After listening to the words of Vince Foster's sister, it's clear that the real source of shame is that Trump is again dragging her late brother's name through this again as the GOP did in the 90s.
Trump may have no sense of shame but this is truly shameful.
"Two decades after her brother committed suicide, Vince Foster's sister Sheila Foster Anthony takes to the Washington Post to excoriate Donald Trump for "cynically, crassly and recklessly" spreading old lies about him."
Trump may have no sense of shame but this is truly shameful.
"Two decades after her brother committed suicide, Vince Foster's sister Sheila Foster Anthony takes to the Washington Post to excoriate Donald Trump for "cynically, crassly and recklessly" spreading old lies about him."
"This is scurrilous enough coming from right-wing political operatives who have peddled conspiracy theories about Vince’s death for more than two decades. How could this be coming from the presumptive Republican nominee for president? [...]"
"These outrageous suggestions have caused our family untold pain because this issue went on for so long and these reports were so painful to read. For years, our family had to wage a court fight to prevent release of photographs of Vince’s dead body. My heartbroken mother was plagued by harassing phone calls from a reporter. [...]"
"For Trump to raise these theories again for political advantage is wrong. I cannot let such craven behavior pass without a response."
"It needs no response but it's worth reading the whole thing, if only as a reminder of how offensive and pointlessly cruel the Republican conspiracy machine continues to be. It is one thing to have random nobodies swill their dark guesses and suppositions in the far corners of the internet, but the theories about Foster were elevated by supposedly serious political operatives, packaged for reporters as part of an industrialized, openly partisan effort to create "scandals" where scandals did not exist."
"From Donald Trump's birtherism to the House Republicans' literally unending quest to find partisan conspiracy in the attacks in Benghazi, from Frank Luntz's lists of key words to use when describing liberals to the NRA's insistence that the outgoing president will likely be coming for our guns any week now, it is all the same unkempt pile of mean, crass, cynical crap. The completely fictional notion of creeping shariaalone has been responsible for an uncountable many incidents of misinformation, and hatred, and violence—and that was before men in the streets started citing the words of a presidential contender when committing violence against supposed immigrants or hypothetical Muslims."
"Why should we be surprised that the conspiracy theories are now a factor in the race for president? Wasn't that what all those earlier scandal-peddlers had been working toward all along?"
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/27/1531428/-Vince-Foster-s-sister-speaks-out-against-the-craven-Donald-Trump
Remember as well that the serious media played along with Vince Foster in the first place. So we have them to thank.
Remember also that the email issue is just an outgrowth of Benghazi. Speaking of those damn emails.
"Let's face it, they've got nothing new. That's because this is a problem about work rules regarding email, rather than a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW!"
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/seth-meyers-unravels-clintons-ridiculous?utm_content=bufferf39b5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
This is a distinction that the Beltway has elided from day one. When the pundits wring their hands about her low numbers they are way too modest. If she is now seen as untrustworthy it's largely because they continued to pretend that she violated federal law than this is about work rules-even Obama's new Defense Secretary recently admitted he used private email and that's after the new rules.
Yet it was a one day story.
So just remember the media made Vince Foster a thing which has victimized many people-particularly Foster's own family-just as they have insisted on making the emails a thing.
"These outrageous suggestions have caused our family untold pain because this issue went on for so long and these reports were so painful to read. For years, our family had to wage a court fight to prevent release of photographs of Vince’s dead body. My heartbroken mother was plagued by harassing phone calls from a reporter. [...]"
"For Trump to raise these theories again for political advantage is wrong. I cannot let such craven behavior pass without a response."
"It needs no response but it's worth reading the whole thing, if only as a reminder of how offensive and pointlessly cruel the Republican conspiracy machine continues to be. It is one thing to have random nobodies swill their dark guesses and suppositions in the far corners of the internet, but the theories about Foster were elevated by supposedly serious political operatives, packaged for reporters as part of an industrialized, openly partisan effort to create "scandals" where scandals did not exist."
"From Donald Trump's birtherism to the House Republicans' literally unending quest to find partisan conspiracy in the attacks in Benghazi, from Frank Luntz's lists of key words to use when describing liberals to the NRA's insistence that the outgoing president will likely be coming for our guns any week now, it is all the same unkempt pile of mean, crass, cynical crap. The completely fictional notion of creeping shariaalone has been responsible for an uncountable many incidents of misinformation, and hatred, and violence—and that was before men in the streets started citing the words of a presidential contender when committing violence against supposed immigrants or hypothetical Muslims."
"Why should we be surprised that the conspiracy theories are now a factor in the race for president? Wasn't that what all those earlier scandal-peddlers had been working toward all along?"
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/27/1531428/-Vince-Foster-s-sister-speaks-out-against-the-craven-Donald-Trump
Remember as well that the serious media played along with Vince Foster in the first place. So we have them to thank.
Remember also that the email issue is just an outgrowth of Benghazi. Speaking of those damn emails.
"Let's face it, they've got nothing new. That's because this is a problem about work rules regarding email, rather than a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW!"
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/seth-meyers-unravels-clintons-ridiculous?utm_content=bufferf39b5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
This is a distinction that the Beltway has elided from day one. When the pundits wring their hands about her low numbers they are way too modest. If she is now seen as untrustworthy it's largely because they continued to pretend that she violated federal law than this is about work rules-even Obama's new Defense Secretary recently admitted he used private email and that's after the new rules.
Yet it was a one day story.
So just remember the media made Vince Foster a thing which has victimized many people-particularly Foster's own family-just as they have insisted on making the emails a thing.
Now Chris Cillizza claims he is finally satisfied with Hillary's response to the email story because she:
1. Apologized and 'admitted she made a mistake.'
2. Admitted that people have legitimate concerns.
Whatever makes him happy I guess. My problem is I'm very skeptical of 2. Did people have legitimate concerns about Vince Foster?
To me the truth is that in both cases the main issue was politics: people wanted to hurt Hillary politically. If it were not for politics we'd have long since forgotten about the email story.
Cillizza then observes:
"Clinton's best message in the race is: "I am the person not named 'Donald Trump' running for president." Clinton references the "full threat posed by Donald Trump" in her interview with Todd for this very reason. Hey, you might not like or trust me, she is saying, but that's almost besides the point. I am running against someone who could pose a very real danger to this country. Do you want that?"
"This is a binary choice election. (Sorry Gary Johnson!) There are only two people who have a legitimate chance of being the 45th president of the United States. Clinton doesn't need to beat the ideal choice for Republicans; she just needs to beat Trump. Driving home that point again and again and again is Clinton's best strategy."
If Cillizza realizes that Trump may just poise an unusual danger to this country then I don't know how you don't get there even if she doesn't 'admit there are legitimate concerns.'
I mean are voters really going to say 'I would not have voted for Hitler 2.0 for the world but Hillary was dismissive of the legitimate concerns over her email'?
I notice as well that we never get any polls that show that most people care about 'her damn emails' which tells that the polls that have been done show that most people don't.
Let's face it, if the polls show a majority of people polled do care it's all we'd ever hear about.
Cillizza may be happy with what she said to Chuck Todd but I still am not happy with what he said yesterday.
"Clinton initially sought to downplay the report as old news. "It’s the same story," she told Univision anchor Maria Elena Salinas. "Just like previous secretaries of state, I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented."
"Except that it was. While other secretaries of state had used personal email addresses, none of them had exclusively done so. And as Helderman and Hamburger noted, the State Department IG report scolded Clinton not only for using the email address exclusively but also for slow-walking the release of those emails to the State Department."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/28/hillary-clinton-just-had-the-worst-week-in-washington/
This is why I'm so skeptical that anyone has legitimate concerns even Chris Cillizza. He while lecturing her about honestly, says so many false things himself.
Actually the report showed that Colin Powell also used to exclusively. Yet Cillizza himself continues to say false things.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-lies-of-chris-cillizza-and-double.html
And the report did not focus much on her personally. And you can say she slow-walked releasing them but at least she released 50,000 early which is a lot more than any of the other Secretary of States have released.
Powell actually destroyed his. Does Cillizza really not think that's more egregious?
But of course, the outrage over this could not be more selective-ie, not real but political.
Then I heard some on cable news admit that Powell also used his exclusively but try a new tenuous distinction: but she set up her on email server. That is unprecedented.
Except it isn't-Jeb Bush did the same as Florida Governor and he, like Powell, later destroyed them.
All of this points to the fact that: this is a story about workplace rules regarding emails, not breaking federal laws.
Hillary's use of private emails is part of this same confusion about these workplace rules rather than somehow her use of it being more outrageous than the many, many other government officials both in State and the federal government as well as in state governments.
Heck the W Administration destroyed millions of emails. But none of this matters, Cillizza thinks. We only care when Hillary does it.
Listen. Hillary Clinton is the only thing separating us from Hitler 2.0.
Cillizza and friends may piously declare they will not lie or shade the truth for Hillary Clinton even if doing so makes the chance of Hitler 2.0 less likely.
But the fact that Cillizza is actually lying and shading the truth against Hillary Clinton to make Hitler 2.0 more likely is stunning. Or it should be.
But then again, this is the same media who gave us Vince Foster, Travelgate, Whitewater, Troopergate and a whole host of other refuse.
Even in the face of a candidate who promises to crack down the Beltway itself, they are holding to form.
2. Admitted that people have legitimate concerns.
Whatever makes him happy I guess. My problem is I'm very skeptical of 2. Did people have legitimate concerns about Vince Foster?
To me the truth is that in both cases the main issue was politics: people wanted to hurt Hillary politically. If it were not for politics we'd have long since forgotten about the email story.
Cillizza then observes:
"Clinton's best message in the race is: "I am the person not named 'Donald Trump' running for president." Clinton references the "full threat posed by Donald Trump" in her interview with Todd for this very reason. Hey, you might not like or trust me, she is saying, but that's almost besides the point. I am running against someone who could pose a very real danger to this country. Do you want that?"
"This is a binary choice election. (Sorry Gary Johnson!) There are only two people who have a legitimate chance of being the 45th president of the United States. Clinton doesn't need to beat the ideal choice for Republicans; she just needs to beat Trump. Driving home that point again and again and again is Clinton's best strategy."
If Cillizza realizes that Trump may just poise an unusual danger to this country then I don't know how you don't get there even if she doesn't 'admit there are legitimate concerns.'
I mean are voters really going to say 'I would not have voted for Hitler 2.0 for the world but Hillary was dismissive of the legitimate concerns over her email'?
I notice as well that we never get any polls that show that most people care about 'her damn emails' which tells that the polls that have been done show that most people don't.
Let's face it, if the polls show a majority of people polled do care it's all we'd ever hear about.
Cillizza may be happy with what she said to Chuck Todd but I still am not happy with what he said yesterday.
"Clinton initially sought to downplay the report as old news. "It’s the same story," she told Univision anchor Maria Elena Salinas. "Just like previous secretaries of state, I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented."
"Except that it was. While other secretaries of state had used personal email addresses, none of them had exclusively done so. And as Helderman and Hamburger noted, the State Department IG report scolded Clinton not only for using the email address exclusively but also for slow-walking the release of those emails to the State Department."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/28/hillary-clinton-just-had-the-worst-week-in-washington/
This is why I'm so skeptical that anyone has legitimate concerns even Chris Cillizza. He while lecturing her about honestly, says so many false things himself.
Actually the report showed that Colin Powell also used to exclusively. Yet Cillizza himself continues to say false things.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-lies-of-chris-cillizza-and-double.html
And the report did not focus much on her personally. And you can say she slow-walked releasing them but at least she released 50,000 early which is a lot more than any of the other Secretary of States have released.
Powell actually destroyed his. Does Cillizza really not think that's more egregious?
But of course, the outrage over this could not be more selective-ie, not real but political.
Then I heard some on cable news admit that Powell also used his exclusively but try a new tenuous distinction: but she set up her on email server. That is unprecedented.
Except it isn't-Jeb Bush did the same as Florida Governor and he, like Powell, later destroyed them.
All of this points to the fact that: this is a story about workplace rules regarding emails, not breaking federal laws.
Hillary's use of private emails is part of this same confusion about these workplace rules rather than somehow her use of it being more outrageous than the many, many other government officials both in State and the federal government as well as in state governments.
Heck the W Administration destroyed millions of emails. But none of this matters, Cillizza thinks. We only care when Hillary does it.
Listen. Hillary Clinton is the only thing separating us from Hitler 2.0.
Cillizza and friends may piously declare they will not lie or shade the truth for Hillary Clinton even if doing so makes the chance of Hitler 2.0 less likely.
But the fact that Cillizza is actually lying and shading the truth against Hillary Clinton to make Hitler 2.0 more likely is stunning. Or it should be.
But then again, this is the same media who gave us Vince Foster, Travelgate, Whitewater, Troopergate and a whole host of other refuse.
Even in the face of a candidate who promises to crack down the Beltway itself, they are holding to form.
No comments:
Post a Comment