I Don't Think That's What Transparency Means, Mrs. Clinton
Hillary: "I will do my part to provide transparency to Americans."
Like you're doing now? Because we can see through the empty air where all your emails used to be?
I Don't Think That's What Transparency Means, Mrs. Clinton
Hillary: "I will do my part to provide transparency to Americans."
Like you're doing now? Because we can see through the empty air where all your emails used to be?
Perhaps she meant : I will do my part to provide transparency to American secrets to any two bit hacker.
Or the old standby of liberals of redefining words on the fly. Such as ignoring a persons race now is racism. Treating men and women the same = sexism. Fair share means one pays more than others.
Joe J at August 15, 2015 11:59 PM
Sad that so many simply want to elect her despite her 'record' of being exactly who we see - a despicable amoral person.
Bob in Texas at August 16, 2015 4:34 AM
Please note I'm not against amoral people. Once you recognize this characteristic they are just like everyone else. Good points and bad points.
The despicable ones are dangerous whether in power or not.
Bob in Texas at August 16, 2015 5:45 AM
It seems to me she is using the same definition as upper management at my employer.
The Former Banker at August 16, 2015 11:48 AM
Yes, let's condemn in liberals what we ignored in conservatives.
Compared to Bush's email scandal, Hillary is a rank amateur!
Patrick at August 16, 2015 3:58 PM
Well, Patrick – since salon.com is the Authority, perhaps you can say how much top-secret material was handed to the RNC.
And then you can tell us all what you have learned at a fallacy tutorial site. You have just advanced the "two wrongs" fallacy. Again.
Then again, you have to. Otherwise, you would have to excoriate the current president for continuing the policies of the previous one.
I am happy to point out a fundamental difference between us:
I do not endorse stupidity like this, no matter which party is involved.
Radwaste at August 16, 2015 5:15 PM
No, Rad. You just ignored it when Bush did it. Now that Hillary does it, and to a much lesser degree, you're screaming bloody murder.
And I would drop your whole "logical fallacies" shtick. You haven't the slightest idea how logical fallacies work, and frankly, it leaves me embarrassed for you.
Take, for instance, this one. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. I didn't say Hillary didn't do anything wrong. I'm pointing out that the posters on this blog are being inconsistent (so, what else is new?) in refusing to condemn Bush, who lost so many emails, he makes Hillary look like a piker. But now that Hillary's done it, it's suddenly wrong. Gee, it wasn't wrong before...wonder why?
It has nothing to do with "two wrongs making a right," since I never said Hillary was right. I'm saying that according to the posters on this blog (including you), it was all right when Bush did it. And to a much greater degree.
Patrick at August 16, 2015 7:04 PM
"I'm saying that according to the posters on this blog (including you), it was all right when Bush did it. And to a much greater degree."
False.
Radwaste at August 17, 2015 2:47 AM
I didn't realize that Bush was running for office again, Patrick. And the but but but Buuush! excuse has really gotten thin of the years.
Ben at August 17, 2015 8:59 AM
Well, isn't that just too damned bad? So sorry to hear you're sick of hearing that Bush did the same things that you're only just now grinding your teeth over when a Democrat does it.
Well, you'll just have to strap in, because I have no plans whatsoever to stop reminding the posters here that they whine and cry about something some democrat did, but completely ignored when Bush did the same thing.
Patrick at August 17, 2015 9:31 AM
It was not "all right." It was a minor scandal. No one on this blog endorsed Rove's deletion of e-mails. It was a minor scandal related to another non-scandal the Democrats were trying to make into a scandal.
And, the firing of the US attorneys at the heart of the Bush e-mail scandal was discussed at length here, with several posters here excoriating Bush for firing them.
===================================
Lesser only in the number of e-mails deleted, not in the content of the e-mails, nor in the brazenness of the deletions.
Background:
The Bush White House set up a server to separate political business from government business (as required by the Hatch Act). Later, when the Democrats were making a big stink about the firing of eight Democrat-appointed US attorneys (who serve at the pleasure of the president), it was discovered that millions of the RNC server e-mails had been deleted by Karl Rove, e-mails that potentially discussed the US attorneys and/or Valerie Plame, another non-scandal the Democrats were anxious to turn into a scandal (Plame herself had revealed her CIA connections at Washington cocktail parties).
It's not clear whether any potential mention of Plame or the US attorneys in any of the e-mails was conducting government business or just part of the conversation.
No insinuation that classified materials were contained in the RNC server e-mails was made, then or now.
Both the White House and the RNC cooperated fully in the ensuing investigation and 22 million e-mails were recovered and will be made public at a predetermined time (per an agreement between the Obama White House and former Bush Administration officials).
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, used only her personal server for both government and personal communications. The server handling those e-mails was housed in her private residence. She set her advisers and subordinates up with an e-mail account on that server which they used to conduct government business.
When the State Department requested she turn over the server, she turned over 55,000 printed pages (no electronic search is possible - so all searches, vetting, and reviews must be done manually) arguing that anything else on the server was personal. She then erased the server and handed it over to an IT company (a firm not cleared by Defense Security for access to classified material) which says there was no backup server and it will be next to impossible to recover the e-mails.
At least 60 of Clinton's e-mails reviewed by the FBI so far have made reference to or contained classified material (albeit mostly at lower levels) that was required by law to be encrypted on government servers.
While the behavior of the Bush White House was questionable (is there anyone left who trusts Karl Rove?), Hillary's behavior has been inept (Her excuse: only one account per device) and certainly suspicious.
===================================
Sorry to hear that you don't like people holding Democrats responsible for their behavior. I know it hasn't been done by the media very often over the years, so I'm sure this is upsetting to you.
In other news, your raging hatred against George W. Bush is getting old and tiresome. The man is retired. He wasn't the best president but he was far from the worst. Let it be. Move on.
Conan the Grammarian at August 17, 2015 10:06 AM
Sorry, Patrick, I don't mean to jump on the "Let's bash Patrick bandwagon" but, what Bush did or didn't do is now water under the bridge.
However, what Hillary is doing or not doing, or lying about, or cheating, or stealing DOES matter because that is water yet to flow under the bridge if she becomes President.
It is important to point out her nonsense before it becomes nonsense that we will all have to live with.
I just wish more of the media would point out the "short-comings" of BOTH parties like I have seen Amy do.
As I see it, Hillary has gotten away with a lot more than other folks have; from Whitewater to Benghazi she has lied and lied and lied. And she continues to think she can do whatever she wants and say whatever she wants.
While actual prison time might be out of the question; I do hope that she finally crashes and burns with this email crap ending any possibility of a political future for her or the rest of her family whether it be good ol' boy Bubba or her daughter. I don't want another Clinton anywhere near, let alone in, our government. They are folks that cannot be trusted.
charles at August 17, 2015 1:14 PM
"... what Bush did or didn't do is now water under the bridge."
Only if the statute of limitations has expired.
Patrick at August 17, 2015 4:29 PM
Gosh, I thought Conan had decided not to respond to me any more. Well, that vacation was short.
Patrick at August 17, 2015 5:12 PM
No, Patrick, I left that thread, not this forum. I'll always point out when you're wrong (if I don't get carpal tunnel from typing so much). What I refuse to do again is get sucked into your vortex of inanity ("You didn't respond to my exact words, You put words in my mouth. You're stupid").
Conan the Grammarian at August 17, 2015 6:28 PM
Well, knock yourself out then, Conan.
Conan:Sorry to hear that you don't like people holding Democrats responsible for their behavior.
I don't have any objections to people holding Democrats responsible, as long as they're willing to hold Republicans responsible for doing the same things.
But that so seldom seems to be the case, including with you.
Sorry to hear you don't like being called out on hypocrisy. (Well, actually, I'm not sorry at all.)
Patrick at August 18, 2015 6:29 AM
And you do the exact same thing when any Republican is called out too. That's why you supported Bush way back when. Riiight Patrick. No double standard there. Nope, none at all . . .
Ben at August 18, 2015 8:54 AM
You go ahead and keep defending Democrat misbehavior by equating marginally-similar behavior by Republicans and whining that no one cared when Republicans did it. And then you go ahead and keep accusing those who point out the differences of hypocrisy.
And go ahead and keep calling yourself an independent.
By the way, plenty of people on this forum have pointed out Bush's flaws and criticized his presidency, myself included. Pointing out the flaws in your hatred-fueled rants against him is not giving him a pass on bad behavior.
Nor is it hypocrisy when we call out a Democrat on bad behavior because you don't think we were hard enough on Bush.
Conan the Grammariang at August 18, 2015 9:12 AM
After rereading your lengthy post, I've come to the conclusion that you're correct, Conan. Mrs. Clinton's offense was far more egregious than Bush's, thus it is not hypocrisy to call her out while failing to call out him.
I picked a bad incident to make my point, which was, as I said, the prevailing double standard that holds the members of one party but gives a pass to members of the other. Not merely holding Democrats responsible for their failings, which, believe it or not, is fine with me. I simply want the accountability to be even-handed.
For instance, let's talk Anthony Weiner. (I don't why he insists on pronouncing it that way; the name is German and is pronounced Viner, not weener.) I used to like him; he was smart, funny and always on point. Then his indiscretions came out, and I thought we might get past it. However, when it happened again, I realized that Weiner's vice reached a point where it defined him and that the best thing he could do is resign, which he did.
Perhaps there is a new career for him.
So, why did Weiner get hounded out of office, while David Vitter still has a job? Why was Larry Craig permitted to finish his term, instead of resigning (which he promised to do)? Especially since I believe any reasonable person would consider the sins of Vitter and Craig to be more egregious than Weiner.
But that's neither here nor there. I apologize, Conan.
Patrick at August 18, 2015 1:11 PM
I think that is because Weiner's indiscretion was funnier. Especially coupled with the name. It was less the scandal than the humor that forced him out of office.
Realistically his offense was fairly normal. Haven't most of congress had multiple affairs? But the funny name with photographic evidence gave Weiner's problem staying power. The Carlos Danger pseudonym sure didn't help.
Ben at August 18, 2015 1:27 PM
I saw Weiner in "Sharknado 3" (which was not worth the time; it was a ridiculous premise without the campiness you expect from silly movies) and thought he didn't do too badly in his acting debut. Perhaps that could be his new career. (No, they didn't credit him as Carlos Danger.)
While sharks falling out of the sky and eating people is certainly terrifying, it was nothing compared to genuine horror of the political scene: Ann Coulter played the Vice President of the United States. ::shudder::
Patrick at August 18, 2015 1:47 PM
There is, in bad movies.
Carlos Danger played the mission control director in Sharknado 3.
Nice cherry-picking of scandals, by the way. I don't memorize Congressional scandals, or I'd be able to give you a list of scandals where things went the other way and a Democrat kept his seat while a Republican was hounded out of office. Politics is a slimy business and the people in it are, more often than not, not honorable people.
As for Craig's "more egregious" conduct, Weiner's misconduct involved a 17-year-old girl while Craig's was limited to adults. Weiner also had little-to-no support among his peers and staffers - he was known as a difficult person to work with or for.
And, yes, there is an element of is political opportunism involved in these things. That behavior's not limited to Republicans. Just ask John Glenn (D-Ohio) who was censured along with four other senators in the Keating Five scandal so the Democrats wouldn't have to bear the stigma of guilt alone. John McCain (R-Ariz) was the only Republican in the Five. The bi-partisan investigating committee recommended no further action against McCain and Glenn and further investigation of Alan Cranston, Donald Reigle, and Dennis DeConcini (all Democrats). The Democratic majority threw Glenn under the bus to avoid an all-Democrat scandal.
Conan the Grammarian at August 18, 2015 2:42 PM
That's a big part of it, too: How long the scandal stays in front of the public. If the Democrats had wanted to keep Weiner, they would have. They wanted the scandal gone, too (to fit Nancy Pelosi's "drain the swamp" meme), and the easiest way to be rid of it was to throw Carlos Danger under the bus.
Neither Craig's nor Vitter's scandals had much staying power - they were boring.
Conan the Grammarian at August 18, 2015 2:47 PM
You didn't like watching her surf down the stairs on a portrait of George Washington while Mark Cuban shot machine guns at flying sharks? That's good film-making, there.
Conan the Grammarian at August 18, 2015 2:49 PM
I think you might be a tad selective yourself. I could be wrong about this, but I believe in Weiner's case, 17 was the age of consent. This would mean that Weiner's conduct was slimy and adulterous, it was not illegal. Which is more than Vitter and Craig can say. Also, while Republicans (such as McCain) did call for Craig's resignation, they refused to do so for Vitter. Probably because the governor of Louisiana was a Democrat.
Patrick at August 18, 2015 3:06 PM
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Coulter got John Adams' portrait to surf on, while her bodyguard (played by Mark McGrath) got Washington.
You're right in that it is good filmmaking. I mean, how else are you going to bypass three sharks on a staircase? If I saw live sharks on my staircase, I'd certainly grab the nearest presidential portrait. Acting wise, I think Weiner and Coulter gave at least passable performances.
I prefered Coulter's scene where she teamed up with the President and their respective bodyguards to impale a great white on a flagpole. If you're going to disrespect the American flag, you may as well go all out.
Patrick at August 18, 2015 3:17 PM
Perhaps. Everyone has a bit of a bias about these things.
That could be. I was only half paying attention during that scene. I thought the guard handed her Washington and took Adams for himself, but I could be wrong. I was busy sputtering at the kitschy nature of the movie, Cuban's bland performance as president, and laughing at the idea that slabs of meat flung by a tornado could take chunks out of the Washington Monument but not leave potholes in the road.
The Iwo Jima flag raising pastiche in that scene was a bit over the top. I half expected them to leave the flagpole standing with the shark as a base and salute the flag.
Conan the Grammarian at August 18, 2015 4:30 PM
Believe it or not, there is a video on YouTube of just Ann Coulter's scenes in Sharknado. You're right. She did take Washington. (I'd post the link, but I'm on my phone. Typing is such a hassle with my phone. I'm cursed with larger than average hands.)
I didn't think much about Iwo Jima. I was too busy thinking that if they had enough time to hoist the flagpole to impale the shark, they had enough time to just move out of the way. It's not like the great white was going to get up and run after them.
I don't really object to dumb movies. The camp involved can make a movie like Earth Girls Are Easy into a fun evening. I guess Sharknado 3 just didn't have enough camp for my taste. Also, although the gore was handled so unconvincingly, it didn't gross me out, I just can't enjoy watching someone get his limbs munched off.
There was one piece of camp I enjoyed, though. Lou Ferrigno played a bodyguard named Banner who delivered the famous line, "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!"
And it brought Bo Derek back to the silver screen! What's not to love about that? And her acting skills have improved! (I saw her in Tarzan, The Ape Man; from there, she had nowhere to go but up.)
Patrick at August 18, 2015 5:07 PM
I MUST go see these movies. Obviously I have missed out on a pop political culture moment and must rectify this. I wanted to repost something I said buried somewhere else about the Clinton email thing though, compared to Bush. My point being that Clinton knew dang good and well what the Bush admin had done wrong (because she was finger pointing at it back then) and then went and did it herself, squared.
In 2007 the Bush pot used the email server gwb43.com, then in 2009 the Clinton kettle used the email server clintonemail.com for her entire tenure as Secretary of State and never ever had a normal secure .gov email account as mandated, with same said many lost emails and classified crap circulating on Aol or some shit.
I mean what the frick? At some point, someone loses their job, or an election, or their freedom because they all think they are above the law. The line must be drawn at some point and Clinton knew exactly where that line was.
gooseegg at August 18, 2015 5:50 PM
If you're talking about the Sharknado movies, they're sufficiently silly to be bad movies, not terribly campy and only somewhat gory, not enough to make your viewing time mostly through splayed fingers.
If you're talking about Earth Girls Are Easy, it's a fun movie, if you're not the overly serious type. You'll also see a lot of big names, such as Geena Davis, Damon Wayans, Jeff Goldblum and Jim Carrey. Julie Brown brings her own brand of silliness with a couple of fun songs, like "Brand New Girl" and "'Cause I'm A Blonde."
If you're talking aboutTarzan, The Ape Man, the only "merit" it has is that it gives you the opportunity to make fun of some really bad acting, specifically Bo Derek's. Her scene when she soliloquizes to her absent father (played by the late Richard Harris) is not only dull. It's downright embarrassing. ("James Parker, you were wrong. I'm still a virgin. But now I don't know if that's good [long embarrassing pause] or bad." Gag me with a coal shovel.)
Though in fairness to her, this Tarzan is silent; he knows no spoken language and says absolutely nothing. Not even a grunt. (Which makes me wonder how he was able to acquire anabolic steroids in the jungle, since he obviously uses them.) The famous Tarzan yell is off-camera. As an actress, Bo Derek had something of a challenge; she had to pull off two-character scenes when her scene partner can't even speak, and (since Tarzan has never seen a woman before) basically regards her like a foreign object.
But then again, John Derek didn't hire his lovely wife to play Jane Parker because of her acting chops. (It was rated R, after all.)
Patrick at August 18, 2015 7:47 PM
Syfy - home of bad monster movies and really bad monster movies.
Conan the Grammarian at August 18, 2015 7:52 PM
Conan: Democrat kept his seat while a Republican was hounded out of office.
The only one I can think of, off the top of my head is Bob Packwood, who was hounded out of office, like the evil, leering sexual-harassing fiend he was.
While Ted Kennedy...wasn't?
You could also include Barney Frank, but I can't think of a Republican who did something similar who was hounded out of office. Got someone in mind? Maybe Mark Foley?
Patrick at August 18, 2015 8:32 PM
Jeez, Patrick and Conan...get a room!
What bothers me about the Hillary thing besides CLASSIFIED (helloooooo? What was classified national security worthy on RNC servers Patrick?) is that every company of worthy of being sued (meaning publicly humiliatingly sueable where the news media would ruin them on an accusation alone) retains and reads emails while forbidding use of personal (non-read-able) email for business. Also, they want to protect their product, but it's mostly for being sued as compliance training tells you over and over. Yet the MEDIA acts as though requiring Hilary of this is so unusual. I have yet to work at a company the last 15 years that doesn't review employees emails (and act when there is an issue - bad language, bad business and even conducting an affair over their servers - fired or put on notice). Anyone forwarding business docs to work from home can and has been fired.
What is so special about Hilary? Also her excuses are bullshit Parrick. Not having to carry a bberry and iPhone after bragging about all her devices? Saying yesterday she doesn't under stand what wiping a server means after she did that? Really? Come on Patrick!
Wiener was not special. Better forced reps to resign for less. Wiener is incredibly arrogant. Do you live in his district? When he showed up for 1 thing in years, you would have thought the Queen had graced you with her prescence. We were nothing. A stepping stone. When he resigned he sold his condo in forest hills to live in more fashionable (and expensive...where did he get the money?) Gramercy. First class whole, Carlos Danger.
CatherineM at August 19, 2015 6:40 PM
Leave a comment