HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » This may shock you: Hilla...

Tue May 3, 2016, 03:54 PM

This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest | Jill Abramson - The Guardian

I’ve investigated Hillary and know she likes a ‘zone of privacy’ around her. This lack of transparency, rather than any actual corruption, is her greatest flaw


It’s impossible to miss the “Hillary for Prison” signs at Trump rallies. At one of the Democratic debates, the moderator asked Hillary Clinton whether she would drop out of the race if she were indicted over her private email server. “Oh for goodness – that is not going to happen,” she said. “I’m not even going to answer that question.”

Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical. Nonetheless, the belief that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is pervasive. A recent New York Times-CBS poll found that 40% of Democrats say she cannot be trusted.

For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy. (continued at the link below)

...Link to the fulll article at The Guardian


33 replies, 1555 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest | Jill Abramson - The Guardian (Original post)
BootinUp May 2016 OP
bobbobbins01 May 2016 #1
Hortensis May 2016 #16
dchill May 2016 #27
840high May 2016 #30
Ferd Berfel May 2016 #2
Firebrand Gary May 2016 #3
deathrind May 2016 #4
Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #21
Rebkeh May 2016 #5
TM99 May 2016 #6
ThePhilosopher04 May 2016 #7
99Forever May 2016 #8
farleftlib May 2016 #14
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #9
BootinUp May 2016 #11
LineLineLineReply .
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #12
BootinUp May 2016 #13
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #18
BootinUp May 2016 #19
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #33
insta8er May 2016 #10
Lucinda May 2016 #15
farleftlib May 2016 #17
Buns_of_Fire May 2016 #20
Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #22
Shandris May 2016 #23
Octafish May 2016 #24
Doctor_J May 2016 #25
w4rma May 2016 #26
mcar May 2016 #28
bjo59 May 2016 #29
BootinUp May 2016 #31
pdsimdars May 2016 #32

Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 03:55 PM

1. This won't shock you: This article is fundamentally bullshit.

Sniper fire!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #1)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:31 PM

16. Someone close to us became personally acquainted with Hillary

and Bill while traveling with a film crew (i.e., he was not a member of the campaign) during one of Bill's presidential campaigns. He likes Hillary and says she's a nice woman and can be pretty funny when she's relaxed. She likes to laugh.

He is, of course, voting for her. For him, a no-brainer.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #1)

Tue May 3, 2016, 07:52 PM

27. Also fundamentally rehashed. Posted here...

numerous times. Still bullshit, though. Hard evidence says she's fundamentally DIS-honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #1)

Tue May 3, 2016, 08:10 PM

30. And much more.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 03:57 PM

2. Depends on what your deffinition of the word 'is' is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 04:01 PM

3. Great read, thank you for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 04:01 PM

4. "Fundamentally Honest"...

What does that even mean? A person is either honest or they are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deathrind (Reply #4)

Tue May 3, 2016, 06:01 PM

21. That word is a perfect hedge, really.

 

Spoken: "Well, she's fundamentally honest..."

Unspoken: "...but circumstances sometimes call for a different approach."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 04:03 PM

5. Depends of what the definition of fundamental is. Eom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 04:05 PM

6. Yes, that 'zone of privacy'

 

explains Bosnian sniper fire, the Rose law firm documents suddenly reappearing, Chelsea jogging around the Trade Center on 9/11, and on and on and on.

This article is just more tired tripe that spans the gambit from poor victim Hillary to it is a sexist double standard to call her a liar to well Politifacts says she honest to the 'purity' bullshit.

Sorry no sale, I am not buying hers or your bullshit. I have seen the Clintons in action since the late 1980's in Arkansas. I don't need some bullshit media person to tell me what I have seen for myself to be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 04:45 PM

7. The Bullshit Meter went off at ...

 

This may shock you. Enough said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:03 PM

8. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest, in the same way....

... Bill Clinton is a fundamentally faithful husband.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #8)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:21 PM

14. LOL

 

He never lied. When he said "I did not have sex with that woman" what he was
actually saying was that woman had sex with him.

If we're too stupid to understand what he really meant, that's not his fault. How clear
does he have to make it before we all get it? Sheesh. Same thing with sniper fire in
Bosnia.

I speak fluent Clintonese.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:06 PM

9. Except when her misstatements are taken out of context.

 



If she says A... she reserves the right to later clarify that she meant Z. Our failure to understand that distinction is a result of taking her misstatements out of context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #9)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:08 PM

11. Cite the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #12)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:13 PM

13. Then please get your facts straight on what happened. Because you are way off on that one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #13)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:36 PM

18. Really? Pretty weak.

 

She claimed that her "misstatement" on putting coal miners out of work was taken out of the context of what she meant.

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #18)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:43 PM

19. First off both cases she was telling the same story, and her policy has not changed

She was attempting in both cases to convey her intention to help the coal country which has been hit very hard. And she had and still has a 30 billion dollar program of aid and investment to help them. The first time they took her comments to mean she was going to shut them down (coal industry) when what she was meaning is it is already happening (disappearing) due to regs and economic reasons. She went one on one with a republican local man who had been laid off and listented to him and explained what she promises to do for his community whether they vote for her or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #19)

Tue May 3, 2016, 11:50 PM

33. Which is it? A misstatement, an out of context quote or that's her story and she's sticking with it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:07 PM

10. Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahah LOL hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhaha

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:27 PM

15. Not a shock to me, but I do my homework!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:33 PM

17. If her lips are moving

 

she's lying. Or pandering. Then there's spin. Occasionally misstating.

Nuff said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 05:57 PM

20. The article comes off a little like damning with faint praise.

Like "Sure, the defendant killed his parents, ground them up, and fed them to the hedgehogs, but they refused to let him have a pony when he was six."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buns_of_Fire (Reply #20)

Tue May 3, 2016, 06:02 PM

22. "But he's _fundamentally_ a good kid."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 06:04 PM

23. Shock? No, the media has been trying to gaslight reality itself for over a decade.

 

Sad how few of us have watched it and recognized it, but whatever. Only the most devout devotee to Scientism believes, well, almost anything coming from the Voice of the Narrative anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 06:06 PM

24. The former editor of The New York Times will write anything to stay relevant.

Like the time she did a major for CIA, ignoring war criminals and traitors and stuff:



Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT

EXCERPT...

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

SNIP...

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.



CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia



I wonder what other important stories Ms. Abramson spiked or hawked as a "favor" to CIA and its controllers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 07:45 PM

25. She's also fundamentally brave, having dodged sniper fire in Bosnia

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 07:48 PM

26. She's fundamentally "honest" in precisely the same way that a lawyer is "honest".

 

She speaks her literal truth, but lies by obfuscating her "literal truth". Usually.

But, when the truth doesn't help her, she outright, blatantly lies to your face.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-where-was-bernie-during-my-health-care-fight-sanders-camp-literally-behind-you/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 07:52 PM

28. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 08:08 PM

29. The question here seems to be is Jill Abramson honest?

She was the former executive director at the New York Times, a deputy bureau chief at the Wall Street Journal, was ranked 5th on Forbes' list of most powerful women, and ranked one of the 500 most powerful people by Foreign Policy. Hmmm. Is there any question that she's a Hillary Clinton supporter and has every reason to write that Clinton is fundamentally honest in the Guardian during a primary season in which Hillary Clinton is a candidate? The mainstream media has been working in support of Hillary Clinton's campaign since its beginning and of course Abramson would claim that Clinton is fundamentally honest to counteract the widespread belief that she is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bjo59 (Reply #29)

Tue May 3, 2016, 08:17 PM

31. The truth is that there is no credible evidence supporting the

Hillary is dis-honest GUT feel that is a result of all the baseless attacks on her over the years. People can be made to believe anything, they don't know who to get the TRUTHINESS from so they follow the crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 08:20 PM

32. But then, if you enter the world of FACTS . . . . provably not so much. . .

 

And the VOTERS don't think so either




.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread