While the news media has been almost totally focused on Donald Trump’s misogyny, alreday well-established long but somehow decisively important once it was in full display from the video of a private exchange from 11 years ago, revelations about his opponent’s character and modes of operation have also been trickling out into view, and receiving far less attention from either journalists or voters.
They have also exposed many of Clinton’s lies. For example, after posturing about Trump’s birtherism and claiming that his defense that Clinton led the way in 2008 with planting conspiracy theories to otherize Obama, this ugly email, surfaced from the 2008 Clinton campaign, including John Podesta and Paul Begala on the distribution list. It strongly suggest that an attack on Obama’s religion and citizenship was part of the strategy to defeat him, as well as using his alleged use of illegal drugs and support for gay adoption as ammunition.
The 2013 Goldman-Sachs speeches that Clinton received $675,000 to give to the investment companies have turned up, thanks to Wikileaks. More revealed files from the FBI have cast suspicion on the process whereby Clinton was cleared of criminal misconduct in her irregular handling of official e-mails.
Other documents have indicated that the federal government, “supported by tax dollars,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it, was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department seems to have coordinated with her staff to blunt the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.
Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, also facilitated Clinton’s use of her official influence to provide special favors to Clinton Foundation donors. For example, in one series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Hillary Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs).
The leaks show “that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket,” writes Kimberly Strassle at the WSJ. Donna Brazile, now DNC chair, sent the exact wording of a CNN town hall question to Hillary ahead of a scheduled debate. Other journalists gave the Clinton campaign the power to veto which quotes were used from interviews, helped facilitate press events, and offered advice to her campaign.
Less surprising but arguably more damaging if the average voter knew, the various leaks, e-mails and speeches reveal a candidate with little integrity and few core principles, an opportunistic policy Janus who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. She told an audience that she believes in giving the voters one position while holding different ones, and has taken such dual positions on banks; international policies, trade, illegal immigration, energy, and more. Though many of the leaked e-mails reveal views of her staff that are only attributed to Hillary, it is likely that the voluminous discussions among Clinton’s advisors about what false rhetoric she should use to recruit “the Red Army,” also called “the base of the Democratic Party.” are not inconsistent with her own attitudes.
All of this, and more is on the way, does not show an individual with Donald Trump’s repulsive narcissism and contempt for a full half of the world’s population, but does show Clinton to be, like Trump, untrustworthy, dishonest, corrupt, ruthless, and shameless. Unlike Trump, it reveals an individual addicted to showing the public a completely different political being than she really is.
Strassle concludes her summary by saying that “Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it.”
So I wonder…what if, rather than requiring explanation, analysis, extrapolation, and connecting the dots, and without being marred by over-reaching and biased exaggerations of already damaging evidence by right-wing, Hillary-hating zealots, visual and audible smoking gun proof of Clinton’s lies, false poses and corruption was exposed to the nation?
I now present this hypothetical as a thought experiment:
James O’Keefe’s Mission Impossible Accomplished
James O’Keefe, assisted by a secret multi-million dollar gift from Donald Trump, pulls off the sting of his life. An actress-associate is trained over many months to know every available detail of the relationship between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton and their work together. Hacking into communications between them, O’Keefe learns of a half-day private meeting between the two, its time, place and agenda, which is wide-ranging. As the meeting approaches, Huma is lured to a place where she is drugged and secreted safely. (The drug used is an amnesia-inducing hypnotic agent: when she awakens, she has no memory of what happened to her, and is found wandering, confused but unharmed, in Central Park.)
While Clinton’s top aide is under wraps, O’Keefe’s actress associate meets with Hillary, disguised as Huma, using a “Mission Impossible”-style mask, make-up and voice-simulator, for more than four hours, with every minute surreptitiously recorded and videotaped. On the video, Clinton talks frankly about many things, and since she is drinking wine during the latter part of the session, becomes increasingly voluble and candid as the meeting goes on.
She never suspects a thing.
The content of Clinton’s remarks to the fake Abedin is stunning, to say the least. Among the “bombshells,” pulled out of her by the Huma-doppleganger’s deft questioning…
- That she knew the risks her handling of her e-mails posed to national security, but felt it was worth it to hide possibly damaging communications from discovery.
- That she destroyed many of the e-mails she claimed were “private” because they were potential evidence of official wrongdoing.
- “Thank God Loretta took the deal we offered her, but she owes Bill big time. Pretty slick the way she handed off her agreement to Bill when they shook hands on her airplane.”
- That she facilitated favors and official benefits from the State Department in exchange for large gifts from individual donors, corporations and foreign governments.
- That the Democratic National Committee had coordinated with her since 2014 to ensure her nomination, and later, to defeat Bernie Sanders, whom she regarded as “an old fool.”
- That she used back channels to major reporters, columnists and broadcast media figures as ” a main line of defense” against accountability for any of her machinations, and as insurance that negative information about her would be spun, buried, or ignored.
- That her health has been much worse than reported, and that she would count on Bill, and to a lesser extent, Tim Kaine to be shadow presidents when she was incapacitated.
- Statements about the public and Democrats being gullible and ignorant; Obama being “a weenie” and a “pompous ass”; about men being “a sub-species”; about climate change being a useful wedge issue but that “there’s really not much we can or should do about it right now.”
- Negative comments about Black Lives Matter, and this: “What we have to do is get the blacks to vote for us, and then crack down on all their crap before the cities turn into ‘Mad Max.'”
- That Bill’s “pussy-chasing” still haunts her; that she wished she could just make “that bitch that Bill raped” Juanita Broaddrick “disappear,” that anyone who would vote for Trump over her is a “mouth-breathing, drooling redneck moron,” and
- “It’s incredible, really. I can get away with almost anything, just like Bill. They can’t touch me, and won’t touch me. They say I think laws are for the little people. Well, they are right about that…the little, poor, ordinary, pathetic people who don’t know their ass from their elbows. And once I’m President, it will be even better.”
O’Keefe releases the video on YouTube, after sending it to major news organizations and political websites.
What would happen?
Would the mainstream news media treat this video with the saturation coverage that the NBC tape has received?
Would the news media attack the methods by which the video was obtained as a deflection?
Would Clinton apologize for her comments, or come up with an explanation, such as that she knew the “Huma” was a fake, and having fun giving her the kind of admission O’Keefe was after. “I guess I got carried away a bit, and I’m sorry about that. It wasn’t the best way to handle it. But I was joking, obviously.”
Would the mainstream media support that explanation? Which journalists and publications would, if not all of them?
Would the Washington Post moderate or retract its endorsement that stated,
“There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the ballot. Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.” ?
Would any publication retract its endorsement? Any prominent columnists? Which ones?
Would any prominent Democrat publicly condemn Clinton’s words and admitted conduct, or retract his or her support?
What would Elizabeth Warren say in response? Bernie Sanders? Barack Obama?
Would a significant number of Hillary voters switch their preference to Trump? Would any?
Would it change a thing?
56 thoughts on “Exploring Double Standards In The 2016 Election, A Hypothetical Thought Experiment For Ethics Alarms Readers”
Where would this body snatching doppelganger charade leave us? If all this came out, and Trump and Hillary were the only options on the ballot, what would happen? What could happen? How late could a party retract its endorsed candidate? If Hillary were indicted on November 7th, would states allow the Democratic Party to register Kaine at the last minute as a right in? If Trump were indicted (for any number of unsurprising only recently publicly revealed issue, would the Republics be allowed to add Pence as a right in? If either party ponied up the cash, could millions of ballots be reprinted over night? Would such a rapid rewrite of the ballot be itself a constitutional crisis? These are not ordinary times, and because of that, we need to think through these issues especially hard to produce the most ethical solution, lest we settle for half-assed rationalized responses; that would, indeed, be the worst< thing.
My guess: The news media would minimize coverage, the Democrats wouldn’t have a single defector, and Hillary’s corrupted voters wouldn’t care. It would lower turnout, but not the results.
As with Trump, nothing in the revelations would be out of character or convey new information.
What if O’keefe’s actress and Huma body double was only meeting with Hillary’s supposed body double?
Hadn’t considered that one. That’s probably going to be Hillary’s defense.
You don’t even need to go there, Jack. It just occurred to me that there was an awful lot of overreaction on the left when Trump said during the last debate that he would like to throw Hillary in jail over her poor handling of classified information. How many of those out there on the left called for George W Bush and officials of his administration to be impeached and jailed over the handling of the Iraq War? That’s what I thought. If there were no such things as double standards the left would have no standards at all. This is what we’re being sold and this is what we’re buying hook, line and sinker. I can buy someone casting a vote for Hillary because she isn’t Trump, although I won’t do it myself, but anyone who actually has a positive view of Hillary and views her as some kind of saint of feminism or Geena Davis-style noble figure is a complete and total idiot. We may avoid becoming a nation of assholes, but being a nation of idiots is only marginally better.
The latest example of the phenomenon you cite is the freak-out over Trump’s claims that the election might be “rigged.” It is irresponsible, of course, and dangerous, to talk like that, but this didn’t stop Democrats from using the accusation that Bush was “selected not elected” for four years, and to claim that ‘stolen votes” in Ohio robbed Kerry of victory. Democrats broke the that trust barrier for political gain—they are ethically estopped from screaming about Trump continuing what they started, as wrong as it is.
The list goes on and on, Jack. Julian Assange was a First Amendment hero when he was leaking information about the Iraq War and other activities during the GWB administration. Now that he’s leaking embarrassing stuff on Hillary, he’s suddenly a crackpot and possibly a tool of the Russians. Every woman who cries sexual assault has a right to be believed…until she accuses Bill, then she’s either a slut or a nut. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who dropped out of the Republican party to put them briefly in the minority, was a profile in courage, and so was Arlen Specter, who switched to give the Dems a veto-proof majority (and try to save his own political skin), but Joe Lieberman, who kept on running as an independent after the Democratic primary chose someone else, was a turncoat. Dissenting and protesting by the left was patriotic under GWB, but dissent by the right is now racist and will soon be declared sexist. That’s not even touching the much larger question of the left getting foursquare behind Obama’s undeclared war in Libya and Bill’s wag-the-dog adventures in the Balkans and accusing both Bushes and their administrations of war crimes for Iraq and Afghanistan (I think they mostly stayed quiet on Panama [remember?]because it was over Christmas, over quickly with minimal losses, and the violent revolution in Romania dominated the headlines), which is an insult to the few principled peaceful people in this world.
I could keep going, but I think I’ve made my point. It goes back to the six basic truths I outlined earlier this year:
1., and most important: People are BIASED. They know what they like, they know what they want, and very little is going to change that. Those voting for Hillary want Hillary, and they wanted Obama, and they wanted Kerry, and Gore, and so on. Nothing will change that.
2. People are partisan and will cherry pick favorable facts, ignore unfavorable ones, and twist themselves up into logical pretzels to support their side.
3,4. This is bolstered by the next two basic truths: people are lazy and arrogant. They aren’t interested in actually finding out the factual, legal, or other bases for any opposition to their side, because it takes effort, and they do not care, because they believe they are smarter, better, and RIGHT, so nothing else is necessary.
5,6. This leads to the last 2 basic truths: People are immature and hateful, so, when they can get away with it, they express their opinions in sophomoric, unfunny, and often downright cruel ways, or they respond to those they don’t agree with by simply slinging insults.
People are generally rotten , it just takes big events like this to bring it out, when people think they can get away with it because their like-minded friends will back them, or anger or passion makes them turn off their filters.
A seventh basic truth emerges from this. People are hypocritical, and will act horrified when their own unethical tactics are turned on them as set forth above. If Hillary’s health should give out on her while she is in office and the right pokes fun at or celebrates it, or even raises a concern, you can bet your bookshelf that the same folks on the left who laughed when GWB choked on a pretzel as thousands of football fans do each season, who sneered when his dad suffered from food poisoning in Japan, and laughed and poked fun when Reagan , who was only slightly older when he was sworn in than Hillary will be, seemed to be slipping mentally, will unleash their most vicious attacks.
This nation stopped all being on the same team with the end of the Cold War, and the Democrats put together a winning team who are vested in seeing this nation lose. If you think Trump’s a whacko and Hillary less so, go ahead and cast your vote, but understand you’re also affirming all these double standards and rotten truths.
“You don’t even need to go there, Jack. It just occurred to me that there was an awful lot of overreaction on the left when Trump said during the last debate that he would like to throw Hillary in jail over her poor handling of classified information. How many of those out there on the left called for George W Bush and officials of his administration to be impeached and jailed over the handling of the Iraq War? That’s what I thought. If there were no such things as double standards the left would have no standards at all.”
Which Democrat presidential candidate has ever said Bush should be impeached and jailed?
So far, none. I said those out there on the left, meaning the endless parade of idiots on DailyKos, Moveon, and so forth, not to mention folks like Dennis Kucinich, who DID actually go so far as to introduce articles of impeachment. Although social media hadn’t quite taken off in 03-04, websites had. Hell, even on artist websites I followed the “Off Topic” board was filled to the brim with idiotic comments about the movement to impeach and how Bush would be brought down. These are the same people who are all in a tizzy about Trump saying the same thing about their goddess that they said about the other side’s guy 12 years ago. Don’t play games, Chris, or you’re just showing yourself to be one of those folks trying to duck, twist, and cover legitimate criticism.
“These are the same people who are all in a tizzy about Trump saying the same thing about their goddess that they said about the other side’s guy 12 years ago.”
Is it fair to hold a presidential candidate to a higher standard of behavior than random Internet commenters? You don’t really think doing so constitutes a “double standard,” do you?
Bob and weave, baby, bob and weave. Are you going to engage or try to refute any of my main points about double standards, or just keep trying to change the subject?
A candidate is supposed to stand for his constituency, and I know there are tons of folks on the right who have said Hillary belongs in jail. Comey made a pretty good case for it before he did a 180 and said he wouldn’t recommend charges. The fact that Trump actually said what these folks believe doesn’t mean there was any other standard, any more than if Hillary or Obama had said what a lot of their base believes about Bush. Seriously, where are you going with this game of cherry-pick and parse?
“Bob and weave, baby, bob and weave. Are you going to engage or try to refute any of my main points about double standards”
I literally just did that. I said that it’s not a double standard to expect a presidential candidate to be more responsible and careful with his words than the rabble. You seem to disagree. That’s OK.
Chris said, I literally just did that. I said that it’s not a double standard to expect a presidential candidate to be more responsible and careful with his words than the rabble.”
Liar. What you “literally just did” was to ask two questions, you offered no opinion, just innuendo.
State your opinion.
Ok. I asked two rhetorical questions, the meaning of which was pretty obvious:
Is it fair to hold a presidential candidate to a higher standard of behavior than random Internet commenters? You don’t really think doing so constitutes a “double standard,” do you?
Then, because the implied meaning was lost on Steve, I stated my opinion, which is:
it’s not a double standard to expect a presidential candidate to be more responsible and careful with his words than the rabble.
The implied meaning was not lost on me. I see no double standard in a presidential candidate saying what’s already known to be the position of the “rabble” that form his constituency, and I think that party can be specifically “tagged” with that position unless the leaders or the candidates repudiate it. In all fairness, Nancy P. did say she wasn’t going to try for impeachment of GWB, although she did not have the numbers to carry it anyway in 2007. By 2009, when the Democratic Party could have convicted, GWB was out of office, and so couldn’t be impeached. But I DO wonder what if the Democrats had the numbers in 2007?
Chris said, “Ok. I asked two rhetorical questions, the meaning of which was pretty obvious..”
I wouldn’t have written what I did if you hadn’t written “I literally just did that” (bold emphasis mine). Your choice of words and I took it literally since that’s exactly what you told people to do. Are we supposed to interrupt “literally” as meaning something other than “literally”? 😉
Well, you got me there, Zoltar. In this case, you may interpret “You are being deliberately obtuse” as “You are being deliberately obtuse.”
Chris said, “In this case, you may interpret “You are being deliberately obtuse” as “You are being deliberately obtuse.” Literally.”
I point out the facts surrounding what you wrote and somehow I’m being “deliberately obtuse”; I state facts, you get personal, nice.
If I had time I would write a whole essay about how when the apex of the political system comes loose and loses its legitimacy the whole system can start to fall apart. We saw it in England, when Henry IV’s pushing out the Plantagenets by force led to the Wars of the Roses, the succession of three royal houses, and finally the destruction of the monarchy (briefly). We saw it in France, which has been through, hmmmm, two monarchies, two empires and FIVE republics to our ONE civil war. We saw it in Spain, where a crumbling monarchy that was allowed to fall into ruin led to a very ugly civil war and forty years of dictatorship that would have become many more if Franco’s chosen successor hadn’t been assassinated. Then we could get into the more obscure stuff like Italy’s difficult unification and struggle with fascism and Poland’s deliberately weak Diet which eventually led to it disappearing from the map. I’m not saying we’re headed there yet, but if the fish keeps rotting from the head down, we could see the end of this nation’s days as the premier power in the world.
My take on each of your final questions follow:
I don’t think any reasoning person who has followed the elections believe they would. They would cover it of course, I expect for about a week, but it would they would point out, somewhat accurately, that most of this was already “known” or suspected by the electorate, thus “baked in” to her numbers. That would morph into “nothing really new here. Moving along.”
Absolutely, and not just because they are Democrats with bylines. Anyone not in their clique is not a journalist by their collective lights, and hence cannot be trusted to report the truth. Their already low ideological opinion of O’Keefe would goad them to making a fairly strident attack on his methods, and by extension, O’Keefe himself, including suggestions of illegality and calls for investigations.
I doubt she would apologize. She would argue that the tape was dubbed and edited, that context was omitted, that she never actually said or meant any of those things, and that we can’t possibly trust a guy like O’Keefe not to make all this look way, way worse than it actually was. And the left would believe her, the moderates would shrug or throw up their hands, the Republicans would launch outraged tirades that sound a lot like the ones today, and nothing much would change.
Some would. Others wouldn’t but would offer alternatives seemingly just as plausible and with the same end result.
They would probably modify it with a milquetoast reproof consisting of “O’Keefe is too slimy to believe, but if true, these are troubling comments. But she’s still the best qualified, so we have to endorse her, even if somewhat less enthusiastically.”
Several, probably, but not many. Most likely the Arizona Republic, the Dallas Morning News, and a couple of others, but none of them would change their endorsement to Trump. Columnists? A few, not sure who. Dorothy Rabinowitz, perhaps.
Yes, probably one or two would voice disapproval of her comments with the “if true” caveat and an attack on O’Keefe, and a couple of back-benchers would withdraw their support in hopes of gaining a following of their own. But I doubt any prominent Democrats would. Most of them would call for O’Keefe’s head.
I suspect all of them would disapprove, but none of them would do so with any real gusto. Most of them would accept the explanation that this was O’Keefe, and his work is not to be trusted by anybody. Hence, her explanation must be believed, however far-fetched.
No, and yes. The number of both would be insignificantly small.
In the end, this would end up as another attempt to assassinate a messenger who, to be fair, has a clear partisan agenda and whom the press and Democrats loathe almost as much as Donald Trump or any other Republican. So it would be a no-holds-barred assault on O’Keefe including many calls for his arrest and prosecution, First Amendment be damned.
The end result would be no significant effect on Hillary’s support.
They would cover it no doubt, but with extremely crafted language and they would be particularly selective about what revealed details are covered.
Selecting the “softest” or the “easiest” points of contention, focusing on those for a few days in very well worded obfuscating (?) language. Then they’d find anything else to cover and divert attention to that. Then all the reliable lefties on here can then say “but the media covered this!”.
Nothing would change
The Clinton political machine has been engaged; Clinton will be our next President and I firmly believe that nothing politically can stop it.
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
This is way too cynical for me. Yes, if Hillary Clinton talked like a cartoon supervillain, that would change my impression of her. If she was caught on tape admitting that her husband raped Juanita Broaddrick and that she helped cover it up, not only would that definitely fall under the category of “new information,” it would change my opinion of her, and I think it would change most Hillary supporters’ opinion of her. (And yes, I think the same would be true of Trump supporters if he was caught on tape admitting to an actual rape, not the “grab ’em by the *****” comments which at least have SOME level of plausible deniability.)
(Also, Jack, this article was a mess when I read it last night. Sentence structure errors, spelling errors and repeated phrases out the wazoo. You might want to look it over again if you haven’t done so already.)
Thanks…I’ll check. I was writing while being yelled at. Always a problem..
HOLY CRAP! I’m so sorry, and thanks for the flag. That may have been a record; I’m pretty sure the first section was from my rough draft, and somehow ended up in the post. Inexcusable, and embarrassing. “Mess” was too kind.
I think I got everything, which means I almost certainly didn’t.
The point is to have visual confirmation of what most of us already know and expect, as with Trump’s NBC tape. If that scenario was possible, I’m pretty sure the illegal aspect of O’Keefe’s sting would be the focus of the media and Clinton’s defense.
The quotes aren’t any more unlikely than what we have seen in other stings. The Planned Parenthood tapes showed officials taking about embryos like they were ground beef, and because the right-wing media focused on a dubious organ-selling theory rather than what the videos actually showed, and the illegal nature of the recordings, the story was effectively buried.
“If she was caught on tape admitting that her husband raped Juanita Broaddrick and that she helped cover it up, not only would that definitely fall under the category of “new information,” it would change my opinion of her, and I think it would change most Hillary supporters’ opinion of her.”
I don’t believe this at all. “We’re not electing Bill” would be the reflex response, as well as “It’s in the past, move on,” and “she didn’t mean “rape rape.”
So Chris, just to understand, you’d change your mind about HRC if you saw Jack’s hypothetical tape but none of the information he’s cataloged above gives you any pause? All of that information can be discounted or explained away?
A lot of it gives me pause. I don’t know if any of it can be discounted or explained away.
As a paid operative of the Clinton campaign,I haven’t yet received my marching ordersread enough about the issues Jack raised to know for certain. There are many, many problems I have with Clinton.
I don’t doubt her basic suitability for the office, despite the rather legitimate charges of corruption.
If she were caught on tape admitting to covering up a rape, I would absolutely concede that she was not fit for the office.
Fascinating that you would pick that one rather than the direct interference with the FBI investigation….
That’s a degree of corruption I can fathom, Jack, and even overlook if it means keeping Trump from the White House. Helping cover up a spouse’s rape isn’t just corrupt and dishonest; it’s monstrous.
Perhaps I didn’t make this clear: I would still NOT vote for Trump over Clinton after seeing this hypothetical video. None of it makes him more acceptable.
I think you left out a “not” in there, Jack.
GAH!!!! Thanks. A rather crucial omission…
Got my attention.
Perhaps I didn’t make this clear: I would still NOT vote for Trump over Clinton after seeing this hypothetical video. None of it makes him more acceptable.
No, I got that. I just thought it was important to note that I,
a paid operative of the Clinton campaign,would not vote for her if a video like this came out. But then I’m looking at it from the perspective of someone who thinks such a video would never come out, since I don’t believe Hillary Clinton talks like this; you seem to believe she does, so this wouldn’t change your already very low opinion of her.
Hillary, by many accounts, is as potty-mouthed as Nixon behind closed doors and with associates. As long as it isn’t in public, that’s not of any concern to me at all.
Potty mouth or not, Chris, do you think she talked to Goldman Sachs the way it’s now been been reported? I think “Janus” was Jack’s term.
Well, all the speeches are online. Does anyone think they aren’t genuine?
I’d encourage you to read up on the issues Jack raised.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think either Trump or HRC are suitable for the office. She (and her husband) comprise the lesser of two very, very undesirable evils.
Great summary of HRC and her crew, Jack. You’ve covered all the recent developments in a single post rather than ten or eleven as these things have come out over the last few weeks and gone largely ignored by the media.
Query: Would the supposed conversation occur in bed while Bill and Anthony are off getting it somewhere else?
Probably in bed, but Weiner would be too busy with his teenage cyber-pal.
I’ve just been struck lately by the thought that if either of William Jefferson Clinton’s or Anthony Weiner’s wives liked guys, both of WJC and AW might be less likely to cause such a ruckus looking elsewhere for sex. Or even affection. Just seems ironic the women are likely a large contributor to their husbands’ peccadilloes. Just more “
Ooops, Got cut off. Wanted to add, “Just another example of the ‘Just ignore what’s happening behind the curtain’ stuff from the Clinton machine.
Except that I set the Ethics Alarms record for typos, mistakes and confused sentence structure. I’m glad you were able to figure out what I was writing, but I apologize profusely.
Guess I don’t notice the typos any more. Kind of like reverse dyslexia?
Or maybe that was meant for Chris and I read a later cleaned up edition. Sorry.
Boy, that’s depressing. I’ve conditioned readers to my typos. I’m defenestrating myself now…
I noticed a few, but I didn’t dare say anything, since I dislike anything that could be perceived as a public slam but isn’t substantive.
Hah. Give yourself a break. You’re a one man band. A one armed paper hanger. Hire a free intern. From a journalism school. They might learn something proofing your output.
Wow, you jumped the shark with this one Jack. Those are a lot of assumptions that you just made about Clinton, and note that several of your readers have accepted these as truths. Meanwhile, on another thread from today about the young black female ob-gyn, the whole point of the essay and the comments is that leaping to these types of assumptions without proof is dangerous to the very fabric of society.
But I will answer your hypothetical. The media would be all over it — their goal is to make money, and a story like this would be too juicy to ignore. Just imagine all the clicks and resulting ad revenue! It would be like the Lewinsky scandal all over again — the “leftist” media had no problem covering that on a daily basis.
It’s a hypothetical. I didn’t say I believed all, most or any of the things “Hillary” admits to Huma. I think some of them are true, like the illicit coordination with the media, that Hillary was avoiding FOIA and that her foundation is for influence peddling—I think the evidence on these scores are overwhelming. I’m also certain that she helped cover up Bill sexual messes. Do I believe she made a deal with Lynch? No. Two far, two risky. Would she use vulgar language like that? All reports are that she does. So what? I do strongly suspect that she does not support all or even most of Obama’s policies. We know she talks out of both sides of her mouth.
The point is that if there was video evidence of all the worst anyone suspected about Hillary, how would Democrats and the news media react? The specifics aren’t the point, and I made that clear enough.
And your answer is mistaken: the Lewinsky situation had an ongoing investigation behind it, there wasn’t an election going on, Donald Trump wasn’t involved, and the news media is about 200% less professional and more partisan now than it was then. You can’t assume that the reaction would be the same.
Remember the Weiner scandal? That was recent. It was covered in depth by the media.
Yes, sex combined with an ironic name and a local politician will always get coverage: same with Eliot Spitzer. But they aren’t Ethics Corrupters, already role models and icons.
You’re just wrong Jack. Sex scandals always sell.
S, the news media still has never seriously covered Broaddrick. There have been random stories here and there, one recently in the Times. Nothing like the carpet bombing Trump sexual assaults coverage. I’m stunned that among the hypothetical admissions, the one about Bill’s conduct is what stands out for you. I’m sure Hillary would say she was just fooling around, kidding, and the news media would accept that.
Actually, I didn’t say that — I think any of your hypotheticals would be juicy. We then got on the sex tangent.