10-29-2016, 02:36 PM
There's an article on the BBC website asking the question...
'US election 2016: How damaging is this for Clinton?'
...and once more, a home-grown institution finds me shaking my head.
'It could be nothing. It could be everything. And it almost certainly won't be resolved
before Americans head to the polls in just under two weeks.
The letter from FBI head James Comey to Congress explaining that his agency is once
again assessing Hillary Clinton's emails for possibly mishandling classified information
is frustratingly vague.
There are no details, for instance, or how many emails are in question.
That will only fuel the rampant speculation breaking out, with leaks from "government sources"
already fanning the flames...'
It could be nothing, heh...? A federal Investigative agency is investigating a candidate for the
highest position in the land and also the status known as 'Leader of the free world', but the
whole situation of alleged corruption, security failure and global chicanery is nothing, heh?
'...The new Clinton emails apparently aren't related to the hack of senior campaign aide John
Podesta's personal email made public by Wikileaks or any investigation of the Clinton
Foundation...'
Phew! For a second there, I thought that these messages were relevant to the election
campaign, but it seems they're not. One has to wonder why they were leaked in the first place.
Maybe there's something in these emails that's pertinent...? maybe these messages are made
up of words that -when strung together, make sentences that can indicate what those who
work round and with these candidates, are really thinking?
'...The FBI is apparently also pushing back on the characterisation that this is a "re-opening"
of its Clinton investigation, telling CBS that such conclusions are "premature".
Premature conclusions are Washington's stock in trade, however.
Mrs Clinton's critics are going on the attack, using the latest news to support their claims that
the former secretary of state engaged in malfeasance...'
'Malfeasance' that's a good word. It means wrongdoing and has the same amount of letters
in it, so I guess using it for the sake of saving web-space is ambiguous. I would suggest the
word 'misconduct' would work too.
'...Her presidential opponent, Donald Trump, wasted no time branding her as a corrupt criminal
during his afternoon rally in New Hampshire.
As the crowd chanted "lock her up", he asserted that the FBI may now have a chance to show the
"courage to right the horrible mistake that they made" in previously declining to indict the former
secretary of state...'
They were shouting that...?!! Good-gosh! Some people of America were not just cheering for
their selected candidate... they were not just booing any reference to the rival of their selected
candidate, they were actually calling for the opponent to be imprisoned.
My, the establishment of Capital building must be really proud of their country today.
'Meanwhile, Mrs Clinton's supporters will spend the next few days in a defensive crouch, trying
to assess how bad the damage could be...'
What damage? Surely Hillary Clinton must be innocent of these supposed allegations or these
supporters would be the sort who believed such behavior was standard in today's politics.
One doesn't 'assess' criminal conduct, one acts to stop such malfeasance and hold those
responsible to account, doesn't one?
'It seems unlikely that this will move many voters from Mrs Clinton to Mr Trump on election day
- the partisan divide between the two camps at this point is too great.
It could depress the Democrat's turnout, however, or cause her to bleed support to third-party
candidates like the Green Party's Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson.
What's certain is that whether this ends up being a big deal or not, it places the spotlight on
all the wrong places for the Clinton campaign...'
Well, if that spotlight is the one they use above the fenced-off yard at a correctional facility,
yes... yes, it would place it there.
'...It will drown out her closing message to voters and dominate the political conversation for days.
Perhaps most importantly, it all but guarantees that even if she wins the White House, the early
days of her presidency will be dogged by this long-running political imbroglio...'
Wow! this writer believes that if these allegations become fact and the crimes are revealed, the
'imbroglio' will follow her into the White House! The fancy word -which means 'altercation' is
something I would suggest is a low-ball offering of an explanation for the devious, deliberate
nation-damning comportment that Mrs. Clinton involved herself in.
In my opinion, this campaign is a terrible indictment of the manner that U.S. politics is ran
and a viable broadcast of the corruption in it.
Sic 'em Donald.
'US election 2016: How damaging is this for Clinton?'
...and once more, a home-grown institution finds me shaking my head.
'It could be nothing. It could be everything. And it almost certainly won't be resolved
before Americans head to the polls in just under two weeks.
The letter from FBI head James Comey to Congress explaining that his agency is once
again assessing Hillary Clinton's emails for possibly mishandling classified information
is frustratingly vague.
There are no details, for instance, or how many emails are in question.
That will only fuel the rampant speculation breaking out, with leaks from "government sources"
already fanning the flames...'
It could be nothing, heh...? A federal Investigative agency is investigating a candidate for the
highest position in the land and also the status known as 'Leader of the free world', but the
whole situation of alleged corruption, security failure and global chicanery is nothing, heh?
'...The new Clinton emails apparently aren't related to the hack of senior campaign aide John
Podesta's personal email made public by Wikileaks or any investigation of the Clinton
Foundation...'
Phew! For a second there, I thought that these messages were relevant to the election
campaign, but it seems they're not. One has to wonder why they were leaked in the first place.
Maybe there's something in these emails that's pertinent...? maybe these messages are made
up of words that -when strung together, make sentences that can indicate what those who
work round and with these candidates, are really thinking?
'...The FBI is apparently also pushing back on the characterisation that this is a "re-opening"
of its Clinton investigation, telling CBS that such conclusions are "premature".
Premature conclusions are Washington's stock in trade, however.
Mrs Clinton's critics are going on the attack, using the latest news to support their claims that
the former secretary of state engaged in malfeasance...'
'Malfeasance' that's a good word. It means wrongdoing and has the same amount of letters
in it, so I guess using it for the sake of saving web-space is ambiguous. I would suggest the
word 'misconduct' would work too.
'...Her presidential opponent, Donald Trump, wasted no time branding her as a corrupt criminal
during his afternoon rally in New Hampshire.
As the crowd chanted "lock her up", he asserted that the FBI may now have a chance to show the
"courage to right the horrible mistake that they made" in previously declining to indict the former
secretary of state...'
They were shouting that...?!! Good-gosh! Some people of America were not just cheering for
their selected candidate... they were not just booing any reference to the rival of their selected
candidate, they were actually calling for the opponent to be imprisoned.
My, the establishment of Capital building must be really proud of their country today.
'Meanwhile, Mrs Clinton's supporters will spend the next few days in a defensive crouch, trying
to assess how bad the damage could be...'
What damage? Surely Hillary Clinton must be innocent of these supposed allegations or these
supporters would be the sort who believed such behavior was standard in today's politics.
One doesn't 'assess' criminal conduct, one acts to stop such malfeasance and hold those
responsible to account, doesn't one?
'It seems unlikely that this will move many voters from Mrs Clinton to Mr Trump on election day
- the partisan divide between the two camps at this point is too great.
It could depress the Democrat's turnout, however, or cause her to bleed support to third-party
candidates like the Green Party's Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson.
What's certain is that whether this ends up being a big deal or not, it places the spotlight on
all the wrong places for the Clinton campaign...'
Well, if that spotlight is the one they use above the fenced-off yard at a correctional facility,
yes... yes, it would place it there.
'...It will drown out her closing message to voters and dominate the political conversation for days.
Perhaps most importantly, it all but guarantees that even if she wins the White House, the early
days of her presidency will be dogged by this long-running political imbroglio...'
Wow! this writer believes that if these allegations become fact and the crimes are revealed, the
'imbroglio' will follow her into the White House! The fancy word -which means 'altercation' is
something I would suggest is a low-ball offering of an explanation for the devious, deliberate
nation-damning comportment that Mrs. Clinton involved herself in.
In my opinion, this campaign is a terrible indictment of the manner that U.S. politics is ran
and a viable broadcast of the corruption in it.
Sic 'em Donald.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.