Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy

[Eric the Green]

(09-03-2016, 11:48 PM)Galen Wrote: Eric the Obtuse you are about the most simplistic person and simple minded individual that it has been my misfortune to have ever encountered.

You sure have perfected the art of calling the kettle black.

Galen the Goofy, I don't see anyone rushing the stage in that video.

You are so regressive, Galen, that it is pitiful. And your only rationale for your right-wing opinions is that you hate boomers. There's no excuse for your ignorance, but you will persist in it, I am sure.

[Eric the Green]

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?
By Robert Farley
Posted on June 19, 2015 | Corrected on June 19, 2015
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-d...-money-go/

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but

Fiorina is simply wrong.

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

[Eric the Green]

Before the Clinton Foundation, there were emails. Before that, ACORN. Meet 'scandal by script'

By Hunter, Daily Kos
Monday Sep 05, 2016 · 10:31 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/5...-by-script

Did you know former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell, like the Clinton family, also has a charity? Probably not, because nobody has ever given a damn.

So what about the charity? Well, Powell’s wife, Alma Powell, took it over. And it kept raking in donations from corporate America. Ken Lay, the chair of Enron, was a big donor. He also backed a literacy-related charity that was founded by the then-president’s mother. The US Department of State, at the time Powell was secretary, went to bat for Enron in a dispute the company was having with the Indian government.

Did Lay or any other Enron official attempt to use their connections with Alma Powell (or Barbara Bush, for that matter) to help secure access to State Department personnel in order to voice these concerns? Did any other donors to America’s Promise? I have no idea, because to the best of my knowledge nobody in the media ever launched an extensive investigation into these matters.

What makes all the talk of Clinton Foundation "scandals" so maddeningly familiar is that for every serious, non-fraudulent story written so far, nobody has ever been able to find a "there" there. Was there any wrongdoing whatsoever? Nobody can find any. Is the Foundation a legitimate charity doing key, worldwide charitable work? Nobody disputes it. Are they good at what they do? Charity watchers say yes. We are nonetheless chained to a news game of Telephone, in which small snippets of fact are rolled and molded into stories that can never produce any actual scandal, but which we are repeatedly told might look bad if you considered only a few snippets here and discounted all the other snippets over there, repeat, and so on............

[Eric the Green]

[Anthony '58]

If Galen supports Trump, then he's a masochist.

[Galen]

(09-06-2016, 09:40 AM)Anthony Wrote: If Galen supports Trump, then he's a masochist.

I am not happy with either one of them.  Continuing to poke Russia with a stick tends to end badly for any nation that persists in doing so.  The fact that in this day and age both sides have nukes makes an aggressive policy toward Russia even worse.  I would rather not relive the Cold War at this time since the neocons would be stupid enough to start a world war.

[Odin]

(09-06-2016, 09:40 AM)Anthony Wrote: If Galen supports Trump, then he's a masochist.

Most so-called "Libertarians" are just Authoritartian Social-Darwinists who think freedom means the "freedom" for the strong to exploit the weak. The rest are eccentric academics.

[Odin]

WaPo: Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?

[Eric the Green]

From Ken Burns via facebook post



So, How many dead, again? Hillary did what to our embassies?

[Galen]

(09-07-2016, 12:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: So, How many dead, again? Hillary did what to our embassies?

There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: So, How many dead, again? Hillary did what to our embassies?

There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Assuming "you think" is appropriate for you, since you don't think, or even know how to think (iow, back atcha, dude ) Ideologues don't usually do much thinkin' they just repeat slogans.

[Galen]

(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: So, How many dead, again? Hillary did what to our embassies?

There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better.  I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people.  What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar.  This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.

It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: So, How many dead, again? Hillary did what to our embassies?

There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better.  I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people.  What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar.  This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.

It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.

That is what Trump and the Republicans are doing raising the Benghazi embassy issue.

You are not the only one here who has stated that aggressive US policy is aimed at protecting the dominance of the dollar. If that's what Hillary and others have thought, the concern is probably misplaced. It may not really matter to US interests if the dollar is supreme or not as a reserve currency, etc.

[Galen]

(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: So, How many dead, again? Hillary did what to our embassies?

There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better.  I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people.  What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar.  This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.

It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.

That is what Trump and the Republicans are doing raising the Benghazi embassy issue.

You are not the only one here who has stated that aggressive US policy is aimed at protecting the dominance of the dollar. If that's what Hillary and others have thought, the concern is probably misplaced. It may not really matter to US interests if the dollar is supreme or not as a reserve currency, etc.

First, the Benghazi situation would not have arisen without the Libyan intervention.  I am not particularly thrilled with Trump but I would be surprised it he didn't say anything about this since Americans tend to get more worked up about US troops getting killed.

Second, the welfare and regulatory state you love depends on the petrodollar system remaining intact because that is the only thing maintaining demand for dollars and treasury securities which allows borrowing to continue.  It will not be possible to taxes enough to close the deficit, particularly when interest rates rise as doubts about the credit worthiness of the US government become commonplace.

Once that happens there are three choices.  First, the Fed can choose to monetize the debt, currently called quantitative easing.  Second, the federal government can default on its debt.  It may not even be called that but many promises, often called unfunded liabilities, will not be kept.  Third, the government can live within its means, which will mean the government will become much smaller.

Money is one half every transaction so it damn well matters what happens to it.

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 02:33 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Eric Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote: There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better.  I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people.  What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar.  This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.

It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.

That is what Trump and the Republicans are doing raising the Benghazi embassy issue.

You are not the only one here who has stated that aggressive US policy is aimed at protecting the dominance of the dollar. If that's what Hillary and others have thought, the concern is probably misplaced. It may not really matter to US interests if the dollar is supreme or not as a reserve currency, etc.

First, the Benghazi situation would not have arisen without the Libyan intervention.  I am not particularly thrilled with Trump but I would be surprised it he didn't say anything about this since Americans tend to get more worked up about US troops getting killed.

Republicans don't follow you; they only instill in Americans the idea that Hillary killed 4 people, and not that their men killed many dozens. In all the other Republican cases too, attackers were also mad at American foreign policy and actions.

Quote:Second, the welfare and regulatory state you love depends on the petrodollar system remaining intact because that is the only thing maintaining demand for dollars and treasury securities which allows borrowing to continue.  It will not be possible to (raise) taxes enough to close the deficit, particularly when interest rates rise as doubts about the credit worthiness of the US government become commonplace.

If the Chinese want to invest in American debt instruments, what difference does it make what currency they use to buy them? Also, much of the borrowing is from Americans.

Welfare per se is a tiny portion of the budget, compared to the military, debt, and entitlements which people have paid for.

Quote:Once that happens there are three choices.  First, the Fed can choose to monetize the debt, currently called quantitative easing.  Second, the federal government can default on its debt.  It may not even be called that but many promises, often called unfunded liabilities, will not be kept.  Third, the government can live within its means, which will mean the government will become much smaller.

Not necessarily. "Living within its means" only means to cut expenses (military, pork, subsidies, etc) or raise taxes to pay its expenses, which it has the "means" to do. QE seems to work OK in recessions.

[playwrite]

(09-07-2016, 02:33 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote: There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better.  I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people.  What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar.  This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.

It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.

That is what Trump and the Republicans are doing raising the Benghazi embassy issue.

You are not the only one here who has stated that aggressive US policy is aimed at protecting the dominance of the dollar. If that's what Hillary and others have thought, the concern is probably misplaced. It may not really matter to US interests if the dollar is supreme or not as a reserve currency, etc.

First, the Benghazi situation would not have arisen without the Libyan intervention.  I am not particularly thrilled with Trump but I would be surprised it he didn't say anything about this since Americans tend to get more worked up about US troops getting killed.

...

This is a good example of the ignorance, willful or not, of the historical context, regardless of how recent, that drives the horseshXt that spouts out of those with Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome.

Libya was already in the toilet of civil war before there was ANY action by the US, NATO or the UN.  Thousands were being killed; the country was already divided between warring groups loyal to the regime and many anti-regime groups that hatred toward each other was on-hold as they fought against their common enemy (see Iraq or Syria for example).

It was France that led the charge on getting a UN resolution for a no-fly zone to stop the bombing slaughter by Gadhafi forces of rebel-held cities that was killing thousands of civilians.  It wasn't until Gadhafi choose to ignore that no-fly zone and resume killing civilians that all hell was rained down on his ass - as agreed to by the United Nations including, of course, the Security Council.  Some would try to suggest this was similar to Bush ramming through his Iraq invasion based on lies, but the sequence of events, the seriousness and validity of events, and the lead drivers  are completely different.  To suggest otherwise, or to lay those events onto the US Secretary of State, is more than just a little disingenuous - it's idiocy that can only be derived from someone fully devoured by their Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome.

In the aftermath, our primary reason for our presence in Libya was to acquire or destroy as many of the thousands of Stinger Missiles as possible.  These missiles can easily take down commercial airliners around airports with little risk to those firing them, and no one knew who had these.  This was the stuff of the worse-nightmares of every intel operation of every nation in the area if not the entire world.   Our Benghazi mission was a CIA mission to get those missiles - that is why it was low-profile, why Stevens didn't want a platoon of Marines there - the mission required our blending in as much as possible. 

You Clinton haters always put these events in a context that we would be living in magic pony land but for Clinton's supposed mistakes.  The real world isn't like that - grow up.

[playwrite]

(08-30-2016, 12:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-30-2016, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:01 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:So why is Hillary in the POTUS race so doggedly?  I'm not a psychologist, but I'll bet it includes (or may consist entirely of) the opportunity to defeat her enemies.  Where we disagree is on her lack of self awareness and even her sense of destiny. I don't see her as insightful at all.  She's certainly dogged and more than adequately scrappy, but I don't see her as a visionary in any sense.  As a visionary, she's the female GHWB.  On score settling, GWB.

We don’t disagree there.  I just don’t think she is stupid* like Trump or intellectually uncurious like GWB. I think your motivation is a reasonable start.  How does becoming another Hoover constitute “defeating her enemies”?  Answer, it doesn’t.  So vison is out.

She is promising small ball, after all, the future is unknowable and if the economic environment continues as it is now, only small ball is possible.  If she wins it is likely Congress will approve Merrit Garland.  And if Ginsburg retires, she will be forced to replace her with a moderate.  Even so, the center of gravity will move to the left, so that’s a win and it will be all she gets. She will use her good working relationships and dogged persistence to make a few small changes, perhaps enough to gain a second term,.  Or perhaps she'll retire out of exhaustion. It’s the best that can be hoped for, from her perspective.
 
On the other hand, what happens if the economy/world order DOES takes a turn for the worse? Suppose the market collapses, there is another financial crisis, and Depression looms.  Yellen meets with her and informs her that the Fed is powerless (they ARE out of ammo and everybody knows it).  The House is adamant, no bailout this time.  They stand ready to insist that everything collapse for surely she will get the blame.  They got revenge for Nixon on her husband and now they are going to get revenge for Hoover.
 
So does she go gently into that good night and let her enemies win without even a fight?  Not if she is “dogged and more than adequately scrappy”.  And that’s what I am hoping for.
 
*stupid is used here as a synonym for unwise rather than unintelligent

I was going to leave this as-is, since I had little to add.  Now, with the Senate races tightening and both candidates heading for the lowest favorability records in recent history, I've changed my mind.

Hillary is showing just how oblivious she is to the maelstrom circling around her, and how little she will bend, even when it's clearly in her favor.  The email and the Clinton Foundation issues continue to drip-drip-drip negatives that are not being ignored by the press or the public.  AS expected, her positives continue to drop along with them.  That she's still ahead of Trump is strictly his doing (he's just that bad), but is that a rational position to hold in the biggest political game in the world?  A strategic thinker would see this as a time to cut losses and mend fences, yet she persists in believing that her positions will prevail or, more likely, the issues will just fade away -- this, after 30+years of dogged opposition by an increasingly frustrated and manic GOP. 

She's a professional player who just happens to be totally tone deaf.  Don't expect anything other than dissonance.  Other than the SCOTUS, I see no upside here.

She is not very deft at handling this situation. It's a strange one she's in though. Most of the charges against her have no merit at all. But Hillary does just enough of an appearance of wrong-doing to give her fanatical enemies enough to use to deceive the people that there's fire behind their smoke. The people can't tell the difference between the truth and the gish gallop. And then she dodges it just enough so they can charge her with distorting the truth. Most of it is simply the result of who the opponents are, and their striking ability to foster the big lie on the people, but the Clintons give them just enough to use against them. It is a kind of complacency combined with justified resistance (often by means of withholding) to the other side's tactics. A bit more complacency on Leo Bill's part, and a bit more resistance on Scorpio Hillary's part.

I don't see that much change over the last few months in Hillary's approval ratings. The Hillary rating seems to have declined from about 45 to about 40 in the last week. The real clear average is down today from -10 to -12. Interesting that the Reuters/Ipsos poll is an outlier, giving both Trump and Clinton higher ratings than the other polls do.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...html#polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...ility.html

The main problem with Hillary's campaign now is that it's mostly negative, against Trump. That degrades the campaign, since there's nothing but crap from the other side anyway. She needs to tout her own positives and ideas more.

Here's a good, very recent, example of how it actually works -

Remember just last week the big brouhaha about there being 30 'new' emails related to Benghazi -

BREAKING NEWS: FBI Captures 30 NEW Hillary Emails About Benghazi!

Donald Trump blasts Clinton over 30 emails that could be Benghazi-related

Have you heard anything more about this now?  Probable not, right?  Why?

Well because -

New trove of Clinton Benghazi emails proves thin

Quote:State Department says set of about 30 Benghazi-related messages discovered by FBI contains only one that's all-new.

And what did that one new email say?

  

Quote:However, in a court filing early Wednesday morning, government lawyers said a closer review of the records the FBI located revealed only one of the messages was entirely absent from those produced by previous State Department searches: a flattering note sent by a veteran U.S. diplomat following her testimony on Benghazi before a Senate panel in January 2013.

"I watched with great admiration as she dealt with a tough and personally painful issue in a fair, candid and determined manner," then-U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Thomas Shannon wrote in a message sent to State Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills official account and forwarded on by Mills to Clinton's personal one. "I was especially impressed by her ability to turn aside the obvious efforts to politicize the events in Benghazi, reminding Americans of the tremendous sacrifice made by Chris Stevens and his colleagues but also insisting that our ability to play a positive role in the world and protect U.S. interests requires a willingness to take risks."

Now is this fault of Clinton not responding to the latest horseshXt or is it the fault of those in the general public that let a billion dollar-a-year Clinton hate industry do their thinking for them?

[Eric the Green]

Yes, I think the answer to your question is obvious, Mr. Playwrite.

[playwrite]

Just in case you missed it -

AP deletes Clinton Foundation tweet

Quote:The Associated Press announced on Thursday that it is deleting a two-week old tweet about the Clinton Foundation.
“The Associated Press today is deleting a 2-week-old tweet about Hillary Clinton’s meetings as Cabinet secretary after concluding the tweet fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context,” AP's vice president for standards John Daniszewski wrote in ablog post. “At the same time, we are revising our practices to require removal and correction of any AP tweets found not to meet AP standards, including tweets that contain information that is incorrect, misleading, unclear or could be interpreted as unfair, or having a problem in tone.”
The tweet in question linked to an investigation by the AP into how many Clinton Foundation donors also met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state.
“More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation,” the original tweet read in part.
What the tweet didn’t mention was that the AP analysis focused only on Clinton’s discretionary meetings with those who were not in the U.S. federal government or representatives of foreign governments, which likely made up the vast majority of the people Clinton met with as secretary of tate (though we don't know that yet because the State Department has not released Clinton's schedules for her time as secretary, something the AP has been fighting for). The tweet, and in some cases the story, was slammed by some media critics and many on the left.
The Clinton campaign initially formally requested the AP remove or amend the tweet, but spokesman Brian Fallon told POLITICO they hadn’t had further conversations with AP since their initial request.
While AP’s executive editor, Kathleen Carroll, defended the report, she did admit in an interview with CNN last month that the tweet was “sloppy” but said wire service wasn’t going to change it.
The two-week old tweet will now be replaced with one that reads “AP review: Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation.”
“Prior to this guideline change, whether to delete or update tweets had been left to AP news managers to decide on a case-by-case basis. The new guidance is mandatory, subjecting tweets to the same internal review and response process as other AP content,” Daniszewski wrote. “In the earlier days of Twitter, there had been a belief that removing tweets was akin to retroactively editing a conversation; it wasn’t transparent. Additionally, tweets were seen more as providing paths to in-depth content and less as content in themselves that would remain in the public discussion for an extended period. Industry thinking on this topic has been changing. And the controversy over the AP tweet has led us to an extensive reflection on this evolution.”
[i]Hadas Gold is a reporter at Politico.[/i]

So, now each of the legs on 3-legged stool of the she's-dishonest meme have been found to be bullshXt - Benghazi, email server and now the Foundation pay-to-play - all bullshXt from the billion dollar a year Clinton Hate industry... and many of you fell for it and will keep falling for it.


And also little known -

Top fact checkers confirm Hillary Clinton is honest, while Donald Trump is a pathological liar