- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal?

Why, exactly, did the FBI wait until Labor Day Weekend to dump this startling news about Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal [1]? Hard to believe it was a coincidence that official Washington wanted this story to have the best chance of going away. From the Daily Beast:

A laptop containing a copy, or “archive,” of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server [2] was apparently lost—in the postal mail—according to an FBI report released Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton’s emails has been lost and is not in the FBI’s possession.

The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be “locked up” for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton’s emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren’t intended. The FBI director has already said it’s possible Clinton’s email system could have been remotely accessed by foreign hackers [3].

The revelation of the two archives is contained in a detailed report about the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s private email account [4]. The report contained new information about how the archives were handled, as well as how a private company deleted emails in its possession, at the same time that congressional investigators were demanding copies.

More:

The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read.

The FBI has found that Clinton’s emails contained classified information, including information derived from U.S. intelligence. Her campaign has disputed the classification of some of the emails.

The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be “a reference for the future production of a book,” according to the FBI report. Another aide, however, said that the archive was set up after the email account of a Clinton confidante and longtime adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, was compromised by a Romanian hacker.

Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton’s emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren’t authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.)

Read it all.  [1] The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information.

Look at all the things Mrs. Nixon-In-A-Pantsuit couldn’t recall when interviewed by FBI investigators.  [5] And, take a look at Chris Cillizza’s takeaway from the FBI report [6], especially No. 8:

Screen shot [7]

Screen shot

Who can possibly look forward to at least four years of this same old “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” Clinton garbage? Seriously, I get not voting for Trump. And I get people who voted enthusiastically and affirmatively for Bernie Sanders. But I genuinely do not understand why anyone would be excited to see Hillary Clinton become president. It’s like choosing a hangover.

143 Comments (Open | Close)

143 Comments To "Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal?"

#1 Comment By Rich S On September 4, 2016 @ 6:10 pm

While I think this email business is sloppy, at best, I can easily believe her line that she didn’t know that (c) indicated classified or confidential. From my experience managing internal services for a telecom, high-level executives tend to be incredibly oblivious about the mechanics of a lot of things, and little annotations usually don’t catch their attention.

Is it incompetence? Careless, certainly. Criminal? No. She didn’t intend to disseminate this information.

#2 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 4, 2016 @ 6:29 pm

Bernie supporters aren’t liberal. They’re Reds.

I’m glad you understand the difference, I wouldn’t want to be confused with a bunch of liberals. But Bernie is a right-wing social democrat, and his supporters not particularly into any political allegiance.

I didn’t sign up for this thing so a bunch of white folks who made poor life choices could get themselves a Sharpton.

Now that’s an insightful observation.

#3 Comment By Noah172 On September 4, 2016 @ 6:32 pm

Siarlys wrote:

So I’ll probably vote for Hillary, and then go out in the bushes and throw up

Neoliberal sellout! Corporate shill! Deviationist!

#4 Comment By Andrew E. On September 4, 2016 @ 7:15 pm

Johnson-Weld 2016. Proven Honesty and Competence in actual governing.

The same Johnson who went on a 4 minute jihad against the term ‘illegal immigrant’ the other day? Yeah, he’s got his governing priorities in order.

#5 Comment By William Tighe On September 4, 2016 @ 8:39 pm

Joseph, and now Scot: the clowns are really out and about today, and it isn’t Halloween. The end must be nigh!

#6 Comment By Andrew E. On September 4, 2016 @ 9:00 pm

I share her values

A short list of Hillary’s values:

Connie Hamzy – Sexual Harassment
Juanita Broaddrick– Rape
Eileen Wellstone– Sexual Assault
Sandra Allen James– Sexual Assault
Christy Zercher– Sexual Assault
22 Year-Old Yale Student – Sexual Assault
University of Arkansas Student – Sexual Assault
Paula Jones – Sexual Harrassment, Character Assassination
Gennifer Flowers – Character Assassination

#7 Comment By l’autre J On September 4, 2016 @ 11:02 pm

She’s probably going to be President, so this kerfuffle may not be a worthwhile use of time. How is this ‘scandal’ not the usual, i.e. the vile petit bourgeois dystemper and histrionics and, well, pettiness, at very little? The Clintons are among the few people in America which it is quite socially acceptable to hate purely on class grounds. Some people apparently have a terrible need to indulge that vice. Does anyone know any highly decent people who harbor real hatred of the Clintons?

I think what Rod is looking for, due to lacking media coverage on par with Baton Rouge’s, is here:
[8]

Also,
[9]

#8 Comment By RR On September 4, 2016 @ 11:14 pm

quote: “Listen to her speech as the 21-year-old Wellesley valedictorian where she made national news by openly challenging a sitting Senator.”

I’d like to listen to her speeches to Goldman Sachs executives. Too bad she won’t release them. It would be nice to see how far up their fourth point of contact she stuck her head in that speech. Oh, and if you as a Democrat love Hillary Clinton’s warmongering record (voting for the Iraq War, supporting the destructive war in Libya that has turned that nation into a failed state, urging intervention in Syria), then you need to apologize to Dick Cheney.

Seriously, you folks on this thread who claim to be Democrats and are “excited” about Hillary Clinton as president have been drinking some pretty strong cool-aid. I can understand Kenneth’s point of view. But given her track record on sucking up to Wall Street/the big banks and her hawkishness, a progressive Democrat actually liking Hillary Clinton? Boy, that’s some serious cognitive dissonance.

#9 Comment By Jonah R. On September 5, 2016 @ 1:31 am

It’s interesting to see Clinton hacks showing up here in the comments: “No investigation ever went anywhere! She fought for kids and women! You’re a hypocrite because you didn’t criticize Bush! Colin Powell did it too! This is a fake scandal! Look at this thing Trump did!”

As someone who’s not voting for Trump or Clinton, I find this sort of thing depressing. I appreciate the position of Democrats who are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton because they think Trump is worse, but I’m tired of the mendacity from Internet shills. If we’re going to elect Hillary Clinton, which I believe we are, let’s at least be honest about her weaknesses, flaws, and crimes. This caricature of her as an honest, principled hero is a lie, and I feel gross watching people try to feed it to us.

Again and again, the Clintons have done things that would have gotten the rest of us fired or jailed. I can accept President Hillary Clinton if I must, but the number of people who are willing to lie for her and shill for her would be nauseating if it weren’t so laughable.

#10 Comment By Franklin Evans On September 5, 2016 @ 3:14 am

I cannot name a president who was “supremely” qualified except in hindsight, and the reason for that is why you cannot stand as your first-time-as-a-parent self and claim that you were ready, let alone qualified, to be a good parent.

There are certain roles in life that cannot be claimed until one has learned by doing them.

Speaking of hindsight…

Reagan oversaw the worst plummet into national debt in U.S. history. George H.W. Bush can reasonably be said to have lied during his campaign when he famously said “no new taxes”. George W. Bush force us into an undeclared war on false premises.

They all did some good things, but now we get this overblown* hyperbole about Hillary Clinton, and we’re supposed to take it seriously?

Hey, Republican blind to hindsight hand wringers, get this: we survived those Republican favorites of yours. You will not only survive Clinton, you might actually be honest enough to admit that she did some good things. But until she actually does something as bad or worse than the successors of her husband, your complaints will get panned, if not just ignored.

* That was a two-word joke… or just barely exaggeration for effect. Take your pick.

#11 Comment By SteveM On September 5, 2016 @ 9:00 am

Re: Scot, “I share her values and I have confidence in her ability to execute under fire. She’ll make a great president in my mind.”

That’s too bad. See Glenn Greenwald incisively assess Clinton family “values”:

[10]

Start at the 40:00 mark and afterwards step back and ask yourself how Greenwald has it wrong.

P.S. Glenn Greenwald is one of the too few, true “journalists” on the Left. We need more like him swinging a 2×4 at the Cronies in every direction.

#12 Comment By Jeffersonian On September 5, 2016 @ 9:33 am

The contrived alarm regarding Clinton’s emails indicates a fundamental lack of integrity in light of the big picture. As I have said before, I expect this from the GOP in general, but I hope for better from this column

Contrived? FBI Director James Comey, in sworn testimony before Congress, stated that she would likely have been fired if she had been working for him. That’s FIRED, as in sacked, canned, axed, chopped, pink-slipped, terminated with prejudice, given the boot, given the heave ho, given her walking papers, ejected, tossed, or whatever other euphemism you can think of.

Look, she’s Tracy Enid Flick, always padding her resume and doing whatever it takes to have the semblance of power and glory, and then having little ability to actually run an office, not just being on boards of directors (which is what the Senate really is when you stop and think.)

I just might be a robot after all. Feeling very creaky this morning.

#13 Comment By Jeffersonian On September 5, 2016 @ 9:45 am

Even better illustration: she’s the personification of the Peter Principle and Zymurgy’s Law (“Once you open a can of worms the only way to re-can them is to use a larger can.”).

#14 Comment By VikingLS On September 5, 2016 @ 9:50 am

Okay Clinton defenders if you get to be outraged and offended that people attack Clinton over incidents where she wasn’t actually punished, you don’t get to do that to Trump.

#15 Comment By dave On September 5, 2016 @ 9:50 am

While I think Clinton is much more experienced than Trump, I do have trouble squaring the idea that Clinton is one the most highly qualified people to run for President with her apparent inability to know that a c stands for classified, or that a she can’t learn how to use an iPhone, or whatever. But that’s not the thing. The thing is, whether a cause or effect, the constant denigration of voters as well as of the parties and candidates is evidence to me we have reached new level of illegitimacy. I can’t see either candidate being able to overcome the cynicism and opposition which awaits their election.

Which in turns I suppose will lead to 4 more years of gridlock and failure, which I expect will increase the sense of illegitimacy. That there is the winner of this election.

#16 Comment By VikingLS On September 5, 2016 @ 10:01 am

“Interesting factoid: Every Republican I’ve read who has worked with her, and who isn’t running for office, has very/only positive things to say about her.”

That’s hardly surprising, the Clinton are basically old school Rockefeller Republicans.

“[NFR: “The house liberal”? Huh? Half the commenters here are liberal. — RD]

Bernie supporters aren’t liberal. They’re Reds.”

The real Communists were capable of long term-thinking and would recognize that their long-term interests would be better served by a Trump presidency, even (especially really) a bad one, than a center-right politician pulling the centrist party in this country further rightward.

Most Sanders supporters seem to have been frightened by Trump and Republicans in general into supporting Clinton despite there being little evidence that Trump is a threat to their interests.

#17 Comment By Fiestamom On September 5, 2016 @ 11:52 am

Barbara,”Benghazi was investigated 8 times – and the result? Nothing criminal. Yes, she was careless with her e-mails, but nothing criminal.”

Maybe nothing “criminal” was found Barbara, because she destroyed 33000 emails. And had her underlings literally destroy (with hammers) her 13 unauthorized blackberries, and the hard drive.

Hillary’s the one who should be bragging she could shoot someone on 5th Ave, and her supporters would still vote for her!

#18 Comment By Scott Miller On September 5, 2016 @ 12:14 pm

“Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal?”

What, exactly, precludes both being the case?

#19 Comment By Rich On September 5, 2016 @ 12:14 pm

Defenders of Hillary: you repeat that investigations have shown nothing, reference their favorite “Clinton Rules” article, and essentially echoe her hackneyed line that they are victims of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Being from the beginning almost “never-Trump” myself, I’ve tried to see Hillary with your eyes, but your ignoring of facts and truth are simply too obvious. Sure, some bloggers & RW nuts have contempt for Hillary & perpetuate false stories, but you do similarly in your lame defenses if Hillary. As several other persons, including other federal employees, have commented here, Hillary is unfit and disqualified for high office because of her decisions to abuse and destroy 1000s of federal records–and repeatedly attempt to hide, deceive, stall, and finally to lie regarding her actions? Why did she do this? She knew exactly what she was doing, how, and why. We held Nixon accountable for covering up a bungled break in and erasing 18 minutes of tape. We must do the same for Hillary. Investigations have found plenty to disqualify Hillary, if we have the eyes and minds clearly to see.

#20 Comment By jayneb On September 5, 2016 @ 12:51 pm

And to add to what Scot said, try to imagine Donald Trump undergoing 11 hours of hostile, gotcha questioning under oath by hard shell partisans showing him little respect and trying to trip him up at every turn. Clinton came off as the solid, grounded and disciplined person she is. How do you think Trump would act?

#21 Comment By Crouchback On September 5, 2016 @ 1:43 pm

We could have had Carly Fiorina dealing with the challenge of cyber warfare in the 21st century.

Wait, we’re talking about the same Fiorina whose main claim to fame was her time as CEO of Hewlett Packard? That’s not exactly an inspiring track record. If she was Carl Fiorina all her candidacies would have been jokes.

#22 Comment By creekmama On September 5, 2016 @ 3:24 pm

Psalm 1

A psalm of Scot, praising the goddess Hillary, to be accompanied on stringed instruments.

“Look at her battles for children…
See her forge alliances across the aisle…
See her stand toe-to-toe with tyrants…”

#23 Comment By Hyperion On September 5, 2016 @ 4:00 pm

Charlieford asks: Can I just ask that there be one blogger I read that doesn’t fall down the oh-my-god-the-emails! rabbit hole?

Yes. Kevin Drum has been excellent on this.
He is extremely informed and careful in his analysis. He brings facts to the table and is pretty much the soul of moderation. He blogs at Mother Jones. Check him out.

#24 Comment By russ On September 5, 2016 @ 4:20 pm

Yikes, some people still don’t think Hillary broke any laws? And they’re using Comey’s words to try and show it?

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

I know in this next quote he says

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

And no I don’t care that he said they didn’t find clear evidence that she broke the law, because his own statement shows that she did. Consider that he later says this:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…

If you are acquitting Hillary of this (in your mind, of course) you have no leg to stand on when criticizing the awful alternative. NO LEG TO STAND ON.

#25 Comment By Cap’n Crunch On September 5, 2016 @ 4:26 pm

“Interesting factoid: Every Republican I’ve read who has worked with her, and who isn’t running for office, has very/only positive things to say about her.”

Well, I’ve worked for her, and never met a White House valet, usher, Secret Service agent, or anyone on the military detail that had anything positive to say about her. We pretty much all agreed that Bill was a likeable rascal, while Hillary was (is) a sociopath.

#26 Comment By brendanyc On September 5, 2016 @ 4:58 pm

This ‘issue’ is so exaggerated, so hugely just a nothing burger, that i am beginning to think you all might have something against this woman.

#27 Comment By al On September 5, 2016 @ 5:42 pm

BTW, the part of the story you circled in red doesn’t have the significance you think it does.

Developing the ability to not getting sucked into nonsense like this seems like a useful skill. This post and the included links will be useful:

“The main argument was that habits of mind within the media were making citizens and voters even more fatalistic and jaded about public affairs than they would otherwise be—even more willing to assume that all public figures were fools and crooks, even less willing to be involved in public affairs, and unfortunately for the media even less interested in following news at all. These mental habits of the media included an over-emphasis on strife and conflict, a fascination with the mechanics or “game” of politics rather than the real-world consequences, and a self-protective instinct to conceal limited knowledge of a particular subject (a new budget proposal, an international spat) by talking about the politics of these questions, and by presenting disagreements in a he-said/she-said, “plenty of blame on all sides” fashion now known as “false equivalence.””

[11]

“The Times is not one more paper in a crowded market. The Times imagines itself to be the outlet, the singular gateway to journalistic credibility. You could say the Wall Street Journal and the Times are the dual avatars of conservatives and centrist Democrats, but the NYT is not having any of that. They want to be the first place Republicans and Democrats get their news. Maybe five or six other outlets spread around print and TV see themselves the same way.”

[12]

Also recall this story from a few years ago:

[13]

It’s clear from some of the comments above that some have a very simplistic view of the classification process. Over-classification is endemic and inter-agency disagreement over what should be classified is common. Information can be classified after the fact and after being in news stories.

Meanwhile Pam Bondi and Greg Abbott got checks after prosecutions of Trump University were dropped.

#28 Comment By Cracked Foundation On September 5, 2016 @ 6:11 pm

“The contrast between Clinton’s email administration screw-up and the unbroken daisy-chain of once-in-a-century global catastrophes committed by the Bush administration is so huge as to be hard to grasp. “

Iraq? Clinton voted for it. As Secretary she compounded that terrible mistake in Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Bush left behind a terrible mess in Iraq – you betcha. HUGE. But Clinton then botched the US response to the “Arab Spring”, and by the time she left office the entire region was in flames. Even in the more placid seas outside the ME she managed to botch every single one of her at-the-time vaunted “initiatives”, from the “reset with Russia” (ha ha) to the “pivot to Asia” (bigger ha ha).

So by all means lock up Bush and Cheney, but then consider that Obama and Clinton did something almost incredible: they screwed things up even worse. They came in with a clear chance and strong mandate to reverse course on everything from the military interventions to mass surveillance and militarized police forces here at home. Instead they first ratified and then intensified them.

While (pending further disclosures) the email business is nowhere near as damaging as what Clinton did in office, it is a reminder of the characteristic incompetence, ignorance, lying, and “extreme irresponsibility” (as the FBI Director put it) that has made her one of the worst public servants and most hated public figures in our history.

#29 Comment By Todd Jackson On September 5, 2016 @ 7:26 pm

Is it within the purview of “The American Conservative” to take a stand on George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which POTUS 1 attacks the very notion of political parties? I can’t imagine any other politically oriented publication taking such a stand, and the job needs done. Because this is why we’ve come to this pathetic Hildebeast vs. Orange Jesus meltdown. It’s the inevitable complete meltdown of a bad idea that’s been melting little by little with each election cycle, till only vacuous celebrities can win nomination. Must we wait till 2028 and the Kanye vs. Bieber election? Haven’t we seen enough? Washington was right. We’re going to suffer till we act accordingly.

#30 Comment By Howard’s End On September 5, 2016 @ 7:50 pm

” she takes it like Mohammad Ali.”

As I recall, Mohammad Ali took it like a man, in the ring, one on one.

Clinton sneaks. She lies. She hides behind others, sends gofers and slime-masters to harass her enemies. She has no stomach for the hard stuff and readily sacrifices friends and employees to avoid it. She’s shown all the classic traits of the coward bully: lying about being under fire in Kosovo, for example, or her public gloating over and claiming credit for the castration death of Muammar Qaddafi at the hands of a mob.

Ali was a man of character and indisputably the best at what he did. Clinton isn’t even a second rater – she’s a proven incompetent with known character issues trying to ride what’s left of her husband’s coattails into the Oval Office.

#31 Comment By See Her Fail On September 5, 2016 @ 10:45 pm

“See her forge alliances across the aisle to make progress in the Senate. “

See her fail to author even a single bill during her entire Senate tenure. See her work tirelessly to make friends on Wall Street during the same period.

“See her stand toe-to-toe with tyrants as Secretary of State. “

Ha ha, sure, if by “toe-to-toe” you mean “footsie”, like when she gave the US stamp of approval to the military coup in Honduras.

Or are you referring to her role in ousting Khadafy, which ranks up there with the ouster of Saddam Hussein as one of our worst foreign policy blunders?

Not much “standing toe-to-toe” with other more run-of-the-mill tyrants either, like Nazarbayev, who runs Kazakhstan, but then again her husband was hobnobbing with the guy to help out a Clinton Foundation donor …

#32 Comment By Barbara On September 6, 2016 @ 2:32 pm

Howard’s End –

I guess I missed someone answering the questions for her when she spent 11 hours in front of the Benghazi committee. Also, the “c” did not stand for classified, it stood for “confidential” the lowest level of classification – of which there are three – for a document. I encourage all to read Jim Wright’s analysis of this issue on his facebook page “Stonekettle Station.”

#33 Comment By Elijah On September 6, 2016 @ 3:50 pm

”Benghazi was investigated 8 times – and the result? Nothing criminal. Yes, she was careless with her e-mails, but nothing criminal.”

One has to wonder why on earth it took 8 investigations – probably another – do you think it’s because Hillary & Co. obstructed, obfuscated, withheld evidence all along?

It’s the same issue with the e-mails: it won’t go away not because of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” but because Hillary won’t tell the truth. She just won’t do it.

#34 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 6, 2016 @ 4:11 pm

The real Communists were capable of long term-thinking and would recognize that their long-term interests would be better served by a Trump presidency…

VikingLS’s first statement is a breath of fresh air. As to the second, I believe the slogan “After Hitler, us,” did not work out so well. I’m not saying Trump is Hitler, he’s not smart enough to be Hitler, more like Musslini, who failed in almost every invasion he undertook. But long term thinking does not sustain that electing a right wing disaster is ipso facto progress.

Noah 172, you do an excellent imitation of an anti-communist straw man. 🙂 If there were even a decent right wing social democrat running, they would have my vote, but there isn’t. And if Gus Hall were still alive, he wouldn’t count. The appropriate campaign theme song for Hall was always “It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to…”

#35 Comment By Rich On September 6, 2016 @ 4:49 pm

Yes to Russ, Jeffersonian, and Jonah R. On the mark. Thanks.

Hyperion re Kevin Drum: I read some of his blogs including 09/03/16 “Almost Complete Exoneration” of Clinton. KD has tried to follow & write reasonably. He finds only unfortunate and incompetent mistakes. Why does Drum close his eyes or shrug off key known facts? Unless I missed it, Drum fails to fault Hillary for certain of the plainest and most distinguishing and, IMO, disqualifying of Hillary’s unethical or illegal actions: (1) setting up & using her own private servers (much more & worse than Powell or other government officials using a personal email), (2) failing properly to handle & to preserve and in fact destroying 1000s of federal records, some classified (some highly so), many also subject to FOIA, to law enforcement & Congressional investigation (even subpoena!), and (3) Hillary often has not told the truth about 1 & 2 nor even about her own statements or FBI’s Comey’s. Why? Hyperion, please correct me here re 1-3 if I mistate facts or you dispute 1-3. If I’m correct, why did she do 1-3? Anyone who knows or works under federal laws and training re federal records, if they are honest, will admit that Hillary’s misconduct re nos. 1-3 and her statements to the FBI are astonishing, and the lack of consequences for her thus far exceptional. No tape recording of the FBI interview? No inquiry into “intent”?

#36 Comment By corrigenda On September 6, 2016 @ 10:35 pm

@Barbara : ” Also, the “c” did not stand for classified, it stood for “confidential” the lowest level of classification”

If “c” stood for “confidential” it was classified. Period. And “confidential” is not “the lowest level of classification”. The lowest level (US nomenclature) is “restricted”, “for official use only”.

“Confidential” information “would cause damage or be prejudicial to national security if publicly available.”

[14]

#37 Comment By Elijah On September 7, 2016 @ 12:00 pm

I dislike Julian Assange for a number of reasons, but he has Hillary’s number when it comes to to the “C” business. She’s lying, pure and simple.

#38 Comment By Avrohom Bilgrei On September 7, 2016 @ 12:17 pm

Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal?

BOTH!

#39 Comment By Clint On September 7, 2016 @ 12:59 pm

Reagan oversaw the worst plummet into national debt in U.S. history

Actually, months ago, the national debt climbed to $19 trillion for the first time ever. By the end of today Wednesday, it will hit a record-high $19.5 trillion.
When Obama took office in late 2009, the total debt was $10.63 trillion It has now nearly doubled under his watch.

To understand a proper economic perspective, one can also read:
Obama’s federal debt dwarfs Reagan’s

[15]

#40 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 7, 2016 @ 9:35 pm

Clint, the answer to your demagoguery is quite plainly set forth by the chart at this link:

[16]

#41 Comment By Clint On September 8, 2016 @ 9:19 am

Jenkins, your article doesn’t exonerate Obama from doubling the National Debt to $19.5 Trillion, which dwarfs Reagan’s National Debt

Read The American Thinker Blog and stop pretending you’re the smartest boy in the room, sport.

#42 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 8, 2016 @ 2:47 pm

I don’t have to pretend Clint, I have ideologues like you to make me shine beyond my own pretensions. It is very clear that Reagan MORE THAN doubled the national debt as a percentage of GDP. When the economy expands (or inflation reduces the real value of a dollar) the impact of a given empirical number of dollars changes. But “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” right”?

The key points are that Reagan and Shrub indulged in massive spending increases while cutting taxes, sunnily pretending that this is sound conservative practice, because it kept Grover Norquist and his minions happy, while proving in a sense that all the Democratic, liberal, socialist, and communist warnings of imminent disaster for the American standard of living were oh so silly, because with deficit spending you could cut taxes AND merely nibble at the edges of social programs.

Reagan did this during periods of economic malaise as well as a pale shadow of “morning in America,” but Shrub embarked on massive deficit spending during a period of prosperity, which is exactly when we should have been paying the debt down. When the economy tanked, Shrub said “we are all Keynesians now” because he didn’t have a clue what else to do, and borrowed MORE money from China to send piddly $600 checks to every taxpayer. (This is what happens when GWB and Nancy Pelosi get their heads together).

President Obama came into office with the nation on the verge of Great Depression 2.0, and OF COURSE he had to accept massive deficit spending. He’s brought the deficit down in every recent budget, which isn’t enough, but its a step in the right direction during a very anemic recovery.

The green line on the chart I linked to shows where the national debt would be in the absence of Republican policies.

#43 Comment By John On October 6, 2016 @ 9:22 pm

I can’t believe the lack of irresponsibility Hillary has shown… and why is it that she is not indicted? Much less running for president.