Hillary Clinton hasn’t walked free, just yet: Daily Bullshit, May 8, 2016 (updated)

Updated for the latest on the bought-and-paid-for Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street (ka-ching!).


I’m seeing a lot of whining about how Donald Trump’s policies might lead to yet another recession. As if I’d recovered from the last two.

Much more of this kind of hysteria, and you might just persuade me to vote for him, just to spite all the fucking “liberals” who, for all their pieties, supported the shredding of the social safety net, really think the status quo is just fine, and couldn’t give a rat’s ass about whether there are jobs.

That wouldn’t be because I think Trump would get me a job. He won’t. But I simply can’t afford neoliberalism or the so-called “liberal” embrace of neoliberalism. I have paid for it through the nose all my life and it has been a price I couldn’t afford to pay.

You want to change my attitude? Then stop with the excuses. Get me a job.


Hillary Clinton

Contrary to some reports I’ve seen out there from sources I don’t recognize, Hillary Clinton has not yet been exonerated by the FBI. That might be coming. But it hasn’t happened yet:

Multiple media outlets have reported that federal officials have yet to find any evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law.

Still, that might not necessarily get her off the hook from some misdemeanor charges, according to national security lawyer Bradley Moss.

“[T]he extent to which the person intended to remove classified documents is irrelevant,” he said in an email to The Hill. “All that matters for strict legal purposes of culpability is whether the person, by virtue of their official position, came into possession of classified information and affirmatively removed the information to an unauthorized location (i.e., the private server). “

“Whether the person knew or suspected the information was classified is irrelevant.”

Other legal experts questioned the claim, hinting at the legal minefield that could await any potential criminal case.[1]

Jonathan Turley has consistently argued that “virtually anything coming out of the office of the Secretary of State would be considered classified as a matter of course.”[2] He has, however, hedged on whether criminal charges might follow, saying “there remains the question of intent and whether she knew or should have known of any violations.”[3] To me, those two statements just don’t go together, especially when he’s pointed to a number of reports of highly classified information being found on her server.[4]

We’ve known for a while that there are two systems of justice. One for rich and powerful whites and another for everybody else.[5] If Clinton isn’t charged at least with the misdemeanor counts, this will be one more example.

And just to be clear about who is taking care of whom, “[t]he Democratic front-runner has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone.” Apparently so far, Wall Street has preferred Clinton to Donald Trump, as the latter “hasn’t garnered more than 1% of Wall Street contributions in any month through March” and “self-financed about three-quarters of his primary campaign.” There is, evidently, reason to doubt how much support he will be able to attract from the financial sector.[6]

“Business interests are generally not sold on the notion that Trump will be a more business-friendly candidate; there’s a lot about Trump they don’t know,” said Ed Rogers, a Republican lobbyist. “They know Hillary. And they know that she is not antibusiness.”[7]

Julian Hattem, “Decision time for FBI on Clinton,” Hill, May 8, 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279077-decision-time-for-fbi-on-clinton

Brody Mullins and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Financial Sector Gives Hillary Clinton a Boost,” Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-sector-gives-hillary-clinton-a-boost-1462750725


Footnotes

  1. [1]Julian Hattem, “Decision time for FBI on Clinton,” Hill, May 8, 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279077-decision-time-for-fbi-on-clinton
  2. [2]Jonathan Turley, “State Department Classifies Dozens of Additional Clinton Emails,” August 3, 2015, http://jonathanturley.org/2015/08/03/state-department-classifies-dozens-of-additional-clinton-emails/
  3. [3]Jonathan Turley, “Newly Released Email Shows Clinton Instructing Aide To Strip Header and Send Information Over Unsecured Lines After Objections Over Security,” January 11, 2016, http://jonathanturley.org/2016/01/11/newly-released-email-shows-clinton-instructing-aide-to-strip-header-and-send-information-over-unsecured-lines-after-objections-over-security/; Jonathan Turley, “Clinton Declares That She Will Never Be Indicted And Insists That Her “Predecessors Did The Same Thing” On Emails,” March 10, 2016, https://jonathanturley.org/2016/03/10/clinton-declares-that-she-will-never-be-indicted-and-insists-that-her-predecessors-did-the-same-thing-on-emails/
  4. [4]Jonathan Turley, “Inspector General: Clinton Emails Contain Special Access Material Above The Top Secret Level,” January 20, 2016, http://jonathanturley.org/2016/01/20/inspector-general-clinton-emails-contain-special-access-material-above-the-top-secret-level/; Jonathan Turley, “Report: Clinton Emails Contained Human Intelligence Classified At Highest Levels,” January 23, 2016, http://jonathanturley.org/2016/01/23/report-clinton-emails-contained-human-intelligence-classified-at-highest-levels/; Jonathan Turley, “State Department: 22 Emails Will Not Be Released As ‘Top Secret,'” January 29, 2016, http://jonathanturley.org/2016/01/29/state-department-22-emails-will-not-be-released-as-top-secret/; Jonathan Turley, “Report: Clinton Emails Contained ‘Operational’ Information and Put Lives At Risk,” February 1, 2016, https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/01/report-clinton-emails-contained-operational-information-and-put-lives-at-risk/
  5. [5]Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, 7th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2004).
  6. [6]Brody Mullins and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Financial Sector Gives Hillary Clinton a Boost,” Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-sector-gives-hillary-clinton-a-boost-1462750725
  7. [7]Brody Mullins and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Financial Sector Gives Hillary Clinton a Boost,” Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-sector-gives-hillary-clinton-a-boost-1462750725

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.