Clinton Jabs McConnell Over Unpatriotic Threats During 2016

[Stuart G]

Source: TPM

In a new interview promoting her campaign tell-all, Hillary Clinton said former President Barack Obama didnt announced what he knew about Russian meddling in the 2016 election partially because of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Clinton said she is very understanding of the position that Obama found himself in when deciding how much to tell the public about the investigation, saying she knew he struggled with the decision and found himself facing some pretty difficult headwinds, like McConnells unpatriotic threats.

Mitch McConnell, in what I think of as a not only unpatriotic but despicable act of partisan politics, made it clear that if the Obama administration spoke publicly about what they knew, he would accuse them of partisan politics, of trying to tip the balance toward me, she told the New Yorkers David Remnick. Even though, as you point out, the President thought I was going to winthought that all the way up until the night before the election.

She said the role that McConnell played in that discussion and the role that former FBI Director James Comey played, in refusing to acknowledge in any way that there was an investigation made for some high political stakes for the President.

But she still thinks Obama should have said something.

I would have, in retrospect now, wished that he had said something because I think the American people deserved to know.



Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-mcconnell-threatened-obama-announcing-russian-meddling

---

McConnell defines himself here. As***le is much too kind a word.. Russian threats were/still are an issue. The country had a right to know this, as Hillary points out.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Obama should have smoked Mitch out on the Garland nomination

and embraced whatever imbroglio Mitch wanted to have

We don't win by being timid

We must learn to fight harder

[delisen]

9. Yes. I think Clinton's book is the beginning of

breaking some outdated political customs.

Some political behavior is appropriate when politicians and people in a country agree on general principles and information is not being controlled by a few.

Those conditions are no longer present in the United States.

[karynnj]

3. This had to be an extremely tricky decision for Obama -- and we only know what did happen

At the time Obama had to decide, it was more probable that Clinton was winning than that Trump was. The 538 numbers were likely not that bad -- and he did say that the reason Trump's probability went up as it did was that it is usually the case (as it was) that the states that were close are likely to all move in the same direction. Even at 538's worst, HRC was more likely to win than Trump. The problem is that the model is filled with assumptions and it is tough to get any last minute shifts.

Given that HRC was most likely win and Trump's supporters were sticking with him even with proven abhorhant behavior towards women, his long term racism, his bankruptcies etc. Not to mention, the extremely odd Republican RW acceptance of Putin as a strong and even good leader - rather than just ignoring Trump's praise of Putin. Considering especially the latter, imagine that Obama DID make a stronger statement than the ones made by the administration and HRC herself in a debate. It is entirely possible that a stronger Obama statement would either have been ignored by anyone with any chance of voting for Trump and it could have been lumped by the Republicans with accusations against Lynch and the DOJ to say that the Obama administration was paniced and willing to even make outrageous charges against a foreign country and Trump. (Consider their echo chamber and MSM's misguided treating everything as equally likely to be true. Not to mention, if HRC was going to win anyway, could this have been looked at as delegitimizing her win if nothing was proven to tie Trump to it - remember we know more now.)

However, if you back to the HRC debate that referenced the public conclusion of the independent intelligence agencies and the articles in the mainstream press, I think a good case could be made that everyone open to believing that this happened had the facts. (Something similarl might be that by the November 2004 election, no one who would have considered voting against Bush or for Kerry believed the SBVT lies about his service. )

Remember that actual PROOF that Trump colluded was not available then -- just what Russia did. I doubt Obama would have gone past what was provable. One thing that might come out overtime is whether Clinton called Obama (or had an emissary call him) to ask him to speak out more than he did during the election.

[Snotcicles]

4. Unpatriotic? Subversive is a better word for it. nt

[Achilleaze]

5. Unpatriotic republicans like McConnell have been pissing on American democracy

and fecklessly, recklessly allowing ongoing russian ACTS OF WAR* against America in collusion with Comrade Casino, the republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief.

* per all 17 US Intelligence Agencies and even dick freaking cheney.

[FakeNoose]

13. Yes +1

Mitch McConnell is a complicit traitor, there's no doubt in my mind.
This guy makes Boehner look good, and I hated Boehner!
But compared to McConnell, I'd take him back any day.

[certainot]

6. the thing is, the only thing that gives the 'meddling' charge weight is

the continued stupidity of democrats and the left in ignoring talk radio - the giant buzz machine that had already, even before that possibility, many times made it possible for republicans to turn any molehill into a mountain and completely distort any national rational fact based discussion about any subject.

clinton's biggest mistake is ignoring the biggest opponent that all thinking democracy-loving americans have - the talk radio psyops that gives a few hundred billionaire think tank scripted blowhards hiding behind call screeners the ability to dominate and distort all political discourse and make the interests of a few ignorant racists and billionaires look like 'common' interest and public interest through unchallenged volume.

and even bernie, like the dem party and all progressive groups, continue the biggest political mistake in history.

but hillary and others learned their lesson - when they said "vast right wing conspiracy" dems and liberals laughed right along side limbaugh and hannity and sons, and the MSM we allowed them to enable and intimidate.

[yallerdawg]

7. Two things are becoming clear.

McConnell's almost stoic partisan intransigence flummoxed Obama repeatedly.

And Obama either didn't want to go out on a limb for Hillary, or didn't think it would matter.

It will be interesting to hear Obama's take on all these events (not to mention Michelle's ).

[weissmam]

8. McConnel

the only word that comes to my mind is traitor

[More_Cowbell]

10. I've been wishing President Obama would say something about McConnell's interference

After the election, or after the inauguration. People should know what happened.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Turn McCONnnell into McCONVICT. . . . nt

[FiveGoodMen]

12. GOP never shies away from openly partisan politics. And it never hurts them.

But we let an election be corrupted to avoid looking like we're on our own side?

Ridiculous if true.

[FakeNoose]

14. Obama was between a rock and a hard place

It's a tough place for a man who's always been judged unfairly. I think we owe Obama some sympathy in this case.

Yes it bugs me too, but he really thought Hillary was going to win. We all did. If Obama had come out a week before the election with the Russia news - he'd have been as bad as Comey. The rightwing nutjobs would be screaming bloody murder about Obama trying to throw the election.

I'm sure this has been weighing heavily on Obama for the last 10 months.
Eventually he'll write a book about it, just like Hillary has written hers.