6 ms·

The Republicans have spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars investigating Hillary and so far, nothing has stuck. She may actually be the cleanest can

The Republicans have spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars investigating Hillary and so far, nothing has stuck. She may actually be the cleanest candidate in the history of politics.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y ago
Nothing sticking on her doesn’t have to mean she is the cleanest. It could also mean she has the best spin-doctors or very influential friends that help steer the public discourse.
- lettergram 10y ago
  Like a husband who was president or the fact she (and her husband) are ridiculous corrupt and sell appointments [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms. There really are people who believe that. In fact, depending on where you get your news, you might also believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actual literal demons, who smell of sulfur.
    - lettergram 10y ago
      I don't believe I made any outrageous claims. I literally linked to a CNN article (which is usually considered middle to slightly left leaning) regarding a top clinton donor being appointed to a security committee. I definitely don't think you should disregard others opinions just because, "There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms." That has no weight, and is just a deflection.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        The article you linked to does not make the claim you did. Why is your spin more credible than the claim that Clinton is a sulfurous demon who is motivated only by a hatred of Christianity? But, again! This is an unproductive political argument. If you support Trump, your support for Wikileaks is entirely coherent. I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't support Trump (I hope those arguments are self-evident). I'm here to point out that people who oppose Trump should recognize the role Wikileaks is playing.
        lettergram 10y ago
        The article did make the claim, it was pointing out how one of the largest clinton foundation donors, as well as straight political donors was given a seat on the state departments Intel board, despite not being qualified. Eventually, they had to step down. Again, what you said has no bearing on what I said... I wasn't even discussing wikileaks - I was responding to the parent, mentioning how nothing sticks. As for political ideology, again I made no comment. It's fair to call Hilary corrupt because she is, there's no political leaning involved in my comment. She clearly did a bunch of stuff on the edge of what was moral/legal. She clearly makes deals to gain favors - that's basically what politics is. I made zero comments on trump. Finally, I am not a supporter of either candidate - they both suck and both aren't representative of my views. Nor are either going to improve my quality of life or increase my personal (or family) security.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Did you know Obama is going to overturn the constitution and run for a third term?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        We ought to acknowledge that the left had that concern at the end of the Bush administration, too. :(
        planteen 10y ago
        Yep. I just roll my eyes whenever I hear it from either side. I'd like to think that the American public would never let such a thing happen.
      - wglb 10y ago
        I do recall hearing a chant during the convention "Four! More! Years!"
    - vintermann 10y ago
      There are also people who believe exactly what you do politically, but also believe in alien abductions, crop cirles, homeopathy and what have you. You can be sure of it. Pointing to fringes to discredit the mainstream of said fringe is just a cheap tactic, not something worth doing out of concern for the truth.
freehunter 10y ago
I wouldn't say "cleanest". A lot of the stuff she's been investigated for is completely true, but for whatever reason hasn't stuck. We know for a fact the whole emails thing was completely true. She sent state secrets over a private email server using non-secured devices, and those emails were leaked to foreign governments. Doesn't sound "clean" to me.
- tptacek 10y ago
  We in fact do not know that. Moreover, during the time period Clinton was using her personal mail server --- a thing she discussed at length with Colin Powell, her predecessor --- the State Department's own email server was comprehensively owned up by (wait for it) Russian hackers. It is not only possible but actually somewhat likely that her mails were safer on her own server.
  - ovidnis 10y ago
    source on the source being russian hackers? besides from msm echochamber?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The "msm echochamber" thing is an especially funny trope, as it amounts to saying, "source on that claim, apart from all of the journalists who actually investigate claims like this".
      - ovidnis 10y ago
        There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
        pcwalton 10y ago
        It is an unreasonable request, given that the emails say nothing of the sort. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...

The Republicans have spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars investigating Hillary and so far, nothing has stuck. She may actually be the cleanest candidate in the history of politics.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y ago

Nothing sticking on her doesn’t have to mean she is the cleanest. It could also mean she has the best spin-doctors or very influential friends that help steer the public discourse.

lettergram 10y ago
Like a husband who was president or the fact she (and her husband) are ridiculous corrupt and sell appointments [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor...
- tptacek 10y ago
  There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms. There really are people who believe that. In fact, depending on where you get your news, you might also believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actual literal demons, who smell of sulfur.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    I don't believe I made any outrageous claims. I literally linked to a CNN article (which is usually considered middle to slightly left leaning) regarding a top clinton donor being appointed to a security committee. I definitely don't think you should disregard others opinions just because, "There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms." That has no weight, and is just a deflection.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The article you linked to does not make the claim you did. Why is your spin more credible than the claim that Clinton is a sulfurous demon who is motivated only by a hatred of Christianity? But, again! This is an unproductive political argument. If you support Trump, your support for Wikileaks is entirely coherent. I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't support Trump (I hope those arguments are self-evident). I'm here to point out that people who oppose Trump should recognize the role Wikileaks is playing.
      - lettergram 10y ago
        The article did make the claim, it was pointing out how one of the largest clinton foundation donors, as well as straight political donors was given a seat on the state departments Intel board, despite not being qualified. Eventually, they had to step down. Again, what you said has no bearing on what I said... I wasn't even discussing wikileaks - I was responding to the parent, mentioning how nothing sticks. As for political ideology, again I made no comment. It's fair to call Hilary corrupt because she is, there's no political leaning involved in my comment. She clearly did a bunch of stuff on the edge of what was moral/legal. She clearly makes deals to gain favors - that's basically what politics is. I made zero comments on trump. Finally, I am not a supporter of either candidate - they both suck and both aren't representative of my views. Nor are either going to improve my quality of life or increase my personal (or family) security.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Did you know Obama is going to overturn the constitution and run for a third term?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      We ought to acknowledge that the left had that concern at the end of the Bush administration, too. :(
      - planteen 10y ago
        Yep. I just roll my eyes whenever I hear it from either side. I'd like to think that the American public would never let such a thing happen.
    - wglb 10y ago
      I do recall hearing a chant during the convention "Four! More! Years!"
  - vintermann 10y ago
    There are also people who believe exactly what you do politically, but also believe in alien abductions, crop cirles, homeopathy and what have you. You can be sure of it. Pointing to fringes to discredit the mainstream of said fringe is just a cheap tactic, not something worth doing out of concern for the truth.

freehunter 10y ago

I wouldn't say "cleanest". A lot of the stuff she's been investigated for is completely true, but for whatever reason hasn't stuck. We know for a fact the whole emails thing was completely true. She sent state secrets over a private email server using non-secured devices, and those emails were leaked to foreign governments. Doesn't sound "clean" to me.

tptacek 10y ago
We in fact do not know that. Moreover, during the time period Clinton was using her personal mail server --- a thing she discussed at length with Colin Powell, her predecessor --- the State Department's own email server was comprehensively owned up by (wait for it) Russian hackers. It is not only possible but actually somewhat likely that her mails were safer on her own server.
- ovidnis 10y ago
  source on the source being russian hackers? besides from msm echochamber?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The "msm echochamber" thing is an especially funny trope, as it amounts to saying, "source on that claim, apart from all of the journalists who actually investigate claims like this".
    - ovidnis 10y ago
      There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
      - pcwalton 10y ago
        It is an unreasonable request, given that the emails say nothing of the sort. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...