SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as she pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed multi-millionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet-proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
[...] The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and The Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and most major New-York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux-objectivity; I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor continues past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity from Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
Source: The Intercept
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:14AM
"she's a bitch" is all you've heard negatively about Clinton? If that's all it was I would support her wholeheartedly.
No, look at all the bold-face lies she has told.
"She's a bitch" is what I hear after drilling down past the superficial reporting of those "lies" and finding out that they are so much less than they've been made out to be. Instead of acknowledging the facts, cognitive dissonance kicks in and "she's a bitch" is the fall back.
For example:
“I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”
That's one of her "bold-faced lies" right?
The email was marked classified. But it was actually declassified and someone forgot to fully remove all of the markings, leaving just a "(C)" on two line items from her declassified telephone call sheet. [state.gov]
So, you tell me now - is that a "bold-faced lie" or a non-issue?
(Score: 2, Informative) by driven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:25AM
I'm sure you can find a few gems here: http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/heres-all-40-times-hillary-clinton-told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/ [mediaite.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:36AM
Wow. Answer the question. Why is it so hard to admit that one of the biggest "lies" turned out to be nothing at all? Is it because your opinion isn't actually based on facts?
I've literally spent hours digging through "bold faced lies" and the end result has always been the same -- with the full details they barely even qualify as lies, much less "bold-faced." If you can't be bothered to spell out even one lie you think is too heinous, why should I go dig through the trash for you? You are so utterly convinced, then tell me what exactly convinced you. Otherwise you're just doing a variation on "she's a bitch," which is exactly where we started.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:01AM
Hey look! I got the "-1 Troll" aka "-1 She's a bitch!" mod on both those posts.
I kinda wish scores could go down past -1 just to see how many people will non-ironically give me a "-1 She's a bitch!"
(Score: 1) by driven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:01AM
Re-read what I said. I never said anything specifically about the classified emails - you did. I also never asked you to "dig through the trash" - you did that on your own.
As for a specific lie, I'm not going to bother pointing one out because it doesn't matter. If only 25% or 50% of the "lies" turn out to be really lies, that's still a shit load of lies. Even of the "obvious" lies I have no way to prove them myself, and even if I could there's nothing I can do about it. The media itself is allowed to lie by law, so half of what I read could be complete bullshit. Now with all the lies and misinformation and selective coverage out there, I try and not worry myself to death about it all thus my reluctance to get too deep into this topic with you. I am not out to convince you or anyone else. You have an Internet search like the rest of us and can form your own opinion. If you really think she's totally above board then good for you. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. But damn, there is a wealth of material out there that suggests she isn't.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by captain normal on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:23AM
Just when did you stop beating your wife? What percent of what you write is untruthful? Is that a shit load of lies? Or just a a load of shit? Are you actually getting paid to post this crap?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:47AM
Don't you know?
Whenever there is smoke, there must be fire.
Even if its just somebody blowing smoke up your ass - it burns!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:40AM
Here you go, pal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY [youtube.com]
Learn to use Google.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:33AM
Yes, I picked the classified emails because that's the big, big, big one nowadays and I had the links at hand. It was illustrative of how one of the biggest "bold-faced lies" was actually nothing. Others which I have looked into over the last few months include Vince Foster, Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, her Saul Alinsky connection, her palling around with a KKK organizer, her "misconduct" during Watergate and even her support for Barry Goldwater. All completely mundane.
> I'm not going to bother pointing one out because it doesn't matter.
Well if you aren't willing to go into specifics, don't pretend that your opinion is based on anything more than the feels. I have spent the time to look into specifics and EVERY SINGLE TIME it was bullshit. There may well be non-bullshit cases I have not looked into. But I am not interested in campaigning for her, so I don't have enough time to run down every accusation against her from her entire career. I went with the highlights.
I started out with a very low opinion of her, but long ago I learned the hardest thing to do was to doubt what I want to believe. So now I always try to "prove me wrong" and it turned out it was pretty damn easy to do in her case. I don't have a positive opinion of her (I had no interest in her highlight reel) just that at worst she is a competent bureaucrat who sucks at "shaking hands and kissing babies."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:39PM
Yes, I picked the classified emails because that's the big, big, big one nowadays and I had the links at hand. It was illustrative of how one of the biggest "bold-faced lies" was actually nothing.
If all these emails allegations are "actually nothing," then why the hell did they go to so much trouble to try to cover it up?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:31PM
Covering them up and deleting all those emails is obstruction of justice even if there wasn't an issue to begin with. The DoJ should have taken her to task for that alone. Not to mention that she was supposed to turn over all the work emails when she left office and didn't do that until 2 years later.
Even under the most generous interpretation of her antics, she's still a criminal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:29AM
Then it was classified as she received it.
This was and is irrelevant in the classified environment. If it has markings of classified on it then it is required to be treated as classified, no further questions asked.
Therefore, her failure to follow protocol for items marked classified was an illegal act on her part, and she should be found guilty of treason and executed. No excuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:06PM
I work for the DoD and I'm required to sign a NDA for employment; I assume Hillary had to sign a similar NDA as a requirement for her employment. From memory, the NDA I signed says that I could be liable for administrative action as well as civil and criminal penalties if I improperly disclose classified information. I don't recall any wording suggesting I could be tried for treason. I assume that Hillary's NDA has similar wording. You need to dial your hysteria back down to 11. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:33AM
It isn't hysteria at all. "Mishandling" classified data would include selling that information to foreign hostile entities. Which would become spying and treason. It's only a difference of degree, and possibly motivation. But any mishandling qualifies as a crime.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:52PM
“I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”
Notice she didn't say that she never received nor sent any material that was classified. Markings don't make such material classified, but she choose to imply that. And let us note that while she can legally order the striping of security classifications off of State Department documents and propagate them via a promiscuous and poorly protected email server in an "extremely careless" (and of course, feloniously, grossly negligent) way, she can't do the same legally for documents that don't come from the State Department such as spy satellite photos or discussion of undercover sources and agents.
And that brings up another point here. There are more sorts of classified markings than the portion markings you speak about above. And some of the top secret stuff apparently would be loaded with classified markings. Your "three documents" are merely some unclassified leftovers. Nothing was said of the markings of classified stuff that is not publicly available. But the FBI is curiously disinterested in such illegal activity where either classification markings were stripped from documents which Clinton and her staff had no authority to do so, or they weren't and the illegal handling of classified documents may have been even more brazen than claimed by Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @02:48AM
According the FBI, there were 8 chains that contained top secret, 36 that included secret, and 8 that included confidential. So yes, "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." is a fucking bold-faced lie.
PS. She's a bitch.