Putting Clinton's emails in perspective

Republicans tried to make Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server the smoking gun to bring her down.   It didn't -- and won't.   Because there is no there, there.    But here's an ironic note in it all.

There is no evidence -- or, indeed, even any strong suggestion -- that anyone hacked the Clinton email server, although there were five unsuccessful attempts.   Apparently it was pretty secure.

Now it has been reported that the CIA Director's email account has been hacked.   The CIA Director?  Lots of secrets there, probably.   Where is the outcry from Republicans about this?   Huh?  Oh, I see.   The CIA Director is not about to be their chief opponent in the 2016 presidential election.

Ralph

Hillary Clinton warned the Republicans not to cut funding for embassy security. They didn't listen.

In the wake of the Republicans' latest attempt to pin the Benghazi disaster on Hillary Clinton, it's now time to put those same Republicans on the stand to defend this.  Quotes are from a Washington Post reported story last year. 

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. . . .

[In 2011] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. . . . 

House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut . . .  funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.  Under [Paul] Ryan’s [2014] budget . . .  more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

To be very clear, the Republicans were the ones who pushed for cutting funds for embassy security, and Hillary Clinton warned them that it would put Americans at risk.   They didn't listen then, and they're not taking any responsibility now for the results.   Instead, they're trying to blame the person who warned them.

And not once during the hearings did Hillary Clinton say "I told you so."

Ralph

More on Jeb wanting out

Read the earlier post with Jeb's picture.  After I wrote that, I watched the video of that news conference where Jeb said he didn't want to "sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me."   Hearing his tone of voice, which was a combination of anger and whining, convinced me even more that he wants out.   It sounded like an 8 year old stamping his foot and saying:   'They're picking on me.  Make it stop . . . or I'll run away."

Jeb got into the race thinking he had the family connections and the money and that the presidency was his for the taking.    But the coronation got cancelled by a revolt of the angry people.

Ralph

Biden has "dismounted the fence"

I applaud Joe Biden's decision not to run.  I just wish he had done it a couple of months ago, when we would have felt sympathetic instead of frustrated with him.

Charles M. Blow, columnist for the New York Times used this perfect phrase;  it carries just a hint of our annoyance with Biden:   "Vice President Joe Biden . . . dismounted the fence and decided not to run for president."

Ralph

IMHO: Jeb wants out, but Bush clan won't let him.

Well, no, Jeb hasn't actually said out loud that he wants to quit the race.   But look at that face.  Read his body language and even his words.   Here's what he told Jake Tapper on CNN:

“If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done, . . . I don’t want any part of it. . . . That is not my motivation. I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that.”

I agree 100% with a feeling of disgust with what the Republican campaign has become.   But, even so, that is not the way a winner talks.    The fact is that Jeb is not winning.    Depending on the poll, he's running anywhere from 4th to 6th place.

This past weekend, there was a big confab in Houston with all the family, political strategists, and big donors to take stock of Jeb's campaign and try to stop the train wreck.   It sounds like a desperate attempt to stave off desertion by the money guys.

But here's my theory:    It isn't just a desertion by the money guys.  They are at risk of having the candidate desert the campaign.  Not actually -- but his heart is no longer in it, if it ever was.  The fundamental problem isn't fund-raising.   The problem is Jeb.   First, he's neither as smart nor as good a politician as everyone thought.   And he's got a political party that is out of control and being wooed by outsiders who appeal to the anti-establishment, angry opposition.

In my opinion, Jeb doesn't want to stay in and lose.  I think he really wants out and that this meeting in Houston was an effort to pressure him to stay in.   Blame it on donor disenchantment, if you want.   I'll put my bets on Jeb's disenchantment.

You've got to want it.   And Jeb obviously doesn't want it enough to risk the humiliation of being the Bush who lost.

Ralph

Holding police accountable. Proposed reforms in Georgia

All across America, we seem to be in a wave of "excessive use of force" by law enforcement officers, especially toward young black males who are unarmed.  Notorious cases have sparked outrage and demonstrations -- and revelations, often from the growing ubiquity of cell phone cameras or police body cams that weren't available in the past.

Public outcry intensifies when these officers are later acquitted by grand juries from any responsibility, despite what appears to the public to have been clear evidence of wrong-doing and excessive force.

Let's stipulate, with great respect, the difficult job that police officers face and that the vast majority are exemplary.  They have to approach suspects without knowing whether they are armed and violent or irrational and unpredictable from drugs.    And they often have to make split second decisions that may mean the difference between life and death -- their own as well as the suspects'.

But having acknowledged the difficulty, the egregious examples -- and the lack of being held accountable -- cannot be ignored.

Here's what's happening in Georgia.   A combined investigation by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Channel 2 Action News examined police shooting cases over the past five years.   They found that, of 171 police shootings, not a single case against the officer even went to trial.  It turns out that the system is rigged in their favor.  To quote from the AJC article by Brad Schrade,

"Georgia is the only state that allows police officers facing indictment to sit in on the entire grand jury process, listen to all the evidence against them and make a statement at the end that can't be questioned or challenged by prosecutors or grand jurors."

For example, in a recent grand jury hearing on a police shooting of an unarmed black man, the officer testified for a full hour before the grand jury, complete with power point graphics, and no one questioned his testimony.   He was not indicted.

There is perhaps some justification for allowing police officers to testify, given that they may also be the officer charging a suspect in the case.    But why the special exemption from having his testimony even questioned by the prosecutor?   This does not give the alleged victim equal opportunity for justice.

This must change, in the name of justice and simple fair play.   At least the Georgia lawmakers are talking about making some changes.

Ralph

More on Clinton's remarkable performance

1.  Comments from Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos blog on Hillary Clinton's remarkable eleven-hour marathon against Republican stupidity and mendacity.

"Fox News cut out hours early. That pretty much sums up who won."
  
"The GOP just did more to unify the party base around Clinton and intensify her support than she could've ever managed to do on her own."

"Her restraint was unreal. Unflappable. Sober. It was a marathon designed to break her, but it was the Republicans on the committee who broke first, spittle flying in the final hours."

"The GOP's stupidity in all of this is epic. They should've cancelled the hearings after last week's debates, as it was clear she was on her 'A' game."

2.  Thanks to Andrew Breibant for pointing this out:  "In all, Clinton has spent almost 14 hours being publicly questioned about Benghazi. After a horrific terrorist attack occurred on September 11, 2001, during George W. Bush’s presidency, he spent one hour testifying to the 9/11 commission. That hour of testimony took place in private, and without even the full committee in attendance. 

3.  House Speaker John Boehner announced the appointments of eight Republicans to a Select Investigative Panel  to "focus on the grisly practices of big abortion providers. . . . At my request, three House committees have been investigating the abortion business, but we still don’t have the full truth. Chairman [Marsha] Blackburn and our members will have the resources and the subpoena power to get to the bottom of these horrific practices, and build on our work to protect the sanctity of all human life.”

Of course, this means more grilling of Planned Parenthood and its Cecile Richards.   Does this sound like another "Benghazi experience"?    Should we tell them that this will go the way of Clinton hearings and only make Republicans look even more ridiculous?   Or should we just let them fumble their way to utter ridicule?

Perhaps when Paul Ryan replaces Boehner as House Speaker, he will exercise more common sense and overrule these hearings.     Or . . . perhaps this is John Boehner's parting shot to get back at his colleagues who made life so miserable for him and then hounded him out of office. 

Ralph