Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Authentic Frontier Gibberish In Defense Of Hillary

Gabby Johnson for head of the DNC!

Gabby Johnson for head of the DNC!

I am going to add “authentic frontier gibberish” (or AFG ) to the Ethics Alarms glossary of special terms. It comes, of course, from a memorable moment in “Blazing Saddles,” but on Ethics Alarms it is usually used to describe either intentional or incompetent blather from politicians or others attempting to confuse the public, duck a question, or mislead everyone. It is deliberate communication malpractice, with the motive of not communicating but pretending to.

Seldom will you encounter a more ringing example of AFG than the foregoing. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a master at AFG,  was asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace why she called the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s possible national security violations in her handling of official e-mails “ludicrous.”

Here was her response…

WALLACE: I — I want to talk about one last subject with you congresswoman. You have dismissed the idea that Hillary Clinton could face any legal troubles over her private e-mail server as, quote, “ludicrous.” How do you know that?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I — I’m simply confident that as the investigation continues that Hillary Clinton has made it clear and there are scores of individuals who are associated with the federal government that have indicated that it’s clear that she conducted herself completely legally, that she was able to use private e-mail just like previous Republican and Democratic secretaries of state and I think that —

WALLACE: Well —

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: At the end of the day, this is going to amount to nothing more than an investigation when they take a close look. I think she’s going to be fine.

WALLACE: Well — well — well, I — the — the reason I ask is, the FBI has dozens of agents who have been investigating this issue for months. And just this week, FBI Director James Comey said that this could go on well past — or at least past the Democratic convention in July. You know there’s got to be something there that they’re investigating. Are you saying it’s all a waste of time?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I’m — I’m not commenting on it one way or the other, other than to say that it is ludicrous to keep raising —

WALLACE: Well — well, wait a minute. You have. You said it’s ludicrous.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Yes, and I’m going to say it again, it’s ludicrous to keep raising the — the question of whether this plays out to an end — an unfortunate end. She’s — Hillary Clinton has released 55,000 pages of e-mails. She — the — it — has provided the most transparency of — of probably any previous presidential candidate in terms of the — the conversations that she’s had as secretary of state, as a public official. It is completely available for perusal by the press and she was doing something and using private e-mail in the same way that previous secretaries of state have — have done and that’s according to the policy that she was allowed to.

WALLACE: But, well, you — well, well, well, you know that’s not true. I mean Hillary — nobody says that’s true. Nobody —

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Other than the privates —

WALLACE: No — no — nobody —

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Other than the private server, right, with the exception —

WALLACE: Well, other than the private server is a big deal and nobody had 30,000 work e-mails on their private server or private e-mail, period. So, I mean, the comparisons to Colin Powell are — I mean that’s just not true, congresswoman.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The compare — you know, it certainly is true because Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, John Kerry all used private e-mail to communicate with their staff. And Hillary Clinton —

WALLACE: Yes, and maybe — maybe a dozen, not 30,000.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I — I — I’m not counting, but over the course of her — of her term she used private e-mail and was allowed to use private e-mail. That’s not in dispute. And she’s released 55,000 pages of e-mails. At the end of the day, this is a distraction because the American people are going to decide who they vote for, for president, based on who they believe is going to continue to move us forward and help everybody who wants to succeed have a fair shot to do so. And what they’re not going to vote on is distractions like this one and they’re certainly not going to choose any one of the Republican candidates who think that we should continue and go back to policies that focus on the wealthiest most fortunate Americans —

WALLACE: Right.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That — that are extreme like Donald Trump suggesting that we’re going to deport 11 million people —

WALLACE: All right, congresswoman —

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Or that we’re going to ban an entire religion from coming into the country.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, we’re —

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That’s the choice.

WALLACE: All right. I — I thank you very much.

To really get the brain-melting brilliance of this, it is  instructive to put all of the Congresswoman’s statements together; it’s not as if she was answering Wallace’s questions anyway:

I — I’m simply confident that as the investigation continues that Hillary Clinton has made it clear and there are scores of individuals who are associated with the federal government that have indicated that it’s clear that she conducted herself completely legally, that she was able to use private e-mail just like previous Republican and Democratic secretaries of state and I think that –At the end of the day, this is going to amount to nothing more than an investigation when they take a close look. I think she’s going to be fine.

I’m not commenting on it one way or the other, other than to say that it is ludicrous to keep raising –Yes, and I’m going to say it again, it’s ludicrous to keep raising the — the question of whether this plays out to an end — an unfortunate end. She’s — Hillary Clinton has released 55,000 pages of e-mails. She — the — it — has provided the most transparency of — of probably any previous presidential candidate in terms of the — the conversations that she’s had as secretary of state, as a public official. It is completely available for perusal by the press and she was doing something and using private e-mail in the same way that previous secretaries of state have — have done and that’s according to the policy that she was allowed to….Other than the privates –Other than the private server, right, with the exception –The compare — you know, it certainly is true because Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, John Kerry all used private e-mail to communicate with their staff. And Hillary Clinton –I — I — I’m not counting, but over the course of her — of her term she used private e-mail and was allowed to use private e-mail. That’s not in dispute. And she’s released 55,000 pages of e-mails. At the end of the day, this is a distraction because the American people are going to decide who they vote for, for president, based on who they believe is going to continue to move us forward and help everybody who wants to succeed have a fair shot to do so. And what they’re not going to vote on is distractions like this one and they’re certainly not going to choose any one of the Republican candidates who think that we should continue and go back to policies that focus on the wealthiest most fortunate Americans –That — that are extreme like Donald Trump suggesting that we’re going to deport 11 million people –Or that we’re going to ban an entire religion from coming into the country…That’s the choice.

It’s really a marvel. In sequence:

  1. The investigation, she is sure, will just be an investigation.
  2. She’s commenting but she’s not going to comment on it “one way or the other.”
  3. Hillary and lots of people say she behaved legally, so its absurd to investigate whether she did.
  4.  Others used private e-mail (repeatedly blurring the crucial distinction between private e-mail, which is careless, and setting up a secret private server for that private e-mail, which is calculated)…
  5.  Right, the private server was different but all these other Secretaries of State did the same thing. Well, right, not the same thing.
  6. She’s counting but she’s not counting.
  7.  Something is not in dispute. (There’s a great song in “The Gondoliers” about a situation in which there is “no possible doubt whatever.”)
  8. Anyway, its not as bad as what Donald Trump is saying.

Now mind you, this issue has been dogging Hillary Clinton for almost a year. She has never dealt honestly with the issues it raises, nor has her various responses varied significantly from her initial spin that what she did was no different from her predecessors (untrue), that she has been transparent throughout (untrue), that she never sent or received classified material (untrue), well, it wasn’t marked classified, so she couldn’t know what was classified (ridiculous, and untrue), and that it wasn’t the best choice (it was the worst choice). Despite this, the head of the DNC couldn’t articulate any coherent defense of Clinton at all, and descended into authentic frontier gibberish.

Wow.

The Clintons’ approach always is to muddy the water so much that the public’s brain hurts trying to understand their various scandals and unethical machinations, but a dim-bulb amateur like Wasserman Schultz blows the plan. When she tries to muddy the water and use double talk, it becomes screamingly obvious that she doesn’t have a defense, and is just lying, spinning and blabbering.

Nobody speaks authentic frontier gibberish who isn’t hiding something. Nobody speaks authentic frontier gibberish like the DNC’s chair, however, who isn’t a rank incompetent hiding something but who isn’t quite sure what.

_____________________

Pointer and Source : Ann Althouse

13 thoughts on “Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Authentic Frontier Gibberish In Defense Of Hillary

  1. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been, currently is, and will likely always be a Liberal political hack. I’m dead certain that being a blatant political hack is a precondition to occupy the position. The same holds true here in Wisconsin and likely across the United States; if these people have any ethics or morals whatsoever they are unqualified to hold the position.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an exceptional example of the root problem in the Democratic Party – moral bankruptcy.

  2. “Yes, and maybe — maybe a dozen, not 30,000.”

    It’s a fun experiment to carry 12 cents in your pocket, and then ask anyone using the “same thing” argument if they’ll give you $21.00 for it.

    “…based on who they believe is going to continue to move us forward….”

    You wish Wallace would have slipped a, “She’ll make the trains run on time, then?” in there, and see if Wasserman-Schultz picked up the allusion to Mussolini or just blathered in agreement.

  3. “WALLACE: Yes, and maybe — maybe a dozen, not 30,000.
    WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I — I — I’m not counting,”

    Because math is hard and I’m a Democrat, dammit.

    Seriously though, I heard the facade crack a little more with those words.

  4. I think her main problem is she’s just not, brightness-wise, in the Paul Begala, Lanny Davis, James Carville, William Jefferson Clinton league. She can’t think her feet. She’s just a talking point reader and sometimes the talking points just kind of get out of order…

    • She’s an idiot, in other words. I concur. But her idiocy also exposes the dishonesty of the talking points. It doesn’t take a lot of intellect to tell the truth, but lying effectively is hard.

      • To me, she is the prototypical “talking points” politician. She embodies all that’s terrible about our current consultant/focus group testing/poll driven political class. She’s the poster girl. I think she’s gotten as far as she has because she’s a bull dog. You can wind her up and she goes in the direction she’s pointed in and just keeps going. No self reflection, no doubt, no conscience. Just “Tell me what to say and I’ll say it.” I’m sure she thinks she’s really good because she always stays “on message.” A high school buddy of mine in Miami, near her district, calls her “The Shrew.” But seriously, I think the Democratic higher ups lover her. To them she’s just ground troops, canon fodder. Send her out there. If she gets obliterated, so what? As a phenomenon, she’s incredibly cynical.

        I like the DWS thing. I thought it meant Dancing With the Stars at first.

    • I don’t doubt that you’re wrong, I’m just shaking my head wondering how someone like that climbs to heights like she has. She hits me as the kind of person who would debate like a dumpster fire, who was she up against?

      • This really bothered me, so I went to look:

        “In 2004, Wasserman Schultz’s mentor Peter Deutsch resigned his Congressional seat to make an unsuccessful run for the Senate seat of fellow Democrat Bob Graham. Wasserman Schultz was unopposed in the Democratic primary election held to fill Deutsch’s seat.”

        “On April 5, 2011, Vice President Joe Biden announced that Wasserman Schultz was President Barack Obama’s choice to succeed Tim Kaine as the 52nd Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Until she assumed office, current DNC Vice-Chair Donna Brazile served as the interim Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Wasserman Schultz was confirmed at the meeting of the DNC held on May 4, 2011, in Washington, D.C”

        The answer was: No one! God I love being right.

        • I can’t outline my revulsion of this person enough.

          Awards:
          Crime Fighter of the Year Award,[61] Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), 2008 and 2013
          Giraffe Award, Women’s Advocacy Majority Minority (WAMM), 1993
          Outstanding Family Advocacy award, Dade County Psychol. Assn., 1993
          Rosemary Barkett award, Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, 1995
          Woman of the Year, AMIT, 1994
          Outstanding Legislator of the year, Florida Federation of Business & Professional Women, 1994
          Quality Floridian, Florida League of Cities, 1994
          Woman of Vision, Weizmann Institute of Science
          One of Six Most Unstoppable Women, South Florida Magazine, 1994

          What, exactly, would she have gotten without her vagina?

  5. Gad, at least Gabby’s gibberish was entertaining. I tried reading what DWS said there, to Wallace, and it made my eyes hurt (first), then, my head. If you ask me, what she says is more like authentic alternate universe gibberish.

  6. Gad. Hillary’s appearance of lawbreaking is a “distraction,” DWS says. That is one of the least clever attempted mind-tricking ways of saying (1) the ends justify the means, and (2) “nobody gives a fart” [anyway] (i.e., the Begala dismissal), that I have read or heard a Clinton or Clinton supporter utter.

  7. This is one of those times when you wish an interviewer wasn’t bound by time constraints. It reads like he was getting close to wearing her down and sending her into an epileptic fit.

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.