Have you noticed…
…that many liberals seem far more perturbed about Bill Clinton’s talk with Loretta Lynch than they are with anything Hillary Clinton has done?
The disclosure of the meeting has raised questions about the integrity of the investigation. Lynch’s promise to accept without modification the recommendations of the F.B.I. has removed a potentially sympathetic voice from the process. And the enormous publicity over the event will increase the pressure on investigators not to show any leniency in the case. Whatever Bill Clinton thought he was doing, he has cast a pall over what should have been his wife’s most triumphant moment in politics.
One of the most interesting aspects of the article is the assumption that this was done without Hillary’s knowledge or approval. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I certainly wouldn’t assume it.
Nice to see they’re upset about something on the liberal side.
mind is boggled. Poor Hillary; she has to put up with so much. Sometimes one might wonder if it was all worth it to stick with the Slick One. Surely, she could have made it on her own.
And poor Ms Lynch. An impromptu, and innocent, conversation about grandchildren, of which she has none, which just happened to take place on a private jet, has been spun so as to tarnish her reputation. Hateful Republicans.
Leftists are all just a little embarrassed they got caught. It negates the vast right-wing conspiracy propaganda for a day or two.
Three lawyers (Bill, Hillary and Loretta) all absolutely knew that such a contact was ethically wrong. Blindingly wrong. Beyond the pale wrong.
The worst part of it is the covering and sucking up by the MSM. The prime example was Jonathan Capehart at the Aspen Ideas Festival. There is no innocent explanation for this.
If a Bush and a GOP AG did something similar the NYT would run a front page story for a week and MSNBC would spend a hour in prime time on it.
‘Whatever Bill Clinton thought he was doing, he has cast a pall over what should have been his wife’s most triumphant moment in politics.’
As he intended, I’m sure.
Given that the majority of liberals subscribe to the premise that the end justifies the means, it is a perfectly understandable reaction.
Interesting point. Maybe it’s because they think when Hillary lies, even though they know she’s lying, they think she’s getting away with it. And by getting away with it I mean they think she’s actually fooling somebody (as opposed to just benefitting from a highly politicized DoJ), so that when Bill does something stupidly obvious like this, they think he’s blowing her carefully-crafted, otherwise immaculate cover.
It’s starting to look a little less likely that there will be a triumphant moment over which to cast a pall.
Here’s hoping!
I keep saying, remember the First Law of Clintons:
If the Clintons did it, there’s nothing wrong with it, and…delighted giggle…they got away with this one, too.
When Bush appointed the hate criminal, Ashcroft, he knew he was giving the AG position to someone dedicated to making sure women and children did not have access to proper reproductive health care. Instead if making up conspiracy theories about Clinton and an African-American woman, we should be talking about how John Ashcroft was the most corrupt AG ever and should be in jail for hate crimes and his role in the two illegal wars started by Bush.
Other than being bloody-minded enough to stay married to a womanizer, rapist, pedo-freak for political gain, I can’t think of a single accomplishment of Hillary. In fact if you want something to fail spectacularly, put her in charge.
Hillary won’t be charged. If she wins, Loretta will be appointed to the Supremes…the fix is in…
What disgusts me most re Clintons, et al is the total hubris of the entire cadre. Screw Lynch’s career. What a bunch of smug, condescending jerks…indicative of the total lack of humility common to liberals in authority.
Brain G,
Brilliant!
Oh, Brian G,
“repructive health care” for children? So I have to assume you engage in sexual relations with underage girls. Wow! Proud to be a kiddie f#cker! Way to go dude! You must be the macho hombre of your twisted homies.
Of course they are taking it seriously, that’s the trick. “Bill did something wrong, but we aren’t voting for Bill. Hillary is squeaky-clean.”
Brian G:
Parody? Hyperbole and parody, brilliant.
From what I have heard and read about Lynch’s comments, I do not think “Lynch[] promise[d] to accept without modification the recommendations of the F.B.I.” We’re talking Clinton-level prevarication here. One of the meanings of “accept” is to take receipt of an object, or a document. LL can accept the FBI’s recommendation without acting in accordance with it.
Brian G, you just re-boggled my mind.
If you are concerned about “reproductive health care for children”, one would surmise that you are pro-life. Is that correct? I say this because the little girls and guys who haven’t yet seen the light of day are in need of health care, so that reproduction actually occurs.
There is a basic logic. If there is no live birth, there is no reproduction; therefore use of the term “reproductive ” health” by pro-abortionists is misleading and profoundly hypocritical.
Your comments are so far afield that I hope OM and the others who give you the benefit of doubt, are correct. But these days you never know.
If only
HillaryStalin knew!Please stop calling them liberals. They aren’t liberal. They are the opposite of liberal. They are intolerant, hate filled and demand that you adhere to their group think. Please stop calling them liberal. For goodness sake. They are leftists. These people want to prosecute “climate change deniers” and do away due process as it applies to the first and second amendments to the constitution. They are not liberals. They are leftists.
SeanR Says:
Please stop calling them liberals.
I stopped using “liberal” and even “Democrat” long ago unless I’m referring to the pre-1972 party that was taken over by the New Left at the 1972 Democrat convention or the occasional Scoop Jackson type, now totally extinct.
Bernie is a self-proclaimed socialist who loves Castro and honeymooned in the USSR before the wall came down. Given that Conservative Review, based on his voting record, rates Sanders as the most conservative non-Republican in the Senate (tied for that honor with Elizabeth Warren, no less!), what does that make the rest of the D/I Senators?
Call them what they are every time you refer to them – Communists, Marxists, Collectivists, Totalitarians, statists. They’ve been allowed to redefine the language to their benefit for generations.
SeanR,
They are indeed leftists. Liberals are their “useful idiots”.
“Instead if making up conspiracy theories about Clinton and an African-American woman”
Nice. AG Lynch’s race gives her a free pass. Racism at its finest, as her race absolves her of any criminality, any wrongdoing, any imperfection.
I am pretty much an ignoramus about computers, but even I know not to give my credit card number to sites I don’t know. I also know that if all my emails were published on the front page of the NYT, hackers would fall asleep rather than threaten anyone. I know no one in the CIA, nor any foreigners, who could be spies. But I do know that if a federal agency has procedures to protect itself from hacking and cyberattacks, I would be stupid not to follow them.
Without getting into the legal issues, I can tell that Hillary is too dumb to be president. The character and criminal issues are just icing on a rotten cake.
Well, I’m pretty sure Hillary gave the orders for Bill to have this ‘chance’ meeting – she just had to let the AG know how her grandkids were doin’!
OldFlier:
Regarding Brian G. If Ben G was serious (a bit strident and not very subtle in his set up if Ashcroft ‘Minion of Satan and all evil in the world’) he wasn’t brilliant at all. IMO
Have a great Fourth of July!
The enemy which some call evil (they call us evil too btw), is known by many names.
Beezlebub, Regressives, Leftists, Lucifer, whatever.
Nation of Islam, regular Islamic Caliphate Shia and Sunni.
European multi cultural invasion and rape replacement policies of populations which don’t reproduce for welfare balance.
All kinds of names, all describing the same evil and tendrils.
As for reproductive whatever, I presume they are referring to Ashcroft blocking Planned Profit on “no parental notification”. This allows PP to abort the kids of 13-17 year olds, without notifying their parents that the kid is being serially raped by some child molestor or rapist.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/476.html
The thing about Leftists is that they will often mention defeats they regret or hate, even decades later. Pinochet is a good example, he killed a lot of the Left’s death squad and allies, with great effect. Bush II, in his administration, was greatly hated and feared for similar reasons, as Bush II was killing too many of the Left’s Islamic allies.
Liberals are their “useful idiots”.
No, that’s a mistake you make because of your past association with Demoncrats, GB.
A liberal is defined as someone who believes in liberty, of some sort, and the only ones that are useful idiots are the ones that believe in sexual liberation or the power of decadence. A person who believes in free will and practices that, is the very opposite of a useful tool.
Thus when you recognize them as being liberals, GB, you are falling for their distortion first and foremost. They are zombies, they do not even understand liberty to begin with.
I stopped using “liberal” and even “Democrat” long ago unless I’m referring to the pre-1972 party that was taken over by the New Left at the 1972 Democrat convention or the occasional Scoop Jackson type, now totally extinct.
The Democrats since even 1830, have been the party looking to dominate and subordinate blacks and any other weakened minority/community. They had a working eugenics philosophy even before the birth of Margaret Sanger. They loved slavery 2.0 back then just as they love slavery 3.0 right now.
The Democrats have not changed so much over the time, even if their Jim Crow KKK based politics have.
“A liberal is defined as someone who believes in liberty, of some sort, and the only ones that are useful idiots are the ones that believe in sexual liberation or the power of decadence. A person who believes in free will and practices that, is the very opposite of a useful tool.
Thus when you recognize them as being liberals, GB, you are falling for their distortion first and foremost. They are zombies, they do not even understand liberty to begin with.” Ymarsakar
If not liberals and instead zombies… can a zombie be held responsible, by definition lacking free will?
Gallup’s latest poll sheds some light on this issue;
“New low: Gallup poll says only 52% are ‘extremely proud’ to be Americans”
I don’t believe that it is a viable proposition to assert that those “zombies” who agree that they are “extremely proud” to be Americans are not also “useful idiots”.
“Useful” to the left that is and, “idiots” in that they haven’t a clue as to what is actually going on.
We all personally know many who vote democrat, consider themselves liberal and value liberty within societal limits. Limits that we all agree must exist, since anarchy is the alternative when limits are absent. Leftists aside, of what those limits consist of and to what degree is where the disagreement lies.
The poster boy for Reckless Narcissist.
And America’s most popular politician, as voted by Liberals.
How predictable.
… They really *HAVE* internalized that saying, “But, it’s not illegal when *we* do it.”
Like that Stanley Fish article from a couple years back, celebrating double standards: The Left’s point of view is, “WE know WE are moral, and noble, and intelligent, and dedicated to The Greater Good. So, sometimes one of the People On Our Side might say or do something that can be misconstrued. WE know that WE are *all* innocent of any shabby motives. Behavior we would seize upon if done by a Republican (because they are Evil and Other; and nationalistic and racist and greedy and White and Christian, but I repeat myself) is a nothingburger if done by one of ours. See? Easy. Lefties=Good no matter what. Non-lefties=WRONG. Always.”
Kinda like the bright-line dichotomy between feminists, and Men. The latter’s existence is assumed by the former to be solely for the purpose of being labeled The Enemy In All Respects.
Given that the majority of liberals subscribe to the premise that the end justifies the means, it is a perfectly understandable reaction.
To GB, another thing I noticed was how you contradicted yourself a little bit here. If “liberals” are merely tools of Leftists, why are the tools somehow figuring out the original free will and agency behavior of justifying their means with the end? A tool doesn’t justify anything nor are they allowed to think of anything.
Separating the soft Leftists, what you call “liberals”, from the Leftists who you deem as enemies and thus okay to terminate, is a kind of emotional displacement. I don’t think it is all that solid, when it will be tested. That is why I consider them all guilty. They all had free will and chose to sell their soul and will, for what evil promised them. It doesn’t matter what place in the hierarchy they occupy, whether they are the cannonfodder, the zombies, or the Ayers priesthood of Hussein, their Messiah trinity, with transsexual male Michelle.
They are all guilty. If they wanted to atone for their evil, they would converted from the Leftist dogma and death cult, to something rational or sane or good. Having sold their free will and soul, however, getting them back is not so easy any more. They’re also guilty of that.
If not liberals and instead zombies… can a zombie be held responsible, by definition lacking free will?
That depends on whether you want to bother feeling guilty about pulling the trigger on a few hundred million zombies. Winning the war requires hitting the strategic levers and supply bases/lines. Blaming or hating the tools of the enemy, may be useful in the tactical or short term sense, but eventually you’ll have to hold responsible the leaders.
That doesn’t mean the cannonfodder get to be “saved”. If they are in the way, neutralize. I don’t think your system of justifying liberals vs Leftists, innocent vs guilty, works for a war. It’s too weak of a justification for a war, at least. For a political fight or some kind of fist fight at a bar, it might be enough though. It takes a lot of justifications, internal or external, to hate an enemy enough to kill them, up close or far away either way.
Pingback:travel