Holy......

[TheDrake]

I think coverage is neither fair nor nefarious. I think that it is unlikely that leadership at a network gets in a room and says "who are we going to get elected today?" I also think that journalists have always tried to synthesize facts into a coherent narrative - that's why they call it a story.

Some attempt to be respectful and compassionate to different points of view, others don't. BBC comes to mind. You can tell the reporter and the outlet have a bias. This morning I listened to a story about an independent candidate in China where the reporters were being harassed by plainclothes thugs while trying to get an interview. I'm sure China finds that coverage heavily biased. They never talked about how a challenge to one party rule could lead to ruin.

It is impossible for bias not to creep in even under the most noble of efforts. The staff are choosing whom to interview, what to select from the interview, on television the setting, the lighting, and everything contribute to perception. One of the reasons I just don't watch any of the youtube videos that people pass around to support their point of view.

When you see pictures of the candidates, Trump was almost always shown with his mouth open, or looking confused while Hillary was portrayed looking serene and in charge. I don't know if the photographers or low level copy editors thought they were being biased, or if they were just selecting the pictures that best showed Trump's character. I know that it would have been possible to flip the choices, and you wind up seeing some of that on blogs that don't bother with even a fig leaf to cover their nakedness.

Two examples:

Bad Hillary (Breitbart)
Bad Trump (Wonkette)

Of course, just now, I did the same thing. I passed over a number of pictures to choose the ones that supported my narrative.

Few members of the western media are out there trying to make Kim Jong Un look sympathetic, but not too many people are screaming about that bias in the West. ISIS supporters must be really pissed about how they are portrayed in the media. I think you can't remove editorial bias, and possibly you shouldn't even try. But you CAN call news organization and candidates out for making false statements. Let's start there.

[Fenring]

But you CAN call news organization and candidates out for making false statements. Let's start there.

This is a nearly irrelevant standard, as most kinds of effective propaganda or demagoguery ride not on direct lies but on insinuation and narrative. Look at Russian media and you'll see lots of insinuation, but basically no lies or direct untruths. And yet everyone is still convinced they are a propaganda arm for Putin and the KGB. I do agree that lies should be addressed, but that's the kindergarten version of addressing manipulation of the public. These guys graduated from their kindergarten 80 years ago, and the method of holding media up to scrutiny at present still amounts to little more than a child's toy. When people will bravely assert that the media has no agenda, the 'proof' of this being that there is no memo written directly by the editor in chief saying they have an agenda, better tools of analysis need to be developed.

[AI Wessex]

This is a nearly irrelevant standard, as most kinds of effective propaganda or demagoguery ride not on direct lies but on insinuation and narrative.

It's a critically important check against mendacious demagoguery and poisoning of the well of public discourse.  That it's only one way to deceive the public doesn't minimize the importance of confronting and addressing it.

[Pete at Home]

Trump is holding Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia and New Hampshire....

It ain't over obviously, but wow - the blood of many people must be turning cold watching this.

As Wolf Blitzer just noted, this could put the polling industry out of business.

Poling is almost as accurate as horoscopes, and I don't see that business going anywhere.

[Wayward Son]

WS,

Do you believe the "media" had any preference regarding the outcome of the Republican primary?

Simple answer: no.  Because there is no one "media."  Thus, "the media" can't do anything or have any preferences.

More complex answer:  Individuals who work in the media certainly did, just like everybody else.  So their reporting doubtlessly had some bias to it.

But those who were liberals probably had no real preference, because they were all pretty bad, from a liberal's perspective.   Carson, Perry, Huckabee, Trump, Cruz--they all turned my stomach, one just as bad as the other.  I can't imagine that "the media" would settle on any one of them as the best.  Maybe Kasich, Rubio or Bush, if they had to choose.

Who would have been least likely to beat Hillary?  Yeah, maybe Trump, although Fiorina would have given him a run for his money.

But even if there was a group that decided Trump would definitely lose, what did they do?  What did "the media" do to make him the most desirable of the Republican contenders?

Broadcast his disparaging remarks about illegal immigrants?  Quote his nearly incomprehensible speeches?  Zoom in on his ridiculous antics?  Why would "the media" believe that any of those would make him more desirable as a candidate? 

The very things that would make him the most likely to lose would be the things that would make him most likely not to be nominated.  If they saw him as being a horrid candidate, why would they think the Republicans wouldn't notice those things?  Why would they discuss how he is a bully if they thought it would "turn on" the Republicans?  Are Republicans really so bad that "the media" knows that they would love things about a candidate that would disqualify him to the rest of the nation?

"The media" may have had its preferences, and may have hoped that Trump was the one candidate who would lose, but by showing Trump to be the clown that he is, they could not have expected him to win the nomination because of it.  If they believed Trump wasn't good enough to win the election, he shouldn't have been good enough to win the nomination.

And they certainly did not treat him any better before the nomination than after.

[Greg Davidson]

The email issue wasn't negative news coverage, it was just plain old news coverage whose effects harmed her.

Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional. No one ever even argued that Hillary Clinton had done that (okay, there's enough crazy people out there that I am sure someone probably argued that she secreted away classified emails in the murdered corpse of Vince Foster...). There never ever was a legal case of any sort.  It was just an excuse for partisans to use as a way to drive up her negatives by a constant barrage of mock horror.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is buying his way out of legal troubles for actual fraud in the Trump University case with a $20M settlement.  Think how much press attention went to investigating "Whitewater", a potential scandal over a $300K loan 20 years earlier to a business partner of a President, and compare that to the level of news coverage of Trump University. Or the payment of legal bills from his "charitable" Trump Foundation. 

[Greg Davidson]

The media fell down because it is unable to help in this emerging post-truth world.  We are all relativists now, there is no such thing as absolute truth in public discourse. A majority of people get their news from social media nowadays, and many genuinely believe what reinforces their feeling. And the staggering news divisions do not easily have the power to stand up to an unrepentant liar.

This is actually way more dangerous that just policy disagreements.

[Pete at Home]

The media tend to focus on whatever their core audiences find most riveting.  Just look at the history of news focus stories ever since the first 24 hour news program came out.

Note "media" is plural. Grammatical correctness becomes important when it helps clarify a fundamental misunderstanding.

[Pete at Home]

If one were not playing hide the ball, one should probably compare Trump University to events during the present millennium. Like the Clinton Foundation.

[yossarian22c]

Or Trump's business loans from the bank of China, no conflict of interest there at all.

[TheDrake]

Disappointed to see noone wanted to take me up on my core arguments.

[noel c.]

 WS,

"... there is no one 'media'. Thus, 'the media' can't do anything or have any preferences."

Can the "electorate" do something, or have a preference, even though there is no one "elector"?

"But those who were liberals probably had no real preference, because they were all pretty bad, from a liberal's perspective.   Carson, Perry, Huckabee, Trump, Cruz--they all turned my stomach, one just as bad as the other.  I can't imagine that 'the media' would settle on any one of them as the best.  Maybe Kasich, Rubio or Bush, if they had to choose."

I am suggesting something a little more cynical. Who, among the original seventeen candidate Republican lineup, would be the most useful as a foil against the other sixteen? I understand that the candidates mentioned are equally reprehensible to you. They were also more viable in the general election... especially, as you point out, Carly Fiorina. With her poll numbers rising against Trump, who then stood at 32%, why did Paul Solotaroff of Rolling Stone decide to take a comment made about Fiorina's face in the isolation of Trump's 757, and give it world-wide air play? Was it an attack on Trump, or denigration of Mrs. Fiorina via surrogate? Solotaroff characterized Trump a few days later as an "extraordinarily shrewd predator". I think Solotaroff appreciates the corrosive nature of dangling ad hominem. His time at the Yale School of Drama appears to have cultivated some sophisticated predatory rhetoric in his own right, but not much in the way of professional journalistic discipline.

"The very things that would make him the most likely to lose would be the things that would make him most likely not to be nominated."

Not in a field where three of the four outsiders (Carson, Fiorina, and Cruz) were competing for the same voters while Reagan Democrats consolidated under Trump.

"If they saw him as being a horrid candidate, why would they think the Republicans wouldn't notice those things?"

They knew conservatives had identified Trump for what he was without their help.

https://www.google.com/search?q=national+review+cover+trump&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-au&client=safari#imgrc=5kz_Fp1idifzHM%3A

The objective was intra-party fratricide, leaving the single ideologically-void candidate standing.

"Why would they discuss how he is a bully if they thought it would 'turn on' the Republicans?"

Because the Yellow Dog, and Rust-Belt, Reagan Democrats needed to be brought in line. Bill Clinton understood this very well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wlwt.relaymedia.com/amp/article/bill-clinton-speaks-at-labor-day-picnic-in-cincinnati/3613258?client=safari

" 'The media' may have had its preferences, and may have hoped that Trump was the one candidate who would lose, but by showing Trump to be the clown that he is, they could not have expected him to win the nomination because of it.  If they believed Trump wasn't good enough to win the election, he shouldn't have been good enough to win the nomination."

No, one condition does not logically follow the other. Every election cycle there is a candidate good enough to win their parties nomination, yet lose the general election.

[noel c.]

Drake,

"I think coverage is neither fair nor nefarious. I think that it is unlikely that leadership at a network gets in a room and says 'who are we going to get elected today?' I also think that journalists have always tried to synthesize facts into a coherent narrative - that's why they call it a story." ...

... I did not mean to ignore your post, I simply reject the premise that news organizations are passive observers in search of "stories", which seems to be what you are implying. There was a time when network news anchors were skillful at subordinating personal political views. Wikileaks proved conclusively that news "correspondents" did collude with the Clinton campaign.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/

It is pretty obvious that The National Enquirer did the same for Trump... I will not comment on the journalistic quality.

[cherrypoptart]

Greg Davidson

"Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional."

Many authorities, including former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Rudy Giuliani, say that's just not true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence-claim-about-clinton-emails-fbi-specifically-rejected/211352


Giuliani, and others, make the case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant.

"The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone is obviously mistaken on this. One side or the other clearly isn't telling the truth. And getting away with it.

I don't necessarily fault anyone quoting or believing Comey though because that is what he said, that it wasn't a crime because there wasn't intent. But that's the part that just isn't true. It doesn't even make any sense either.

Gross negligence clearly describes Hillary's actions. Intent to give classified information to our enemies isn't required for that statute. If there was intent, that would be a crime more along the lines of straight up treason. Lacking that intent makes it so the crime is not treason, but it is still a crime of gross negligence in handling classified information just like if someone absent mindedly threw classified information into the regular garbage can for the regular clean up crew to throw away instead of putting it in the shredder or burn bag like they are required to, or had a maid print off classified information she had no security clearance to see instead of making sure anyone who had access to that information had the security clearance to know about it.

Comey's actions helped Clinton in the election because if he had followed through on the actual law instead of his wishful thinking interpretation of it he would have had to recommend that Hillary Clinton be charged with a crime, and one that she was obviously guilty of committing.

[cherrypoptart]

Speaking of Comey, more explanations about how he contributed to helping Hillary lose:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-james-comey-surveillance_us_5814f125e4b0390e69d0aa65

"Obama has consistently frustrated civil liberties advocates by following his own aggressive surveillance activities, based on an expansive view of executive power. Back in 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder came under fire after the Justice Department secretly seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters who, the administration maintained, had disclosed classified information in a story.

That scandal raised major First Amendment questions, but it faded after The Guardian and The Washington Post reported that the government was collecting enormous amounts of data on the phone records of millions of Americans, not just journalists. When pressed about the collection effort by Congress, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper publicly lied ― and still kept his job. In 2015, ProPublica and The New York Times reported that Obama had significantly expanded upon the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of internet activity and email.

If Obama wanted to invoke novel legal theories to pursue mass surveillance, then Comey was a pretty solid bet..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...But work at a weird hedge fund wasn’t disqualifying in an administration that had long made clear it was not interested in prosecuting financial crime. The Obama administration has settled billions of dollars in cases against big banks for everything from rigging energy markets to illegally foreclosing on homeowners, but top executives have avoided prosecution. Even when banks themselves pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion and interest-rate-rigging, the Obama administration declined to prosecute the actual bankers involved.

And Comey has been around for three years of the blind-eye operation on Wall Street misconduct. After he gave his July press conference detailing Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and his decision not to prosecute, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent him a letter asking for parity. Why not release records from all the Wall Street cases the FBI decided not to pursue? Comey has not responded."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Comey has a history of not prosecuting criminals when they are high enough up like the big bankers. That couldn't look good to the Democrat Occupy types and most certainly cost Hillary some votes at least among those who were paying attention. Also after all of Obama's talk about not needing to spy on Americans the way Bush did in order to keep us safe, Obama spied on us even more, and Comey was his go-to guy to justify it all. After all of Obama's talk about how the big banks and Wall Street high rollers were taking advantage of average Americans and breaking the law to do it, nobody was prosecuted. People can only take so many of these broken promises and outright lies. At least Hillary was honest enough, when she talked about public and private positions, to admit that she was lying to us although as with the classified information fiasco it wasn't actually her intent to make that information public; just more gross negligence on her part.

[DJQuag]

"apolitical except when marginalizing an committed socialist in favor of a faux-socialist allied with Wallstreet? "

Please, please don't tell me you're referring to Sanders here.

[noel c.]

DJQ,

Yes, both Sanders, and  Clinton.

You think there was not a coordinated effort to stomp out Sanders by Clinton operatives in the media?

[noel c.]

Cherry,

" 'The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness,' he said. The FBI 'clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense.' " ...

Did you know that Barry corresponded with Hillary on that unsecured server under a pseudonym?

[Fenring]

Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional.

As mentioned above, this is not accurate. However I believe it has been sufficiently demonstrated that she knew full well what she was doing when setting up that serves. Even if you were to argue she didn't intend, in the case of any particular piece of information, to have it fall into the wrong hands, nevertheless on the aggregate she knew she was risking any or all of it being read by people who shouldn't see such things. If she had been lied to about the nature of her server setup then I think you'd have a real argument here. As it is she exerted considerable effort to make the private server happen, over the objections of many people, so that was no mistake. I would argue that after having deliberately set up conditions where classified information would be at risk, any particular piece of information passing through such a system would count as negligence without requiring specific negligence regarding that individual item. But this is even a stronger case than needs to be made, since, again, intent isn't even required; the law is very specific about that.

[TheDrake]

I simply reject the premise that news organizations are passive observers in search of "stories", which seems to be what you are implying. There was a time when network news anchors were skillful at subordinating personal political views. Wikileaks proved conclusively that news "correspondents" did collude with the Clinton campaign.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/

I don't think passive. Woodward and Bernstein weren't particularly passive, their paper and others had decided Nixon was a villain and acted accordingly.

The fact that Hillary laid out her plans in an open dinner meeting hardly seems like clandestine collusion, although there have been incidents where certain reporters clearly seem to have violated ethics. I don't think I'm ready to make the stretch that what some reporters did was coordinated and supported by their organizations as a whole.

[noel c.]

Drake,

On Woodward:

https://youtu.be/REiEkNKIPtc

"The fact that Hillary laid out her plans in an open dinner meeting hardly seems like clandestine collusion, although there have been incidents where certain reporters clearly seem to have violated ethics. I don't think I'm ready to make the stretch that what some reporters did was coordinated and supported by their organizations as a whole." ...

Wall Street was on Hillary's paid speaking itinerary, and she was loathe to treat it as either "open", or non-collusive. Again, but for Wikileaks, the principled Bernie followers would have been left to speculation regarding the depth of Ms. Clinton's double dealings.

https://youtu.be/dOivL3SLrHs

[TheDrake]

See earlier comment:

"One of the reasons I just don't watch any of the youtube videos that people pass around to support their point of view."

[noel c.]

Drake,

Can you restate your reason?

[cherrypoptart]

> noel c.

"Did you know that Barry corresponded with Hillary on that unsecured server under a pseudonym?"

Yes, I've seen the stories, but I didn't make the connection to them that I'm not tilting my head a bit in a contemplative manner wondering if you are making.

Are you suggesting that Obama may have also broken the law by being negligent about handling classified data over a server he knew, or should have known, was not secure?

We pretty much know now that Obama lied when he said he found out about Hillary's server on the news, but so far I haven't seen anyone suggest that Obama is guilty of the same crime as Hillary, and I hadn't thought of that yet either. It all depends on whether or not any of the information he sent her, or received from her for that matter, was classified information going to or from a non-secure server.

Good catch there. Maybe Trump will be able to find out more.

I like the way Trump is playing this too, all cool and nonchalant and basically placating Obama and the rest of the Democrats with his go along to get along act. That's the smart way to do it. The reason why is obviously so hopefully Trump can assume office without giving away his true intent and catch Obama off guard by unleashing the hounds to pick up the numerous crime trails and do it without Obama pardoning anyone and everyone first. I may be making a huge mistake posting this too, although even thinking that is probably just arrogance displaying itself, as if someone in power would forward this possibility to Obama so he could issue the pardons and destroy all the evidence before leaving office. I should probably keep this all to myself, but that wouldn't be any fun. On the other hand, maybe Trump really is just going to take it easy and ride a comfortable wave into power without making too many enemies out of the people he just beat politically. Maybe Trump will let sleeping dogs lie. In that case if Obama gets paranoid and goes crazy with the pardons and possibly destruction of evidence then that backfires by making Obama and his cohorts look as guilty as they are when if they would have stayed cool they would have been better off. Interesting game theory at play there.

[noel c.]

Cherry,

"Are you suggesting that Obama may have also broken the law by being negligent about handling classified data over a server he knew, or should have known, was not secure?" ...

Yes.

I heard yesterday that Trump settled his "university" lawsuit for $25,000,000. How much would you like to bet that Donald, without admitting guilt, persuaded the complainants to sign an agreement to remain silent as a condition of the settlement?

He may have just cleansed himself of a counterattack potential in preparation for "draining the swamp", and if he wants to destroy his political opponents... his first few months in office is the time to do it.

Trump is a skilled predator, and the current love-fest between mister outgoing and mister incoming is just too surreal to be genuine. People like Obama, Clinton, Podesta, Holder, Comey, et al. have cause to be concerned that their lives are facing disruption on a grand scale.

[TheDeamon]

Oh, there's already signs it isn't all love and kisses between Obama and Trump. The offshore drilling moratorium that the Obama administration is attempting to lock in until 2022 is probably only one such example.

[AI Wessex]

It looks like the outrage that the right had when Obama was President because he wouldn't accede to the demands and priorities of the Republicans is being transformed into outrage that he is not falling in line behind Trump's vision for the next four years.  Pity Obama can't contribute to the undoing of his major initiatives like a patriotic citizen should do.  Amazing how the rhetoric flips upside down when the Republicans are in charge.  I'm guessing that will have tremendous outrage toward the Democrats when they oppose their proposals in Congress over the next two years.

[cherrypoptart]

Too bad Harry Reid launched the nuclear option's first salvo. I just saw a story on CNN about a bunch of Democrats saying they don't regret it and I find that hard to believe. The nuclear option is also available for Trump Supreme Court nominees now too, if the Senate decides to change the rules again just like Harry Reid did and counter his first salvo with round two of nuclear options, changing the confirmation rules for Supreme Court justices. Why is it so satisfying when acts of hubris come back to work against arrogant people like Harry Reid?

[AI Wessex]

I assume you would be OK if Reid said the number one goal for Democrats over the next four years would be to make sure Trump is a one term President. Goose and gander is how this game is played.

[TheDeamon]

Except Reid is gone at the end of December, he retired. Replacement (democrat) gets Sworn in during January with everyone else.

No more Reid, no more Clintons(until/unless Chelsea decides to do something), no more Obama(for now), and probably a lot less Pelosi if the Democrats internal challenge in the House wins out. Washington is going to look a bit different next year.

[noel c.]

Al,

"Amazing how the rhetoric flips upside down when the Republicans are in charge." ...

No, not amazing. Call it karma.

Both the Democratic, and Republican, parties are headed for transformational reorientation.

Barry may have assumed the task of reconstituting the Democratic Party, but he is beating the wind. His party no longer exists, and I expect that the Bernie movement will energize the wreckage of what remains for 2020. The conservative faction of the Republican Party will have its Supreme Court for, at least, a generation, however; populism has found a permanent place in the Republican tent that will make it look a lot like the Democratic Party of the pre-Johnson era.

Whatever we as a nation end up being after the next four years, "The baton has been passed to a new generation."

It is a paradox that the catalyst for change was two septuagenarians.

[AI Wessex]

Except Reid is gone at the end of December, he retired. Replacement (democrat) gets Sworn in during January with everyone else.

No more Reid, no more Clintons(until/unless Chelsea decides to do something), no more Obama(for now), and probably a lot less Pelosi if the Democrats internal challenge in the House wins out. Washington is going to look a bit different next year.

Let's wait to see how Schumer publicly responds.  He and Trump are like old boxers who have fought their entire adult lives.  I don't see Trump bullying him into submission, and I don't see Schumer opposing every action Trump takes.  Differently than how Republicans did it, Schumer will pounce when he sees an opening.

The Clinton dynasty wasn't in the cards and the Bush dynasty is dead.  I don't see the political forum returning to "normal" for a long time, but it has to happen eventually.  In the meantime, watch your step. There's a twitter troll on your trail.

[noel c.]

Al,

"I don't see the political forum returning to 'normal' for a long time, but it has to happen eventually."...

What is "normal" in politics, and why must it return?

[TheDeamon]

Other things to look at, although 2020 is going to be more decisive as they'll be the ones doing the redistricting. But going into it:

Republicans now have full control of 26 State Governments(Legislature + Governorship). Democrats only have complete control of 6(bonus points: guess which ones?). The remaining states have various types of splits happening between the legislature itself or between the legislature and the Governorship.

But the one that is really significant, State Legislature control, as they're the ones that normally draw the district borders. The Republicans control 32 legislatures, to the Democrats 13.

Luckily for the Democrats, this cycle may be the one that the Census happens on, but the redistricting won't be happening until after the next election cycle, and it should favor them because it's a mid-term for a Republican President. However, just that normally is the case, doesn't mean it always is.

But to make it more frightening for the Democrats consider this: Those congressional districts that if used to decide EC votes(as happens in Maine and Nebraska) would have given Romney the Presidency in 2012?

The Democrats were in control of 27 State Legislatures in 2010, while the Republicans only held 14. The Democrats drew the borders for most of those congressional districts, and they still lost.

On a tangential note, it's possible we might see an Article V "Convention of the States" happen in the next few years the way things are heading right now. Sadly for some in here, I doubt the Electoral College will make it into their agenda. 

They "only need" 34 state legislatures to pass legislation with the same exact wording...

[noel c.]

"But to make it more frightening for the Democrats consider this: Those congressional districts that if used to decide EC votes(as happens in Maine and Nebraska) would have given Romney the Presidency in 2012?" ...

... And it looks like Romney is going to be the next Secretary of State.

Romney under 'active consideration' for Secretary of State: Pence - Reuters
https://apple.news/AyPK32ybZQIiAVuu3cxDSsQ

The 2020/2024 election cycles will constitute the perfect storm for old-school liberalism. It has me wondering who will donn the Bernie mantle... perhaps the wannabe Cherokee?

[TheDeamon]

Tulsi Gabbard (Democrat - HI) is being floated as the possible "mantle bearer" for Bernie in 2020. (She also was the VP pick on the California ballot for those that voted Bernie in the General) She's young, born in 1981, she's also a Military Veteran who evidently saw some combat during her time on Active Duty. She also is something of an ethnic Minority(Mostly European, but her Dad is Samoan), but the religious aspect might raise some eyebrows. She's a Hindu c/o her (European descended) Mother according to Wiki. She also seems to come across as very photogenic, which won't hurt her chances.

And that mixed Hindu background, paired with two tours of duty(one of which she evidently volunteered for) in Iraq puts her in a unique spot, she's a Democrat. But she's also much more wary of Muslim Extremists, and Islamic Refugees in general. She's also more pro-gun than most progressive Democrats would prefer among a few other things.

Edit: While Elizabeth Warren on the other hand is old, she's only 2 years younger than Hillary IIRC, and she's got a lot of baggage, and doesn't really bring anything "new" to the table.

[Greg Davidson]

cherry,

Many authorities, including former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Rudy Giuliani, say that's just not true.

Your authorities are not credible (Rudy Guiliani, seriously?), and they make assumptions that are not even in evidence. There is a faction of the FBI in New York that disliked Hillary and violated their professional standards by leaking through the campaign - and what's worse, they we pushing forth a false narrative. Comey had time to go through the emails on Weiner's computer before the election, and despite the use of the absence of a warrant, he could have just asked for permission and 48 hours later (before going public) he could have known that there was no new incriminating information on that laptop.  Comey, a guy who took so seriously the practice of the FBI not to interfere with elections in the last 60 days that he refused to publicly stand behind the FBI's conclusion that Russia was responsible for the hacks of the Democratic Party, somehow drifted off that principled position for a Friday afternoon communication that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns agree turned the election against Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has never even been accused of originated any of the questionable emails. And liability, such as it is, goes to the person who originated the email.

And just as no Republican who pretended to care about the false claims of Clinton Foundation corruption (the Clintons still don't get any cash from it) will care at all about Trump's actual fraud or corruption or his blatant violations of rudimentary conflict-of-interest regulations, they also will not care that he's started having some of his first discussions with foreign heads of state, and I am sure that when he blurts out some classified information at some time over the next four years you Republicans will all consider that a master-stroke or a President's perogative or something else that makes it okay when your guy does it.

[noel c.]

Greg,

Hillary witheld her emails for three years. For two of those years she had been given "20 days" to forward her work product to a secure government account. On March 5, 2015, her emails are subpoenaed by Trey Gowdey, chair of the House Benghazi Investigation Committee. May 22, 2015, 300 redacted emails are released by the State Department. On June 30, 2015 the State Department released 1,925 more of Hillary's redacted emails, and July 30, 2015 this happens again. On August 22, 2015 classified emails continue to leak out when it is discovered that the server itself had been scrubbed, and turned over to the Justice Department. The FBI is confident it can recover the emails in a matter of "months" until it is discovered that Hillary has used "Bleach-bit" to ensure they cannot be recovered by God himself. (We are now up to more than 31,000 emails, all this for Chelsea's wedding, and Hillary's yoga classes .)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-email-timeline/index.html?client=safari

Three weeks before the election James Comey has 650,000 emails dropped in his lap from Anthony Weiner's shared computer, and you say the FBI director could have resolved the content question in "48 hours".

Do you have even an inkling of how partisan this sounds? Why do you think young Democrats had such a hard time voting for her in the general election?

[AI Wessex]

Three weeks before the election James Comey has 650,000 emails dropped in his lap from Anthony Weiner's shared computer, and you say the FBI director could have resolved the content question in "48 hours".

Do you have even an inkling of how partisan this sounds? Why do you think young Democrats had such a hard time voting for her in the general election?

Do you think Comey did the right thing by announcing that emails were found on Wiener's laptop before he got a warrant?  What precedent did he follow to interfere with the progress of the election with less than 60 days to go?  Even though he found nothing of value in any of the 650,000 emails, you seem to agree that he may have cost Clinton the election.

[noel c.]

Al,

- Why do you think Comey needed a warrant to make an announcement?

- What precident is need to honor his commitment to the House investigation committee to inform them of evidentiary developments?

- Hillary cost Hillary the election.

[AI Wessex]

Please explain your view rather than asking questions in response to my questions.  Your response is not very illuminating.

[noel c.]

Al,

Your questions imply that Hillary's mishandling of classified information was not only someone else's bad judgement, but exculpatory.

I think Comey made a mistake not indicting her last July.

[AI Wessex]

Al,

Your questions imply that Hillary's mishandling of classified information was not only someone else's bad judgement, but exculpatory.

I think Comey made a mistake not indicting her last July.

I didn't  imply anything. You inferred that interpretation of my motive.   Next,  there was no exculpatory finding, since there was no charge against her,  but that a crime had not been committed. Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts.

However, nothing in your two responses includes any attempt to answer the questions I posed. One wonders why you keep changing the subject., or perhaps one doesn't

[TheDrake]

Absolutely he did the right thing. Transparency is always the right thing. I doubt that unknown emails caused more than a handful of voters who had plans to vote for Hillary to stay home, even less to vote Trump. I also don't see this as suddenly galvanizing people to vote for Trump when they were going to stay home.

If there was an impact, that is the fault of voters who when faced with an unknown, were inclined to fill in the blank with a negative, and Hillary's fault for setting them up to do so by being highly uncooperative and questionably honest throughout the investigation.

Truth be told, from everything I've heard, she didn't do anything nefarious as much as she was technically inept. But she would have had a hard time relating to the masses if she admitted that AOL was too challenging for her and she really didn't understand what a server was, except that it allowed her to keep using her obsolete blackberry curve.

[Pete at Home]

"Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts"

ROFL!

I have no opinion as to whether indictment was proper, but your phrase "exhaustive investigation that examined all the AVAILABLE facts" (emphasis added) does Secretary Clinton no favors with an intelligent and attentive readership.

The availability of evidence is not an issue that Hillary supporters want to beg and highlight.

[NobleHunter]

Truth be told, from everything I've heard, she didn't do anything nefarious as much as she was technically inept. But she would have had a hard time relating to the masses if she admitted that AOL was too challenging for her and she really didn't understand what a server was, except that it allowed her to keep using her obsolete blackberry curve.

I'd have thought technical ineptitude would have gone over well with most of the blue-haired set.

I've seen it suggested that both candidates were so un-liked that just being in the news was bad for them. So Comey first bringing up "new" emails and then recanting hurt Clinton twice, regardless of the fact that the second announcement repudiated the first.

[TheDrake]

Haha, NH. I like the theory that the best strategy would be to avoid reminding voters that she existed.

[Fenring]

Haha, NH. I like the theory that the best strategy would be to avoid reminding voters that she existed.

It isn't merely a theory, but was Hillary's actual campaign strategy.

[NobleHunter]

You'll notice how quiet Trump was during the final weeks?

Once his strategists sat on him, pretending not to exist was his strategy, too.

[Pete at Home]

Blonde and Blonder. Will we ever stop talking about it?