The Clinton emails: what difference does it make?
“What difference does it make?” has become a joking ironic reference to something that actually is important but that is being treated as unimportant because it reflects poorly on a favored Democrat.
Hillary asked the question two and a half years ago at the Benghazi hearings. This was the quote in context:
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
Clinton has been criticized for her indifference, her brushing aside of the questions being asked her. But I’ve long been puzzled as to why few seem to point out that her answer is actually nonsensical. She sets up a choice between alternative explanations A and B for the killings. Alternative A is “because of a protest;” we know that was not the case. But Alternative B, “guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans,” is also not the case—nor, as far as I know, has it ever been alleged to been the case by anyone. The actual accusation has been that the Benghazi killings were acts that were not spontaneous but instead were planned ahead of time by terrorists, and the September 11 anniversary date was part of the plan.
But in this fake-choice, Hillary posits a spontaneous thrill-crime, the sort of thing that might happen when a bunch of teens are out walking the streets at night and decide to smash a store window and take a few things. She might just as well have said of the four Benghazi dead “or a meteor fell on their heads;” that’s how implausible and irrelevant her Alternative B was.
Somehow, in all the fuss about “what difference does it make?” we’ve lost sight of the duplicity and illogic of the rest of her statement. And her illogic doesn’t end there. When she suggests it doesn’t make any difference at this point what the circumstances were that caused the murder of the four Americans in Benghazi, and then follows that by immediately stating, “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again,” she is saying something absurd. How on earth can you “figure out what happened” and “do everything” to prevent a repeat of the occurrence if you don’t care to even ask how it happened and why?
Now over two years later we’re being treated to the slow dribbling out of whichever of her emails Hillary decided to spare from destruction. I’m sure there are some interesting things revealed by the emails she’s releasing, as detailed by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Right now the topic is Clinton’s communications with Sidney Blumenthal, and at what point in time she received information that the Benghazi attack was caused by terrorism.
For now, however, I will leave it to others to sift through the fine points of the Clinton emails, because I continue to think these details only matter to us on the right. If the rest of America didn’t care about the events of Benghazi and the initial coverup, it seems to me that they are highly unlikely to care now about what Sidney Blumenthal said, when he said it, and in what capacity. Before the Obama years I thought that the majority of Americans would probably care about something like the entire Benghazi episode and the details of the coverup, but I have become convinced that they do not anymore unless such acts are perpetrated (or alleged to have been perpetrated) by Republicans and therefore hammered home by the MSM.
That said, however, the recent MSM coverage of the Hillary email problems (and the Clinton Foundation problems) has been puzzling to me from the first because it has been more hard-hitting than I would have expected. In my initial posts on the subject (see this and this), I wondered why newspapers such as the NY Times were covering the story in a manner that, if not as aggressive as if it had been about a Republican, was still a great deal more critical than I was expecting. I aired a number of theories, including the fact that they want someone other than Hillary to run. But it’s not yet clear.
One thing of which I’m fairly sure, though, is that most of Hillary’s supporters would support her no matter what and are not at all interested in this story whatever it may end up revealing. What’s more, if somehow Clinton is not nominated next year by the Democratic Party (although I continue to think she will be), they will vote for whoever is nominated.
So my answer to the question “what difference does it make?” is “None.” Actually, I’ll revise that to say that perhaps the only difference it makes is that it serves to further a deepen the cynicism among the American public about politicians and the way they function. Increasingly, they are all seen by growing numbers of voters as corrupt liars, and the only choice is the choice of which liar is more likely to help that voter’s particular interest group and give it more benefits.
It’s funny how in the discussion about why the New York Times is covering the Clinton e-mail scandal, the idea that the event is newsworthy, which it is, never enters into the equation. Or at least no one would assume that the Times would take that into consideration.
How sad is that?
ConceptJunkie, the reason is that when writing propaganda the basis is what you need to attach your mental virus to, not what would fit the job description or increase sales (though if you can manage both, you become a big star in their book. like the guys who did the cartoon ANTZ)
This is totally OT, but well worth a read (via Powerline):
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-dangerous-unseriousness-of-rand-paul/
It’s the most thorough description of Rand Paul that I’ve seen.
Has anyone mentioned that you are sounding quite cynical?
Has anyone mentioned that you are sounding quite cynical?
“What difference, at this point, does it make?
In my line of work I often encounter lying sociopaths. When cornered, they often act exactly like Hillary Clinton did at that hearing: they get very loud and aggressive, pound the table and spew forth a bunch of lofty-sounding phrases that seem meaningful as they’re being said (shouted) but when reviewed later are almost meaningless. They’re meant to distract and intimidate and their real meaning is as simple as chest-pounding behavior by a gorilla: “Leave me alone! I’m a dangerous force to be reckoned with! BOO! Go away!’
She’s a pathological liar. She’s untrustworthy. [Carly’s figured that out too]
Pass it on…
This is the state of Dem politics (and the leftist press) in the US today.
It doesn’t matter to anyone that will vote for her. They will vote for her come hell or high water.
She could be a drug dealing mass murderer and her supporters would say … she’s better than having a republican in office.
Gowdy better pin her down when she gives another non-responsive answer like that again.
Wouldn’t be fun if someone actually did pin her down and make her respond in unequivocal language? But, I indulge a flight of fantasy.
G6loq and leelu:
I have become a good deal more cynical during the Obama administration than I was before.
When the Clintons get pinned down and are made to respond in unequivocal language, is when they flat-out lie, and dare you to try to do something about it. As in, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you“
I dunno. To me it always seemed quite simple.
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
To which a reasonable answer might have been: “It makes no difference at all, Madam Secretary… unless we are trying to determine if YOU are TO BLAME for the deaths of those four Americans. Which, in fact, we are. So kindly calm down and answer the question.”
Remember — the more obvious it becomes to liberal voters that Hillary and Barack are dishonest, corrupt, and lawless in ways that are truly unprecedented, the more evil Republicans are.
The NYT et al. are on her case not because she’ve every bit the liar and mountebank as is her former boss (whom the NYT et al. continue to worship) but because they’ve decided that it’s very, very possible that:
1) with all her very obvious and public liabilities, she might not win in November 2016, and
2) she can’t be relied upon to continue the Obama revolution (assuming there’s anything left of America by November 2016), because she’s simply too cynical, power-hungry and therefore untrustworthy.
#1 is scaring the MSM and their political masters dungless.
#2 means that they’ll have to go with someone more reliably doctrinaire: e..g, Blasio or Warren or some abominable hack from the current administration.
But since Hillary’s the one to beat—at the moment, at least—she’s the one they’re going to have to subvert.
And destroy.
The earlier the better.
“So my answer to the question “what difference does it make?” is “None.” neo
When reality finally confronts America, it will have a different answer. Which will be; all the difference in the world. Liberals, in dismissing the Left’s duplicity, Clinton’s corruption and Obama’s treason they are ensuring their own eventual destruction with all that they value. Their sin, which may be beyond redemption, will be the harm that they have wrought for so many innocents.
IMO, it is obvious that a large percentage on the left are dissatisfied with Hillary as the 2016 democrat nominee. If they have to vote for her, they will but only because circumstance will have forced it upon them.
leelu,
An accurate assessment of reality is not ‘cynicism’.
jack,
Not to quibble but…
“She could be an [accused] drug dealing, mass murderer and her supporters would say … she’s better than having a republican in office.” but… only because a convicted drug dealing, mass murderer could not meet the legal qualifications for the Presidency.
Cornhead,
Gowdy was flabbergasted, as were we all. I suspect because most Americans have not internalized the realization that Hillary and others of her ilk have no redeeming morality whatsoever, for they are in their heart of hearts, fanatical ideologues.
The proper response to Hillary’s “what difference does it make?” by Gowdy would have been to say; ‘We all know that it was neither a “protest” nor some “guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d go kill some Americans,” that is responsible for the deaths at Benghazi. Please do no further insult to the American people’s intelligence by insisting upon it.
Your question however, as to ‘what difference it makes’ leads me to realize that “until this moment, Madame Secretary, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, madame? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”*
*paraphrased; Joseph Welch, head counsel for the United States Army, response to Joseph McCarthy, while it was under investigation by his Senate Subcommittee on Investigations.
I have become much more cynical of the American citizenry. And not just their political decision making. When the Boy Scouts have decided that playing with squirt guns is “unkind” and won’t be allowed, the enemy within has won. Looking forward to their renaming themselves the Candy Ass Wimp Scouts.
I used to work with an immigrant from the USSR. They considered all the politicians as corrupt liars and thieves. That’s what people are starting to believe here.
Yes, Hillary’s offering of two strawman explanations for the attack was something Bill liked to do. He was a master of rephrasing questions so that he could provide the then obvious, Bill-flattering option – such as rephrasing a 2nd Amendment question: “You may ask, why do I care whether or not we get guns out of the hands of children? Because every child’s life matters and I must do everything in my power to protect them!!”
Die-hard Democrats we should just kiss off; there is no reaching them with facts, they’re immune. They’d vote for Caligula’s horse if it came to that.
It’s the Independents who still have something of a functioning brain — Hillary’s favorability rating is down 11 points from last year among them. So, maybe the drip-drip-drip of scandal is having some effect there. The important thing, and a tricky one, is to not make her look like a victim; the Clinton’s are very good at using that tactic.
KLSmith,
That’s odd. The Boy Scouts were founded to teach military principles and I thought the they taught actual rifle marksmanship.
Early on in this administration, my son said to me, “I see, none of the things they’ve complained about matter when their guy is in office.” Let’s face it, long ago we dispensed with comparing what would be said or done if a Republican President or his cabinet (especially Bush) were to have done that. I personally believe the Left was surprised by Obama’s initial election and after Obamacare was foisted upon us has lasciviously pursued their agenda in earnest. None of this could have been accomplished without the assistance of the lapdog media. Lies believed are a powerful force.
Neo: “How on earth can you “figure out what happened” and “do everything” to prevent a repeat of the occurrence if you don’t care to even ask how it happened and why?”
Context is essential.
That goes the other way, too, with Republicans refusing to “relitigate” the decision for OIF despite also trying to criticize Obama’s missteps and recommending a course forward with Iraq.
To understand what happened to Ambassador Stevens and our other KIA with him, it’s necessary to look at Obama’s Libya policy that set the stage for the particular event.
For Iraq, the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for OIF – the actual one and not the enemy’s false premise that the Republicans have stipulated – has everything to do with subsequent decisions as well. Bush’s decisions throughout tracked the principal mission to bring Iraq into compliance with the spectrum of UNSCR 660-series resolutions. Understanding that context helps to understand Obama’s deviation from Bush and responsibility for events.
In the same vein that Clinton’s false premise foundationally undermines the discussion of solutions moving forward from the Benghazi attack, as long as Republicans and Democrats fail to set the record straight on the grounds for OIF, then our foundational understanding of “how it happened and why” that’s necessary to fix course with Iraq is undermined.
The two cases are related in that Obama’s Libya policy was deliberately fashioned to contrast with Bush’s Iraq policy, so understanding the ‘why; of OIF helps to understand the Libya policy that set the stage for the failure for the Benghazi attack, too.
The frustrating thing is that there’s no reason for the Republicans to run from the decision for OIF. The decision was right on the law and justified on the policy. Obama’s decisions for Libya were a lot messier.
Fix: so understanding the ‘why
;‘ of OIF helps to understand the Libya policystan, 3:43 pm — “Remember – the more obvious it becomes to liberal voters that Hillary and Barack are dishonest, corrupt, and lawless in ways that are truly unprecedented, the more evil Republicans are.”
. . . and the more “liberal voters” *love* “Hillary and Barack”, for out-dueling the stoopid Republicans. Stickin’ it to The Man, you know? That, as much as anything, warms the hearts (and open the wallets) of “liberal voters”.
I recall well when I watched Ms. Hillary! exclaim, “what difference, at this point, does it make?” My reaction then was to revisit that picture, circa 2003 or so, of Ms. Hillary! jubilantly raising a copy of (I think) the Noo Yawk Daily Nooz with the uber-large front-page headline, “BUSH KNEW!” It sure made a difference, after *that* fact, who might have been responsible for what.
But time moves on, and the times change. I know I really need not respond to the question, “what difference does it make?”, because the question is not meant to be answered. It’s meant as an evasion mechanism, and you know what? — it has worked beautifully, at least so far.
I mean, the only ones who care are those evil, stoopid Republicans.
I am way beyond caring or attempting to understand what makes people vote for the boychild or should it come to pass, hrc. Those people are the enemies, whether or not they know it, of my children and granchildren. That is all I need to understand. I simply want to be of use when the day of reckoning arrives.
I think the voters think they don’t care. But if some detail came out that was bulletproof and damning enough, it would turn into a big soap opera. Voters would find that interesting.
parker Says:
May 21st, 2015 at 7:24 pm
I am way beyond caring or attempting to understand what makes people vote for the boychild or should it come to pass, hrc. Those people are the enemies, whether or not they know it, of my children and granchildren. That is all I need to understand. I simply want to be of use when the day of reckoning arrives.
Yup. There’ll be a price to pay for petulance.
Matt_SE,
They care when it personally affects them. If some detail came out that was bulletproof and damning enough, they would turn on the person(s) involved but NOT the ideological assumptions that they embrace. They cannot because it would be an implicit acknowledgement that they are fools, who have been played for fools. That admission would leave them lost, adrift without wind or rudder.
So instead, they will insist that the ship of State continue to head for the cliffs ahead and when our State falls to its ruin, they will be quick to blame the scapegoat that they have been given; the evil, greedy Republicans (anyone not a socialist democrat).
But among that crowd, it will be the ones who attempt to enforce the denial of liberty and, those who seek to do violence upon those whom they blame, who will by those actions, declare themselves to be America’s true enemies.
And that’s when the fight will get physical because it is better to die on your feet, than to exist on your knees.
If you go to Google Maps and type in the following words in the search bar, you’ll get the White House as the result each time:
racist Washington D. C.
traitor Washington D.C.
treason Washington D.C.
usurper Washington D.C.
Muslim nigger Washington D.C.
It is noteworthy that in the case of the search words “traitor Washington, D.C.,” “treason Washington D.C.” and usurper Washington D.C.,” the Supreme Court is below the White House in search results.
Here.
I blame the voters ….
My personal trainer, a likeable liberal with idiotic political ideas (but he’s a darn good trainer!) had ZERO interest in the fact that Hildabeast and Billy-boy took, what, $130 million from that guy who wanted to help PUTIN corner the world’s uranium supply?
This, even though my PT, a Serbian-American, utterly loathes Putin. He just blew it off. Ditto about the murder of homosexuals by ISIS (he’s gay). Waved it off as a mere bagatelle. Says he wants to “study” and “help” the Boston Bomber, not punish him. Has ZERO interest in the victims of said bomber. I pointed out that the monster placed the bomb right behind that eight-year-old, and he shrugged.
Shrugged.
This same man will be OUTraged at minor transgressions, real or perceived, by Those He Hates (that would be most of us here). Unhinged hatred of what he imagines the Right to be; utter indifference to any crimes against humanity that are committed by anyone else.
They have no principles: only weapons.
Eric,
For all too many Americans, credentials and social status have replaced thinking and learning. If they picked up their ideology from their Ivy, then it must be right. Just like communism, the fault is in improper implementation–not the underlying philosophy, so a trip to the gulag for the failed implementers is the answer.
While I definitely have problems with some conservative positions, I much prefer people who try to examine real history as a basis for their positions. There are so many things that scare me today from Clinton’s greed and incompetence, to Obama’s ridiculous ideas about the world and his place in it, both of which he substitutes for foreign policy, to the rape and gay/trans rights hysteria, to Michelle’s blaming black kids’s avoidance of museums on the racism of the staff rather than the imbedded acting white meme that has been placed in their minds by her radical heroes. It seems that right now we need someone to give them a whup across the a** and send them all to bed wihout dinner. Where are the grownups today?
Where are the grownups today?
I’m afraid the handwriting was on the wall with the “never trust anyone over 30” 1960s mantra. The logical extension of that was if you want to be considered a person worthy of being interacted with after that age, then never, ever grow up.
Re Hildabeast: I have an idea. Every time she comes out to greet the public, let’s play a rousing chorus of Tammy Wynette belting out the refrain of “Stand By Your Man”!
Because Hillary, who famously said, during the Gennifer Flowers scandal, “I’m not sitting here, some little woman ‘standing by her man.’ I’m sitting here because I love him and I respect him” — did NOTHING BUT “stand by her man” for the whole of their political alliance/marriage!
That Was Her Job. And what she said in that interview was as brazen as the kid caught with her hand in the cookie jar who yells at you “I’m Not Stealing Any Cookies!”
If you haven’t heard that song, here it is. Perfect for ole Hillary. 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew
I always *felt* as though her responses before Gowdy’s committee were *preplanned* it felt like she rehearsed that response, her advisors telling her that she needed to sound like an indignant, angry woman & that performance would *scare*
(akin to what Carl in Atlanta says) her questioners into numb silence. It must also be some type of Alinsky Rules for radicals tactic.
We all know from her *cackle* how in love she is
with Sol’s advice. If memory serves, Rand Paul actually told her something to the effect that she
demonstrated incompetence that he would have fired her for ! But I only saw this one time, probably on Fox & the rest of MSM buried his remark to her.
never covered it at all
@ Beverly, Ted Cruz had to endure a *lefty reporter* today haranguing him 3 times with the question, “Do you have a personal animosity toward gays?”
can we get someone to ask Hillary if she has a *personal animosity* toward all of Bills ex bimbos
(to use their term) ?
Why is the MSM hitting Hillary hard?
Because they don’t want her.
The New Left of 1968 are now the senior editors in charge of the news rooms. After 6.5 years of a genuine Progressive in power, they want their genuine Progressive to be succeeded by another genuine Progressive, not an untrustworthy semi-centrist who is the living definition of the word Clintonian and likely to apply the brakes to the rush of reforms that have been pushed through in the Obama years. They want the rush of reforms to keep coming at top speed, and The House of Clinton is not the horse to bet on for that result.
Yes, if forced to vote for her they will vote for her. But the New Left in Ascendance wants another choice, a True Believer. And so they are acting now to damage the Clinton Coronation and encourage True Believers to step forth and claim the throne.
The demographics of the Coming Democratic Majority thesis are solid, and the Obama coalition may have locked that almost-always-win-the-Presidency alignment in place, so we’re looking at a replay of 1930-’80. Even a non-Hillary True Believer running as Democrat in 2016 stands excellent chances of winning. Or at least that’s the New Left Ascendant’s calculation. Eisenhower and Nixon did make it into office 1930-’80.
The (largely white) Left Intelligentsia isn’t turning on Hillary because they’re concerned she might lose. They’re turning on her because they’re convinced that the Democrat will win in 2016. No matter who they run.
If your faction is essentially guaranteed of victory, why settle for the middle of the road candidate, when you can have a True Believer instead?
The Obama coalition has convinced them that “The Coming Democratic Majority” alignment has arrived. That means an essentially permanent lock on the Presidency and a near-permanent lock on the Senate (might lose it two years out of every six) for as long as the alignment lasts.
What the (largely white) Left Intelligentsia atop the Democratic Party are ignoring is that the Coming Democratic Majority empowers the balkanized identity minority groups they are now riding to “permanent power!” The assumption by the Left Intelligentsia is that the identity groups will be reliable quiet votes, and the interests of the Left Intelligentsia will continue to dominate the direction of the Democratic Party. But eventually the leaders of the identity groups are going to start asking why they should keep taking their marching orders from a bunch of old, overly credentialed and under educated, white farts.
At that point, the dominance and enthusiasms of the Left Intelligentsia come to a screeching halt. The Democratic Party will continue to have a lock on the Presidency, but it won’t be the Democratic Party of Obama New Left Progressivism as we know it now.
djolds1: you make some good points. I wouldn’t put it past the American Left to think that they have a lock on future elections (ignoring the lessons of 2010 and 2014), or to fail to notice that President Obama has no political coattails at all.
But I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the Democratic Party has a lock on the Presidency. Democrats seem to be assuming that what worked for President Obama can work for others… but he is unique in many ways, and, again, he has no coattails. (How many candidates has he helped get elected? Hardly any, as I recall. Certainly nowhere near as many as Gov. Sarah Palin has helped.)
No doubt Sen. Warren — likewise a lawyer of no special accomplishments, who rode her supposed ethnicity into a Senate seat — thinks she can duplicate President Obama’s feat. She can’t. She is the Wendy Davis of Massachusetts; she just doesn’t realize it yet. And Hillary has too much baggage for even a Clinton to drag into office. Nearly anyone else would have been in jail, long since, based merely on what she herself has grudgingly admitted; how incriminating are the details she is hiding from us? (We know that she has a lot of details to hide from us; she told us so herself, by illegally erasing them, and defying a subpoena to provide them.)
2016 will be the Republican’s race to lose, more so than any other I can remember. It is my fond (forlorn) hope that the Republicans can band together against the Democrats and the press, and avoid the circular-firing-squad phenomenon of years past.
In fact, I hope that someone, at one of the inevitable Republican debates, will make precisely that point. “Yes, I think I would be a better President than the other people up here; if I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t be running! But let me state right now that ANY of us would do a far better job than ANY of the Democrat candidates. In fact, let’s see a show of hands. How many of you agree with me than ANY of us would be miles better for the country than any of the Democrats?”
They have no principles: only weapons.
He’s a zombie fanatic. They can only be defeated by other true believers or crusaders.
My personal trainer, a likeable liberal with idiotic political ideas (but he’s a darn good trainer!)
It doesn’t take much above average hard work to become good at one thing.
The exceptional humans were not known for their sole specialties, but for their polymath ability to gather together multiple disciplines, into a sum greater than the components. Different languages, different cultural knowledge, physical as well as mental excellence, etc.
Death is the only thing that makes a difference, for them, for us. All those other things are lesser priorities or mere smokescreens to distract the fighters.