Even James Carville the other day complained about having to come back from his vacation to defend Hillary the other day.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/thank-goodness-for-james-carville.html
I don't know if anyone in high Democratic circles reads me. I'd like to think so. I know major economists read me on occasion.
If Trump is the GOP id, I'd like to think I'm the Democratic id.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-wall-st-journals-war-with.html
Of course, until recenty I was an avowed Republican Hater.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/turns-out-only-gopers-are-allowed-to.html
But it turns out that it's ok for the GOP to call Latinos anchor babies but not ok for me to hate them for it.
But now that I have a more respectable name it might be easier for one of these big shot Democrats to avow reading me in public. Well if anyone is out there from the Obama team or the Hillary team shouldn't someone think of putting me on the Hillary campaign team?
I mean who defends her more than I do? Unlike even Mr. Carville, I would never complain about defending her. I mean she's a good persona and will make a great President and I will defend her with everything I have always as I always have done rihgt from when the VSP were all over her for saying she's not Tammy Wynette.
Send me on these shows with these smug Beltway pundits with all their smart talk about emails and I'll show them how not smart they truly are.
Ok, so a judge says she 'vioalted federal policy' which sounds ominous. I'm sure the Hillary haters are going to add this as a new smoking gun. This proves it. After 24 years, vindication-right Rush?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/no-hillarys-emails-are-not-smoking-gun.html
Here's the trouble: the judge may have said she violated federal policy but he doesn't specify what exactly-violating a policy is not necessarily breaking the law.
The judge said that as a comment it wasn't a verdict and it's not like he's in a position to mete out a punishment of her.
"A federal judge has added fresh fuel to the incendiary controversy over Hillary Clinton’s email, asserting during a hearing Thursday that she violated government policy by storing official messages on a private server when she worked as secretary of state."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html#ixzz3jS83UFk4
But what government policy? As he doesn't get specific it doesn''t help us much-though it does help the GOPers in making all kinds of wild aspersions and as wrong as they've been 100 times before the media still taking them seriously.
What Judge Sullivan says just begs questions:
"Sullivan’s said Clinton’s actions had complicated the State Department’s ability to respond to requests for records on various topics. He also ordered the State Department to contact the FBI to determine whether the private server Clinton used, which Clinton turned over to that law enforcement agency earlier this month, contains official records possibly responsive to the FOIA suit."
"During Thursday’s hearing in the State Department case, Sullivan never said precisely how he believed Hillary Clinton violated government policy. But he repeatedly referred to the department’s obligation to preserve records under the Federal Records Act of 1950.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html#ixzz3jS93wvZu
Tom Brown has talked a lot about Feynman Certainty recently-you have to say what you would have to see to change your view on a subject. What would falsify your view?
So what would falsify my view that this email thing is a nothing burger?
1. What policy did she violate?
2. Has this policy whatever it is been interpreted this way before?
3. Plenty of other high ranking government officials have used emails and had servers so what was different in those cases? What is the exact legal statute that shows this?
P.S. In any case, as compelling as the idea of Feynman Certainty seems, David Glanser makes the good point that there are times when it's not helpful. Like had Galileo followed this we might have seen scientific progress delayed for years in moving to the correct view that the earth revolves around the sun.
http://uneasymoney.com/2015/08/13/romer-v-lucas/
On emailgate I'm probably in the positron of Galileo. It's not like a smoking gun is going to make me lose sight of the fact that this has been going on for 23 years.
Whitewater was a nothinburger and so is this.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/thank-goodness-for-james-carville.html
I don't know if anyone in high Democratic circles reads me. I'd like to think so. I know major economists read me on occasion.
If Trump is the GOP id, I'd like to think I'm the Democratic id.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-wall-st-journals-war-with.html
Of course, until recenty I was an avowed Republican Hater.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/turns-out-only-gopers-are-allowed-to.html
But it turns out that it's ok for the GOP to call Latinos anchor babies but not ok for me to hate them for it.
But now that I have a more respectable name it might be easier for one of these big shot Democrats to avow reading me in public. Well if anyone is out there from the Obama team or the Hillary team shouldn't someone think of putting me on the Hillary campaign team?
I mean who defends her more than I do? Unlike even Mr. Carville, I would never complain about defending her. I mean she's a good persona and will make a great President and I will defend her with everything I have always as I always have done rihgt from when the VSP were all over her for saying she's not Tammy Wynette.
Send me on these shows with these smug Beltway pundits with all their smart talk about emails and I'll show them how not smart they truly are.
Ok, so a judge says she 'vioalted federal policy' which sounds ominous. I'm sure the Hillary haters are going to add this as a new smoking gun. This proves it. After 24 years, vindication-right Rush?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/no-hillarys-emails-are-not-smoking-gun.html
Here's the trouble: the judge may have said she violated federal policy but he doesn't specify what exactly-violating a policy is not necessarily breaking the law.
The judge said that as a comment it wasn't a verdict and it's not like he's in a position to mete out a punishment of her.
"A federal judge has added fresh fuel to the incendiary controversy over Hillary Clinton’s email, asserting during a hearing Thursday that she violated government policy by storing official messages on a private server when she worked as secretary of state."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html#ixzz3jS83UFk4
But what government policy? As he doesn't get specific it doesn''t help us much-though it does help the GOPers in making all kinds of wild aspersions and as wrong as they've been 100 times before the media still taking them seriously.
What Judge Sullivan says just begs questions:
"Sullivan’s said Clinton’s actions had complicated the State Department’s ability to respond to requests for records on various topics. He also ordered the State Department to contact the FBI to determine whether the private server Clinton used, which Clinton turned over to that law enforcement agency earlier this month, contains official records possibly responsive to the FOIA suit."
"During Thursday’s hearing in the State Department case, Sullivan never said precisely how he believed Hillary Clinton violated government policy. But he repeatedly referred to the department’s obligation to preserve records under the Federal Records Act of 1950.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html#ixzz3jS93wvZu
Tom Brown has talked a lot about Feynman Certainty recently-you have to say what you would have to see to change your view on a subject. What would falsify your view?
So what would falsify my view that this email thing is a nothing burger?
1. What policy did she violate?
2. Has this policy whatever it is been interpreted this way before?
3. Plenty of other high ranking government officials have used emails and had servers so what was different in those cases? What is the exact legal statute that shows this?
P.S. In any case, as compelling as the idea of Feynman Certainty seems, David Glanser makes the good point that there are times when it's not helpful. Like had Galileo followed this we might have seen scientific progress delayed for years in moving to the correct view that the earth revolves around the sun.
http://uneasymoney.com/2015/08/13/romer-v-lucas/
On emailgate I'm probably in the positron of Galileo. It's not like a smoking gun is going to make me lose sight of the fact that this has been going on for 23 years.
Whitewater was a nothinburger and so is this.
P.S. As is clear for instance from the strange arguments that Stephen A. Smith makes against Tom Brady, it's clear that there is a real prejudice about 'lawyering up' as if an innocent person never needs to 'hide behind lawyers.''
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/some-bad-news-for-tom-brady-haters.html
The cliche about the Clintons for years is that they 'lawyer up.' This is a very contemptuous way to describe the right of every citizen to due process.
The whole point of the Constitution is that you don't have to incriminate yourself. Yet this is exactly what Brady supposedly should have done as Smith says he 'didn't cooperate' with his own railroading and just like Hillary is supposed incriminate herself here.
No in the Constitution we are innocent until proven guilty not the reverse though that's how the press and Trent Gowdy treat Hillary.
P.S.S. It's like in the tv show Madame Secretary-which is basically the fictional Hillary Clinton-tI saw an episode where the GOP is threatening her with all kinds of hearings and indictments.
But in this Hollywood version she ignores her lawyer's advice and incriminates herself. Now this is Hollywood so the American people are so impressed with her honesty they force the GOP to let it go.
But that's tv for you. What it does show though is this contempt for the Bill of Rights. Which isn't surprising as so many people seem to think that Trump's plan to gut the 14th amendment is perfectly reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment