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.
GOP Ad Slams Hillary on Foreign Contributions
Does Hillary survive the foreign contribution scandal, especially when paired with her developing email scandal?
Published in General
All these problems are cropping up very early in the process, possibly early enough to be forgotten about.
Side note: all the surprise seems rather affected to me. These people have never played by the rules.
It will be hard to knock Hillary out for the nomination (there is no credible bench right now), but this doesn’t help her win the prize in the end: and it has the advantage of being something everyone understands.
If all it does is produce a credible challenge to her for the nomination so that all these issues can be aired by Democratic opponents, I’ll be happy. That will make her all the more vulnerable in November 2016.
My new slogan: “Run, Liz, Run.”
BTW: Beautifully produced ad.
It makes it increasingly likely that some potentially credible Democrat decides the chance of becoming President is worth the risk of making a permanent enemy of the Clintons, and probably somewhat increases the number of primary voters who would give that alternative a look.
Whether it does anything more than that, I don’t know.
For what it’s worth, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has gone through Scott Walker’s emails from his days as county executive, fine tooth comb in hand. Just in case that might be remotely relevant.
He’s rested, he’s ready…
Dennis Kucinich 2016.
Yep.
No, she won’t survive if one of the recovered emails says “Dear Sheikh, Please forward $100 million to the Clinton Foundation in return for which I, acting in my capacity of Secretary of State, will [insert policy change or favor of your choice]. It’s been a pleasure doing business with you”.
Yes, she will survive unless the above occurs. And stop your War On Women!
Yeah, but I thought we still had a robust political opposition Not a one-party state. And a committee that’s been working night-and-day to nail her on anything they can find. So what this suggests is:
a) She never sent one of these e-mails to anyone who disliked or distrusted her, or was even sort-of neutral about her–in which case, it is creepy beyond belief that she was able to figure out “Who can be trusted.” It is also creepy that they could be trusted. I mean, not one person in her circle said, “That’s not right,” when they saw that? Even someone terrified of her might have thought, “I should discreetly bring this to the attention of Trey Gowdy. He has the ability to get that story in the New York Times.” (That’s my guess about how it probably got there. Maybe it wasn’t Gowdy, but that’s who I’d have picked, given he’s chair of the Benghazi committee. But at any point since the first Clinton administration, it should have been possible to figure out who’s dying to nail Hillary and wants that information);
and/or
b) A number of people who should have very been aware that it’s highly abnormal to receive e-mail from the United States’ Secretary of State from her personal account were not. And were either unaware that this is against the law–or they didn’t care. Or they figured, “I’m sure she knows what she’s doing;”
c) That she figured these people were too dumb to notice this or too lacking in initiative to do anything about it–and it seems she was right.
I’ve now got a vision of quite some number of people here as robotic, corrupt, passive, cowed, or stupid. Not just Clinton, not just the journalists. I guess we’ll soon be finding out how many and who.
Finally, returning to my basic argument on the Kremlin, it’s one thing to say, “I know Putin’s a bad guy.” It’s another to take that thought seriously–which means looking for stuff like this. Obviously, a lot of people who’ve built political careers around the idea of “Hillary is Bad News” did not take the idea seriously enough to look for stuff like this.
If I didn’t think “firing every one of them” would be too disruptive right now-we can’t have quite that much institutional knowledge go down the memory hole in one go–I’d vote for getting every last one that can go in this election out–a complete, bipartisan purge–and vote for any candidate who says, “I’ll fire everyone under me, all of the staffers, and start fresh.”
I don’t think we can safely do that right now–the world is too unstable, and these people know how to make Washington work, in their disgusting, corrupt way–but if we ever have an election less characterised by mounting geopolitical emergencies, I’d sure be pleased to support an “out with every last one of these bums” campaign.
Clinton is horrible person who abuses the people around her. She also has them killed every now and then. I suspect she has plenty of enemies on her side of the aisle quite happy about her political demise. I think Mendel was right when he wrote that she won’t be the nominee.
The end of shame.
Washington works? They’ve been making it “work” by lining their pockets.
I understand the point, but the status quo has to change if what’s happened at State – which includes the death of an ambassador – is allowed to continue.
I’ll quote Jack Nicholson as The Joker: This town needs an enema.
The commercial is very good, but if all the GOP does is run it on FoxNews, they will once again spend a lot of money hollering down their echo chamber. They need to give out free phones that fire up an audio version of that spot every time the phone is turned on, and I’m not kidding.
It’s time for a dwarf President!
The modern Democrat Party does not care about these things. Hillary won’t be the standard bearer but it won’t be over these kinds of issues.
I just find it strange that there are two stories damaging to Clinton in the news right now. (1) The outright corruption of soliciting/accepting foreign money, laundered through the Clinton Foundation. (2) A fracas about email.
Compared to the foreign corruption & money story, the email thing is trivial. People will hear about the email and think … they’re complaining about record-keeping. Boring!
However, the email story is sucking all the oxygen out of the foreign corruption story.
If ever there were politicians skilled in the art of distraction, the Clintons gotta rank first on the list. Say look, a squirrel! And then, in a week or two when no immediate arrests are made, they’ll lump both stories together and declare: see, there was nothing to those accusations! Old news! Let’s move on.
They actually exploit their own multiple stories of corruption to their advantage.
I do not believe that this new scandal will make any difference, whatever the timeframe. The level of corruption and unethical conduct in this administration has been so overwhelmingly obvious since at least six years ago that anybody who still supports it won’t be swayed by just one more issue. Before things like this matter, there must be a standard. Failing that, who can stand up and say, “this is wrong?”
That philosophy, which in this age carries the name “liberalism,” is founded on the concept that morals and ethics are determined by the society itself, or actually the intellectual elite – that is, they are determined internally, by man, as opposed to an external standard. Since the standard is therefore never fixed, meaning that it is whatever a person wants it to be, ultimately there is no standard at all. And that’s where we are.
The U.S. Constitution delineates, and is built upon the concept of an external, fixed standard of morals and ethics. It was written as, and intended to be, an enduring document. But if the interpreters do not subscribe to the idea of a fixed standard, then the Constitution must be re-defined as a “living, breathing” document, blown by every passing philosophical fad that grabs the fancy of the ruling elite. And that’s where we are. Email that violates federal law? Blatant violation of national security laws? Targeting political foes? Violation of federal campaign finance laws? Prosecution of political and philosophical foes while turning a blind eye to far worse violations among your chosen few? Murder? What difference, at this point, does it make?
Further, it’s conceivable, though I believe unlikely, that Hillary won’t be the nominee. But it won’t really make much difference. If he/she/it prevails in the next election, this administration has demolished pretty much all limits on the executive’s authority, and the subsequent anointed leader isn’t about to change things. The judicial branch is sold out and onboard. The legislative branch is feckless, and has surrendered it’s role as a check on anybody, and the executive has paved the way to do whatever they want. And the philosophy is pervasive that they, and only they, know what’s good for us, the proles.
As King Prawn stated, is this coming out to ‘clear the decks’ for a Hillary run?
I have to admit this is a tough charge to clear, but these are Clinton’s smart–what scandal has really ever brought them down–not even the blue dress could stop them.
Here’s something else to examine. Now, I’ve only read one of these emails. But that email essentially backed up the administration’s claim that they thought the Benghazi attack was a demonstration re: the Youtube video. Could it be that this email scandal is calculated to give Hillary a smokescreen to hide behind re: that? Could it be that the Clinton’s calculation is that the damage done by the private email scandal (for which she should go to prison) will blow over, and in its place, she’ll have an excuse for what they see as a bigger problem?
I said a long time ago on a Ricochet podcast that I don’t think Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. Still feeling pretty good about that prediction.
Re : # 17
This is a Hell of a lot bigger than just acting in a way that makes the White House look more corrupt than a brothel full of sex slaves and lying under oath about it. Don’t you think? I think there’s no hope for us if we’d ever again trust her with any power.
KC Mulville #14
“I just find it strange that there are two stories damaging to Clinton in the news right now. (1) The outright corruption of soliciting/accepting foreign money, laundered through the Clinton Foundation. (2) A fracas about email.”
The two stories are related. By maintaining an illegal server which is not subject to government scrutiny, Hillary is able to be bought and paid for without anyone being the wiser.
Should anyone have penetrated her server and downloaded messages which were not intended for public view, she is also subject to blackmail.
And whose word do we have that none of this has happened? Hillary’s.
I do hope that Jon Gabriel is correct, but only because whoever the nominee turns out to be, s/he will probably be easier to beat by the probably feckless Republican nominee. But her replacement, while less repugnant on the surface, will be from the same philosophical mold – hence not much different in how s/he operates.
And I continue not to be confident that this, or anything else will bring her down. In my opinion, Benghazi was a far greater scandal, and the Clinton machine, in cooperation with the Obama machine, managed that effectively.
By the way, that which, in my eyes, has been the greatest scandal of the Clinton dynasty is one that receives absolutely no attention today. That’s Filegate. Just think of what all they pulled off with that one – blatant violation of security procedures, then complete frustration and obfuscation of the “investigation,” that along the way besmirched the reputation of the FBI. A blind man running for his life could easily have traced every move of those files – until they mysteriously rematerialized inside the White House. Scotty did not beam them out of that vault, nor did they scamper out on their own, without checking themselves out, when the guards weren’t looking. It set the pattern that has continued, through Obama, too, to the present.
Re comment # 21 and #14
Exactly.
It’s silly to fume, as some are doing, that charges won’t be brought against her. ( Hey, she can take down too many people . Too much focus on her raises too many questions. And there’s probably no e-mail evidence remaining that confirms her influence was for sale. That’s just how it is. ) But I would think people would now be in a hurry to distance themselves from her and no one would consider trusting her again with power.