Reince Priebus; Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes

[NewYorkExpress]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/28/rnc-on-hillary-cover-up-even-nixon-didnt-erase-the-tapes/

Reince Priebus gave his opinion on Emailgate, stating that Hillary Clinton's emails were recoverable "unless she went to extreme efforts to keep her server clean", and pointed out that "even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes", referring to the infamous Watergate scandal, and the tapes that had forced Nixon's resignation.

[Gallium]

Lol emailgate.

Reince Priebus should be the last person throwing stones, considering his law-firm deleted tens of thousands of emails concerning their "independent" redistricting process in Wisconsin after a court order to hand all documents over.

[Pyro]

As Jon Stewart once said, "You can't spell Pubic Re-Rinse without Reince Priebus."

[IceSpear]

I'm sure the world deeply cares what RNC PR BS thinks.

[bobloblaw]

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

[The Other Castro]

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

It's simple, the consequences of not winning means someone like Bush, Walker, Rubio, or Paul wins.

[bobloblaw]

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

It's simple, the consequences of not winning means someone like Bush, Walker, Rubio, or Paul wins.

Cant Warren win or OMalley?

Clinton is actually my third choice. I am supporting Walker or Rubio. But I am convinced that Clinton's presidency would be such a disaster for the Dem party, we'll see the number of elected GOP officials at levels not seen since reconstruction.

[Ebsy]

The irony of this bullsh**t is that there were actually MISSING RECORDINGS!!!!!!

[Beet]

Hillary is extremely intelligent and accomplished. She's turned over all Benghazi-related emails to the House already. Last I heard, no one was asking Priebus, Warren, O'Malley or boblolaw for their personal e-mails.

I do think it's sh**t that she deleted her emails. It reeks of guilt. But I also think it's wrong to denounce her as corrupt unless or until such a thing were to be proven. In the long run, I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would have tremendously positive influences on the country and the party. The Republicans are near their ceiling for the House in the medium term, and absent a black swan event, there is no way they will get to Reconstruction levels.

[henster]

Hillary is a flawed candidate period and the Republicans will drag this out all long as they can. How will it look when Hillary has to testify in the middle of the 2016 campaign?

[Ebsy]

Hillary is a flawed candidate period and the Republicans will drag this out all long as they can. How will it look when Hillary has to testify in the middle of the 2016 campaign?

Last time she had to testify about Benghazi she actually did fairly well and it improved her image. Also, I think it is getting a little ridiculous that a House Select Committee on Benghazi is turning into the political arm of the GOP. It's almost like Issa is still in charge of all these fake investigations that turn up no wrongdoing but still cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Hillary is a flawed candidate period and the Republicans will drag this out all long as they can. How will it look when Hillary has to testify in the middle of the 2016 campaign?

Probably about the same way Obama had to publicly apologize for Reverend Wright/another media-created faux scandal.

[The Other Castro]

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

It's simple, the consequences of not winning means someone like Bush, Walker, Rubio, or Paul wins.

Cant Warren win or OMalley?

Clinton is actually my third choice. I am supporting Walker or Rubio. But I am convinced that Clinton's presidency would be such a disaster for the Dem party, we'll see the number of elected GOP officials at levels not seen since reconstruction.

Regardless of whether O'Malley or Warren could win, all that matters is that people think they'd have a harder time in the general than Clinton. You can't reasonably claim with such certainty that a Clinton presidency would hurt the Democrats, but you could certainly argue that a Walker presidency instead would hurt the country. I care much more about the condition of the country than of its political parties.

[bobloblaw]

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

It's simple, the consequences of not winning means someone like Bush, Walker, Rubio, or Paul wins.

Cant Warren win or OMalley?

Clinton is actually my third choice. I am supporting Walker or Rubio. But I am convinced that Clinton's presidency would be such a disaster for the Dem party, we'll see the number of elected GOP officials at levels not seen since reconstruction.

Regardless of whether O'Malley or Warren could win, all that matters is that people think they'd have a harder time in the general than Clinton. You can't reasonably claim with such certainty that a Clinton presidency would hurt the Democrats, but you could certainly argue that a Walker presidency instead would hurt the country. I care much more about the condition of the country than of its political parties.

Yes, I can most certainly claim that Clinton will greatly hurt the Dem brand. But doesnt hurting the Dem brand from your stand point also hurt the country as it results in more GOPers getting elected?

[The Other Castro]

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

It's simple, the consequences of not winning means someone like Bush, Walker, Rubio, or Paul wins.

Cant Warren win or OMalley?

Clinton is actually my third choice. I am supporting Walker or Rubio. But I am convinced that Clinton's presidency would be such a disaster for the Dem party, we'll see the number of elected GOP officials at levels not seen since reconstruction.

Regardless of whether O'Malley or Warren could win, all that matters is that people think they'd have a harder time in the general than Clinton. You can't reasonably claim with such certainty that a Clinton presidency would hurt the Democrats, but you could certainly argue that a Walker presidency instead would hurt the country. I care much more about the condition of the country than of its political parties.

Yes, I can most certainly claim that Clinton will greatly hurt the Dem brand. But doesnt hurting the Dem brand from your stand point also hurt the country as it results in more GOPers getting elected?

No because I'm fine with Republicans getting elected in general (Congress, State, etc...), just not for the presidency next year. The Republicans that could survive a presidential primary this cycle, however, would most likely not be ones that I'd be interested in supporting. And you are certainly free to make such claims about Clinton destroying her party, but just not with that level of certainty and still call it reasonable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hillary is extremely intelligent and accomplished.

This talking point is getting extremely annoying. Hillary's actual resume is actually quite unremarkable.

- Before 2000 she was a mere political spouse. Granted, an active one, although the way she handled healthcare initiative makes me very sceptical about her abilities to get things done (sure, Republicans bear most of the blame for killing it, but she performed quite poorly). I doubt anyone could claim with all seriousness she would've become Senator and then a presidential candidate without being married to the President of the United States and her status of First Lady, as opposed to female politicians with careers on their own.
- No accomplishments as Senator. She was a celebrity politician and presidential-candidate-in-waiting rather than doing any meaningful legislative job.
- Very poor handling of the 2008 campaign she was expected to win.
- As Secretary of State, she merely carried out Obama's policies. That how being a Cabinet Secretary works. Yes, she was a good subordinate, but not a leader.

[IceSpear]

- No accomplishments as Senator. She was a celebrity politician and presidential-candidate-in-waiting rather than doing any meaningful legislative job.

Oh god, the irony.

[Ebsy]

- No accomplishments as Senator. She was a celebrity politician and presidential-candidate-in-waiting rather than doing any meaningful legislative job.

Oh god, the irony.

Should she strive to accomplish as much as such luminaries as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul?

[King]

Democrats shouldn't want Hillary to run. Ultraconservative PR men said so. If you can't trust them, who can you trust?

[Beet]

Hillary is extremely intelligent and accomplished.

This talking point is getting extremely annoying. Hillary's actual resume is actually quite unremarkable.

On the contrary, these throwaway superlatives do not do her justice.

She was the elected president of the Wellesley College Graduate Association, where she "organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty" and was "instrumental in keeping Wellesley from being embroiled in the student disruptions common to other colleges," and a "number of her fellow students thought she might some day become the first female President of the United States". She was the first student commencement speaker in Wellesley's history, and gave a speech which received a 7-minute standing ovation and was featured in Life Magazine.

She entered Yale Law School only the second year after it began to admit women, the first class having only 7 women. There, she researched childhood development to contribute to a then cutting-edge work, wrote a frequently-cited article in the Harvard Education Review on the children's' rights movement, and worked as a congressional aide for Walter Mondale. After law school, she served on the Watergate impeachment committee researching the historical grounds for impeachment, sitting to the left of inquiry leader John Doar.

By then, her star was considered so bright that Democratic consultant Betsey Wright moved to Washington from Texas in part to help her political career, and "thought Rodham had the potential to become a future senator or president". When Bill Clinton decided to run for congress in Arkansas, she was "on the phone with him, sometimes four times a day, giving him advice, mentoring him". When a friend discovered a letter from her to Bill around this period, it "talked of thier future plans... politicial plans that is the best way tot put it... the letter had everything to do with their careers, so unusual in that there was no talk of home, family and marriage."

Would Bill have been elected president without her?

She joined the Rose Law firm, the oldest law firm west of the Mississippi, as its first woman partner, and continued to publish scholarly articles. An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades." She was campaign director of field operations in Indiana for Jimmy Carter, on the board of directors for the Legal Services Corporation, and was chair of the board for two years during which funding increased threefold.

This is just until 1980!

If I go on any longer, no one will read it (if you made it this far).

All of the above is reduced to "a mere political spouse"?

The woman had accomplishments in spades. I mean look, I don't think you're a sexist or anything, but it stinks how when a woman is married to a man whose career is more high flying than hers, her own accomplishments, no matter how great, get somehow erased and dissolved and folded into his identity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But she does have a career of her own. That's the thing. No one says that Obama doesn't have a career of his own because he wouldn't be where he is without Michelle (who helped him sell himself as authentic to black community) or David Axelrod (who helped him sell himself to whites) or wealthy Chicago donors like Penny Pritzker (who bankrolled his early career). He wouldn't be where he is without any of those people. None of us would be where we are without our parents, at the very least.

Why is Hillary held to a higher standard then? No one says Ted Kennedy never had a career of his own because he wouldn't have been Senator had he not been a Kennedy.

When she put on that wedding ring she didn't stop becoming a person. She didn't give up her right to a career. Nor did she when her husband was elected. She ran for Senate, putting together a campaign, visiting every county in New York, staking out positions, participating in debates, making ads, just the same as everyone else who runs a Senate campaign. Her race was competitive.

She got as much legislation passed as one could expect of a junior Senator in the minority who was given no special favors. Does she have a seminal law in her name from her time in the Senate? No. Neither does Obama or any other Senator running for president this year. Neither did Jack Kennedy. Everything she has, she's accomplished out of her own efforts.

She did great in her 2008 campaign. She was only favored by a relatively small margin throughout most of the campaign. She was running against a phenomenon-- a guy who could get 20,000 people to show up at my alma mater to see him (Howard Dean only 3,700; Gore only got 800). A guy who could get 20,000 people in blood red states like Idaho and North Dakota and Kansas to show up and see him. A guy who received incredibly positive news coverage -- Chris Matthews even got a tingle up his leg! -- and endorsements from most major newspapers, as well as the party's previous presidential nominee, and its most famous senior Senator. A guy who could rack up 95% of the vote in a demographic that made up 20% of the primary electorate, leaving her with the option of winning the rest by a landslide if she wanted to win by the narrowest of margins.

And yet she still pulled even -- winning roughly the same amount of votes, and winning the last primary in South Dakota even as the media was calling the nomination for Obama.

And yet she endorsed Obama immediately, campaigned for him, and served as his Secretary of State without drama, and led her State Department for 4 years, during which time she initiated talks with Iran on its nuclear deal that now look likely to bear fruit.

And that's still not enough?

[Deus Naturae]

If you don't see what a huge deal the email thing is, you're either a massive hack or just ignorant about what happened. It isn't just that Hillary deleted her emails, it's that she blatantly violated State Department rules by handling all of her emails on a private server (not even a private address, she set up her own server ran out of her apartment so that it would be even harder for the public to see her messages) so that the public wouldn't be able to see them (something they could do via FOIA requests if she had used a .gov address as she was supposed to), and then after this is all revealed, she deletes thousands of emails.

How are you going to tell me she was not doing all kinds of criminal things? This would be funny if it wasn't so likely that she could elected President despite this. It's just ridiculous.

[IceSpear]

Democrats shouldn't want Hillary to run. Ultraconservative PR men said so. If you can't trust them, who can you trust?

Reince Priebus and Trey Gowdy should be drafted to run in the Democratic primaries tbqh. These brave men are the only ones with enough spine to take on the far right neoliberal warmongering bitch.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

But she does have a career of her own. That's the thing. No one says that Obama doesn't have a career of his own because he wouldn't be where he is without Michelle (who helped him sell himself as authentic to black community) or David Axelrod (who helped him sell himself to whites) or wealthy Chicago donors like Penny Pritzker (who bankrolled his early career). He wouldn't be where he is without any of those people. None of us would be where we are without our parents, at the very least.

Why is Hillary held to a higher standard then? No one says Ted Kennedy never had a career of his own because he wouldn't have been Senator had he not been a Kennedy.

But everybody pretty much agrees that Ted Kennedy became Senator only because this was handed the seat to him by his family's political machine. The same way Hillary's rise on the elected office was so rapid because she was the First Lady of the United States. And that is an advantage other female politicians never enjoyed. I'm sorry, but lots of her popularity comes directly from Bill's popularity as President.

Well, she did have an impressive legal career on her own (sorry for not being clear enough), but not a political one. And the fact Obama had even less impressive resume before his election doesn't change anything.

For the record, I'm not saying she would make a bad President (hell, she'd certainly be far better than any of the Republican bras), because of the resume (or lack of thereof), since it doesn't really determine a leader's qualities, but let's be objective about this.

[Beet]

But she does have a career of her own. That's the thing. No one says that Obama doesn't have a career of his own because he wouldn't be where he is without Michelle (who helped him sell himself as authentic to black community) or David Axelrod (who helped him sell himself to whites) or wealthy Chicago donors like Penny Pritzker (who bankrolled his early career). He wouldn't be where he is without any of those people. None of us would be where we are without our parents, at the very least.

Why is Hillary held to a higher standard then? No one says Ted Kennedy never had a career of his own because he wouldn't have been Senator had he not been a Kennedy.

But everybody pretty much agrees that Ted Kennecy became Senator only because this was handed the seat to him by his family's political machine. The same way Hillary's rise on the elected office was so rapid because she was the First Lady of the United States.

Which everybody pretty much agrees.

But if I say Ted Kennedy was an intelligent and accomplished man, are you going to use the fact that he was handed his seat to him by his family's machine to argue that he wasn't intelligent or accomplished?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, she has an impressive political career of her own, just as Obama does. The fact that some of her popularity comes from Bill's success as president doesn't erase the fact that she's had manifold accomplishments apart from Bill's success as president, and that she's done enough politically to have a career independent and distinct from him.

Sheesh.

At this point, I want the first female president to be the wife of a former president just so that spouses get some respect.

[King]

she blatantly violated State Department rules by handling all of her emails on a private server (not even a private address, she set up her own server ran out of her apartment so that it would be even harder for the public to see her messages)

State Department rules she wrote herself and were not in place under her predecessors.

Aren't strict constitutionalists like yourself complaining about the executive branch writing their own laws?

If Congress is concerned about cabinet members using government email addresses, they should pass a law about it.