Skip to main content

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer


To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist.

To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlike her husband, she doesn’t seem born to politics. And I think these tendencies have been, at times, her Achilles heel.  So, she’s not perfect, and she has some flaws.  But they don’t bother me much, as I think they are generally lesser than the flaws of other politicians … so let’s get into the scandals.

First, I want to address the most common thing thrown Hillary’s way: She’s a liar.  Actually, it started with, “She’s a congenital liar.”    That came from a debunked article that still gets traction today.  But the thing is, she is constantly fact checked and found to be among the most honest of politicians.   People that know her think she is honest, and that generally includes Republicans. It is just constantly repeated that she lies, but when you ask someone to point to something, there is a vague nod to the emails and ….

Another global reason that I’m unconvinced about scandals is that Hillary Clinton has been investigated more than virtually anyone, ever, with millions upon millions spent to try to find that she and her husband did the wrong stuff.  In 1998, Ken Starr released a report that delved deep into the Clinton’s lives.  He found some affairs by Bill, but no evidence implicating the Clintons for anything.  Anything.  They investigated Whitewater and Vince Foster, many actual and alleged extra-marital affairs or other sexual indiscretions, and basically anything else ever said.  It found nothing.
And there really have been very concerted efforts to discredit the Clintons.  See, for example, the millions put into the Arkansas Project, or the fact that multiple Republicans admitted that the Benghazi Committee was a partisan hunt

The FBI review of the emails showed that a few classified emails that were not supposed to be sent to the server were there. They were not correctly marked, and there is no suggestion that they actually were seen by anyone without appropriate clearance, but they were on an unsecured server. The private server did not follow the policy of the State Department, and eventhough the State Department was actually insecure and had stuff stolen from it, Hillary has agreed this was wrong for her to do and apologized.  Of course, Colin Powell suggested she do so, and he is voting for her, as are the Bushes, so others that know about the situation don’t think it was that bad.

As for the allegations about Hillary’s treatment of the women that had affairs with Bill … this wasn’t ever an issue before.  Nobody thought it odd for a possibly cuckolded wife to call the woman making the accusation a bimbo (which is relatively innocuous). And, truthfully, I don’t think most people would today, if they really thought about it.

The recent scandal that keeps giving is about some seemingly unsolicited emails her campaign received from the DNC (Brazile) about some of the Democratic debate questions. The general response to such a scandal (and it was a scandal) is to fire the person who did it, and Brazile was fired. This is the same approach that Senator Sanders took when his staffer improperly breached Clinton campaign files.  There is no indication that anything sent to Hillary’s campaign (NOT to Hillary) had any impact whatsoever, and the person responsible is out, yet people keep calling for blood. The same happened when there were issues with the DNC – find the issue, fire the person doing it. That’s the normal approach, but for some reason people won’t accept that in this election.

Almost everything else has been so thoroughly investigated, by lots of people that would love nothing more than to bring down the Clintons, and they keep coming up with nothing besides evasions about private matters. People act like the Clintons control the media, but the scandals make it to the public somehow.  They act like they control the FBI, but they keep getting investigated, and having negative communications about them leaked to the press (which covers it and yet lives).  Indeed, the FBI has taken extraordinary measures to communicate about NOT recommending charges and emailing Congress about looking at potential new information – both of those were odd and by no means required by law or precedent. People keep saying that they kill those that disagree with them, yet millions do so all the time.

At this point, the scandals seem to me to actually be very impressive, or at least their frequency and their abject failures at discovering anything bad.  Millions of dollars have been spent to discredit a woman and her family, and yet she keeps going to work each day, helping September 11th first responders or AIDS victims or children needing health insurance.  They show she is more careful in her delivery in public than in private, that she is ambitious and very willing to go after those that are her political opponents, that she is a hard worker and relentless in moving forward … and they never show she did what she is accused of, or even the things that her private emails kinda sorta coulda implied she did, if read with a belief she must be doing something wrong.


Show me some facts, by some reputable sources, and I’m willing to look more.  But I don’t think there is anything to be found, and I don’t think there ever will be.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano

Why COVID-19 is MUCH worse than the seasonal flu

This is the second in a series of posts about the COVID-19 pandemic . This installment is discussing why COVID-19 is much, much worse than the seasonal flu. Here it is, in a nutshell : COVID-19 is more contagious, more deadly, already has more known long-term impacts, has no vaccine or truly effective treatments, and has no apparent seasonality. Contagion SARS-COV-2 is much more contagious. The median R0 (average number of people infected by each person when nobody is immune) is 5.7 , or more optimistically 2.5 . For the pandemic to go away, R0 would need to effectively be less than 1.  The estimate of the 1918 novel flu was between 1.2 and 2.4 .  (An R0 of 5.7 means we need over 80% of the population to be immune to reach effective herd immunity .) Beyond that, the incubation period is long, and the number of transmissions before symptoms begin hovers near half those infected . And the duration of being contagious is longer, up to 10 days after the first symptoms. That means people ar