Glenn Kessler, the notoriously partisan "fact checker" at the Washington Post parsimoniously gives the Clinton.com gang three out of four possible Pinocchios for their insistence on clinging to a false timeline regarding how the State Department came to the point of requesting all their emails back from her:
It remains a mystery to the Fact Checker why Clinton persists in saying the timeline began with the letters to all of the former secretaries. (To be fair, Clinton aides seemed mystified by our questions and why this was even an issue.)Well, she might be a liar, but she's the Democrat's Liar: Hillary still leads Democratic field, but people still think she’s a ‘liar’
The letters to the former secretaries all asked for copies of business-related e-mails that might have been sent from a personal account. There was certainly some historical value in that. But there was a pressing need for the State Department to seek Clinton’s e-mails because of the the Benghazi inquiry — and the State Department had made clear that its interest in the Clinton e-mails months before an official letter was sent.
Clinton appears to be sticking to her timeline because it obscures the fact that she exclusively used a private e-mail for company business. If she had used a State Department e-mail, just as many other cabinet officials in the Obama administration used “.gov” addresses, it’s likely the State Department would not have had trouble responding to congressional requests. That’s why there are “gaps in the record keeping.”
As part of Clinton’s effort to clear up questions about her e-mail set-up, Clinton should begin using a more complete timeline regarding her staff member’s dealings with the State Department on this matter. The current timeline is incomplete.
A new USA Today/Suffolk poll shows that Clinton maintains her double-digit lead nationally among Democratic primary voters. She currently leads the field with 41 percent of the vote, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders at 23 percent, and Vice President Joe Biden at 20 percent, though he hasn’t officially announced his 2016 intentions. We may have to wait a little longer regarding the vice president, as it was announced that he wouldn’t be part of the first Democratic debate.It says a lot about a party when their leader is widely acknowledged to be a pathological liar, and yet she still leads the pack.
Clinton retaining the top spot is about the only good news for the former first lady. Real Clear Politics, which averages the polls, found that Clinton had led by 58 percent on August 1. . .
Even about one-third of Democrats and two-thirds of independents are disturbed by the controversy, as well as nearly nine in 10 Republicans.Asked for word association the top four were “liar,” “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “fake.” Those aren’t the characteristics that are good selling points for one seeking the presidency, nor are they complimentary to the other words people have said to describe the former Secretary of State–those being “smart,” “knowledgeable,” and “good.” Can one be a dishonest, good leader? Can someone exhibit strong leadership qualities while being deceitful?
Overall, 52% say they’re bothered by how she handled the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, and by the explanation she has given in the aftermath. Nearly six in 10 say that would be a liability in the general election.
Hillary Clinton, Bane of the Secret Service
‘Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton. “F*** off,” she replied. That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of First Family Detail, a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America’s presidents and their families — and at those whom they guard.Given how the Secret Service is wont to treat its detractors, maybe she should treat them better.
. . .
“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler explains. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.” He adds: “Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi.”
Clinton at private fundraiser: SCOTUS is ‘wrong about the Second Amendment’
At a small private fundraiser in New York, Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court and the National Rifle Association on Second Amendment issues, even going so far as to say that the Court is “wrong” regarding this provision in our bill of rights.. . .Can't have the peasants in a positions to revolt with guns. Pitch forks are bad enough.
“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton. “We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
Clinton Runs on Obamacare Benefits, Not Costs
. . . it was a surprise when Clinton came out this week for repeal of the “Cadillac tax” -- the Obamacare provision that tries to cut overall health-care spending by limiting the current tax advantages for gold-plated employer-linked health insurance.I think it's just a desperate attempt to shore up her union base against Bernie Sanders. She can't win if she doesn't get past Bernie.
As HuffPost’s Jonathan Cohn explains, the Cadillac tax is a provision of the law that “economists love and pretty much everybody else says they hate.” Many unions dislike it because they have bargained for excellent insurance for their members that is worth less to workers under the tax; they also don't trust that employers, if they cut back on compensation in the form of health insurance, would make it up with increased wages. Republicans hate the tax because, well, it’s a tax. Economists like it because it promotes efficiency and fights medical cost increases.
Clinton didn’t recommend an alternative way to fight overall health-care inflation. Nor has she suggested, at least so far, a different revenue stream to replace the tax revenue. Perhaps she will, in which case her proposal may turn out to be perfectly responsible, whether one agrees with it or not.
I wonder, however, if she’s up to something more clever, assuming that’s the right word. She may decide to campaign against the Cadillac tax, and leave it up to Congress to replace it – pledging, if she’s elected, to sign something only if it replaces the revenue lost. She knows that even a Democratic Congress would be unlikely to find a replacement for the tax, and a divided or Republican Congress assuredly would not. So she would be reaping the gains of running against the unpopular provision without doing anything to disrupt Obamacare after all.