David Sirota, who is an American political commentator, radio host, a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, a blogger, and from time to time a Democratic Party spokesperson, tweeted this yesterday:
That’s pretty straight-forward, don’t you think? Res ipsa loquitur, I would say. To be fair, Hillary would have to turn the clock back for her to be “talking about building walls,” but only four months back
The question really isn’t whether Hillary Clinton is trustworthy, but how anyone can think she is, or more pointedly, how anyone can claim she is and look at themselves in the mirror without gagging.
______________________
Pointer: Instapundit
Ethics Alarms 
Yet now she’s your go-to candidate, which says little about the slate of candidates.
I said I would vote for her over Trump, the same status I award to a horseshoe crab and a gumball. That hardly makes her my “go-to” candidate.
Oh, it’s hardly a ringing endorsement, still, the fact is, unless something significantly changes, which is looking less likely with each passing day, she’s going to be who you pull the lever for.
I still think she’s going to have to get out. Increasingly, I hear in DC that she’s in trouble. But I willl never apologize for voting against Trump. I think it’s an unavoidable duty, if it comes to that.
If I’ve learned one thing in the almost twenty years I have been online, it’s that rumors amount to nothing 9 times out of 10. Hilary’s not going anyplace, and she’s not in any kind of trouble. I will not vote for her, even if it means playing the Trump card.
These aren’t rumors. They are leaks. They have Hillary dead to rights, and a transparent call will have to be made. One reason Clinton is blowing up like a balloon is that she’s nervous.
And there is no legitimate justification for giving Donald Trump power. None. I’d examine your biases, because something is out of whack. And here’s Charles egging you on, though he wouldn’t vote for Trump with a gun to his head.
I must disagree – there is one legitimate reason to give Trump power:
As you have pointed out elsewhere on this blog, the Democratic Party, and Hillary herself, are embracing totalitarianism.
Talk about a rock and a hard place (if the were both made of burning acid and pestilent pustule filled). This is one of those times I’m happy I’m not allowed to vote yet, because I’d agonize for months over the decision.
So does Trump. If the GOP embraces him…fill in the blank.
I have yet to hear a single leak that’s turned out to be more than just rumor or innuendo, although the latest revelation that one person on her staff was granted immunity may mean someone is on the hook for something. However, I also believe that Hillary is too well connected and well protected to ever be indicted for anything. It is now March. About seven months remain before the election, four before the Democratic Convention, and ten before the 45th President is sworn in. Nothing is going to pop in the next four months, in fact I think the whole investigatory story will dribble off the news cycle long before the convention. That’s the last we will hear about it until probably this time next year, when, after President Hillary is safely in office, the report will be released, which will stop just short of accusations of any wrongdoing, and promptly disappear, scoffed at as a whole lot of nothing, maybe mentioned once by Madam President as yet another example of those who are against progress trying to attack the messenger when they can’t defeat the message.
The first quote comes off as “providing context”… like, “when I was a Senator, I thought differently and voted differently, but my experience since then, especially as Secretary of State, led me to create a different opinion.”
That seems like the simplest explanation and thus how my uninformed mind works when I see 2 incompatible statements.
So, what’s the verdict? Was she saying the first quote to trumpet her record of building a wall or to provide background context of how her opinion has changed?
(Regardless, she’s unethical slime that simply won’t be receiving my vote.)
While I expect the context to be there, context is important. The quote from four months back simply recites her voting record while a senator, which was pre-2009. Her position now is obviously different. Without the context in the quote from 4 months ago, you can’t say that this is a contradiction.
It would be like Marco Rubio saying, “During my time in the Senate, I fought hard for an immigration solution and that solution contained a pathway to citizenship, but I don’t think a pathway to citizenship is the right answer.” Has he contradicted himself in the space of one sentence? No. Not at all.
My view is that this tweet is inconclusive.
-Jut
Obviously, I disagree. If you denigrate the idea of a wall, you don’t highlight voting for one. Here’s her full quote, in response to a question about illegal immigration:
I don’t see how you can read that as anything but an endorsement of building a wall.
I don’t read that as anything but endorsement for building a wall.
But that was not in the tweet. The tweet did not connect all the dots and, as a lawyer, I am going to be skeptical of any picture that is incomplete.
Like I said, “context is important” — right after I said, “I expect the context to be there.” That may have been bias on my part, but it is bias based upon ample life experiences. Or, maybe it is prejudice. Or maybe just a very good, educated guess.
-Jut
The tweet included the link to the speech.
Maybe that passes on a technicality.
At any rate, Twitter is a bad medium for engaging in substantive political analysis.
No wonder Trump is so adept at using it. He can easily use 140 character to say nothing (and it won’t let him say anything substantive).
-Jut
I sure agree with all of that.
A “barrier” does not constitute a “wall”. It could mean several different things. She is supporting efforts to control our borders as well as how to deal with those that have already crossed into our country.
I interpret her second quote as saying we have more important issues to deal with than “talking about a wall” or “things that were said or done years ago”. Instead of flapping their lips about things without any substantial ways to achieve them, including but not limited to the size of one’s genitals, let’s hear some real ideas of how to handle foreign relations and income inequality.
That was a Clintonian spin job if I ever heard one: kudos. “I was talking about a barrier, not a wall. Talking about a wall is wrong. Talking about a barrier is responsible.”
Ok. If you say so.
If it ends up being Hillary v Donald, for all of the complaining I hear against both candidates, you would think a 3rd party candidate could win in a landslide. Political Democracy makes almost no sense to me anymore. It works well on issues where people vote for or against a change in law….but for politicians – it’s broken.
I believe you often have over a hundred names on the list at a Presidential election? Is there a sane one there, does anyone know?
Jack, I wish someone without an ax to grind could explain the significance of the Clinton’s “tech guy” being immunized to someone (me) who’s never practiced criminal law or been an AUSA or a prosecutor. It has to mean a great deal, but I’m not sure. Also, could you lay out fully and in detail what you’ve concluded from what you’ve heard around D.C. regarding the investigation.
It could mean a lot, and it could mean nothing. Some lawyers tell their clients not to volunteer any information and to take the 5th just in case, no matter what. That could be the case here. Or, the guy really knows something that could be a smoking gun. My guess is that the FBI just wants to dot the i of talking to him and finding out what they can find out.
We already know that Clinton knowingly passed on top secret intel using an unsecured server, that she knew she was breaking policy by doing so, and that she has lied in multiple ways.
http://www.epictimes.com/2016/03/hillary-clinton-campaign-unfazed-by-fbi-investigation/
Sounds like it’s nothing.
Wait, you doubt the DC buzz, but believe Hillary’s campaign? A definition of “gross negligence” from one SCOTUS decision (When? About what?) is useless, not even worth referring to. Clinton knew the information was classified and knowingly placed it at risk for her own advantage. That’s not negligence.
I always doubt uncited “buzz.” Who said what and when and where did that person say it? Right now there’s nothing even remotely solid out there now except nebulous mentions like the investigation will wrap up soon, the report will say something of substance, etc.
Don’t be offended at this comparison, but ten (!) years ago a Federal prosecutor by the name of Fitzpatrick was generating a lot of buzz in the news by digging deep into the Valerie Plame affair. The buzz said that he was going to get an indictment against Karl Rove and other senior figures, and possibly deal the GWB presidency a blow from which it would never recover. The liberal chattering class was so gleeful about it they referred to it as a “Fitzmas” that would deliver them all the presents they wanted.
The rest is history, but suffice it to say the Red Ryder BB gun turned out to be a lame sweater as only Scooter Libby was indicted, and only for lying under oath during the investigation, not any underlying offense, in essence, a Martha Stewart verdict (another example of an attempt to destroy a high-profile figure that fell well short of its promise). I can also throw out Dan Rather and Mary Mapes’ attempts to show misconduct on the part of GWB during his time with the Texas ANG, but the comparison isn’t the same since that only involved a news story and not a criminal prosecution. I could also throw out George Plimpton’s severe embarrassment at the big build-up to opening Al Capone’s vault to find…nothing.
My main point is that these stories that have a big build-up or promise almost always fall short of that promise, and very rarely does a scrappy reporter who wants to speak truth to power or Boy Scout-like prosecutor who takes his oath of office super-seriously actually destroy a powerful public figure. I think it’s more likely that this is going to turn out, like the Plame affair, to be a lot of sizzle, but in the end very little steak, and the only folks still talking about it later are going to be the Tea Party true believers, same as the far-left true believers are the only ones still talking about Plame.