet they would like to be shot with.
Except in that scenario, you want the largest caliber available under the theory you’ll die faster/suffer less. Guess that means Hillary gets my vote. }:-(
What a strange press statement. “Vicious behavior”? That’s the sort of term one would use to describe a presidential candidate’s ridiculing the appearance of his opponent’s spouse. Chris Stevens and the others were slaughtered.
Here’s what I see when I read “vicious behavior”:
But we do know that Clinton will be a lying, conniving, corrupt, traitorous slime ball with blood on her hands and a record of putting our national security at risk for trivial personal reasons.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken
This is true. So let’s use Benghazi as a metric. What is the probablity that Trump would allow 4 people to die in order to win the election? We already know Clinton will do so.
Based on his willingness to lie every day, I would say it is 100 percent.
Lying is common to most humans, murder is not, so surly you jest.