Rice Confirms Powell’s Recollection

Chuck Ross has a post over at The Daily Caller reporting that Condoleezza Rice confirms Colin Powell’s recollection of the email advice he gave Hillary Clinton at a 2009 dinner party. The party was gathering of former Secretaries of State at the Madeleine Albright’s home.  Powell has complained that Clinton is trying to pin her sloppy practices on his advice.

Powell’s email practices were quite different than Clinton’s. He used an AOL account while Clinton paid a State Department employee under the table to manage her email system, which involved a personal account and a private server.

Powell also says he used the State Department’s classified system to send and receive emails with classified information. Clinton declined to use that system, even though she was provided with an account on it. Instead, she sent and received all of her emails from her personal, non-government BlackBerry.

Read the whole thing.

34 thoughts on “Rice Confirms Powell’s Recollection


  1. It has to be remembered that the #alwayshashtag crowd are effectively for Hillary Clinton. Those that advocate that we passively allow Hillary Clinton to become President forfeit any real moral authority to object.

    Hillary Clinton’s actions have every appearance that she compromised and jeopardized the security of the American people solely for the purpose of avoiding oversight.

    And, Hillary Clinton has been successful in her objective. We are now aware that there about 15,000 work related e-mails that will be successfully memory-holed until after the election. We don’t even know if there are more. When the political class observes that the benefits Hillary Clinton gained exceeded the political costs how do you suppose they will react?

    It would be par for the course for the #alwayshashtag crowd to claim absent a scintilla of proof that Donald Trump would have been just as reckless, or perhaps more, with out national secrets than Hillary Clinton. The reality is that they face a hard choice, They don’t want to admit that to themselves.


    • The point of #nevertrump was to warn the party that Trump was un-electable and his selection as a candidate would lose what was an otherwise easily winnable election.

      Since his confirmation Trump has:
      * spent time attacking past Republican rivals instead of Hillary
      * spent time attacking gold star families who criticise him
      * managing to prove he doesn’t understand free speech in the process
      * picking fights with random reporters
      * managing to make even solid points about Clinton look crazy
      * failed to establish meaningful presence in key states
      * suggested he might lose
      * hired a campaign manager who has no experience managing campaigns
      * tried to reboot his campaign after all that – which lasted about 2 days before he went back to the crazy attacks.

      Not to mention his multiple charges that the election is already rigged, which given his behaviour in the primaries I interpret as conceding the concession – already.

      So I think we can safely say they were right.

      Hence, it’s pretty silly to attack them at this point. It’s sort of like arguing for communism – there’s still the remote possibility that they were wrong, but to most people the question is quite firmly settled.


      • “The point of #nevertrump was to warn the party that Trump was un-electable…”

        This remark is both false, irrelevant and wrong.

        It is false on so many levels it isn’t even funny. What actually happened belies your claim. First, the original claim made was that Donald Trump wasn’t really a Republican, and, he wasn’t going to be loyal to the Republican party after he lost the primaries [turned out that the #nevertrump crowd were the ones lacking party loyalty]. Stopping Trump wasn’t about “electability,” it was allegedly about ideology and party loyalty. Then, the #wehaveastupidhashtag crowd morphed into a form of hostage-taking. The Republican electorate in remaining states were issued a not-so-veiled threat that if voted for Donald Trump he couldn’t possibly win because those issuing the threat would willful sandbag his nomination. After those threats were ignored, we are witnessing the final act which is the attempted killing of the hostage. Brett Stephens made spilled the beans quite clearly as what the plan is.

        Your second fundamental error is that the same folks that Donald Trump beat like a rented mule immediately pivoted to claiming that the only way Donald Trump could win is stop being Donald Trump and instead run the kind of campaign they would. I’ll repeat, the same folks Donald Trump beat like a rented mule insisted the only was he could win is playing politics the exact same way of those he just crushed like a grape. While you might be impressed with your set of bullet points, I am not in the least. I will note that when you endorse the leftist tactic of trotting out a victim to shame the Republican nominee in this election you do so for all subject election. That was brilliant [sarcasm].

        Fundamentally, it is irrelevant how we got here. The facts remain that this an election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Either Donald Trump will be elected or Hillary Clinton will be elected. It is clear that I want Donald Trump elected and you are de facto for the election of Hillary Clinton. I don’t see how Hillary Clinton supporters have any moral authority to lecture any Republican about anything.

        Donald Trump ran as insurgent, and, has recently appointed someone more suited to run an insurgent campaign. We live in a bipartisan system of corruption characterized by pay-to-play politics that has become fundamentally unresponsive to the American people. Hillary Clinton has turned pay-to-play into a path to personal enrichment. Win or lose, this a campaign I relish that fight. Why don’t you?

        What is going on that certain folks have put their pride before the good of the country. In their heart of hearts, they know the election of Hillary Clinton will be a disaster for the country, but, they would have to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. Pride goes before the fall, but, unfortunately, it is the American people, especially future generations that will take the fall. Shameful.


        • “First, the original claim made was that Donald Trump wasn’t really a Republican, and, he wasn’t going to be loyal to the Republican party after he lost the primaries”

          This has turned out to be demonstrably true, and I’ve **already** demonstrated that by pointing out how Trump attacked not his opponent, but his fellow party members. Just before the RNC he also expressed indifference as to whether the party retained the Senate. I’d regard Trumps lack of loyalty (again) as a settled matter.

          “Stopping Trump wasn’t about “electability,””

          Sure, that’s why everyone’s now saying “we warned you”.

          “Your second fundamental error is that the same folks that Donald Trump beat like a rented mule immediately pivoted to claiming that the only way Donald Trump could win is stop being Donald Trump”

          The fact that you insist on repeating this doesn’t make your claim any less silly. It’s patently obvious that Trump’s tatics during the primary would never work in the General election. There really is no question question here. Trump is losing, and losing really, really badly. As you later admit, he ran in the Primaries as an insurgent, destroying totally anyone who got in his way. Now he (and his supporters) are complaining bitterly about their lack of support from others – the very people they went out of their way to destroy.

          The trick of the primaries is always to win without destroying your hopes for the general. Trump’s strategy was to “go-for-broke” in the primaries and threaten anyone who didn’t fall into line once he was in control. Amazingly, this hasn’t worked. Even more amazingly, people like you can’t work out what everyone else can clearly see.

          “I will note that when you endorse the leftist tactic of trotting out a victim to shame the Republican”

          I never said that. He attacked them, and he did so in a way that in a more thinking politician would appear calculated to do harm to his public inmate. But in Trump, it’s because they hurt his ego.

          I also note that both parties “trotted out victims”, so it’s ridiculous to bring that up.

          “Fundamentally, it is irrelevant how we got here.”

          Translation: you’d rather not talk about the past.

          “It is clear that I want Donald Trump elected and you are de facto for the election of Hillary Clinton.”

          Like many things you’ve said, that’s a perception of yours. It does not reflect reality. As it happens, I’m leaning Trump at the moment out of the two.

          “I don’t see how Hillary Clinton supporters have any moral authority to lecture any Republican about anything.”

          Anyone who considers either of these candidates fit for any office, let alone high office has highly questionable judgement. My twitter avatar references the Simpsons episode where the aliens take over both parties and everyone shrugs because it’s a “two party system”.

          “Donald Trump ran as insurgent,”

          This is true, and it should alert you to some facts that you’ve badly missed.

          “has recently appointed someone more suited to run an insurgent campaign.”

          This statement also does not reflect reality.

          “Win or lose, this a campaign I relish that fight. Why don’t you?”

          Because there is no “win” here. Trump is ensuring that both houses are going to be lost, and has divided the party by the very tactics you applaud so loudly. It’s badly damaged. And you’re obsessed with attacking those who point out what’s patently obvious to the general population. Even if Trump wins and the Senate and house are retained, Trump clearly does not understand long-standing conservative positions and says whatever he feels like at the time. This is a horrible attribute in a president who’s trying to fix a broken country.

          “What is going on that certain folks have put their pride before the good of the country. In their heart of hearts, they know the election of Trump or Clinton will be a disaster for the country, but, they would have to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. Pride goes before the fall, but, unfortunately, it is the American people, especially future generations that will take the fall. Shameful.”

          Fixed that for you.

          Personally I’ve been saying that the Republic is dead for some time now. This is due to the media essentially, and their refusal to do their job of informing the public. No country can survive that, or the increasing partisanship that divides America, forever.


          • I’ll just say two things.

            1) BSB, your problem seems to be that NeverTrumpers have kept their word. They told you what they were going to do and have kept their word about it. Before, the attitudes of the Trumpers were “Fuck you, we don’t need you anyway”. Afterwards, it’s “Fuck you, you traitors”.

            2) “Fuck you and vote for my guy” isn’t a winning strategy.


          • Just A Thought,

            First of all, you have history wrong. For instance, the National Review first tried to discredit Donald Trump by saying that he wasn’t really a Republican and would endorse Hillary after he lost the primary. The National Review, Jeb Bush, and others all piously promised to support the eventual Republican nominee and insisted that Donald Trump do the same. Well, Donald Trump was the nominee, and, instead of keeping their word, they reneged. Now, you can talk till you are blue in the face about the National Review has kept its’ word, but, what you cannot say is that my objection to the National Review is that I believe that they have been consistent. I believe that they are liars, and hypocrites, for the reasons I just stated. Don’t tell me I think something I simply don’t think.

            Also, I think you have granted the #meaninglesshashtag crowd more centrality than the facts justify, and, have reversed victim and offender. The Republican nomination fight was between was it 17 candidates, each of which had supporters who voted for their preferred candidate. The #IvotedforTrump faction prevailed [including over me and you], attracting the most votes and the most delegates. Towards the end, a certain faction decided to declare themselves irreversibly opposed to Donald Trump telling the electorate in the remaining states that they could not rationally cast a vote for Donald Trump given their intention to throw the election to Hillary Clinton should Trump be nominated. Who in the Hell do the folks at #nevertrump think they are to believe that it their place to tell Republican voters for whom they can and cannot vote? That is more than the middle-finger being pointed at the Republican electorate. It was an open declaration that the Republican party was oligarchy with only the pretense of democracy, and, that the oligarchy was going to crush the ignorant rubes who had the audacity to oppose their preferred and candidate. Brett Stephens was very explicit that he was going to teach them a lesson.

            I would note that your position seems predicated on the notion that #nevertrump wasn’t as fixed a position as you have claimed. If the #nevertrump crowd really meant they would never vote for Donald Trump then what option other than capitulation to blackmail, did Trump supporters have? I someone insists they will not vote for Donald Trump, if Donald Trump were to believe that were the case, isn’t the rational response to not make any effort whatsoever to woe votes that cannot be wooed in favor of trying to attract the votes of people open to voting for him? Someone in George Herbert Walker Bush’s adminstration was alleged to have said, “Fuck’em they don’t vote for us, anyway.” That might be harsh, but, isn’t really how politics works? Either #nevertrump was #nevertrump, or it was “ihaveaprice. You are acting as if I was suppose to believe that it was the latter.


          • The following article shows the real Donald Trump. Feel free to continue to cherry pick statements, take them out of context , and to continue to present your conclusions as to what other people said, rather than providing them with the actual quotes and context and letting them make their own conclusions, but, don’t expect me to believe anything you claim without definitive proof.

            Now, you may claim Donald Trump claimed to be “indifferent” to the GOP retaining the Senate, but, the reality is as follows:

            http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-meets-senate-republicans-223118


          • Claiming that the Republic is dead forever is precisely the kind of denial position that underlies the #alwayshillary crowd. “Besides, the Republic is doomed anyway” is an convenient excuse to avoid the reality that either Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is going to be elected, and, that the election of Hillary Clinton will be worse. For instance, Hillary Clinton’s tax plan is raises hundreds of millions of dollars from mostly middle-class folks by limiting itemized deductions to 28%. That plan will disproportionately affect Christians who tithe. If mortgage rise, it will even worse. While taxing Christianity might seem a good idea to Democrats, it will have the effect of lowering donations and accelerating the decline of Christianity, and, therefore the country. Likewise, admitting hundreds of thousands of essentially unscreened folks from countries such as Syria will lead to more terrorism sooner, etc.

            The reality is that #igottahashtag crowd is facing a hard choice. They can eat their pride, or, they can act to damage the country and accelerate the decline.

            P.S. if the Republic is really doomed, what purpose does your participation in public life supposedly serve? I’m trying to avoid what I see as a disaster for the country. Your position seems to be this election doesn’t matter, but, you’d feel better if Hillary wins. If it really is the case that this November is a free vote, what does it say about you that the calling of your heart is for Hillary Clinton?


          • The nevertrump crowd is de facto, and in many cases, de jure, for the election of Hillary Clinton. Being a nominal Republican doesn’t grant those working to elect Hillary Clinton immunity from criticism.

            Again, you have repeated your tactic of presenting your conclusions about what others may have done or said without providing any actual quotes, or actions, and context. You made unspecified claims that are so broad as to be meaningless, and, then expect me to take them seriously. For instance, you claim Donald Trump has “attacked Republicans.” So what?

            This is politics. Either the nevertrump folks are #nevertrump or they are #ihaveaprice. If they are never Trump, then the decision to criticize them is merely a calculation as to whether such criticism nets more persuadeables than it loses. For instance, The National Review has pretty much staked its’ reputation that it can win by losing this election. But, that doesn’t mean its’ readership has done likewise. Criticizing the inherent hypocrisy and dishonesty of first demanding that Donald Trump pledge his support to the eventual nominee, and, then refusing to support him is a legitimate tactic is minimizing the damage those folks are intending to cause. If that has the effect of driving their readership to zero, so much the better.


          • “Sure, that’s why everyone’s now saying ‘we warned you’.”

            This is yet another denial position. This isn’t some desert encampment where the folks have decided to worship a Golden Calf. This is the Republican party were a sufficient number of voters wanted a change of direction from the big-government warmongering. The nevertrump crowd aren’t prophets wandering off into the desert waiting for the day they will smash the pagan relic and return to lead those lead astray back to One True God. Too many of our young men have returned in a body bag for no measurable results for that to ever be true again.

            This is going to be Virginia 2013 all over again. Then, conservatives united to nominate a conservative rather than the establishment’s preferred moderate candidate. In response the establishment picked up its toys and left. They, like Brett Stephens, decided to run up the score to teach those pesky conservatives a lesson. Turns out the Democrat won by a very narrow margin. The sandbaggers were left with egg on their faces, and, the folks of Virginia stuck with a liberal Democratic scumbag.

            Here’s the reality: Hillary Clinton is very weak candidate. There are many dominoes ready to fall. Her health is failing. She is guilty of negligence. Her various acts of perjury are being exposed. And, more fundamentally, she has placed herself on the wrong sides of terrorism and change. It is more a matter of when, not if, she collapses. The only way Hillary Clinton is going to make is past the finish line is if folks such as yourself carry her over the finish line. If you do, your future in the conservative movement is over.


          • BigSkyBob you seem to be intent on distorting what I said.

            You’ve also gone on a bizarre rant about the National Review. You’ve claimed that an act of free speech is an act of oligarchy. You’ve equated a declaration of non support as blackmail. You’ve pointed out that Trump met with the Senate – good for him, but that doesn’t change the fact that he has expressed indifference to their reelection on at least one occasion and you’ve made no attempt to show that never happened.

            Finally, you’ve claimed that I said the “Republic is dead forever”. That’s not actually what I said. I said it was dead. And the funny thing is I said that to show that I had a wider position in play here. Rather than ask me to expound more details on that, you add the “forever” and make a whole bunch of assumptions.

            “that the election of Hillary Clinton will be worse. For instance, Hillary Clinton’s tax plan is raises hundreds of millions of dollars from mostly middle-class folks by limiting itemized deductions to 28%.”

            You probably have forgotten or never knew this, but I live and have always lived, in New Zealand. We actually had the opposite happen (a charitable donation rebate cap was lifted), and as a result I have a couple of thousand more dollars in my pocket. That’s nice, but it doesn’t change what I give to my church. It’s a couple of thousand in my case for the record.

            Removing that cap did nothing for church finances, and has not improved the country. It’s just not how that works.

            “Likewise, admitting hundreds of thousands of essentially unscreened folks from countries such as Syria will lead to more terrorism sooner, etc.”

            I’ll note that’s your choices of things that you see as being “plus for Trump”. I agree with the second – and I’ll even grant that he might actually not chicken out of that one like he has with so many others. But “insurgent”, right?

            The thing is, the potential consequences of a Trump presidency are far worse. Note I said potential. The biggest problem with Trump is that we just don’t know.

            It’s weighing up those potentials that leave people who see the flaws of both candidates on the horns of a terrible dilemma. In spite of what people such as yourself say, #nevertrump people I’ve communicated with are horrified by the prospect of another Clinton presidency. It’s unthinkable. But that’s the problem with Trump, he’s been so abusive, so random, so idiotic that even Clinton looks good by comparison. And instead of trying to woo those people who express doubts about him, or even ignoring them, Trump makes them enemy #1 – going out of his way to entrench their opinion. Sure, he’ll never win the hard-core over and that’s always the case, but why be so intent on confirming their message?

            “P.S. if the Republic is really doomed, what purpose does your participation in public life supposedly serve?”

            My position is that the Federal government should end, and let each state be free to form their own groups with other states. I imagine for example the eastern seaboard to be one area that would create a new state. The US is clearly a place where there are very distinct and very different cultures and holding them into the same country is eventually going to lead to either revolution or civil war. I see this as the best way to avoid chaos. But it also won’t happen.

            The other fact is that we may actually be 100 years or more away from the end. I happen to think this election is accelerating that however.

            “I’m trying to avoid what I see as a disaster for the country. Your position seems to be this election doesn’t matter, but, you’d feel better if Hillary wins. If it really is the case that this November is a free vote, what does it say about you that the calling of your heart is for Hillary Clinton?”

            What does it say about your heart that you’re saying I am being called by Clinton, when I said the opposite? To me, that dishonesty just confirms my assessment.


          • “For instance, you claim Donald Trump has “attacked Republicans.” So what?”

            Nope. what I said was:
            “Since his confirmation Trump has:
            * spent time attacking past Republican rivals instead of Hillary”

            You claim *I* support Hillary. But you’re defending a guy who’s *literal job* is to attack Hillary, and he’s spent valuable time attacking his own team.

            Thing is, the one thing Trump was expected to do well was go after Hillary. It was that silver lining. it’s a measure of how bad Trump is as a candidate that he managed to screw up the one thing everyone agreed he *did* have going for him.


          • “The only way Hillary Clinton is going to make is past the finish line is if folks such as yourself carry her over the finish line. ”

            Remember, you’re defending a guy who’s literal job was to attack this very-easy target, and attacked his own party instead.


          • scrubone,

            The definition of “death” is the irreversible cessation of life. So, the term “dead” and “dead forever” are interchangeable. If you meant to say something like “dormant,” then admit your error rather than blaming me.


          • Nope. what I said was:
            “Since his confirmation Trump has:
            * spent time attacking past Republican rivals instead of Hillary”

            And, I said,

            Again, you have repeated your tactic of presenting your conclusions about what others may have done or said without providing any actual quotes, or actions, and context. You made unspecified claims that are so broad as to be meaningless, and, then expect me to take them seriously. For instance, you claim Donald Trump has “attacked Republicans.” So what?

            I meant what I said. You simply have made unspecified claims, and postured as if I have some obligation to take them seriously absent any presentation on your part as to what you are referring. I simply don’t any such obligation. If there is a there there state it.


          • “Fundamentally, it is irrelevant how we got here.”

            Translation: you’d rather not talk about the past.

            Your translation is simply wrong. In past elections, I opposed Bush I, Bush I. Dole, Bush II, Bush II, McCain and Romney right up the moment they won the convention. At that point it became fundamentally irrelevant as to how we got there. My meaning is clear enough.

            I have no inherent object to talking about the past, but, it is orders of magnitude less relevant than who wins in November. After November, there will be time for recriminations and counter-recriminations.


        • “And you’re obsessed with attacking those who point out what’s patently obvious to the general population.”

          I think the above is a claim that applies to you, not me. I think it rather obvious that there are significant differences between the agendas of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Probably, 99 or 100 people would say that Donald Trump is to the right of Hillary Clinton ideologically for the simple reason that he is. Every time I point out the obvious, folks such as yourself seem obsessed with drawing me into their world of denial; a world were admitting hundreds of thousands of Syrians is no different than admitting none; where throwing the Southern border open is no different than building a wall, massive tax increases are no different than tax cuts; where the usual list of suspects for Hillary’s next Supreme Court nominee is not different than the list of potential candidates provided by Donald Trump; etc.

          You should and ought take a long hard look in the mirror before you play amateur psychologist. The real point is that you won’t.


          • “You’ve also gone on a bizarre rant about the National Review. You’ve claimed that an act of free speech is an act of oligarchy. You’ve equated a declaration of non support as blackmail. You’ve pointed out that Trump met with the Senate – good for him, but that doesn’t change the fact that he has expressed indifference to their reelection on at least one occasion and you’ve made no attempt to show that never happened.”

            Taking your points in order.

            1) No, I did not “rant” about National Review. Their actions were dishonest and hypocritical. The evidence is clear and irrefutable. Furthermore, don’t I have “free speech rights?”

            2) I don’t dispute that the right to free speech includes the right to fancy oneself as better than one’s peers and treat those whom happen to disagree with you as benighted bumpkins. But, when a voluntary member of a majoritarian organization begins claiming that his preferences matter more than the will of majority, then, his attitude is rightly characterized as oligarchical as opposed to majoritarian.

            3) I did not “equate a declaration of non-support [with] blackmail.” I described the process of informing those yet to vote that they cannot rationally support candidate A because they were going they would inflict upon them negative consequences as being the colloquial blackmail, as opposed to the legal definition.
            So, it was the threat of negative consequences, not the declaration of non-support to which I objected.

            Incidentally, the resentment of the high-handed approach probably netted Trump more votes than it lost.

            4) Again, you have yet to provide any actual quotes, or context, for what remains purely an assertion.


          • “It’s weighing up those potentials that leave people who see the flaws of both candidates on the horns of a terrible dilemma. In spite of what people such as yourself say, #nevertrump people I’ve communicated with are horrified by the prospect of another Clinton presidency. It’s unthinkable. But that’s the problem with Trump, he’s been so abusive, so random, so idiotic that even Clinton looks good by comparison.”

            This is an example of talking out of both sides of one’s mouth. Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next President. Preferring Donald Trump is preferring Donald Trump. Preferring Hillary Clinton is preferring Hillary Clinton.

            Since 1988 I have been abhorred with every Republican nominee except Bob Dole, whom I merely intensely disliked. It is fair to say that I was “horrified” by another Bush Presidency after read-my-lips, etc. But, that doesn’t mean I didn’t reluctantly support them. They were better than the Democratic alternative. I don’t see why after eating so many fecal sandwiches I’m being told this time it’s different. Why?

            Hillary Clinton is quoted as replying to a Secret Service agent’s greeting of “Good Morning, Ma’am!” with “Fuck off!” There are numerous accounts of Hillary Clinton being quite abusive to ordinary folks, but, she is respectful of the political class. Donald Trump is abusive to the political class, but, the folks who work with him report him as a decent and friendly guy. I simply don’t see how these facts move the needle one iota towards Clinton. I sure I can be certain that Hillary Clinton will take the wrong position on just about anything. Why is “random” worse in comparison? And, to me, the height of idiocy is importing hundred of thousands of people from places like Syria. How is that working out in Germany, Sweden or France?


          • “What does it say about your heart that you’re saying I am being called by Clinton, when I said the opposite? To me, that dishonesty just confirms my assessment.”

            but, you also said,

            “[comparing to Donald Trump]…Clinton looks good by comparison.”

            Who’s really being dishonest here?


        • ““[comparing to Donald Trump]…Clinton looks good by comparison.”

          Who’s really being dishonest here?”

          You.

          In one instance I was talking about people’s process, where Trump opening his mouth makes Clinton look preferable.

          In the other, I was saying that my personal current preference was Trump. It’s not that hard.


          • “Again, you have repeated your tactic of presenting your conclusions about what others may have done or said without providing any actual quotes, or actions, and context.”

            I’m posting on a political blog, about well-known events and facts that happened very recently. I pointed to a series of these.

            Now, I don’t blame you if, for example, you wanted a reference to a source claiming Trump doesn’t have an organisation in key swing states. But rather than accepting the facts you know are true and specifically querying those that are not, you have chosen to dismiss the entire list with a “so what”.


          • And, you, also, post in a blog where a series of posters posted accounts of recent political events in which it is quite clear that their biases had severely clouded their objectivity.

            Given this, it is simple enough for you to provide a case rather than issue what amounts as a series of your conclusions characterized as the facts.


          • You simply cannot have it both ways, You cannot say something “makes Clinton look preferable” and then immediately claim you really meant to say something “makes Clinton look preferable to people other than me,” while concealing your subjective belief that they are simply wrong.

            You think they are wrong, and, I think they are wrong. What is it that you are trying to argue again?


          • “The trick of the primaries is always to win without destroying your hopes for the general. The #NeverTrump’s strategy was to “go-for-broke” in the primaries and threaten anyone who didn’t fall into line. Amazingly, this hasn’t worked. Even more amazingly, people like you can’t work out what everyone else can clearly see.”

            Corrected for you.


          • “‘Your second fundamental error is that the same folks that Donald Trump beat like a rented mule immediately pivoted to claiming that the only way Donald Trump could win is stop being Donald Trump.’

            “The fact that you insist on repeating this doesn’t make your claim any less silly. It’s patently obvious that Trump’s tatics during the primary would never work in the General election. There really is no question question here. Trump is losing, and losing really, really badly. As you later admit, he ran in the Primaries as an insurgent, destroying totally anyone who got in his way. Now he (and his supporters) are complaining bitterly about their lack of support from others – the very people they went out of their way to destroy.”

            Yet again, you try to substitute a filibuster of posturing for actual argument. While you claim it is “obvious” that “Trump is losing, and losing really, really badly,” recent polls indicate that that claim simply isn’t true. I didn’t “admit” Trump run as an insurgent, I noted Trump ran as an insurgent. Nor, did I admit Donald Trump did anything other than beat the other 16 candidates like a rented mule. Further, when all the remaining candidates gave their word not to Donald Trump, but, to the Republican electorate, that they would support the eventual Republican nominee, Donald Trump supporters [which now states at 85%, or so, of all Republicans] have every right to note that betrayal.

            Nor, can I allow to pass without notice the revision of history you are offering. When Marco Rubio implied that Donald Trump had a small penis he “destroyed” himself. That was an act of self-immolation. During the campaign a number of candidates were taken out by candidates other than Trump in a cynical game in which they tried to keep Donald Trump afloat while attacking the other candidates in the hopes to reach and one-on-one with Donald Trump. Cruz won the non-Trump primary and lost the nomination.

            The folks that engaged in the politics of personal destruction are those like the National Review who first demanded a loyalty oath, and, then, cynically turned around and tried to destroy Donald Trump on a highly personal level. Not satisfied with having poisoned the well, they have redoubled their efforts to destroy Donald Trump by de facto advocating the election of Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump doesn’t need to woe these people. The folks at the National Review need to grow up, put their big boy pants on and do what is best for conservatism, and the country, and work to election Donald Trump.


  2. Another day, another Clinton Lie

    and yet all anyone will remember about this whole Election is NOT her reams of paper of Lies, her failures, the Coordinated Attack Schemes of Multiple groups of Communists/Terrorist Sympathizers/Lazy Dumbass Children, that the multiple bodies form the Clinton’s past will be buried even deeper in memory holes, and that Journalism died.

    No, what will be remembered is that Donald Trump said something mean, AND due to that, that makes him less trustworthy then a woman and Political Party that are hellbent on the destruction of this, the Greatest Country ever because our fee fee’s are hurt.

    Enjoy your high horses while everything is burning.


  3. Colin Powell was Secretary of Sate from Jan 2001 to Jan 2005 when Condoleezza Rice took over until she handed it over to Hillary on Jan 20, 2009. Why is Hillary mentioning Powell when he had been out of office 4 years before her? Odd how there is no mention of how things operated under Rice for the four years immediately before her.

    Something else to ponder is that I had a USAF email account as an E-6 back in the 1995 timeframe when at least 10% of the USAF had one. By 1998 when I moved to Aviano AB Italy everyone was getting an email account when they arrived. One has to wonder why the State Dept did NOT have a basic email system in place before Powell arrived in 2001 and even more if they didn’t have one when he left in 2005.

Leave a Reply