[Discussion] What's Clinton Done?

This thread is intended to provide a central point for extended discussions of the Clintons, especially Hillary, and their past and present actions and the effects of those actions. Please use this instead of clogging up election and future political threads with derails. Accusations with evidence, and defenses with evidence, are welcome here, as well as reference articles and personal anecdotes.

Did someone mention Benghazi?

Demosthenes wrote:

Given Assange's direct quote on how he wants to destroy Clinton's campaign (and Obama) for personal reasons, I don't see how anything coming out of WikiLeaks, especially with a few instances of doctored/misattributed materials in recent weeks, could ever be considered credible with regards to her again.

I'm willing to look at the email content as real, and have read through them many times looking for what I've been told is in them. So far, no dice.

Honestly I want to be able to say, "If what's in this email is true, this is awful!" because I want to hold our representatives in government accountable, and a lot of time and money has been wasted on Hillary Clinton. It would be nice to say the expense was worthwhile beyond showing that she's a lot cleaner than I might expect of someone in her circles.

SallyNasty wrote:

Did someone mention Benghazi?

I did!

garion333 wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Did someone mention Benghazi?

I did!

Benghazi?!

HILARY LIED AND AMERICANS DIED!

Demosthenes wrote:

Given Assange's direct quote on how he wants to destroy Clinton's campaign (and Obama) for personal reasons, I don't see how anything coming out of WikiLeaks, especially with a few instances of doctored/misattributed materials in recent weeks, could ever be considered credible with regards to her again.

Pretty much where I am with Wikileaks.. once you establish that you have an agenda I take everything you do from there with a grain of salt.

One thing to bear in mind with the Wikileaks dump is that the many of the emails have been removed from context. It's hard to understand what's actually being discussed without other emails in the conversation. And from what I have seen browsing that list, that's been taken advantage of to produce inaccurate readings.

He has a lot of time while holed up in the embassy.

The only thing I learned from reading the wikileaks emails is that Podesta is a pretty serious cook.

I voted for Clinton, but am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the level of aristocracy we've seen in the presidency? I feel like it's gone from House Bush to House Clinton to House Bush and now back to House Clinton, with a brief stop for Obama to sit on the Iron Throne. And yes, I know we had House Adams and House Roosevelt in our past, and were possibly an assassin away from House Kennedy.

EDIT: BTW, I meant the past tense on voted. Early balloting in AZ, I'm done.

jredgiant wrote:

I voted for Clinton, but am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the level of aristocracy we've seen in the presidency?

It's a feature, not a bug. And a long-standing one, too.

Poor people don't get to run for President. Instead, you get your choice of aristocrat (from a limited field of aristocrats).

If Chelsea Clinton ends up running I'll be more concerned with the Clinton Dynasty. As it is I think it's a fairly unique situation that a former President's spouse both want's the job and is incredibly qualified for it.

jredgiant wrote:

I voted for Clinton, but am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the level of aristocracy we've seen in the presidency? I feel like it's gone from House Bush to House Clinton to House Bush and now back to House Clinton, with a brief stop for Obama to sit on the Iron Throne. And yes, I know we had House Adams and House Roosevelt in our past, and were possibly an assassin away from House Kennedy.

EDIT: BTW, I meant the past tense on voted. Early balloting in AZ, I'm done.

I'm not, and I think it's because I don't consider the Clintons a House just because they were married. The Clintons were two unrelated people who are family in part because they were in love with each other's minds. The main reason for getting rid of an aristocracy is to get rid of idiot children gaining power just because of their name. The Clintons were a partnership of equals. A partnership where one wasn't rich, and the other came out of circumstances about as far from aristocracy as you can get.

jredgiant wrote:

I voted for Clinton, but am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the level of aristocracy we've seen in the presidency?

No. However, I have come around a lot on Hillary; I think she would have gone down the same political path she took regardless of her married name. I take it that she likely delayed her own agenda for her husband's; it's a nice gesture in a good marriage. I didn't like GWB running, even though the Texas governorship did give him some qualifications for it, and I was really turned off by JEB, for all the same reasons. It might not be a stretch to see Michelle Obama running in 2020/2024; despite how quiet she's been on policy, she is also a lawyer. I guess I'm more forgiving of shared last names when they come about through marriage.

Zona wrote:

If Chelsea Clinton ends up running I'll be more concerned with the Clinton Dynasty. As it is I think it's a fairly unique situation that a former President's spouse both want's the job and is incredibly qualified for it.

I mean, Chelsea isn't exactly unqualified, she's quite well educated and I'd say her own position within the Clinton Foundation has some decent responsibilities and requires great skill. I suspect if she started working on political ambitions now, she could be more than ready after whoever comes after her mother.

Atras wrote:

t might not be a stretch to see Michelle Obama running in 2020/2024; despite how quiet she's been on policy, she is also a lawyer. I guess I'm more forgiving of shared last names when they come about through marriage.

Michelle Obama is a much bigger stretch to me. While she may have the qualifications, or may get there in 8 years, she has said she doesn't want to be president, and she didn't seem ambiguous about that when she said it...to me, it was just to the left of "AWW HELL NO!"

Whatever her path after First Lady, I think she has brains, charisma, and will continue to make this country a better place.

Demosthenes wrote:
Zona wrote:

If Chelsea Clinton ends up running I'll be more concerned with the Clinton Dynasty. As it is I think it's a fairly unique situation that a former President's spouse both want's the job and is incredibly qualified for it.

I mean, Chelsea isn't exactly unqualified, she's quite well educated and I'd say her own position within the Clinton Foundation has some decent responsibilities and requires great skill. I suspect if she started working on political ambitions now, she could be more than ready after whoever comes after her mother.

Alternatively, having spent her whole life watching her parents get shredded in the court of public opinion, maybe she'll be NOPE'ing as fast as she can in the other direction.

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Zona wrote:

If Chelsea Clinton ends up running I'll be more concerned with the Clinton Dynasty. As it is I think it's a fairly unique situation that a former President's spouse both want's the job and is incredibly qualified for it.

I mean, Chelsea isn't exactly unqualified, she's quite well educated and I'd say her own position within the Clinton Foundation has some decent responsibilities and requires great skill. I suspect if she started working on political ambitions now, she could be more than ready after whoever comes after her mother.

Alternatively, having spent her whole life watching her parents get shredded in the court of public opinion, maybe she'll be NOPE'ing as fast as she can in the other direction.

I mean, that would be my assumption too, but I could still see her being good at it, none the less, even if she has zero personal interest.

I've gone through just about 20 of the Wikileaks items and found exactly what I expected: mundane internal emails that whoever summed them up read way too much into (and assumed were nefarious because Hillary).

That and a shocking amount of stupidity and ignorance that spanned not Googling what was happening when the emails were written to get a better understanding of their context to some complete f*cking idiot thinking that Hillary could snap her fingers and appoint someone to an ambassadorship two years after she left the State Department (which doesn't even nominate ambassadors).

If you have any from your lengthy list that you think are really juicy examples of Hillary's corruption let me know. I'll take a look at them.

What I do know for sure is that right now I know a lot more about those supposed 20 examples than you do and you should probably take some time to research the others on your own. They fall apart pretty danged quickly when you look at them.

Where is the collusion in that email?

Given the date of the email this was when the House Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed Clinton for any emails related to Benghazi. Far from being collusion, it's literally the Clinton campaign trying to work with the State Department to coordinate the release of 55,000 pages of emails that were ordered to be produced.

It's really hard to claim that this email is the Clinton campaign is trying to hide something when it ends with the Clinton campaign saying they'll release the emails if the State Department drags its feet: "Not sure where those discussions will land, but hope is either State agrees to release on timely basis or we pledge to release them ourselves in ten days/week."

This email highlighted a complaint that was filed when the independent Ready for Hillary PAC rented a list from Hillary's 2008 campaign PAC, Friends of Hillary, in December 2013.

The complaint argued that Ready for Hillary's contact with Friends of Hillary triggered Hillary's candidacy and that meant her 2016 campaign was illegally coordinating with a PAC. The Federal Election Commission reviewed the complaint and found it to be baseless.

The complaint in this matter alleged that Ready for Hillary PAC ("Ready for Hillary"), an independent expenditure-only political committee (a so-called "Super PAC"), and Friends of Hillary, Hillary Clinton's authorized committee from a prior campaign, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ("Act") when Ready for Hillary disseminated a mass email supporting Hillary Clinton's prospective presidential candidacy using a Friends of Hillary email list. The Commission unanimously found no reason to believe the allegation that the campaign committee's provision of its email list to the Super PAC triggered Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president prior to her official announcement in April 2015.

Why is something about Obama included in the list of the 600 things that make Hillary a very bad person?

And, if you actually read the email, it didn't confirm anything other than the fact that Hillary exchanged emails with Obama. To get to the "Obama lied" stage you would need confirmation that Obama knew Hillary was sending emails from an outside server and that email doesn't provide that confirmation.

The entire email chain is about Hillary wanting to confirm that her campaign *hasn't* accepted money from private prisons before the first primary debate back on October 2015. The chain ends a conference call to "run the issue to ground."

A few weeks after that email chain Hillary's campaign announced that she was against private prisons, that she would stop taking any money from private prisons, and donate to charity any money it had received from private prisons.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pledged Thursday to ban the use of private prison companies if elected president, and in the meantime will stop accepting campaign contributions from those corporations and the lobbyists who work for them.

All previous donations will be given to charity, the former secretary of state’s campaign said.

“Hillary Clinton has said we must end the era of mass incarceration, and as president, she will end private prisons and private immigrant detention centers,” campaign spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement Thursday night. “She believes that we should not contract out this core responsibility of the federal government, and when we’re dealing with a mass incarceration crisis, we don’t need private industry incentives that may contribute — or have the appearance of contributing — to over-incarceration.”

Hinojosa said the policy against accepting contributions tied to private prison companies “is only one of many ways that she believes we need to rebalance our criminal justice and immigration systems.”

I can't be assed to go through Hillary's FEC financial filings to figure out how much, if any, money was donated to her campaign from private prisons. But considering there isn't a deluge of stories from conservative media outlets claiming that Hillary's a hypocrite for railing against private prisons but accepting their money I'm going to assume its not really any issue.

The only prison donations I did suss out what the Ready for Hillary PAC accepted about $130,000 from private prison lobbying groups in 2014...a year before Hillary announced her candidacy.

This email isn't Hillary campaign staffers worried about her mental state. It's campaign staffers being deeply frustrated that she went off message and called herself a moderate when, as a campaign, they were trying to be a progressive and hip as the Sanders' campaign.

I work in PR and have had many of these email exchanges with coworkers when a client says something that runs counter to the messaging you've been putting out. It doesn't mean that I think my clients are mentally unbalanced.

This is an email chain about coming up with an acceptable soundbyte Hillary could say about TPP because she was just a few weeks away from officially announcing her candidacy. The trade deal would be in the news and she would have to be able to make some sort of comment about it. It's not earth-shattering sh*t here.

Also, the bias of these Wikileaks statements are getting a bit extreme. I mean how does anyone know that the TPP is going to "the most detrimental trade deal to the US since NAFTA" when it hasn't been ratified yet?

Of course that also begs the question "Was NATFA detrimental to the US?" and the answer to that seems to be we don't really know. Trade increased and some new jobs were created from that and some jobs were lost when manufacturing shifted to Mexico. What can confidently be said is that NAFTA didn't radically reshape America's economy or cause the massive (and negative) impact whoever crafted the Wikileaks summary of this email exchange seems to think.

First, in April 2015 Hillary couldn't vote for (or against) TPP because she didn't hold any public office. This email exchange happened the day after she announced her candidacy for president.

Next, Hillary wasn't making any decision about TPP in the email because 1) she was in no position to affect the trade deal, and 2) no one knew what would actually be in trade agreement at the time. Hell, it was three days after this email was sent that a bill was put forward in the House to fast track the negotiation of the agreement. That's how little anyone knew about the trade deal at the time.

That's why the main point of this email exchange is simply Hillary's campaign trying to figure out the best messaging for the trade deal. It's why it starts with three different statements that stress slightly different things, but all raise concerns that the deal--whatever is negotiated--should be beneficial to Americans.

And the email proves that the Wikileaks summary that Hillary "will vote for TPP regardless of any concessions received from labor" is bullsh*t because one of the responses was "We clearly need a bigger strategic discussion about how to deal with labor as a constituency," to which someone else replied "Marlon and Amanda are putting together a plan to reach out quickly whenever she steps out on this."

And, again, this email exchange happened the day after Hillary announced her candidacy. It's clear that the campaign is thinking about labor and is developing plans to reach out to them.

This is what happens in campaigns.* Public statements are carefully crafted and reviewed internally. That happens so campaign staffers have time to anticipate what questions reporters might ask and include them in the response or at least prepare the candidate so they're not caught flat-footed.

It also ensures that there's consistency in what the campaign says. And that's important because anytime there's a conflict or disagreement in the campaign's positions that's an opening for the media to dig into.

Also the Wikileak reviewers might be shocked to learn that candidate's have people that write their speeches and that they don't just spew sh*t off the top of their heads. Shocking, I know.

* Does not apply to Trump's campaign where there's no filter between his brain and his mouth (and his Twitter account).

You understand that this was an email from a blogger who wasn't working for Hillary's campaign, right? It was literally someone who caught the vapors from this Politico article and dumped a wall of text into Podesta's inbox about how Hillary's campaign was f*cked. It's simply an outsider's opinion on the campaign.

And the point about "no one likes Hillary enough to work for free" is asinine on multiple levels. First, campaign staffers get paid. It's a job. Bernie paid his staffers. Hillary paid hers. Not so much for Trump. To claim otherwise shows a very poor understanding of how political campaigns are run.

Second, the email ends with the guy saying he'd hammer out talking points for the Clinton campaign for free: "If nobody else will do it, I will volunteer to take an hour to write the talking points about what surrogates should be saying, about why she should be president, that will make voters so proud that the campaign should call a press conference to publicly release the talking points---and I would not accept a dime."

I seriously wonder if the people who write the summaries actually read the entire email.

This is Podesta's reply to the blogger screed above. The entire text is: "We already discussed Castro. Beyond that, why do you think that story is not just a bunch of hyped up BS intended to have exactly the kind of
reaction you are exhibiting?"

You'll notice that there's absolutely no mention of Correct the Record, Reddit, Facebook, or anything else that the whoever wrote the summary said was in the email. It's them projecting.

And, again, the whole "Clinton doesn't have enough real, passionate supporters" bit was what someone who wasn't even connected to the campaign said.

Wow. The first one that has something remotely interesting.

One interpretation of that email exchange could be that Hillary takes bribes for crafting laws. But then there should be some tantalizing rumor from her days as a Senator where she changed laws for dollars. Either way there would be a paper trail of her making changes to legislation and that would be simple enough task for a truly dedicated Wikileaker or investigative journalist to track down and cross-reference to political "donations" she received. But no one has.

Another interpretation could be that you don't push out a policy about bribery when the top story circulating at the time are allegations that Clinton Foundation donors got preferential treatment when Hillary was at the State Department. It's not that she did something illegal, it's that there's no reason to make the stories claiming Clinton Foundation pay-for-play stay in the media longer.

See above.

Check out the date of the emails: February 21-22, 2015. That's almost two months before Hillary formally announced her candidacy.

The primary issue Podesta addressed in the email had nothing to do with Hillary's "desire to use big corporate marketing which results in unwanted leaks." It had everything to do with the fact there officially *wasn't* a campaign at the time and there was no officially sanctioned Hillary spokespeople. Thus his statement: "We can and should try to shut this down, but it is going to be tough until we get to a point where someone can actually talk on behalf of the campaign."

Where to start here? Let's go with the basics.

First, the only mention about the position was "I don't think there is another candidate of color who folks would be comfortable putting up as Chair, though either Ceci or Peter (as a stretch) could be a Member." I'm not sure there's a lot of "government positions of power" that have Chair or Member as their titles.

Next, there's no linkage to Hillary. Larry is the guy who wants candidates of color and we don't have a last name so we don't know who he is or what his relationship to Hillary was.

And, last, but certainly not least is the super sexist and racist assumption that these would be "token" appointments to PoC that would take away jobs from more deserving white men.

I actually bothered to Google Susan Collins. She seems pretty damn badass to me.

Susan M. Collins is the Joan and Sanford Weill Dean of Public Policy and a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.

Dean Collins is an international economist. Her research interests center on determinants of economic growth in developed and developing economies, and issues raised by increasing cross-national economic integration. Her work has been published in numerous professional journals. Examples include: "Rebalancing the U.S. Economy in a Post-Crisis World" Asian Development Bank Institute (2010), "Accounting for Growth: Comparing China and India," Journal of Economic Perspectives, (2008), "The Empirics of Growth: An Update," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, (2003) — co-authored with Barry Bosworth -- and "Minority Groups in the Economics Profession," Journal of Economic Perspectives (2000). She edited or co-edited the annual Brookings Trade Forum from 1999 to 2007. Recent volumes focus on Foreign Direct Investment (2007), Global Labor Markets? (2006) and Offshoring White-Collar Work (2005). She contributed to and co-edited The Economy of Puerto Rico — Restoring Growth, (Brookings, 2006).

Dean Collins is currently also a nonresident senior fellow in the Economic Studies program at Brookings, a member of the Board of Directors of the Detroit Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She was elected President of the Association for Professional Schools of International Affairs (APSIA), for a 2-year term beginning June 1, 2013.

Before coming to Michigan, she held positions as a professor of economics at Georgetown University, an associate professor of economics at Harvard University and a visiting scholar at the International Monetary Fund. She served as a senior staff economist on the President's Council of Economic Advisers during 1989-90. Among other activities, she was an elected member of the American Economic Association's (AEA) Executive Committee during 2005-08 and chaired the AEA Committee on the Status of Minority Groups during 1994-98.

She received her B.A., summa cum laude, in economics from Harvard University in 1980, and her Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.

LinkedIn wrote:

LinkedIn Influencers are selected by invitation only and comprise a global collective of 500+ of the world's foremost thinkers, leaders, and innovators. As leaders in their industries and geographies, they discuss newsy and trending topics such as the future of higher education, the workplace culture at Amazon, the plunge in oil prices, and the missteps of policymakers

Our list of Influencers includes Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Arianna Huffington, and Mary Barra. A team of editors works with Influencers to create content in the form of posts and updates that we believe make our members more informed professionals and spark thoughtful conversations. We invite all members to join the conversation and share their own perspectives via comments, updates, and long-form posts.

Note: The list of Influencers changes throughout the year. We regularly evaluate existing Influencers to include only the most engaged, prolific, and thoughtful contributors and to ensure that their expertise matches our members' interests.

Is is honestly odd that a former Senator and Secretary of State and presidential candidate would get Influencer status?

And it's LinkedIn. No one gives a f*ck about LinkedIn.

OK, this is another example of just how f*cking unhinged from reality these Wikileak summaries are.

Former Secretaries of State two years out of the job don't get to pick who becomes ambassadors. It's just not how things work.

Hillary was Secretary of State from January 2009 to January 2013.

Charles Adams, the Ambassador to Finland, was nominated by President Obama in July 2014 and confirmed by the Senate in June 2015.

Beyond whoever summed up the email having no goddamned clue how ambassadors are appointed (and thinking that Hillary has magical powers of corruption that can bypass time and space), there's absolutely nothing in the email that could lead anyone to believe that Adams bribed Hillary for the job.

The only relevant statement was "As you know Charles Adams did most of the fundraising there in the past and he is now Ambassador to Finland," and that was true because he had just been in the job for a few months and he was on the National Finance Committee of both of Obama's campaigns and he is the co-chair of a Democratic fundraising group for overseas Americans.

Hillary's campaign figuring out what they were going to say to the media before they talked to the media isn't collusion. It's basic crisis communications.

Again, this exposes two running themes in all of these Wikileaks summaries: 1) they always assume Hillary did something wrong, and 2) they honestly don't know how political campaigns, the government, the media, etc. work so it's always "collusion" or some sh*t.

Both the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign had joint bank accounts for with the DNC. That's because they did joint fundraising efforts where donors could give money to both the candidate's campaign and to the DNC, who would use the money to help downstream Democratic candidates.

Again, this is whoever wrote the email summary not having a f*cking clue how campaign's raise or handle money so they just assume Hillary did something wrong.

Politico wrote:

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC confirmed to POLITICO.

The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.

The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.

Hillary did not suggest that campaign finance laws were useless.

She commented that the NYT's article on the complete failure of the FEC to reign in abuses was a "predictable statement of the obvious."

And, yes, Podesta says to raise lots more money because in May 2015 Jeb Bush's campaign (technically pro-Jeb SuperPACs) had raised well over $100 million and he hadn't yet formally announced his candidacy.

OG respect for going through all that and responding point for point.. it's a shame it won't do one bit of damn good.. these people have made up their mind and are immune to facts.

MOD HAT
Please settle down, folks. Remember the CoC and treat each other with respect. Also keep in mind that sarcasm might not go over as well in this thread as in other threads, especially as tensions are running high during this final stretch of the election season.

CoC wrote:

Moderators are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

Yes, this means I'm holding everyone in the D&D threads, and the election threads in particular, to a higher standard than what's explicitly stated in the CoC.

Come November 9, I anticipate the resumption of our regularly scheduled snark.

/MOD HAT

Major respect, OG.

The other thing, which I don't think gets pointed out enough, is that we are only seeing the emails from the Hillary campaign. Its hard to really put them in context without having the emails from the other campaigns. We don't know what the internal communications in the Trump campaign look like or even other primary campaigns (Bernie, Cruz, etc). So sure they are a little ugly and unflattering, but I suspect its more that presidential campaigning is an ugly business, regardless of who's campaign it is.

TV's Frank wrote:

The other thing, which I don't think gets pointed out enough, is that we are only seeing the emails from the Hillary campaign. Its hard to really put them in context without having the emails from the other campaigns. We don't know what the internal communications in the Trump campaign look like or even other primary campaigns (Bernie, Cruz, etc). So sure they are a little ugly and unflattering, but I suspect its more that presidential campaigning is an ugly business, regardless of who's campaign it is.

I guarantee you Trump's campaign emails are a lot worse.

That was pretty much my experience from the first six. After that, I gave up with the request that someone provide at least one email with some "there" there. At this point, it just feels like a gigantic Gish Gallop.

Oh, and America was perfectly okay with John Quincy Adams.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
TV's Frank wrote:

The other thing, which I don't think gets pointed out enough, is that we are only seeing the emails from the Hillary campaign. Its hard to really put them in context without having the emails from the other campaigns. We don't know what the internal communications in the Trump campaign look like or even other primary campaigns (Bernie, Cruz, etc). So sure they are a little ugly and unflattering, but I suspect its more that presidential campaigning is an ugly business, regardless of who's campaign it is.

I guarantee you Trump's campaign emails are a lot worse.

f*ck Trump's campaign emails.

Could you imagine what absolutely terrifying sh*t was in the two million emails the Bush administration deleted off the RNC servers they used instead of the White House email system? Discussions about how to convince the country to go to war. Enhanced interrogation. Black sites. The birth and expansion of domestic spying. The failure of post-invasion Iraq. Katrina. The meltdown of the economy.

GD, OG.

GD.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
TV's Frank wrote:

The other thing, which I don't think gets pointed out enough, is that we are only seeing the emails from the Hillary campaign. Its hard to really put them in context without having the emails from the other campaigns. We don't know what the internal communications in the Trump campaign look like or even other primary campaigns (Bernie, Cruz, etc). So sure they are a little ugly and unflattering, but I suspect its more that presidential campaigning is an ugly business, regardless of who's campaign it is.

I guarantee you Trump's campaign emails are a lot worse.

Hell, his public tweets are a lot worse.

Well that's frustrating as f*ck.

WipEout wrote:

Well that's frustrating as f*ck.

That's about what I expected of her though, not really saying anything but a backhand nod to big business to continue working while the issue is examined further, ie its better to ask forgiveness than to get permission.