Ethics Verdict: Hillary Clinton Is The Worst Loser In US Presidential History (PART II)

You read PART I here.
As I was saying…
Following Clinton’s invention of a fake reason for her defeat for New York Magazine readers, she told Wellesley grads,

“When people in power invent their own facts and attack those who question them, it can mark the beginning of the end of a free society,” Clinton said. “That is not hyperbole, it is what authoritarian regimes throughout history have done.”

OK, technically Hillary is not in power, even though she says she won the election. Nonetheless, she is throwing around alternative facts like confetti. The news media was biased against her. “Voter suppression” cost her Wisconsin. My personal favorite was when she gave the cheering, indoctrinated Wellesley fems the alternative history that Richard Nixon was impeached. No, Hillary, your husband was impeached. Nixon had the requisite respect for the office to resign.

Yet I was willing to let bygones be bygones and let all of this go, until yesterday’s head-blowing interview. At Politico, another Hillary booster during the campaign, it was written that while Hillary “made a point to say that she took responsibility for her campaign and ‘every choice’ she made,” she then proceeded to blame everything and everyone else for her fate. This has been her pattern since the Benghazi hearings. Clinton uses some bizarre definitions of “accountability” and “responsibility” that allow her to believe she is being accountable while maintaining that nothing was her fault.

I’ll highlight her most outrageous statements yesterday, noting that neither of her interviewers had the professionalism or integrity to say, “Wait, WHAT???”

“[T]he use of my email account was turned into the biggest scandal since lord knows when. And you know, in the book I’m just using everything that anybody else said about it besides me to basically say this was the biggest nothing-burger ever. It was a mistake, I’ve said it was a mistake, and obviously if I could turn the clock back, I wouldn’t have done it in the first place, but the way that it was used was very damaging. Well, if you went all the way back, doing something that others had done before was no longer acceptable in the new environment in which we found ourselves. And there was no law against it, there was no rule, nothing of that sort. So I didn’t break any rule, nobody said, “Don’t do this,” and I was very responsible and not at all careless. So you end up with a situation that is then exploited, and very effectively, for adverse political reasons. And it was maddening, because in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, it’s hard to stop and say, “Wait a minute, what you think you know about this is not accurate, let me tell you.”

KABOOM!

Speaking of Big Lies…Clinton is even lying about her lies, and going back in time to repeat her false denials when the secret server story broke in 2015. I’m not going to re-hash why her e-mail machinations were unethical and incompetent, how we know that they violated her own department’s policy, and how the “it was done before” and “it was just a mistake” are transparently false. I made myself nauseous writing about it: you can look up the posts and all the supporting links if you have a masochistic streak. But for Clinton still to be selling this spin to misrepresent her deliberately endangering U.S. security so she could hide her personal schemes from the Freedom of Information Act is an act of self-parody.

“The other side was using content that was just flat-out false, and delivering it in a very personalized way, both sort of above the radar screen and below. And you know, look, I’m not a tech expert by any stretch of the imagination. That really influenced the information that people were relying on. And there have been some studies done since the election that if you look — let’s pick Facebook. If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to, as we now know, the 1,000 Russian agents who were involved in delivering those messages. They were connected to the bots that are just out of control. We see now this new information about Trump’s Twitter account being populated by millions of bots. And it was such a new experience. I understand why people on their Facebook pages would think, “Oh, Hillary Clinton did that, I did not know that. Well that’s going to affect my opinion about her.” And we did not engage in false content. We may have tried to put every piece of information in the best possible light, and explanations, but we weren’t in the same category as the other side.”

What fake news items on Facebook caused people not to vote for Hillary? The Russian hacks, if they were Russian, merely reveled the ethical rot within the DNC, Hillary’s campaign, and the Clinton Foundation. These were not “lies.” They were inconvenient truths, like the fact that Donna Brazile was using her position at CNN to give Hillary debate questions in advance.

I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it …Donald Trump, who did nothing about really setting up any kind of data operation, inherits an RNC data foundation that, after the Republicans lost in 2012, and they thought they had a very good operation with the setup that Romney did called ORCA, they thought that was really state of the art, they lose.

So they raised — best estimates are close to a hundred million dollars, they brought in their main vendors, they basically said, “We will never be behind the Democrats again,” and they invested between 2012 and 2016 this hundred million dollars to build this data foundation. They beta tested it. They ran it … somebody was able to determine about 227,000 surveys to double check, triple check, quadruple check, the information.

So Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation.”

The GOP also thought their data system was sound in 2012, too. No Presidential election data foundation is “tried and true” until it works in the election. Meanwhile, Clinton is blaming her party for her loss, though her campaign vastly out-raised and out-spent the Republicans.

“Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election. They did it through paid advertising we think, they did it through false news sites, they did it through these thousand agents, they did it through machine learning, which you know, kept spewing out this stuff over and over again. The algorithms that they developed. So that was the conclusion. And I think it’s fair to ask, how did that actually influence the campaign? And how did they know what messages to deliver? Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, or colluding with?…so the Russians — in my opinion and based on the intel and the counterintel people I’ve talked to — could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided…Guided by Americans and guided by people who had polling and data information.”

This is pure conspiracy theory ranting. The most damaging information that came out were the actual e-mails showing the DNC’s and Clinton’s campaign’s corruption, and the transcripts of Hillary’s speeches pandering to Wall Street. Any idiot could see that these things would be damaging to Clinton without “polling and data information.” How much polling does one need to know that corruption, lying, influence peddling and cheating are bad?

“And at some point it sort of bleeds into misogyny. And let’s just be honest, you know, people who have … [applause] a set of expectations about who should be president and what a president looks like, you know, they’re going to be much more skeptical and critical of somebody who doesn’t look like and talk like and sound like everybody else who’s been president.”
An honest, trustworthy woman of integrity who could articulate a real reason for making her President other than “The other guy’s an idiot” and “I have a vagina” would have won over Trump in a landslide. Naturally Hillary can’t grasp that, having no concept of what honesty, trustworthiness and  integrity are, or why they matter, since she and Bill have done very well without them.

“So I was swimming against an historic tide. It’s very difficult historically to succeed a two-term president of your own party, because you know, we’re itchy people, we like change in American, and I get it.”

ARRRGH!!! This is a Democratic Party and partisan historian Big Lie launched by  CNN hack Doug Brinkley on election night. This lie is harder to kill than the hydra, and I find fake history even more offensive than fake news. From my November 22, 2016 post:

As I mentioned in an earlier post about election night, esteemed Presidential historian Doug Brinkley, for reasons known only to himself, went on the air live on CNN and concocted a new alibi for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, using fake history to do it. He said that there were powerful historical patterns at work in Hillary’s defeat, and that it is always hard for any  party to hold the White House for three consecutive terms. Then, as exceptions to the rule and to show how rare the exceptions were, Brinkley cited Reagan successfully pushing George H.W. Bush on the nation as his “third term,” and then went all the way back to 1836 for his other exception, when popular Democrat President Andrew Jackson got his acolyte Martin Van Buren elected to succeed him.

For days after this, I kept hearing Brinkley’s observation cited by talking heads and my disappointed Democratic friends, yet what he had said was wildly, unforgivably untrue. On election night, I ticked off the instances where one party has held the Presidency for more than two terms on the spot, right after Brinkley’s fiction (much to the annoyance of my wife):

After Van Buren, there were a bunch of one term Whigs and Democrats, but Lincoln’s two terms (the last finished by Andrew Johnson) was followed by Grant for two more, Hayes for one, and Garfield/Arthur for four more years. That 6 straight Republican terms, Doug. Then, three terms later, McKinley was elected to two, Teddy Roosevelt for one on top of the McKinley term he finished out, and Teddy anointed Taft as his successor just as Jackson had with Van Buren. That’s four straight Republican terms, or as we call it around my house, “More than two.”

But wait! There’s more! After Wilson and Mrs. Wilson served out two Democratic terms, we got Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, another three Republicans in a row. Then the Democrats made up for those consecutive runs with five straight of their own, courtesy of FDR’s four and Truman beating Dewey. In short, Brinkley gave the nation fake history, which then became fake news.

Now Hillary, while deploring the lack of truth in political discourse, repeats Brinkley’s falsehood.Well, there’s more, but this topic is turning into a book, and the less time I have to spend think about Clintons, the happier I am.  Hillary ended by saying, “I’m not going anywhere. I have a big stake in what happened in this country. I am very unbowed and unbroken about what happened because I don’t want it to happen to anybody else.”

Yes, this just “happened” to Hillary. She was just an innocent victim of malign forces.

Being a bad loser isn’t just bad sportsmanship. It is disrespectful, unfair, irresponsible and constitutes a Golden Rule breach; it is ungracious, petty and mean. For a defeated Presidential candidate, however, it is far worse, Clinton’s brand of blame-casting and accusations undermines public trust, weakens our institutions and divides the public, society and the country, Clinton’s supporters look to her for guidance regarding how to act, and she is guiding them unethically, to behave unethically.

It is true that President trump is also, by far, the worst winner our Presidential history has ever seen. He has gloated and preened and crowed, in part because he is wounded that the news media has not given him what he believes should be proper credit for his amazing upset. A poor winner, however only hurts himself. Clinton is harming the country to spare herself the pain of accepting accountability for her own defeat.

_______________________________

Sources: Heat Street, New York Magazine, Vox, The Hill

20 Comments

Filed under Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, History, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, The Internet, This Helps Explain Why Trump Is President

20 responses to “Ethics Verdict: Hillary Clinton Is The Worst Loser In US Presidential History (PART II)

  1. Oliver K. Manuel

    Hillary is a pitiable example of the saying the power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

    • That plus an obnoxious and deluded sense of entitlement. She is so angry at everyone that she didn’t get what she thought was owed her. It’s a great cautionary tale that someone should teach those Wellesley grads. She won’t.

  2. The power of self-deception. Imagine living inside that head. It must be hellish in there.

  3. Oliver K. Manuel

    Donald Trump won the election but his battle with the swamp ‘gators is ongoing. He will be destroyed if he cannot find a way to take control of US policy away from the US NAS, . . .

    and that won’t happen unless he finds a way to remove the US National Academy of Science from control of annual review of budgets and programs of federal research agencies for Congress.

    Washington’s swamp creatures are a powerful, hidden infestation and destroyer of the US government.

  4. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Even Al Gore mostly shut up after the decision in Bush v. Gore, and definitely after 9/11, though he spoke out a few times after the going got touch for GWB and his numbers began to tank – saying things like he won but the SCOTUS said he couldn’t serve. The DNC didn’t, though, and kept pushing the narrative that it was a 5-4, partisan decision, GWB was illegitimate, etc., at least until 9/11.

    Hillary isn’t going away, although this election was her Culloden and her cause is over. There is still money to be raised, other candidates to be supported at the state and Congressional level, and a president to keep off-balance for the next three and a half years until the Democrats can make another go at the White House, hopefully with him wounded and vulnerable. To do that, she needs to keep the narrative going that she really won, but too many malign forces conspired to prevent her serving, the same malign forces that want to lead us back to war in the ME, push black people back to the back of the bus, and gay people back in the closet, and keep your daughters from reaching their full potential as something other than brood mares.

    The only thing that’s going to shut her up, and that only temporarily, is going to be another 9/11-level attack. Then we’ll all have to rally together to fight whoever the enemy is and she’ll smirkingly agree to support the president and our armed forces…until things don’t go our way, when she’ll be on him like white on rice.

    • “Even Al Gore mostly shut up after the decision in Bush v. Gore, “

      That’s because his program didn’t include a non-presidential scenario.

      As you can see, he’s fallen back to source codes.

  5. Hillary would not know truth if it bit her in the tush. She lied when the truth would suffice, and is paying the price for doing so.

  6. dragin_dragon

    Is it at all possible that Hillary, in spite of knowing some civics, believes that there is a legal way for her to get the results of the electoral college decision reversed? Such that she would then be given the post of POTUS? I know that she is close to my age, which means she probably took some civics courses in high school, so she can’t be entirely ignorant of the Constitution, can she? I have to apologize, as I am flailing about trying to find a good reason or at least a plausible one, for this woman’s continued efforts to destroy our electoral process amd consequently, this country.

  7. Mrs. Q

    Why was Clinton speaking at a technology event? These snippets are from her Initiative on Technology & Innovation. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/

    -As President, Hillary will look to grow the research budgets of entities like the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and DARPA, so that we can tackle big challenges—like ensuring America continues to lead the world in High Performance Computing, green energy, and machine learning.

    -Hillary will finish the job of connecting America’s households to the internet, committing that by 2020, 100 percent of households in America will have the option of affordable broadband that delivers speeds sufficient to meet families’ needs.

    -Her investments will aim at using advanced wireless and data innovation to drive social priorities in a range of areas, such as public safety, health care, environmental management, traffic congestion, and social welfare services.

    -Widely deployed 5G networks, and new unlicensed and shared spectrum technologies, are essential platforms that will support the Internet of Things, smart factories, driverless cars, and much more—developments with enormous potential to create jobs and improve people’s lives.

    • Pennagain

      Thanks, Mrs. G,

      The last sentence really touched my heart — especially that part about smart factories and driverless cars having “the enormous potential to create jobs”.

      Oh wait! I get it. It didn’t say “more” jobs. Or for whom. How clever!

      . . . . excuse me, I think I have to go take a beta blocker, a couple of ACE inhibitors and some aspirin.

  8. Chris

    I voted for Hillary Clinton (I know, shocking!), and I don’t regret it for a moment. I maintain that she should have won, and that we’d be much better off as a country with her in office.

    But her comments here are really, deeply gross. Even if every one of the reasons she states were correct (and I think some of them have some grounding in truth), she is not the person who should be stating them. It absolutely makes her a sore loser, and a hypocrite after saying Trump wouldn’t accept the results of the election. It’s also hypocritical, as you note, to claim to take full responsibility while at the same time blaming everyone else.

    • Well stated, Chris. This presents a fair assessment from a Hillary supporter without using tactics not necessary to make the point. Good post.

    • “I maintain that she should have won, and that we’d be much better off as a country with her in office.”

      You are correct (to a degree) and primarily ONLY in the regard that the non-winning party in that hypothetical wouldn’t be doing its level best to undermine the Republic through history’s greatest temper tantrum.

      But then again, would the country be better off with nascent totalitarians in control?

      • There’s the rub, and in the end, what cost Hillary my vote.

      • Chris

        Tex, is that really the only advantage you can imagine from a Hillary presidency? You can’t think of any part of the job she would do better than Trump?

        • It is indisputable that she would do at least 95% of the job far better than Trump. That has never been in serious dispute. Better meaning “more professionally, competently, and presidentially.” Nobody can seriously argue otherwise.

          That statement is policy-neutral.

          • Yep. Of course we’d then get to see being advanced precisely the virulent worldview that has unfolded and revealed itself since Nov 9.

            Thank good her competence isn’t there to aid in that.

        • Given what we know now about the innate totalitarian nature of the Left and the extremes it goes to when it doesn’t get its way, yes, I’m not sure she provides any relevant positives compared to Trump.

          I’d much rather a bumbling fool in office than someone with Machiavellian designs who actually knows what she’s doing to enact those designs.

          The loss of the Left and the Left’s subsequent loss of caring about revealing its true colors have been informative indeed.

          As I said before, the election was a choice between Bane and the Joker. And I’m exceedingly relieved that we didn’t get Bane regardless of how unhappy I am we got the Joker.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s