Skip to main content

The Email Spill


Bill Buckley was once asked what the real Dick Nixon was like. “Which one,” he responded? “There are about four of them.” There are a few Hillary Clintons jostling against each other in her capacious public persona.

The Great Email Spill of 2016 has tossed on the shore a few dead personas.


Here is current Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign John Podesta on his boss in an email to Neera Tanden, a longtime Podesta friend who also has worked for Clinton: “Speaking of transparency, our friends Kendall [Hillary’s personal lawyer], Cheryl [Mills], and Phillipe [Reines, both State Department staffers] sure weren’t forthcoming on the facts here.”

Tanden: “Why didn’t they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy. I guess I know the answer. They wanted to get away with it.”  The stuff they didn’t get out was an admission on the part of Clinton that there were indeed unvetted confidential emails on her private server. Hillary went to the wall claiming that there were no such items on her unsecured server.

Podesta: “We’ve taken on a lot of water that won’t be easy to pump out of the boat. Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her [Hillary’s] instincts.”

Tanden: “Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible.”

General Colin Powell, the hero of (Desert Storm), an invasion of Iraq Hillary supported before her most current persona change, has endorsed Hillary’s candidacy. But the General expressed reservations concerning the character question in  a July 26, 2014 email: “I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect… A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still d–kng bimbos at home (according to the NYP)… Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. I told you about the gig I lost at a University because she so overcharged them they came under heat and couldn’t [pay] any fees for a while. I should send her a bill.”


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p