Discussion: Clinton On Foundation Attacks: 'There's A Lot Of Smoke' But 'No Fire'

Unfortunate choice of words by Clinton.

4 Likes

Yep. Five points off for rhetorical faux pas. It’s like a football fumble, mistakes born of only-humanness will nevertheless cost you.

3 Likes

Just as Republicans in congress have Obama Derangement Syndrome, the media has Hillary Derangement Syndrome. No other politician would have been called out for running a freakin’ non profit charity who wasn’t named Clinton.

5 Likes

How did Hillary get so far, given her difficulty making herself understood?

There is no smoke. There is just fog generated by right-wing gasbags. The woman is running for President–why can’t she get such simple ideas across?

2 Likes

I thought it was a great interview by Secretary Clinton. The Clinton Foundation stuff is just getting really old and ridiculous…there was no evidence of pay-to-play and I thought her explanation of the examples the AP used to show supposed wrong-doing were great. I am getting pretttty tired of the pundits bringing up that horrid AP report as some sort of gotcha for her and I am glad she talked about it and I am glad she answered questions on it (because of course that was yet ANOTHER criticism on her that SHE has yet to speak up about it).

At some point, is anyone going to ask HO about his refusal to dis-invest from his businesses should he win? His business ties in China and Russia? HRC was literally DOING HER JOB and we have all these people frothing at the mouth over it while Trump sits around with fawning profiles from the AP and people discussing his “softened” immigration stance.

It’s getting old and infuriating.

7 Likes

[quote=“centralasiaexpat, post:2, topic:42505, full:true”]
Unfortunate choice of words by Clinton.
[/quote]Agreed. If she wanted to use that phrase, she should have prefaced it with a few examples of “smoke.” She’s correct, but this answer won’t help those few folks who are still on the fence.

2 Likes

Welllll, everyone does this to some extent. Remember “spread the wealth around”? In part the climate is such today that opponents will cheerfully and grossly distort the obvious meaning of things like this if you give them a chance. It’s like Simone Biles slipping and getting a bronze the one time IMHO.

2 Likes

She definitely should not have said the smoke line. If she really wanted to use the analogy of smoke being there, she should have said, “Essentially Judicial Watch and others came in to the Clinton Foundation with a pack of matches and lit a garbage can on fire, then screamed, ‘Look at the smoke! The building’s unsafe!’ But there is no Clinton Foundation fire, just a group of arsonists looking to burn it down.”

6 Likes

Unless she has some good smoke to share, not a bright statement here.

1 Like

I could really use a brownie this morning – having a tough time sleeping lately due to stupid spine.

1 Like

I agree with one of the pundits on Lawrence O’Donnel: announce a big press conference about changes to be made to the CGI… and then when you get everyone in the room and all the cameras on:

This is the Clinton Foundation. 12 million people getting HIV meds. Big pictures of the children born HIV-free because of the prophylactic programs with HIV+ mothers. The work with micro-lending that has lifted so many out of poverty. The work done in the U.S.; and specifically what Trump’s $100k went to support.

Lay it all out there and tell the untold story of the Foundation’s great work that most Americans don’t know about.

Answer questions until the press is exhausted & bored and desperate to move on.

6 Likes

I’ll start off by saying I agree with you…but I also would contend the press will NEVER be exhausted or bored by this…ever. That’s the most frustrating part. She could say all of this and do all of this and then the next day (and the next day) we’ll STILL hear about.

4 Likes

Clinton campaign: “Looks good, Mr. kendyzdad. You’re hired as speechwriter.”

The AP tried pretty hard to find a scandal here, but it’s pretty hard to find something that doesn’t exist.

3 Likes

I agree. Smoke implies fire. This case is like the bad guy in the cowboy movies throwing dust into the eyes of the good guy. The AP has dished up a handful of dust and it has blinded the rest of the press.

Oh, I think the story would quickly shift to be about the length of the press conference and away from the Foundation pretty quickly… because process stories are soooo much easier than substance.

2 Likes

At that point, if any in the press persisted with the same questioning, my flat answer would be: “Refer to press conference of (whatever date).” Period. Handle the idiots with brass balls.

3 Likes

Don’t I wish.

The Clinton “scandals” are unique in the history of the nation. The press defines a set of circumstances that they think could look suspicious… They spend months finding “facts” that fit those circumstances. They announce that they have found circumstances that look suspicious. Instead of examining what actually happened they demand the Clintons prove they didn’t do anything wrong. When they prove they didn’t do anything wrong, they shout the Clintons are covering up.

With everybody else we demand reporters first find that something wrong has occured and then that they tie the wrong doing to a perpetrator. Not the Clintons. Special rules apply to them. I wonder why?

5 Likes