HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » EffieBlack » Journal
Page: 1

EffieBlack

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Feb 2, 2007, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 14,154

Journal Archives

In 1993, Republicans bullied Janet Reno into appointing an Independent Counsel

which she did in an effort to prove how impartial and fair she was. And when they ran the first Independent Counsel out, she appointed Ken Starr, a noted Republican partisan, again to show just how fair and impartial this investigation would be. And then when he asked for an expansion of his jurisdiction far beyond the original Whitewater matter, she again said yes because, after all, she had to prove how fair and impartial she was.

We remember how that all worked out . . .

This is a gambit that Democrats fall for time after time. That's exactly what's happening here in this bogus tarmac conversation "outrage."

Democrats - please don't be Charlie Brown and try to kick that footbal again. Keep your eyes on the REAL ball.

Why is Bill Clinton bearing all of the blame for Bogus TarmacGate?

He didn't meet with himself. He met with the Attorney General. On her plane. Unless he stormed the plane and forced her to talk to him, the AG was just as involved in and culpable for this encounter as he was. So why is everyone screaming about him and not saying anything about her role in it?

Let's be clear - I don't think either of them did anything wrong. Not even close. But if this was such a breach of ethics, shouldn't the public official who is actually bound by the ethics laws and rules also be criticized? Shouldn't someone on her staff have protected her from this situation by advising her not to talk with him?

Bill Clinton is a private citizen - why is HE bearing the brunt of all of this?

Could it be because folks know that she did nothing wrong and, by extension, neither did he - but that would screw up the "another example of how corrupt the Clintons supposedly are" narrative? And what a great way to try to intimidate DOJ into going out of its way to hammer Hillary in order to prove how impartial they are (a gambit that only Democrats seem to fall for time after time after time).

"I need to improperly influence the AG. Why don't I do it on a tarmac in front of the media?"

Said no one ever.

This is all BS.

If the Clintons wanted to influence the Attorney General, they have all manner of ways to get to her. It wouldn't be Bill Clinton chatting her up at an FBO.

This was a spontaneous social chat. Period.

Of course, none of that matters anymore - this has taken on a life of its own, thanks to the bored media who need to cover something other than Trump's meltdown and love nothing more than smearing the Clintons.

WaPo: "Bernie Sanders just gave an amazingly condescending interview about Hillary Clinton"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/28/bernie-sanders-just-gave-an-amazingly-condescending-interview-about-hillary-clinton/

The Fix
Bernie Sanders just gave an amazingly condescending interview about Hillary Clinton

By Chris Cillizza June 28 at 2:13 PM

The Democratic presidential primaries ended two weeks ago today. Bernie Sanders is still kind of, sort of running for the nomination, despite the fact he has lost -- by every possible metric -- to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton and her campaign have been generally fine with all of this, pivoting to the general election and assuming the Sanders thing would work itself out.

That approach may change after the interview Sanders gave to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday. It was by turns baffling and surreal. But, most of all, it was remarkably condescending.

Can anyone explain this to me?

I honestly don't know how this is any different than many of the other threads GDP threads. Any idea why this was locked?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512173318#post15

What happens when an immoveable object meets an unstoppable force?

For months on DU (and elsewhere), some fervent Bernie Sanders supporters have vigorously rejected even the mildest notion that their candidate could ever be wrong about anything - and often attacked anyone who had the temerity to suggest that he was anything less than perfect. And they also went after anyone who endorsed Hillary Clinton - regardless how loved, how proven, how progressive they were - because, to that particular element, the very act of endorsing Hillary ipso facto made them sellouts, corporatists, DINOs and worse.

So, it will be verrrry interesting to see how these folks respond when Sanders (he who can never be called wrong) endorses Clinton (she who turns everyone who embraces her into a despicable piece of you-know-what).

Will they remain consistent with their belief that Bernie can do no wrong and try to explain why, unlike the others, HIS endorsement is not proof of nefariousness? Or will they throw Bernie under the bus with all of the others whose endorsement of Hillary was supposedly unassailable evidence of their bad character - and admit that they were horribly wrong about Bernie all along?

I can't wait to see how this paradox resolves itself ...
Go to Page: 1