If the election were held today …
Amidst the rioting in Baltimore, Glenn Beck and his sidekicks had time to speculate on whether or not President Obama would leave office on January 20, 2017 when his term expires, and in the course of the conversation, they managed to bring up the old and deeply stupid conspiracy that the Clintons had people murdered while they were in office.
Now of course he was just speculating, he doesn’t actually think Obama will refuse to leave office, or that the Clintons had people whacked, however:
“I do believe this president, the last president, the next president, we’re in the territory where, if somebody wants to do this, oh, he’ll kill you,” Beck said. “He’ll kill you because nobody is going say anything. You’ll get away with it if the press likes you.”
But what’s even more interesting to me is how, in talking about what might motivate white working class men to avoid the Democratic Party, journalists seem to have decided that it’s important to avoid talking about one set of issues at all costs: racism/sexism/homophobia.
For example, Politico recently published a story by Larry Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelly titled: Clinton’s Real Opponent: Barack Obama. Interestingly enough, the article wasn’t about how Clinton’s platform was at odds with the President (because it isn’t). It was actually about how his approval rating in states with a large white population was lower than would otherwise be expected. Not once in the entire article did they mention that racism might be a factor. But a more appropriate headline might have been: Clinton’s Real Opponent: Racism Against Barack Obama.
The Associated Press is filing a lawsuit to force the State Department to release emails and other documents from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The AP said the lawsuit to force the government to act came only after multiple requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) went unfulfilled.
“After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, the Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” AP General Counsel Karen Kaiser said in a statement shared with The Hill.
“The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that’s in the public interest through this action and future open records requests.”
What, precisely, is this woman’s major malfunction? For going on 30 years, she has been the target of every strange conspiracy theory that the half-bright mind of man can dream up. She knows they’re out there, pining to have a coldie with Vince Foster at the cocktail lounge of the Mena Airport. Just in the past six years, she’s watched the Benghazi, Benghazi! BENGHAZI! dreamscape blossom lushly with the wilder flora planted in the public mind by the seedpod that is the brain of Darrell Issa. So she knew that what began with a bust-out Ozarks land deal had not faded just because her husband had skated through his second term. And still, we have this.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
And let a thousand paranoids bloom.
She had to know what this would mean because she’s lived her whole life under The Clinton Rules, by which every glitch is a crime, and every blunder is a conspiracy. It’s not entirely fair, and we’ll get to that in a minute, but somebody on the nascent campaign should have been D’d up for this kind of thing. A campaign by Hillary Clinton is a different thing, and anyone who doesn’t know this by now is somebody who needs burping on the half-hour. This screw-up has all the earmarks of a campaign still laboring under the ghost of Mark Penn.
Nothing in the letters reveals an especially deep ideological imprint. The Free Beacon’s write-up hypes the connection, but fails to mention the closing line of Clinton’s letter — “Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future.” This line captures the mutual respect mixed with acknowledged disagreement that seems to characterize the relationship.
These letters were written more than 40 years ago but that won’t matter one bit to right wing media. Mainstream media will go along for the ride because “balance” or some such nonsense.
Too bad her name is Clinton and she’s a woman. Otherwise, she could be a contender for the GOP pres nomination in 2016.
Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery.
People are “really, really nervous” about their future, Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Colorado last week that included hints of her emerging strategy to convey that she would be more effective in the pursuit of Democratic policy goals than Mr. Obama has been during his time in office.
“They don’t think the economy has recovered in a way that has helped them or their families,” Mrs. Clinton said. In contrast, Mr. Obama sounded almost cheery after Thursday’s jobs report, saying the country could make even more progress if Congress were willing to “set politics aside, at least occasionally.”
Mrs. Clinton hasn’t repudiated Mr. Obama, who made her secretary of state in his first term, and comments aimed at highlighting her differences with Mr. Obama are often implied rather than stated bluntly.
Sarah Miller over at SPLC Hate Watch has brought to our attention a disturbing example of fanaticism, nativism, and Obama derangement syndrome. These guys don’t sound too fond of the Bush family either. Just another example of our” glorious far right defenders of freedom”
Shawn Moran is the Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), which represents more than 17,000 border patrol agents and support staff. Last week, he appeared on the Pete Santilli Show, whose host is organizing a protest to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border on July 5th and who previously called for President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Bush family to be shot and killed.
The NBPC has a conservative stance on immigration, so it’s no surprise that Moran’s name appears regularly in right-wing outlets. But he crossed the line by lending credibility to an extremist like Pete Santilli who wants to shut down the very thing - the border - that he and the people he represents are sworn to protect.
What’s more, Santilli recently promoted armed resistance against the federal Bureau of Land Management agents who were called in to uphold the rule of law during the standoff at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch. He said that the agents must leave or face a “fight to the death.”
Most disturbing of all, Santilli called last May for Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Bush family to be killed.
Note: I had to shorten the Title from the original Hate Watch post, otherwise it wouldn’t fit.
The documents in question are in the linked article.
Documents obtained by Business Insider on Friday raise several questions about inconsistencies in claims that The Washington Free Beacon has made about being barred from accessing special collections in the University of Arkansas library after publishing stories critical of Hillary Clinton.
The Free Beacon, a conservative news site, used tapes from the library’s archives to publish a pair of stories about Clinton. Both of those stories were written by Free Beacon reporter Alana Goodman. One of the stories, published June 15, featured tapes of Clinton, a former lawyer, describing her 1975 defense of a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. On June 17, University of Arkansas Dean of Libraries Carolyn Henderson Allen sent a letter to Free Beacon editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti informing him the site’s “research privileges” at the school’s library would be “suspended” because the Free Beacon published the tapes without requesting permission from the university as required of library patrons.
Allen accused the Free Beacon of engaging in an “ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas” by publishing the tapes without authorization. On June 19, the Free Beacon responded with a letter to Allen from Kurt Wimmer, an attorney representing the site. Allen countered that the library was “illegally prohibit(ing) the Free Beacon from accessing public records solely because you disagree with the material that the Free Beacon published.” In his letter, Wimmer said the Clinton tapes were provided to the site “without any condition.”
“Your staff provided the recordings to the Free Beacon without any condition, apprised the Free Beacon of no ‘policies’ limiting their dissemination, and required no agreement to be signed prior to receiving them. You now assert that the Free Beacon violated the ‘policies of Special Collections,’ yet you fail to quote or cite these ‘policies,’ or explain how they bind my client,” Wimmer wrote. “You mention a ‘permission to publish form,’ but the Free Beacon never signed this form, nor has it ever agreed to sign it. Your staff unconditionally provided the audio recordings to the Free Beacon and the Free Beacon did not agree to any restrictions on their use. Therefore, the Free Beacon was free to publish this information, and continues to be free to do so.”
However, documents provided to Business Insider by the University of Arkansas indicate there were several conditions surrounding the release of tapes from the library to the Free Beacon. The library said they were able to provide information about the Free Beacon’s research because the site waived privacy rights.
If you thought the reboot of the events leading up to the Great Penis Hunt of the 1990s was going to be incomplete, you can rest easily. With Captain Kangaroo in the House gearing up for his summerlong close-up, one might think that the buffet of nothingburgers would be somewhat limited. Surely, a prolonged examination of Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! would be enough to monkeywrench the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, as well helping to paralyze the adminstration sufficiently to slide past the midterms. Ah, but you have forgotten the ironclad rule of shiny phony scandals, established twenty years ago, and enabled by the important journalistic principle of Hey, It’s Out There. After Whitewater, there is always Castle Grande. After Castle Grande, there are always cattle futures. After the cattle futures, there are always the billing records. After the billing records, there is always TravelGate. After TravelGate, there is always Vince Foster. After Fast and Furious, there’s always the IRS. After the IRS, there is Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! After Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI!, there is…this.
(And what are you hiding, anyway?)
It’s beginning again, because the next big scandal is going to be about the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria, and what will be framed as the allegedly inadequate response of the administration to the rising threat of the Boko Haram terrorist group, especially the allegedly inadequate response of the Department of State, Hillary Clinton, Secretary. And here it comes, from the Daily Caller, the scarecrow on which Tucker Carlson has hung the bloody entrails of his career.