Is Hillary toast?

Hillary is looking more and more fragile. She just does not have “it” but she seems to have lots of problems and is seriously “integrity challenged.” Joe Biden is warming up and it looks like Obama would support such a run. Biden would certainly be more fun than Hillary. Biden could not stand up to the Clinton machine, but Democrats are clearly getting worried that their once and future queen may not be up to the task.

Biden brings advantages and problems. On the plus side, he is much nicer than Hillary. People actually like Biden. He has the advantage/disadvantage of being Obama's man. He would be a third Obama term in the same way Bush was a third Reagan term. Unfortunately, Obama is not a popular president like Reagan was. Whether the momentum is worth the association is a question.

On the downside, Biden is a "gaffemeister." He is lovable in the loveable fool way. Right now, before he announces his candidacy, we emphasize the lovable part of that handle. The day after he announces, the fool will be the dominant idea.

I have met Biden on a couple occasions. He is one of the nicest people I have ever met. He truly likes people and takes the time to give attention to everybody - no matter how much time it takes. He is also an intelligent guy, but he tends to talk before he thinks.

Poor Hillary. It is her turn to be president. She has been planning to be president for at least fifteen years and probably a lot longer. Obama stole it from her in 2008. Now old Joe. When will Hillary get a break?

Posted by Christine & John at August 25, 2015 9:21 PM
Comments
Comment #397879

Poor conservatives. Hillary must seem as dull as dishwater, a prim schoolmarm who just doesn’t have “it.” And her opponent just discusses issues and refuses to criticize her personally or acknowledge the fake scandals. But of course, conservatives are spoiled now. Conservatives are jaded. As Rich observed in a previous thread, conservatives are used to a primary that is like a WWE wrestling match. They are just waiting for Trump to hit someone over the head with a chair. If candidates are not calling one another “jackass,” or threatening to shut down the federal government over PP, or comparing a nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran to ‘marching the Israelis to the door of the oven,’ or comparing Obamacare to slavery and America under Obama to Nazi Germany…

Well, then, yes. Hillary must seem pretty boring.

Nothing else will do, now that conservatives are hooked on that sweeeet vitamin T.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 11:49 AM
Comment #397880

Btw, now that ‘political correctness’ is no longer a consideration for Republican voters, given their large and growing support for Trump, it is now acceptable to refer to women as “bimbos” if they are attractive. Calling a woman a “bimbo” may be repeated as often as necessary to drive home the point. If attractiveness is not a consideration, terms such as “old hags,” “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals” are also acceptable. Of course, this applies for Republican voters only.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 1:58 PM
Comment #397881

It is my belief that Democrats are really, really tired of hearing about the non-scandal scandals involving the Clintons and have turned their collective deaf ear to all of the shenanigans that have come out for the last almost 20 years. Yes, we found out that Bill is a philanderer and would lie about that to keep from admitting it to his wife. Big whoop. All of the rest of the non-scandal scandals has amounted to a big nothing. I don’t see Hillary succumbing to this as she has also developed a very thick skin when it comes to the non-scandal scandals.

Now about Trump. I believe he is the “id” of the conservatives and Republicans. But it is an “id” that is not controlled or affected by the ego or super ego (not that he doesn’t possess those). The “id” is mad as hell and just wants to vent that frustration. Whether that can last until November of 2016 without any substance remains to be seen.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 26, 2015 2:31 PM
Comment #397882

“Calling a woman a “bimbo” may be repeated as often as necessary to drive home the point.”

You guys just have to stop…my stomach hurts from laughing.

Hmmm….wasn’t it Hillary who handled the “Bimbo Squad” for Bill?

Care for some anti-woman quotes from Hillary?

“…she (Hillary) has also developed a very thick skin…”

LOL…we have noticed. Suitable for upholstering furniture.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 26, 2015 3:18 PM
Comment #397883
If attractiveness is not a consideration, terms such as “old hags,” “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals” are also acceptable. Of course, this applies for Republican voters only.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 1:58 PM

You mean, like the language used to describe Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann:

It’s all fun and games until someone brings out the “c” word. Comedian Bill Maher called Sarah Palin just that on Sunday night in Dallas, laying into the former Alaska guv and saying that “there’s just no other word for her.”

Maher also referred to Palin last week as a “dumb twat.” As part of a larger comparison of the Republican presidential field to the characters on Gilligan’s Island, the host also characterized Palin and Bachmann as the “two bimbos.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_03/028688.php

Answer to post question; yes she is toast. It’s only a matter of time until she is challenged by an alternate democrat.

Posted by: Blaine at August 26, 2015 3:30 PM
Comment #397884

Blain, I have reconciled myself to the double standard held by many on the Left writing here.

The more they expose themselves as hypocrites the better.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 26, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment #397885

Blaine,
You want to compare the language used by Donald Trump, the leading contender for the presidential nomination of the GOP, with Bill Maher? Really? Bill Maher is a comedian who uses inappropriate language, hence the name of his former Comedy Central cable show, Politically Incorrect. (He now does one on HBO).

Coarse and inappropriate language might be appropriate on a late night cable news comedy show. It is extremely inappropriate for a person who is leading his party’s race for the nomination to publicly behave that way and speak that way about women.

If you want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, compare Hillary Clinton with Donald Trump.

And RF, if you are going to accuse HRC of inappropriate langue and making derogatory comments in public aimed at women, please provide links.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 4:30 PM
Comment #397886

I can’t wait to see Hillbilly react this time around when she doesn’t get nominated. Talk about a woman scorned!

And, isn’t it funny how Democratics will start drawing distinctions when they get caught wading hip deep in hypocrisy? Bill Maher is a comedian so he’s immune to the scorn of the left.

No, he’s a public figure, just as Rush Limbaugh is. Will the Democratics hold Bill Maher to the same standard they held Rush Limbaugh to when he hwrt poor wittol Sandwa Fwook feewwings?

They won’t. They’re hip deep in hypocrisy and can’t admit it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 26, 2015 5:57 PM
Comment #397887

Republicans regurgitate Rush Limbaugh’s talking points left and right. Democrats don’t do the same with whatever crap Maher might say. Regardless, nothing excuses anyone from calling Sarah Palin a cunt or anything else insulting.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 26, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #397888
Blaine, You want to compare the language used by Donald Trump, the leading contender for the presidential nomination of the GOP, with Bill Maher? Really? Bill Maher is a comedian who uses inappropriate language, hence the name of his former Comedy Central cable show, Politically Incorrect. (He now does one on HBO).

Coarse and inappropriate language might be appropriate on a late night cable news comedy show. It is extremely inappropriate for a person who is leading his party’s race for the nomination to publicly behave that way and speak that way about women.

If you want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, compare Hillary Clinton with Donald Trump…

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 4:30 PM

ph, your not just referring to what Trump said; your referring to what any or all conservatives say. Your comment was:

Comment #397880

Btw, now that ‘political correctness’ is no longer a consideration for Republican voters, given their large and growing support for Trump, it is now acceptable to refer to women as “bimbos” if they are attractive. Calling a woman a “bimbo” may be repeated as often as necessary to drive home the point.

In this comment, you are saying that all conservatives (not Trump) are referring to women as bimbos, simply because it is acceptable. What is the difference between me, for example, and Bill Maher calling a woman a bimbo? Does Bill Maher have 1st amendment rights that I don’t have. It’s fine for Maher to insult a woman because he’s a comedian, but not anyone else? You have no problem with liberal writers saying derogatory remarks about Sarah Palin, or her kids for that matter, but you have a problem with conservatives calling HRC names. I’m sure we could go back in the archives and look at the comments of liberals concerning Palin.

Speaks said:

I don’t see Hillary succumbing to this as she has also developed a very thick skin when it comes to the non-scandal scandals.

I don’t see Hillary talking to anyone about anything, except for the continued excuses for her emails. When was the last time Hillary got before a room full of reporters and answered questions?

Posted by: Blaine at August 26, 2015 6:16 PM
Comment #397889
Democrats don’t do the same with whatever crap Maher might say.

Warren Porter, this is a false statement. The left continually regurgitates the talking points of the liberal talking heads.

Posted by: Blaine at August 26, 2015 6:20 PM
Comment #397891

Prove it. I frequently find conservative Watchbloggers plagiarizing conservative media. Never have I seen a liberal do the same.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 26, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #397893

WP,
I would not care to repeat a lot of things Bill Maher says, but that is because he is a late night comedian who specializes in making off-color remarks. That is what he does.

WW,
Maher is on cable. People have to pay for access, and the shows are only on late at night. Do you consider that public? Do you think it is appropriate to compare the behavior and words used by a person running for president and leading the polls, with a late night cable comedian? Really? Seriously?

Rush Limbaugh is on AM radio. Did he hurt a woman’s feelings by calling her a slut and worse 53 times over three days? Do you think that is appropriate for a person who is considered a leader of conservatism?

Here are a few of Limbaugh’s comments:
(Note) I’ve had to delete many of Limbaugh’s comments due to WB limitations on inappropriate language.

“Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much s*x she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.”

“So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have s*x, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

“… A woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the s*x in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior.”

It just goes on and on.
Now, let’s review Weary Willies comment:

” Will the Democratics hold Bill Maher to the same standard they held Rush Limbaugh to when he hwrt poor wittol Sandwa Fwook feewwings?”

First one commenter compares Donald Trump with Bill Maher, and now another compares Rush Limbaugh with him, and denigrates a young woman for doing nothing more than appear before Democrats in Congress to testify about whether medical insurance should have a contraception mandate.

Ugly stuff, WW. Really ugly stuff. Why would you write this? “… he hwrt poor wittol Sandwa Fwook feewwings?”
Are you a misogynist? Do you approve of Limbaugh’s commentss? Do wish to minimize it? Maybe it is supposed to be funny- an example of the New Conservative Humor.

Good luck, conservatives. Keep it up. You deserve what is happening. You earned it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 6:31 PM
Comment #397894

This is what is happening; 53% of Iowa Democrats believe the email situation WILL hurt Clinton in the general election. What is happening is that Hillary had to cut her lavish vacation short to get back on the campaign trail…she’s in trouble boys.

Posted by: Blaine at August 26, 2015 6:51 PM
Comment #397895

Do people believe something? I don’t think most people even know what an e-mail server looks like. Believe whatever you want, Blaine. TravelGate, Whitewater, Benghazi!, an e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation…

But as soon as you have actual proof of illegal activities, let me know. Prove it. Until then, I’m really not interested in groundless accusations. As the old saying goes- and pardon me if this sounds rather rude, but- put up or shut up.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 6:57 PM
Comment #397896

Isn’t it interesting. Liberals ask for proof of “alleged” misdoing by Hillary. Investigations are continuing. We’ll get back with you later.

With no “proof” of MMGW, this same bunch of hypocrites desire nothing more than huge expenditures by our government to fix…well, something.

With no “proof” that restricting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will save a single life, this same bunch desires to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.

With no “proof” that illegals in our country is good for America, they desire to flood this country with ever more of them.

With no “proof” that a fully developed fetus is not human, they remove all constitutional protection for those lives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 26, 2015 7:12 PM
Comment #397897

Just a point of information. A server is the same thing as a hard drive. The very same type that you have in your computer. Plain and simple. So when you “experts” use the word server, it is not some collaboration with whatever someone wants to attach to it. The hard drive can be replaced in a matter of seconds. The drive has information on it to show when it was installed as well as other info. It will tell when it got cleaned. Everything that is done with that hard drive or one that replaced the hard drive has information with much tell-tale data. So HRC can take all the cloths she wants to erase the drive. It will not do the job she wants to accomplish.

I say she should try to erase the toaster, she will have better success. It will still leave a residue tho.

Posted by: tom humes at August 26, 2015 9:04 PM
Comment #397898

Here are the differences between a hard drive and a server:

http://www.dell.com/downloads/us/bsd/What_Is_a_Server.pdf

The reason deleting e-mails doesn’t actually conceal anything is that there are both senders and recipients on different computers, and, e-mails can be forwarded. We saw this in the so-called IRS scandal. Most, if not all, of the e-mails were eventually recovered. It turns out there was nothing there that was illegal or immoral. The same applies to the current fake scandal.

RF,
“Investigations are continuing. We’ll get back with you later.”

Uh-huh. And please keep me updated on Travelgate, Whitewater, and Benghazi! There are so many ‘scandals,’ but updates should be easy, since somehow the ‘scandals’ never turn out to have any substance. No indictments. No trials. No convictions. Nothing.

On another topic, I do find it curious that, although conservatives seem anxious to amend the Constitution for several different issues, no one is advocating amendments to the Second one. We just saw two good young people murdered live, on camera, by a mentally ill ‘disgruntled employee’ who legally purchased a gun. (Another woman was shot in the back and badly hurt). Surely the rights of those two young people to be alive is more important than the right of a mentally ill ‘disgruntled employee’ to purchase a gun and kill them.

We experience a level of gun violence in this country that no other civilized country in the world experiences, not even the ones with similar cultures and media. How can anyone think this is an exceptional country when two young people are murdered by a mentally ill ‘disgruntled employee’ who legally purchased a gun? Are we really incapable of doing anything about this?

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 9:38 PM
Comment #397900

In order for the black man in VA to buy a gun, he had to go through a background check. He had mental problems, and he was escorted off the premises of the TV network. There are laws on the books, but once again we find a bad guy who slipped through the cracks. ph is calling for more gun control laws, and yet this guy was able to get around existing laws. Perhaps ph could explain how this happened? It is becoming commonplace for these bad guys who keep killing people, to fall through the cracks. ph,we don’t have to have proof of Hillary being untrustworthy, she is doing that for herself. Check her falling polls.

Posted by: Blaine at August 26, 2015 10:39 PM
Comment #397901

While Hillary’s favorability ratings are declining, she is still far ahead of her competition in the GOP, because they have even worse favorability ratings. If the election were held today, based on current polls, she would win in a landslide. She would win by an even larger margin than Obama won with in 2012.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2015 11:01 PM
Comment #397902

phx8
emails are sent and received and are stored on the same drive.

your explanation is half baked

the server is a hard drive with additional components in the hardware. Basically the server is a hard drive, period.

My explanation above is concise and any attempt to fog up the description is bogus. Your link to dell did you no good. You got things mixed up in what you were trying to say.

Posted by: tom humes at August 26, 2015 11:02 PM
Comment #397903

ph, your analysis is ridiculous. You are comparing the darling of the Democratic party to 17 Republicans running in the Republican primary. Do you honestly think Hillary has a chance? Now we have Obama giving his blessings for Biden to run. Who do you think Obama will endorse; a Clinton, whom he hates, or Biden, his VP? I was watching the Lawrence O’Donnell show tonight, and his panel of three liberals (so much for fair and balanced); to of them supported Biden to run and one of the two said “Biden is the only choice”, and the third one, a black woman, supported Hillary. That is 66% of liberals who support Biden. It’s not just Hillary’s favorability ratings in decline, her trustworthiness is in decline too. If she wasn’t in trouble over the emails, she wouldn’t keep giving speeches trying to explain what is going on. Her surrogates are out there blaming the Republicans and the media; yet it is the Obama FBI and DOJ doing the investigation. The only media to even report on the emails, especially in the beginning, was Fox News. And according to your side only conservatives and Republican get brainwashed by Fox; so why does 53% of democrats believe the emails will be a factor in her candidacy?

I have no idea where you get your numbers, but the Huff Po average shows HRC with an average 41.6% favorability and an unfavorability of 49.6%.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

According to Gallup, a July poll has at least for of the Republican candidates with a higher favorability than HRC.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/173600/huckabee-paul-ryan-perry-best-known-liked-gop.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Posted by: Blaine at August 26, 2015 11:39 PM
Comment #397904

Blaine,
First, I do not think Biden will run. It is very late to announce, and most of the donors and activists in the field have already made their commitments. I don’t have anything against Biden and I’m not in the tank for Hillary. Biden is a good man with solid qualifications, but that is just a dispassionate assessment. The only way a Biden candidacy would ever have a chance is if something serious happens to Hillary- death, injury, or indictment for a serious crime. That is not likely. If Biden does declare, it will likely be a place-holder type of campaign, just in case something bad does happen to her.

And if I were Hillary, I would be doing just what she is doing right now- staying out of the limelight; after all, it is only August. The GOP is in the process of destroying itself. It is alienating Hispanics so thoroughly that they will not vote for a Republican for a generation. The last thing Hillary needs to do is grab a megaphone and shout ‘look at me!’

It’s not easy to stay on the sideline. The media wants a story. FOX spends about 1/3 of its time hyping candidates who are supposedly going to run against her, and another 1/3 hyping fake scandals like the e-mail server or the Clinton Foundation. It must be tough for her to take, but nevertheless, she is better off staying out of the fray, building her organization, lining up donors, and letting the Republican candidates capture the public’s attention.

For some strange reason, some people are convinced Obama will endorse one or the other during the primaries. Why? That makes no sense at all. If Biden & HRC run against one another, Obama will refuse to endorse during the primaries, and stand 100% behind whoever wins the nomination. It’s just common sense.

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2015 12:04 AM
Comment #397907

Your wrong about Biden; he will run, and he has the blessings of Obama in doing so. It is Obama who is pushing for the ouster of Clinton. Obama is in charge and the Obama DOJ and FBI are not going after anyone unless it is with the blessing of Obama. Obama wants someone who will defend his legacy and not oppose it. The Clintons, if elected, would do whatever they could to build their own legacy; with no care for Obama’s.

And if I were Hillary, I would be doing just what she is doing right now- staying out of the limelight; after all, it is only August. The GOP is in the process of destroying itself. It is alienating Hispanics so thoroughly that they will not vote for a Republican for a generation. The last thing Hillary needs to do is grab a megaphone and shout ‘look at me!’

First; Hillary staying out of the limelight is code for she WILL NOT talk to the media. She is in trouble and instead of dealing with the issues head on, she has chosen the “tried and true” Clinton tactic of “deny and hope it goes away” and then at a later point her problems become “this is old news”. She certainly does not have Bill’s ability to answer a question; when asked if she had wiped clean her server, her answer was “do you mean with a cloth?” The only thing this ignorant comment did was inflame the news media. Hillary has grabbed the megaphone and said “look at me”.

Secondly; it doesn’t matter how the Hispanics feel about the GOP candidates. Even among Hispanics, just as among liberals, some people will vote Republican and some will vote Democrat. That number is not likely to change, unless the candidate is also Hispanic. Let’s take you for example; you are going to vote for a Democrat, no matter what he/she does. You would vote for Hillary no matter what she did. If it was proven she sent classified material to Putin, you would still say it was a republican trick and you would vote for her. It’s the same with Hispanics; there are some who have eyes wide open and know what the Democratic Party is and will vote Republican; and then there are the rest who will vote for Democrats, no matter what. Contrary to the calls of the left and the Republican establishment, the Presidency does not rest on the votes of the Hispanics.

Posted by: Blaine at August 27, 2015 10:24 AM
Comment #397909

Douglas E. Schoen who worked for the campaigns of Bill and Hillary Clinton, stated this morning that he thought the email scandal was going to fade away; but is now convinced it will take her down.

Now, I know the your first response will be to attack Schoen as a contributor for Fox News, or that he opposed some of the Obama strategies; but that doesn’t change the fact that he supported both Clinton presidential campaigns. Schoen, like many other Democrats, are seeing the handwriting on the wall. It is only the leftist bloggers who are in denial.

Posted by: Blaine at August 27, 2015 10:40 AM
Comment #397913

Doug Schoen is a Democrat who hates Democrats. According to a Politico article he called on Obama to resign in 2010, he called on Democrats to embrace Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, and he called Obama’s effort to bring the Olympics to Chicago “gangster politics” and “the biggest outrage ever done.”

So no. I do not give Doug Schoen any credibility whatsoever. Same goes for ‘Democratic pollster’ Pat Caudill.

“Obama wants someone who will defend his legacy and not oppose it. The Clintons, if elected, would do whatever they could to build their own legacy; with no care for Obama’s.”

That makes no sense. Obama’s legacy will include saving the economy, winding down two wars, Obamacare, and two solid Supreme Court nominations, among other things. Hillary Clinton would build on that legacy, not oppose it, just like Biden.

The Hispanic vote matters a great deal. It is the second largest minority in the country, it is growing, and 72% voted for Obama in 2012. The RNC post-mortem considered attracting Hispanic votes to be critical for the GOP to win the presidency in 2016. That was the whole point of putting Rubio on point for immigration reform legislation. The Senate did come up with a bipartisan bill, but radicals in the House, led by King and Bachmann, shot it down.

Immigration reform is HUGE for the Hispanic community. It is the main topic of discussion in Hispanic media, and they do not like what they are hearing from conservatives and Republicans. Trump is absolute poison on this subject. He is toxic for the GOP’s chances in 2016.

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2015 1:52 PM
Comment #397915

Douglas E. Schoen notwithstanding, the email scandal is a huge problem that is only going to become huger as election day approaches. I am confident HRC did not break the law. She is too smart of a lawyer to do that. However, what she has broken is the public’s trust. HRC has already admitted that using a private server for government business was a mistake. Unfortunately, we cannot afford a mistake who makes those sorts of mistakes. If HRC was a young upstart in her 40s, the public might be willing to treat this as a youthful mistake and look the other way. The problem is that HRC is nearly 70 years old. She knew what she was doing and willfully decided that her own convenience was more important than the public’s trust. That is a dangerous trait to see in a President.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 27, 2015 2:18 PM
Comment #397924

“She knew what she was doing and willfully decided that her own convenience was more important..”

Warren,

I doubt that it was simply a convenience issue. Privacy is more likely the motive.

Conservatives have hounded Hillary Clinton with one phony investigation after another from the day she first stepped into the White House as first lady. The Whitewater and Travelgate investigations were nothing but extravagant and costly fishing expeditions to find something, anything to pin on her or Bill. She was even seriously accused by some conservatives of murder in the death of Vincent Foster. None of the allegations against her turned out to have any substance.

With that background, I can understand how she would go to great lengths to avoid further fishing expeditions on trumped up allegations.

She may have been basically correct. The Benghazi investigation alleges horrific and slanderous acts by her and Obama. There is no evidence to support the allegations but they provide a pre-textual basis for getting all her emails. There is likely nothing there. However, she has suffered the perception of attempting to hide something with her choice of email server.


Posted by: Rich at August 27, 2015 7:15 PM
Comment #397940

Re Hillary email - she violated the established rules and the ethnic code. Every State employee has to take the cyber security course every year. Every senior State employee has to take the ethics course every year. This has been the rule for at least ten years. The cyber course specifically says that should not use personal email for official business. The ethics course specifically says that you need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This means that you need to keep real and apparent distance from paid business and even volunteer activities.

As for hiding something - she clearly was trying to hide something by keeping all her business on her own server. It is much harder to do, not more convenient. The big advantage to State email is that it has all the addresses and relationships. You cannot duplicate this on any private email. If anyone is REALLY working and using email, they would be foolish indeed not to take advantage of that significant resource. The only reasons, besides stupidity, that you would not use the State system is if you wanted to hide something.

RE security - the person with the clearance, i.e. Hillary, is responsible for any classified document found in an insecure location under her control. Her server was insecure by definition. They found some classified documents on her server. She is the employee with the clearance. She violated security.

She would lose her security clearance in a just world. I doubt she broke the letter of any laws. If she worked for me, I would send her home.

Posted by: C&J at August 27, 2015 11:37 PM
Comment #397942

My understanding is that Bill Clinton set up the private server in the early 2000s when HRC was still a senator. Privacy was probably the impetus at the time. However, in 2009 HRC faced a choice: she could have followed established ethical protocols and used a server at the State Department to conduct her business, but instead decided the hassle of maintaining two email accounts was too great. So she opted to continue using her preexisting email system.

This is why “convenience” rather than privacy is the excuse she used when asked by the media last spring. I believe she told the truth at the time, but it is her own words that are most damning.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 9:45 AM
Comment #397944

This is really quite simple. Either HRC is lying or her opponents are. This is not a fence sitting issue. It is either or.

All the talk about “innocent” and “honest” are just ploys.

There might be a bit of truth in the case of HRC getting fitted in black and white stripes that are not part of a sports officiating team. She is probably going to choose orange instead so she is not confused with somebody else. I would personally advise her to pick yellow to show her cowardice and spineless lack of leadership. Then the polling people could narrow their choice of people being polled. They can then say “Hey, she is one of us”.

Posted by: tom humes at August 28, 2015 11:26 AM
Comment #397947

John,

I’d like to hear your take on David Ignatius’ recent piece in the Washington Post:

“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.

AND

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.

AND

One former State Department official recalled the days when most embassies overseas had only a few phones authorized for secret communications. Rather than go to the executive office to make such a call, officers would use their regular phones, bypassing any truly sensitive details. “Did we cross red lines? No doubt. Did it put information at risk? Maybe. But, if you weren’t in Moscow or Beijing, you didn’t worry much,” this former official said.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

What is the deal regarding the State Department’s methods for transmitting classified information? Have they ever been regarded as overburdened by bureaucracy and red tape? How common has it been for officials to use informal communication methods over the years?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 1:05 PM
Comment #397951

Warren

When doing the right thing is “inconvenient” you still do the right thing. Beyond that, I don’t see how it could have been more convenient for her to have to type in or look up all the names of any State officer she wanted to contact. Besides, she had more than one device and even bragged about it before she came up with the one-device story.

Hillary is lying about this. The is no reasonable doubt about this. The only questions that remain is whether she technically broke the law and how much her violations affect her politically.

to your questions

There a “back channels”. It depends on how you use them. They are generally done with lots of thought & good reason with the knowledge that they are against the rules and there could be consequences.

Using personal email for ALL your business, however, is never done. I have never heard of anybody doing it until I heard that Hillary had done it.

He is right about State.gov being insecure. It is not considered better than a private server for secure purposes and nothing classified can be transmitted on it. However, it can handle sensitive but unclassified and protected personal information. She should not have used either for classified. She would have had a classified email if she was following the rules and could have used that.

But, you are supposed to use State.gov for all official business not classified. It is for purposes of keeping records, inspections and audits. These are, IMO, what Hillary was trying to subvert.

Re transmitting via insecure telephones etc. It happened. It was illegal. And people were usually careful to supply only parts of information, i.e. something that requires other knowledge to understand.

So what we are talking about in “ordinary” violations happens, BUT nothing like Hillary did. AND it is a serious offense. You can be denied promotion if you have too many violations and you can lose your security clearance for some offenses of a willful ONE.

If an employee did what Hillary has already admitted doing, he/she would certainly have his/her security clearance suspended and probably revoked. He/she would likely not be eligible for promotion and would risk losing his/her job. I don’t know specifically what would happen, since I would never even consider acting in such an irresponsible manner.

Did she do anything actually illegal? That would be a different question. We hold people to a higher standard when we entrust them with our country’s secrets. She played fast-and-lose with that trust. She should be ashamed of her behavior.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2015 3:25 PM
Comment #397953

I was having lunch with my Dad and I asked him how anyone could consider voting for Hillbilly. He just shook his head and said, “I don’t know.” I told him the only way she could win would be for the Democratics to cheat.

He replied, “It’s possible!”

Hell, the fix could already be in! How do we know that a field of 17 Republicans aren’t subterfuge resulting in a Clinton presidency. 17 Republicans can rip each other to pieces to leave one shredded corpse of a candidate to go up against the clean, pressed pantsuit of Hillary Clinton. One final October Surprise and it’s President Clinton for 4 more years.

Roosevelt needed 3 terms to get his social programs to stick. He needed a Supreme Court to prop them up. An Obama 3rd term would guarantee a liberal SC and guarantee the ACA, but it doesn’t have to be Obama. Any Democratic in the White House will do. The way Republicans have been accommodating Democratics I wouldn’t be surprised this is exactly what’s happening: Subterfuge toward a Progressive control of government for another 100 years.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 28, 2015 3:59 PM
Comment #397954

Thank you for your response. At this point, I think this scandal disqualifies HRC from earning my vote in either the primary or general elections. She chose convenience over the nation’s security. I have higher standards for our public servants.

Beyond that, I don’t see how it could have been more convenient for her to have to type in or look up all the names of any State officer she wanted to contact.

Are you referring to the convenience of having the entire staff directory already preloaded into one’s address book? Someone with the technical know-how needed to construct the Chappaqua server would easily be able to export a database of state department employees over. Again, this would likely be an unethical breach of protocol as it is a misuse of personal information.

To be honest, it is probably more damning that she did this out of convenience rather than if she was trying to cover something up. At least I can understand her paranoia after 8 years of Starr’s witch-hunting back in the ’90s.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 4:21 PM
Comment #397955

So some people at State did not get the memo about the TPS cover letter?

Really. Is that where we are now? Let’s see… What do we have… Nothing illegal. Nothing immoral. No breach of security. Some employees entitled to exchange classified information with each other may not have been formatting their material correctly when they cut and paste. Because we all know the importance of a TPS cover letter.

WW,
Are you suggesting the fact that there are 17 GOP candidates is due to a conspiracy or subterfuge on the part of Hillary- or maybe Hillary AND Republicans- so that the candidates will tear each other apart and allow the conniving Hillary to win?

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2015 5:06 PM
Comment #397956

phx8, Hillary as SECSTATE should have KNOWN how to handle sensitive and classified materials. So now you are going to whine and cry that your honey is getting railroaded and guess what it ain’t the republicans doing it, it’s Obama’s DOJ and FBI. Obama wants crazy Joe in the W. H. because that’s his 3rd term!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 28, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #397958

phx8,

Bureaucracies function by sticking to established rules and protocols. It is the nature of the beast. The State Department is no different.

State Department rules forbid employees from using private email for workplace activity. It may be commonplace for occasional breaches of that rule to occur, but HRC systematically undermined the State Dept’s rules. Whether the reason was arrogance or paranoia, it is unacceptable in my book.

I am confident that she did not break any laws and that confidential communication was not mishandled. She is too smart to do something like that. However, she is a role model for the entire agency. The mere APPEARANCE of lax attitudes regarding protocols is extremely detrimental.

HRC is a kind old lady who deserves a comfortable retirement, not 4 years in the Oval Office.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 6:02 PM
Comment #397959

phx8, I’m really way beyond distinguishing a difference between Republicans and Democratics. They both belong to their own party called Government. Sure, we have a two party system, but the parties consist of the government and the people.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 28, 2015 6:03 PM
Comment #397960

phx8
When are you going to give up on that shameful whine about RNC did not do anything wrong. You know she did or you are just out in lala land and really just want to dingle with the keyboard.

She has spent far too many years in the left wing washed up whatch ma call its, to not know what she claims she doen’t know. Of course “what difference does it make”.

Posted by: tom humes at August 28, 2015 6:04 PM
Comment #397961

KAP,
Let me know when Hillary is indicted.

There seems to be an elaborate GOP fantasy about the relationships between Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Obama, and how Biden will announce any day now that he will run, and how that will stop Hillary.

Let me know when Biden makes it official.

Otherwise, it just sounds like more of the same old, same old. Lots of accusations. Lots of conspiracies. But nothing solid, nothing substantial, no evidence, no indictments or trials or convictions. Never an apology, never an attempt at self-examination after falling for the latest false scandal- Fast & Furious, the fake IRS scandal, Benghazi! Whitewater, Travelgate, and more. Just engage that almost miraculous ability to forget, and move on to wholeheartedly embrace the newest scandal.

Conservatives and their scandals remind me of Charlie Brown preparing to kick the football. This time for sure! And Lucy pulls it away every time. Yet Charlie Brown goes right back to believing the next time he will kick the football. Somehow the football is never there at the crucial moment, just air, and Charlie Brown lands on his butt again.

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2015 6:15 PM
Comment #397962

Paranoia and Power is a dangerous mix. The nation must not elect Hillary.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 28, 2015 6:15 PM
Comment #397963

I have a question for the left. We hear from the Democrats that Republicans should be moderate, able to work across the isle with Democrats. Yesterday, Hillary compared the Republicans to Muslim terrorists. In her latest aggressive move to change the debate away from emails and servers to her agenda; she identified Republicans as terrorists. First, she called Muslims “terrorists”, something her and Obama were never able to do in the past, but now is able to do. Secondly, and more importantly, if she were elected to be President, how would she ever be able to “compromise” or “deal with” a Republican Congress, after comparing them to Muslim terrorists? Hasn’t her vitriol poisoned the well?

HRC is a kind old lady who deserves a comfortable retirement, not 4 years in the Oval Office.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 6:02 PM

I agree that she should retire and while I also agree that she is old, she is certainly not a kind old lady. I have heard enough stories from WH staff, secret service, and reporters to know she is a shrill and hateful old lady. Her vocabulary consists of frequent use of the “F” bomb, threatening and speaking hateful to the staff, and frequent throwing of ashtrays and small pieces of furniture. I’m sure that some would blame it on her monthly PMS problems, but since she has long passed those days, we must now just stock it up to a “hateful old lady”

Since, by her own claim, her and Bill left the WH dead broke; and since her and Bill are now multimillionaires, thanks to the Clinton Foundation, I’m sure her and Bill could fade into history, living comfortably, although that would make it a little harder for Bill’s infidelity issues. The question is, why wouldn’t she just go away; and the answer is POWER. It’s all about power. She is a liar and a deceiver, and would we want someone like that in the Oval Office.

Posted by: Blaine at August 28, 2015 6:41 PM
Comment #397965
Otherwise, it just sounds like more of the same old, same old. Lots of accusations. Lots of conspiracies. But nothing solid, nothing substantial, no evidence, no indictments or trials or convictions. Never an apology, never an attempt at self-examination after falling for the latest false scandal- Fast & Furious, the fake IRS scandal, Benghazi! Whitewater, Travelgate, and more. Just engage that almost miraculous ability to forget, and move on to wholeheartedly embrace the newest scandal.

ph, many people have told you it is the Obama FBI and DOJ that is investigating the Clinton emails and server; yet you continue to try to make it sound like it’s a Republican investigation. It is the Obama state dept that is leaking info on Hillary and insinuating a Biden run. The problem with the Clinton’s, even from the days in Arkansas, is that controversy has surrounded them. It was fine when America did not know their history, but the controversy has always been there. The problem for the Clinton’s is not what the what Republicans say; it is the perception that Americans have of HRC. People don’t trust her, but you continue to defend the indefensible. The subject of the post is “Is Hillary Toast” and the answer is yes.

Posted by: Blaine at August 28, 2015 6:58 PM
Comment #397966

The right has always sought to portray Hillary Clinton as an uncaring shrew. However, that was at odds from those that had worked for her. “Her boosters for years have insisted the hard-nosed and calculating caricature of Clinton that has emerged in the public eye is not recognizable to those closest to her. She is, they have insisted for years, one of the best bosses they’d ever had.” Time Magazine has taken the time to review some of the 3,000 emails released for clues as to her working and private personality. See for yourself. http://time.com/3943578/hillary-clinton-emails-personality/

Posted by: Rich at August 28, 2015 7:09 PM
Comment #397968

LOL…thanks for the laugh Rich. The title of the Time article is:

Buried in more than 3,000 messages are hints at what Clinton is like with closest friends.

Is it a leap of faith to believe her “closest friends” have something nice to say about her?

There are many books about HRC written by those who obviously are not her “closest friends” that are scathing in their assessment of her “out-of-control” temper, proclivity to destroy those who are merely in her way, and paranoid ambition.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 28, 2015 7:27 PM
Comment #397969

Thank you Rich for the article from Time Mag; but I watched the movie….remember…..the one of her and the love of her life(philandering Bill), staged on the beach and dancing to non-existent music. Oh, what love…..LOL

http://www.politicaldog101.com/2011/02/21/bill-and-hillary-clinton-dancing-on-the-beach/

With Bill’s arms wrapped around a body like that, why would he ever run around???

Posted by: Blaine at August 28, 2015 7:36 PM
Comment #397970

phx8, the fantasies are NOT coming from the GOP but are coming from the W.H. and last time I checked the resident was a democrat. As far as an investigation goes it’s the FBI and DOJ so some validity of something being amiss is fairly strong especially now that the FBI “A Team” is investigating the server. So to say your honey Hillary is toast is pretty accurate. I can understand her doing her private e mailing through her private server but NOT State Dept.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 28, 2015 7:37 PM
Comment #397971

Toast? Yes, burnt toast reeking of sulfur.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 28, 2015 7:41 PM
Comment #397976

A side of toast should go well with the scrambled eggs the GOP’s got on the stove.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 7:49 PM
Comment #397981

Warren

IF she preloaded the State Department address book into a private server, she committed a very clear security violation. There is no good way for Hillary to come out of this. The irony is that all her problems are self-inflicted. It is incredible stupidity or arrogance.

phx8

NO employees are ENTITLED to use unclassified for classified materials. Some do breaking the law. It is like cheating on income taxes. We recognize that it is widespread and we de-facto tolerate small “mistakes” but it is always illegal and when it gets very willful we need to crack down

Hillary messed up. There is simply no defense. The question only remains is if you think we want to forgive her.

As I have said many times, I am not sure she broke any actual laws. I am certain that she should lose her security clearance for her actions. She did wrong. I would be ashamed if I were her. And I would not tolerate such behavior in my staff.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2015 8:59 PM
Comment #397985
It is incredible stupidity or arrogance.

She is far to old and wise to do something that stupid or ignorant. It must be arrogance. HRC simply doesn’t believe she has to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Hillary messed up. There is simply no defense. The question only remains is if you think we want to forgive her.
Exactly. I gauruntee that she made sure to barely skirt all the relevant laws. So there won’t be any indictments forthcoming, but this is still a black mark for her.

She’s been around the block way too many times. I really cannot justify letting it pass if her only excuse is “it was more convenient”. I can at least understand how paranoia can make someone act like that, but laziness? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 10:18 PM
Comment #397986

wp

“She is far to old and wise to do something that stupid or ignorant.”

How do you measure wisdom?

Wisdom should not be in the same determination as lying and cheating and dishonesty and more.

Posted by: tom humes at August 28, 2015 10:45 PM
Comment #397987

I think HRC is completely honest when she says she used the private server merely as a matter of convenience. I also believe her when she says she has nothing to hide. Clinton’s sin is one of arrogance rather than dishonesty.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2015 11:32 PM
Comment #397990

Hillary Clinton is not stupid, she’s arrogant. She thinks she’s above the law. She tries to act like she’s technology ignorant, but it’s all show. I said from the beginning that when it comes to being charged for destroying government documents, she will suddenly find everything. The Clintons have spent their whole lives telling lies. It’s adolescent to believe that Hillary is just an old woman who has no idea what she is doing. She will never take responsibility for any wrongdoing, someone will be thrown under the bus. My guess is that her good friend Huma Abedin (sp) and employee will take the fall.

Posted by: Blaine at August 29, 2015 9:59 AM
Comment #397991

It is a fact that Hillary had several different smart phones and iPads. Her claim was to use one email account for convenience, but she had more than one account. Her goal was to hide what she was doing. If it was a Republican who had done what Hillary has done, I would still say they were a liar and deceiver.

Posted by: Blaine at August 29, 2015 10:09 AM
Comment #397994

Warren, Hillary has been in government to long to think that she can say “it was a matter of convenience” and the fact that she is married to a former president who would, or maybe wouldn’t, advise her that what she was doing was not the smartest thing to do. The matter of convenience thing just doesn’t fly. IMO I think a hard look at their foundation would be inorder.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 29, 2015 11:18 AM
Comment #397998

To be honest, I really wish HRC was lying about the whole convenience thing. Then I could at least understand why she did what she did. As phx8 has pointed out, she has good reason to be paranoid about her communications, so it would make sense she would try to hide everything even if there wasn’t any wrongdoing going on.

I can tolerate a politician who lies, but not one who believes he or she is above the law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 29, 2015 1:14 PM
Comment #397999
Are you suggesting the fact that there are 17 GOP candidates is due to a conspiracy or subterfuge on the part of Hillary- or maybe Hillary AND Republicans- so that the candidates will tear each other apart and allow the conniving Hillary to win?

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2015 5:06 PM

O’Malley, Sander criticize small Democratic debate schedule, suggest its rigged to favor Clinton

Two top Democratic candidates in the 2016 White House race suggested Friday night that party leaders have rigged the debate schedule in favor of frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Well, look at that, phx8! Apparently I didn’t hit too far off the mark.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 29, 2015 2:16 PM
Comment #398000

Warren, If their wasn’t any wrong doing going on their would be no reason to hide anything? Being paranoid of what communications? Personnel or work related? IMO Hillary thinks she is above the law.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 29, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #398003

The question remains “is Hillary toast”; and the answer is yes. When almost 2/3rds of voter rate her as a liar and untrustworthy, she has a problem. The left wants to factor in 17 republican candidates, but that number will change. What happens when it’s 1 republican and Hillary. It’s true that Trump does not have 100% of republican support, and I have no idea if he will get the nomination, but if he does, he will get the republican voters (except for C&J). He will also get a vast independent vote, simply because Obama has made the American people so upset. Congress (both sides) have also upset the voters.

Posted by: Blaine at August 29, 2015 4:27 PM
Comment #398005

What the hell is this obama legacy everyone is writing about?

Are black people better off today because of him?

Is the middle class better off today because of him?

Are retired folks better off today because of him?

Are women better off today because of him?

Are the poor better off today because of him?

Rich people are better off today because of him.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 29, 2015 4:48 PM
Comment #398006

To continue…

Is our military readiness better today because of him?

Are race relations better today because of him?

Is small business better off today because of him?

Is our reputation in the world better off today because of him?

Are our military vets needing medical care better off today because of him?

Is our Southern Border more secure today because of him?

Do you sleep better at night because of him?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 29, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #398010

Exactly Royal, the only thing Obama can brag on is a failed obamacare, which the majority of Americans have never wanted and which has all but destroyed our HC system.

Then, the only other thing to his credit is a deal with Iran that will lead to nuclear war in the middleast.

Neither supported by the Americans and both to be passed by Democratics through trickery. Of course, America knows this.

Posted by: Blaine at August 29, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #398012
Warren, If their wasn’t any wrong doing going on their would be no reason to hide anything? Being paranoid of what communications? Personnel or work related? IMO Hillary thinks she is above the law.

Uh, the Clintons already got burned in the ’90s by Starr even though they never did anything wrong apart from Bill’s infidelity. I’m certain they do everything they can to prevent that from happening again, which is why they created this private server back in 2001 in the first place.

If Clinton was not willing to handle multiple email accounts back in 2009, that was an abdication of her duty to the public trust. In my book, that is seriously more damning than if she was trying to hide things due to paranoia.

What the hell is this obama legacy everyone is writing about?
I dunno? Maybe something having to do with one of the longest bull markets in US history? Or maybe something having to do with the fact that unemployment is half of its peak from a few years ago. The appointment of Kagan and Sotomayor has strengthened our fidelity to the US Constitution with the legalization of gay marriage and other rulings. Sanity has returned to our immigration policy as resources have been directed away from deporting children who were raised in the US and know no other home. The budget deficit has been reduced every year since the recession ended. Environmental laws are enforced more strictly today than they were under the Bush administration. I could go on, but my hands are getting tired.

Obama’s approval is in the high 40s, it will definitely exceed 50% by the time 2016. Blaine has insisted that HRC is toast. I am withholding judgement for now. If HRC runs an “Obama’s 3rd term” sort of campaign, she’ll be a shoo-in to beat any GOP candidate apart from Kasich. Unfortunately, it seems like HRC’s arrogance is going to do her in. That is too bad.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 29, 2015 9:16 PM
Comment #398013


“I agree that she should retire and while I also agree that she is old…”

You know, that’s actually quite funny, as Hillary would be actually younger than Reagan was when he took the office.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 30, 2015 12:11 AM
Comment #398015

While that is true Rocky, Reagan didn’t have the hormone problems.

Warren, it’s almost a waste of time trying to discuss Obama’s successes and failures with someone from the left.

To speak of the Bull market as the Fed has been propping up tha market.

And to brag about appointing leftist justices who believe the Constitution is an evolving document.

Or legalizing gay marriage, based on feelings rather than law.

Or the fact that Obama has done nothing for the immigration issue except make it worse.

The national debt has tripled under Obama.

Hillary is arrogant, but it is her arrogance in believing she is above the law that causes the voters to see her as a liar and untrustworthy. If she gets the nomination, it will be another nail in the coffin of the DNC.

Posted by: Blaine at August 30, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #398016

Warren, it isn’t surprising what $8 Trillion or so in borrowed money can do for an economy. Are you, your children and grandchildren pleased about paying the bill?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 30, 2015 3:22 PM
Comment #398017

Blaine,

“While that is true Rocky, Reagan didn’t have the hormone problems.”

Yeah, I suppose, however Reagan did have “On set Dementia”, and had to take lots of naps. That fact we didn’t hear anything about until we voted him in for a second term.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 30, 2015 4:14 PM
Comment #398018

“To speak of the Bull market as the Fed has been propping up tha market.”

The money in the stock market does not come from the Federal Reserve. The stock market consists of equities- that is, shares of ownership in publicly held companies. The shares are valued based upon their current earnings and profits, and their prospects for future earnings and profits.

The Federal Reserve puts money into the economy primarily through debt instruments, NOT ownership instruments like equities.

“The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates… Its duties have expanded over the years, and as of 2009 also include supervising and regulating banks, maintaining the stability of the financial system and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.[12]

To suggest the Federal Reserve props up the stock markets shows a fundamental understanding of basic economics, stock markets, and the Federal Reserve.

The debt incurred by the Obama administration is a direct result of the failures of the Bush administration. The previous administration racked up debts due to tax cuts, the Iraq War, and skyrocketing health care costs. When the economy crashed as a result of the Bush administration policies, the Obama administration saved the economy through TARP and the stimulus, while providing SNAP and unemployment benefits for all those people who lost their job.

If you don’t understand the economy, don’t guess.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2015 4:47 PM
Comment #398019

Should be “… a fundamental misunderstanding…”

I don’t know where this line about the Federal Reserve propping up the stock market originated, but I do know I have heard Rush Limbaugh state it.

Virtually everything conservatives have said about the economy during the Obama administration has turned out to be demonstrably wrong, factually wrong, wrong in terms of bad predictions compared with real events and outcomes.

It is no wonder the current state of conservative economics is in complete disarray. What is the agenda now? As far as I can tell, no one has any coherent ideas. The GOP has been reduced to the notions and fantasies of a candidate like Donald Trump. He is the only one with a significant following, and he just makes things up as he goes along.

“The national debt has tripled under Obama.”

No. That is just wrong. Under Bush, the national debt went from @ $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Under Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $18 trillion.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2015 5:24 PM
Comment #398020

While the Fed hasn’t directly propped up the stock market, it has indirectly through some of its quantitative easing programs. It was one of the goals of the Fed in that program to encourage more risky private sector investment in stocks, real estate, etc., other than the safe haven of Treasury Bonds. The idea was to create an incentive for investment in the private sector economy, e.g., public companies, rather than safe government bonds. It hoped for a psychological “wealth effect” as investment moved into the stock market and real estate.

It did so by purchasing existing Treasury Bonds held in the private sector. In essence, calling the bonds, exchanging cash for bonds in a bank’s federal reserve account. The theory was that prior holders of the bonds would seek alternative investments for their cash since they no longer held an interest bearing instrument. There was no net increase in private sector wealth. Ten million dollars worth of bonds became ten million dollars in cash. The Fed was simply creating an incentive to put investments into more productive areas of the economy.


Posted by: Rich at August 30, 2015 6:10 PM
Comment #398021

phx8 writes; “I don’t know where this line about the Federal Reserve propping up the stock market originated…”

From just about every financial expert you may choose to quote. Rather than bore the reader, I will just provide quotes from one source.

“Aug. 31, 2012: In his annual speech in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke all but announced the third round of QE, extraordinary bond buying of $85 billion a month. The S&P 500, which had languished after a nearly 10% decline, rallied from 1,399 points and hasn’t corrected substantially until now.

Sept. 22, 2011: Following a 19.4% stock sell-off amid a debt crisis in Europe and the U.S., the Fed launched Operation Twist, in which it sold short-term and bought long-term securities to push down long rates. After first slipping, the S&P 500 resumed a multiyear take-off that, with a little help from the Fed, ultimately drove it 80% higher.

Aug. 27, 2010: In another famous Jackson Hole speech, Bernanke vowed the Fed would “do all that it can” and would “provide additional monetary accommodation through unconventional measures if … necessary.” After a 16% correction in the S&P 500, the Fed’s purchase of $600 billion in securities through QE2 would help push stocks 22.8% higher, according to Bianco Research.

Nov. 25, 2008: In the heat of the financial crisis, Bernanke announced the Fed’s first bond-buying program in which it wound up purchasing $1.7 trillion worth of securities. QE helped launch the new bull market and drove the S&P 500 up 50%.

“Three times they put down markers they were going to end QE,” Bianco said. “In all three cases — 20%, 17%, 10% down in the stock market — they reversed.”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-most-successful-market-timers-the-federal-reserve-2014-10-22?page=2

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 30, 2015 6:26 PM
Comment #398022

“Ten million dollars worth of bonds became ten million dollars in cash. The Fed was simply creating an incentive to put investments into more productive areas of the economy.”

Bond holders are fundamentally different investors with different investment goals from investors in the stock market. Just because bond holders finds themselves with cash instead of a bond does NOT mean they will run over to the stock market; in fact, that is highly unlikely. Bond money comes from the biggest investors out there, including governments. They have fiduciary responsibilities. They cannot allow losses, no matter how attractive the possibility for gain might be. They are the most conservative investors of all.

Banks loan money. Eventually that loaned money could go into real estate, which in turn could spur construction and employment. That money could, in turn, eventually make its way through the economy. We are talking a very roundabout method of money making its way through the economy.

At no point did money ever go directly from the Federal Reserve into the stock market, and to even suggest it did so indirectly is quite a stretch.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2015 6:35 PM
Comment #398023

Despite the nearly direct link of cause and effect shown by my quotes; the naysayer still holds on to his erroneous opinion.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Any fool can deny the truth to serve his own purpose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 30, 2015 6:43 PM
Comment #398024

“At no point did money ever go directly from the Federal Reserve into the stock market…”

Well duh…aren’t you something for figuring that out. None of us knew that the Fed didn’t buy equities on the open market.

Thanks Genius.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 30, 2015 6:47 PM
Comment #398025

Phx8,

The problem that the Fed was facing during the period of the quantitative easing programs was the reluctance of the private sector to invest in anything productive. There was a flight to safety of investors in US Treasury Bonds. That wasn’t good for the general economy. The Fed was using all the tricks in its book to stimulate investment in the economy. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Fed had no role in stimulating investment in the stock market. The fact that the Fed nudged money toward public companies is hardly controversial, although there is the issue of a possible bubble.

I might add, however, that the conservative mantra that the Fed was doing this (propping up the stock market) by printing money into the economy is also very disingenuous. There was no flood of new money into the economy.

Posted by: Rich at August 30, 2015 7:17 PM
Comment #398026

If the Fed is propping up an otherwise broken economy, surely the increase in money supply would send inflation through the roof. Yet, it remains at historic lows.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 30, 2015 7:23 PM
Comment #398027

The Federal Deserve was dealing with a deflationary market. It took a number of actions to deal with deflation and inject money into a rapidly contracting economy, including quantitative easing (QE1,2,3) and low interest rates. The economy benefited on a broad basis from the actions of the Federal Reserve AS WELL AS programs brought into action by the legislative branch, such as TARP, the stimulus, and the bailouts of GM and AIG.

It worked. Employment increased, housing construction resumed, housing prices recovered, companies recovered, and yes, the stock markets recovered too.

Because of QE and low interest rates, the Feds actions, along with the Democrats in Congress and White House, saved the economy from a contracting economy. Because of ‘printing money’ and low rates, the growth of the economy offset the deflationary pressures.

To gauge the depth of those deflationary pressures, considering that we are still fighting them to this day. Interest rates remain low and inflation remains virtually nonexistent.

And just to repeat a point that has already been made, if the Federal Reserve ever actually engaged in simply ‘printing money’ outside a deflationary environment, it would obviously result in too much money chasing too few goods, and that would show up as inflation and higher gold prices.

Didn’t happen.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2015 7:52 PM
Comment #398028

Hillary IS toast. Please see my next post.

Posted by: C&J at August 30, 2015 8:10 PM
Post a comment