Bad News For Hillary: Someone At CNN Told Carol Costello To Stop Helping Her, And Clinton’s Talking Points Are Wearing Thin…OK, THINNER

This was fascinating. I was trying to decide whether to post today about the latest spin tactics by Hillary’s minions and her dwindling but still formidable media allies  in light of Clinton’s awkward press conference where she insisted that she didn’t do anything “wrong” regarding the mishandled State e-mails. Earlier in the day the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, a usually decent journalist whom it is sad to see succumbing to the  Clinton Corruption Virus (you would think there would be a vaccine by now!), had used this same talking point—and it is a campaign talking point. In a column that could be used in a public service announcement, Cillizza seriously wondered why Hillary was in trouble. Gee, he mused, maybe Hillary just isn’t very good at campaigning! What else could possibly explain why she isn’t cruising to the nomination?

In other words, the fact that she has lied constantly, used her foundation to profit from influence-seeking foreign powers, was a flop as a Secretary of State, put U.S. security at risk and destroyed potential evidence so she could avoid getting caught in her complex political/financial machinations—Allegedly! Allegedly!—wouldn’t matter at all to Democrats, voters or Chris if she was just better at fooling the public. Darn!

“This is Chris, and this is the tragedy of Clinton Corruption Syndrome. Won’t you help?”

Then he wrote, “The appearance here — even if Clinton did nothing wrong (and there is no proof she did at this point) — is terrible.”

What? WHAT? Of course she did things that were wrong. Isn’t lying like crazy wrong, Chris? Isn’t paying people to throw the media off the track and confuse the public using deceit and misrepresentations wrong, Chris?  Isn’t the tactic of smearing the messengers wrong, and sending out statements like the infamous “nonsense” letter wrong? Is intentionally breaking your own Department’s policies wrong? Is sending and receiving sensitive information in a manner that makes it vulnerable to hacking by foriegn governments wrong, Chris? Do you even know what wrong means any more, Chris?

That’s when it hit me, and that’s why I decided I had to post, again, on the Hillary Clinton E-mail Ethics Train Wreck, which is really just part of the The Hillary Clinton Presidential Candidacy Ethics Train Wreck. The Clinton campaign’s current strategy is now to make the public understand right and wrong the way the Clintons do. If it isn’t illegal, it isn’t wrong. (This is on the Ethics Alarms Rationalization list, incidentally: #4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.” Marion Berry went to jail.)

Talk about waving a red flag in front of an ethicist!

And there it was again on CNN this morning. Carol Costello had shown the ick-pooey clip of Hillary responding to reporter Ed Henry’s question about wiping her server by saying “With what, with a cloth?”—HAR! Hillary is here all week, folks!—then brought on CNN commentator John Avlon and paid Hillary liar Hilary Rosen to respond. This is an interesting gambit by CNN, and I’m trying to figure out what it means.

Avlon pretends to be a moderate, but he’s really a moderate progressive Democrat who, among other things, has designated as a “wingnut” any Republican who opposes abortion.  Usually, CNN would counter Hillary’s spin-meister—they are always female, have you noticed?—with some ugly, fat, fire-breathing conservative male talk show host or a similarly repulsive Republican operative. (Why not their own  cyber-specialists, like Bob Baer, who had already explained on CNN why what Hillary did was “wrong” and illegal?) So the choice of Avlon for what the news media calls “balance” was intriguing. Was this a set-up, having two Democrats debate the import of Clinton’s e-mail evasions, with the biased host, Carol Costello, doing her usual smirks, sneers and grimaces to signal to the audience that this is all “nonsense?”

No! Costello stared uncharacteristically mute and stony-faced into the camera as Rosen spun like a top.  Avlon popped his eyes, shook his head, raised his eyebrows and generally did a great Carol Costello impression while Rosen tried to spread the Clinton Corruption Virus over cable.

Hmmm.

Rosen essentially repeated many of the same deceits and rationalizations that fellow paid Clinton liar Karen Finney chanted on CNN in March, and others from the campaign’s  “nonsense” memo. Rosen also featured the Finney grin, which is apparently taught to all Clinton surrogates: this is all so funny, such a joke--can you imagine these Hillary-haters making all this fuss over a few e-mails?  She also featured the recent additions to the talking points: this is all Fox News’ fault, it’s just politics, voters want to hear about Hillary’s ideas, not details of her e-mail handling, and there is no proof that Hillary did anything wrong. “There’s a difference between a mistake and breaking the law,” Rosen said (that’s close; I don’t have the transcript yet.)

This is such a dishonest and confusing a statement that it is like a mind bomb: if you accept it, your IQ goes down 20 points:

  1. What “mistake”? Every single e-mail Clinton handled over her private server was a mistake, and there were thousands of them. It was a mistake to presume, if Clinton did presume, that communications with the Secretary of State weren’t classified material, or top secret, every time she received or sent them. If she used her cell phone, and she did, that was a mistake every single time.This wasn’t one mistake, if that’s what you call it, it was thousands of mistakes over years.
  2. This is Bill definition of “mistake”—all his secret trysts with Monica, an inappropriate relationship with much lower subordinate, the cover up, the lies under oath, the fact that the President of the U.S. isn’t supposed to act like a slimeball— were just one mistake, and anyone can make one mistake!
  3. Hillary’s handling of the e-mail, including wiping her server and destroying e-mails she claimed were private without letting State make that call, was completely calculated and intentional. It became “a mistake” only when they were discovered and exposed. Just like Monica.
  4. In law, “mistake” (but not ignorance) is a defense. But the law will presume the Secretary of State knows the laws affecting her own activities and Department, because she has a duty to know them, and to follow them. She cannot claim “mistake.” It will be presumed, correctly in this case, that if she violated protocol, she did so intentionally.
  5.  Clinton’s lies weren’t mistakes, any more than Rosen’s bought and paid for spin (aka lies) are a mistake. Lies may not be illegal, but lying is wrong. Hilary? Chris? Hillary? Do you understand that lies are wrong?

Hello?

Through all of this pathetic tap-dancing by Rosen, Avlon’s face was doing a break dance of shock and wonder. (And Carol looked like her head was set on Easter Island). Finally he broke in, saying that it was absurd to call this a partisan issue when Democrats and the Obama FBI were also critical of Clinton’s e-mail fiasco.  Calling this a witch hunt isn’t accurate or fair, he said. “I didn’t say witch hunt!” protested Rosen.

Well, yes, in the sense that a political campaign that scripts all of its mouthpieces is like The Borg, Hilary, you did. Remember that statement from Jennifer Palmieri, aka, Hillary’s Gang, of which you are a true blue member? The inquiry into Clinton’s e-mails is referred to as “a partisan witch-hunt.”

Then Carol, whose face was starting to hurt, I guess, cut them off, because discussing the character and trustworthiness of the frontrunner for President of the United States had to yield for the vital story of how Jared, the fat guy who got sort of thin eating at Subway, was caught with child porn on his computer. (I’m sure it was a mistake.) In what trivia-obsessed universe is that national news? But again, I digress.

What’s going on here? Has Carol turned on Hillary, and is expressing this by—acting neutral for a change? Was she told to let Rosen sink or swim without her support? Is the Clinton campaign betting that just denying and denying and blaming Fox will work if they just do it until everyone gets bored or corrupt?

Fascinating.

Thus endeth our Hillary Clinton Ethics Lesson For the Day.

I hope.

57 thoughts on “Bad News For Hillary: Someone At CNN Told Carol Costello To Stop Helping Her, And Clinton’s Talking Points Are Wearing Thin…OK, THINNER

  1. The most revealing part of yesterday’s exchange with Hillary was her use of the term “a cloth.” Not a dust cloth, not a tea towel, not a dish rag. This is a seventy year old person doesn’t know any commonly used expression for an item that might be used to manually clean a dirty household item.

    • I’m certain the very purpose of the way her response was crafted was to imply:

      1) she didn’t have the kind of tech savvy to even do what she’s being accused of

      2) she’s so old and outdated we should have pity that she couldn’t figure out the mean modern draconian laws that she broke.

      Either excuse only makes her look worse.

  2. I have a question. I haven’t followed Hillary Clinton’s excuses closely because I can feel the intelligence start to drain away when I do. However, she claimed that she set up the private server so she would only have to carry one cell phone. Did people really buy this? Did no one stand up and explain that you can set your phone up to check and send e-mail from more than one account, even using the same client? My phone is set up to check and send from 3 different e-mail accounts just using the built-in e-mail client.

    • If the system is set up like our blackberries were in the military- your government issued phone could only have your government email on it (if you were following the rules).

      Then after a series of protocols were established, I don’t think you could set up your military email on a personal phone. I don’t completey recall and of course the protocols may be different for State Department.

  3. You go, Jack. And everyone should read Jeffrey Toobin’s article in the New Yorker where he claims once HRC is president she can clean up the mess with how every government email and document is over-classified or rendered top secret for no legitimate reason. Nice one Jeffrey. I assume your bill to the Clinton campaign is in the mail. I hope they pay.

  4. I will not defend Hillary on this issue. She had a duty to handle this right, and she failed. Why she did it is anyone’s guess. But it falls somewhere on the scale of extreme negligence to intentional misconduct.

    BUT, don’t be fooled into thinking that data security/privacy is something that the majority of government agencies and/or corporations know anything about. I can assure you that just about everybody is doing this wrong. Data security is lacking at most corporations and in our government. Look at the most recent OPM leak. Heck, I work for data security companies and my personal data (from my last company) was hacked. A data security company — whose job it is to counsel other companies on their data security, data breach, and email management policies. Hacked. Indeed, it’s quite possible that my old company has been retained to investigate this whole Hillary mess. I keep meaning to look that up ….

    So, I have two points to make on this. 1) The reason that this isn’t getting a lot of traction — even in DC– is because most of the agencies and our politicians are doing this wrong. Not just with lack of data security policies, but with rampant abuse of personal email and texting. They don’t want to put themselves under the microscope. 2) This issue is complicated even for people who are supposed to be in the business of protecting data. (Look at Target and Sony as easy examples.) If they don’t get it, you can bet that the average American isn’t going to get it. People are going to not vote for Hillary because they hate her already and ignore this scandal because they can’t understand it. (At best, they’ll add it to their list of reasons not to vote for her, but they do not understand it.) Absent criminal charges and a conviction, I don’t think this will sink Hillary.

    • ” I can assure you that just about everybody is doing this wrong.”

      I promise you, you shameless hack, that not everyone in government has a private server stored in the bathroom of a loft apartment, from which they send and receive Emails that will in all probability receive top secret classifications. Comparing what Clinton has done with relatively small infractions is like comparing a cannon to a BB gun, and I don’t believe for a second that you’re too stupid to know the difference.

      • I’m not sure where this hostility is coming from. I work with corporations every day doing forensic examinations. Yes, they are doing this wrong.

        As for the private servers, no, not everyone in government is doing this. But, I do assure you that many government officials are using private email (yahoo, gmail, aol, etc.) to conduct government business. There has to be a lot more education on this issue.

        • Beth, as you well know, very few people in the world understand Cybersecurity. In part because of shows like CSI: Cyber that over-simplify it. Are you aware that we still have a law on the books requiring that DIAL-UP modems must access the Internet at 14, 000 bps? The only people who really understand cybersecurity are the hackers, AND THEY AIN’T WORKING FOR US, TV shows not-withstanding. China. Russia, maybe Cubs but not us. (Disclaimer: I’m 70, last birthday, but know a little bit about cybersecurity) At some point, we have to stop electing ignoramuses to term after term and actually come up with leaders and law-makers that know what they are doing. I’ll be honest, HRC didn’t really know what she was doing with that server, hired people who didn’t know what they were doing, and still doesn’t understand what happened. Sad, that.

            • It is and should be!!! A psychiatrist running a department consisting of an F.B.I. shooter and three amateur hackers (actors with little or no knowledge of computers or security), on which our countries cyber security depends. I seriously hope we are a little better than that, but I doubt it. My hope rests with Beth and others like her, but I’m afraid they are always behind.

              • I don’t get it. We took our guys in the military whose primary motivation in life was throwing small bangy things and pointing long shooty things at people we told them to, and somehow got them to realize you don’t take classified work out of secure locations and you don’t email classified stuff off your government server.

                This wasn’t rocket science.

                I think Beth is making excuses for laziness.

                • As a FYI, government agencies are well aware that they have data security issues, but they don’t have the money or the talent to address them. The people who are really good at this make 2-3x more money at a private tech company. And, the people who are doing this (with the possible exceptions of the CIA, NSA, and FBI) don’t possess the skill sets to recognize the magnitude of their problems.

                  At most government agencies, they think they are handling cyber risks by telling people to change their passwords and not use private email. And many continue to use private email because it’s not enforced and they don’t understand the risks associated with doing so. So, I guess it is right that it is “laziness” in the sense that people aren’t bothering to learn this — but then we would have to label the majority of people in the US lazy.

                  BTW — the military doesn’t get a pass either. I can’t reveal what I work on, but there have been egregious slips there too.

        • It comes from frustration. So many of the conversations we have and violently disagree with are the product of not arguing the same things. With abortion it’s one side arguing that it’s all about mother’s autonomy, and the other side arguing that it’s all about the kid. With Hillary one side is arguing about the fundamental, sociopathic, constant way she lies while she breathes, and the other side is hung up on the minutia of misunderstanding.

          And the rampant fervor in which women seem willing so sidle up to the voting booth, stand on their toes, stand over the poll knob and vote with their crotch. Women as a demographic are blowing my mind this election cycle…. Voting as a block for democrats in what they see as their best interests isn’t new, or unique to them, but they want THIS candidate because she has a vagina.

          “I’m not asking people to vote for me because I’m a woman. I’m asking people to vote for me on the merits. And I think one of the merits is, I am a woman and I can bring those views and perspectives to the White House.” -Hillary Clinton 2016

          Real Quote, Google it.

    • I agree, Beth—this is a huge problem, and a lot of mistakes have been made and are being made and will be made. I don’t think, though, that bears mentioning in this context. There’s doing it wrong while trying in good faith, an doing it wrong, knowing its wrong, for bad reasons and doing so recklessly and defiantly.

      If Hillary had said, “Boy, did I screw up. I wasn’t paying attention and placed important data at risk. I’m turning everything over, private and public, and hope we can contain the damage. This should be a lesson for everyone: cyber security is vital and tricky. I am embarrassed and I an sorry, and I accept full responsibility as well as any and all criticism aimed my way. I deserve it,” this would be over. Hell, I’D forgive her and DEFEND her if she had said that!

      But she had to lie. She had to attack. It’s everyone’s fault but her.

      • She’s no different than the current idiot in chief either blaming GWB for every single thing or throwing members of his own cabinet under the bus, or from Al Gore drawing his four circles of responsibility with himself at the center insulated from all responsibility.

        • It wasn’t a mistake, though. It was HER. This is her approach to life. If she did that, she wouldn’t be Hillary.
          You know, if she said that NOW she’d be better off. But time’s running out.

    • If TS data was on her server it resulted in someone physically taking it from one system, out of a secure area and putting it on another system. A crime was committed somewhere by someone. There is no negligence argument that is going to fly. A crime was committed if TS information was on her server. If her server contained TS data, Hillary Clintons privately owned server, not the governments, than it was involved in a felony. There is no legal or negligent way in which TS data gets on a private server, it had to be deliberately done. Now it may get pinned on some staffer, I doubt Clinton did the actual transfer, but they worked for her, she still is responsible.

      • 1. I’m not defending HC — she was head of the agency and has to be held accountable.

        2. BUT — This is a variation of “everybody does it” in my book — but it is an important variation. Many government officials use private email to conduct government business — including the transfer of sensitive and secret information. They are doing it because they don’t understand the importance of data privacy and data security. Most common example? Someone wants to finish a work document at home so they email it to themselves. That document is now sitting on their home computer (because they needed to download it to edit it) and at an ISP. Happens every day.

        So, employees who are caught doing this aren’t looking to be excused because they were caught and others weren’t, they are looking to be excused because of ignorance and lack of education. HC might have had sinister motives, truthfully, it doesn’t matter — her conduct was wrong and as head of the agency she needed to be the example for others. But the average citizen, private corporations, and even the Feds are severely behind the learning curve on this one. I think this is the explanation for the lack of outrage. I AM outraged — but this is also my field, so I understand just how potentially dangerous her conduct was. Further, her deletion of private emails before turning the server over violates Discovery 101. That wasn’t her call — it was her attorneys’ call, and a full preservation should have been done first so Congress could fight over what was private vs. not private. If this were in court right now, she would have been sanctioned.

                • The way it should work is as follows. Person is notified that he/she is subject to investigation, subpoena, litigation, etc. Person should immediately preserve everything (ideally with the assistance of outside counsel and a forensics company). Counsel then works off of a copy of a copy of that data and determines what should be turned over — private information not relevant to the investigation does not have to be turned over. (In certain cases, counsel will ask the forensics company to try and retrieve deleted data as well.) Opposing counsel then looks at what has been produced and decides whether or not an argument can be made that there is relevant data that was not produced — this is different from case to case. If the parties cannot agree, then it goes to a Judge. The Judge will either: 1) rule for one party based on the legal arguments; or 2) order an in camera review of what was not produced. If the latter happens, and the Judge finds that counsel attempted to hide responsive data, both counsel and his or her client could be severely sanctioned.

                  I should note, in case people care, that we are the only country that does it this way. In other countries, there is a high presumption of protecting personal/private data, and an employer would have to jump through many hoops to even collect data off a person’s WORK computer. I’m not endorsing this — just letting you know it’s different everywhere else.

                  • Except this was state department e-mail and she is well aware that it needs to be preserved. It doesn’t matter whether or not there is an investigation pending or likely pending, the destruction was against policy and the law anyway. You can’t excuse the behavior in any reasonable sense unless you want to state that she is a blithering idiot who shouldn’t be allowed near any real responsibility. The only realistic way she can claim she didn’t know she did anything wrong here is to claim that she doesn’t know how e-mail works, she doesn’t understand how classified information works, she doesn’t know how information in the State Department works, she doesn’t know she can’t pay people to work for the State Department with money from her charity, she doesn’t know about public information laws and policies, she doesn’t know how the criminal justice system works, she doesn’t know how classified material works, she doesn’t know what the FBI does, she didn’t understand the agreements she signed when she became Secretary of State, etc. She is supposed to be a lawyer. She has professional aides that she hired. Do you really think none of them knew about any of this? With that last part, are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is somehow under the impression that she has been living in France this entire time?

                    I am a professor. I am trained that I have to use my official university e-mail for correspondence with my students. I understand that backups of those e-mails are retained in case of legal action (and if those backups are corrupted, we can always ask the NSA for their copies). If I e-mail a student using my private e-mail address about their attendance, mention that they are in one of my classes, or discuss their grades at all, I am violating the law. It is all privileged information. You can’t realistically expect me to believe the Secretary of State’s e-mail has a lesser standard of privacy, data retention, and security than mine under the law.

                    • Michael — I’m not disputing that. What makes Hillary’s conduct especially egregious is that she failed to preserve — and in fact deleted information — AFTER being notified of the investigation. So here, she screwed up twice. First with installing the private server and second with improperly handling that information (again) once being notified of the investigation.

                      The “last part” as you refer to it was merely meant for educational purposes — as I clearly indicated in my comment.

                    • Do you really think she “screwed up”, or simply hasn’t gotten away with what she fully intended and felt she had to do (regrading destroying the evidence)? I think destroying potential evidence was very purposeful, not some “Oopsie! Look what I did, silly me!”

                    • I’m using the correct legal term — failure to preserve. And, with electronic evidence, you say spoliation (not spoilation, but spoliation) when you allege someone intentionally destroyed evidence. That term tends to be used sparingly — usually in legal briefs or in court orders. I wouldn’t use that here because anyone is allowed to “destroy” personal emails — it was foolish here because it gives the other side an easy means to attack HC. That’s why the better course is to do a full electronic preservation and let the lawyers fight about what is private vs. discoverable.

                      Document “destruction” — on the other hand — tends to be used to describe an entity’s quite proper and legal method of automatically destroying all electronic documents (unless subject to legal hold or regulation) at routine times; for e.g., every quarter. This also can be referred to as a document retention policy.

        • I dunno, Beth, if someone in the government is doing this, they haven’t been paying attention or have been ignoring their training. I did a call-in seminar with the Defense Department’s expert at this stuff two years ago, and she said that all the agencies were emphatic about not doing the kind of stuff Hillary did. I know that some agencies are more rigorous than others. But STATE?

          And she does know what wrong with destroying the e-mails. And she assumed she could get away with it, so she did it.

  5. Chris also came out with a rather rueful column on how the Democrats are stuck with Clinton now, like it or not, since she’s already hovered up all the donation cash and drained the pool of talented campaigners. Ergo, although Biden looks like he’s in the bullpen and the Democrats look like they might be getting ready to replace the pitcher, it’s too late in the game to do so.

    The lesson to take from all this is not to fall victim to groupthink and not to believe your own press releases. Definitely don’t put all of your eggs in one basket. The Democrats I think started to believe their own rhetoric that the electorate had become too young, too brown, too black, too liberal to ever elect a Republican again. They also started to believe that their allies in the media were going to be able to guide the national narrative very easily from the first black president to the first female president, and more importantly, bury any questions about her qualifications.

    Frankly, I believed a lot of this myself. However, it appears that this question of the handling of the emails, like the Watergate question, is NOT going away soon, it’s not going to “burn hot, fast, and out,” and it may well not go away at all. In turn, like a magnet, it’s pulling all of Hillary’s other problems out of hiding. I know August of the year before is a long time to hold the public’s attention, but it’s also a long time for the party and allies to keep deflecting the public’s attention, keep repeating talking points that sound more ridiculous each time, and maybe, just maybe, find their ethical centers and say “sorry, this ethics train has rolled too far, and this is where I get off.”

    • I think Cillizza’s entire premise in his article is total spin. He’s saying, on behalf of Los Clintons: “It’s too late, Baby, for anyone else to get into the race and win it even if there are pictures of HRC and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in bed together on Air Force Two. Deal with it. Time to move on. Not only can no Democrat beat her in the primary, she’ll still win the general election because any Democrat will win the general election because of demographics and the fact that votes are counted by state.” Which is incredibly cynical but absolutely what Bill and Hill want the public to believe. It’s inevitability on steroids. And it had to come directly from HRC’s communications minions.

        • Exactly right, BUT, I don’t think the general public is buying it. Jack said in another thread something to the effect that “let’s move on” is code for knowing you are wrong and trying to deflect it. It’s just like someone trying to avoid a difficult conversation that has to happen by saying “if you’ll excuse me?” All too often we give people an easy out if they say things like this.

          Maybe it’s time expressions like “we’re not done here,” and “I’m afraid I can’t excuse you just yet” find their way into the national lexicon. The previous First Assistant in my office was a stone-cold jerk, but when he had a subordinate on the hot seat for a project, he brooked no argument, and his refrain was “we’re done when I decide we are done, and not before. We move on when I’m satisfied that it’s time to move on, not before. I’ll excuse you when I decide it’s time to excuse you, and not one moment before.” If you said one word in argument, you were looking at charges of insubordination.

          It’s time to say “no, Ms. Clinton, this DOES in fact matter. You are looking for us to hire you for the highest office in the country, and it looks like you want this as much as for an ego trip as to serve the people. Your record isn’t that impressive as an executive or as a legislator, and in fact it contains several red flags that we can’t just let go. Yet you act like you are entitled to a pass on all this and in fact entitled to this high office. Unless and until you can convince us otherwise, you appear unworthy.”

  6. “Chris Cillizza” is the perfect name for a Clinton minion; on casual/dyslexic glance, it reads “Clint-zilla”…

  7. Against the backdrop of this appalling demonstration of hubris and corruption by Hillary Clinton (throw in Benghazi, “We’ll get the guy who made that video”, and “What difference does it make?”), I look at her resume: First Lady of Arkansas, then USA (husband’s achievements), one-and-a-half-term US Senator, and disastrous Secretary of State—and I have to ASK: “President” Hillary Clinton? WHY?!?!

    • It’s a great question, and no Hillary supporter can answer it credibly. The real answer appears to be, “She has a vagina.” By my calculations, applying that rationale, there are easily 30 million or so better candidates than her.

      • And then she further spits on our intelligence with her perfectly scripted, carefully teleprompted outrage about how she’s not going to play politics with the Benghazi tragedy. She is fast becoming an affront to my every sense with this grasping, soulless scramble for power….most pathetically of all, to satisfy Bill’s desperate need for a vicarious third term…. This whole show is Dysfunction on Parade; it reeks of “trailer park” in the worst sense of the phrase. The Bill and Hillary show has never been more nauseating.
        I vividly recall Hillary Clinton asking, back around 2009, with that trademark smirk that telegraphs, “How long must I endure you nitwits?”, just how many times, and how many different ways, she had to say “No!” before people would believe she really wasn’t ever going to run for president again. Because she really, really, really meant it. Until she didn’t. Kind of liking wiping a server clean with a cloth, isn’t it….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.