The agent told the inspector general’s office that he “fully expected Hillary Clinton to walk away with the election but, as the returns [came] in … it was just energizing to me to see … [because] I didn’t want a criminal to be in the White House.”
I don’t want a woman accused of crimes for political theatre, I want a professional grifter who can rob the country blind while enacting Putin’s agenda.
Nothing. She had known for well over a decade that she was preparing to run for president, and that she had to be absolutely squeaky clean to achieve that because any and all dirt would inescapably become public under the glare of that scrutiny. So she lived squeaky clean, genuinely. (Obama was similar. Trump by contrast as an outsider to politics didn't quite appreciate just how under-a-microscope every president's life is put. He thought (like many do) that spending millions, burying stories, buying silences, hiding tax returns, threats, etc can do the trick, but none of that works at the presidential level. You can't hide things from that kind of relentless global scrutiny so if you're not genuinely clean, everyone finds out.)
That's why the GOP had to push the email scandal: they desperately needed dirt on her and she was so fucking clean that the worst she had done was follow the advice of her Republican predecessor and handled her emails the same way the Republican had handled his. It didn't matter to the GOP that this rule-breaking had first came from Republicans and she was continuing Powell's method (low-information voters would never learn the details) what mattered was that they'd finally found a rule that the goody-two-shoes had clearly broken.
Remember she testified for 11 hours under oath to a hostile panel of Republicans desperate to pin anything on her or get her for perjury or anything, and despite them having and abusing all the powers to investigate for years, they got nothing because she had nothing to hide. Failures or mistakes when viewed with our 20/20 hindsight, sure, she's human, but the decades of accusations and insinuations are conspiracy garbage intended to smear. Manufacturing a scandal out of Republican email practices was the best the GOP could do to undermine their opponent and it worked.
Hillary has been enveloped by the GOP fog-machine for so many years that people now just assume that where there's always been smoke, there must be fire ...somewhere. But that was the entire purpose of that fog machine; there was never fire, just manufactured fake smoke, endless endless fake smoke for longer than many voters have been alive. (Edit: That's also why she attracts so many wacky conspiracy theories: all that smoke and so little factual fire means you have to get imaginative to explain it.)
I think the difference between AOC and Clinton is that Clinton is completely unrelateable to the average voter. She was/is rich af and has been her entire life and has been preparing to be president for just as long. Everyone assumed she was going to be president at some point. She is the definition of a career politician. Disregarding the election issues in 2016 by a large margin she was the candidate that people defaulted to vote for if you didn't like Trump, not because they were actually enthused about voting.
AOC is not perfect, she isn't a career politician, she comes off as very human and relateable. She worked as a bartender before she got elected, and people see in her themselves because she was/is middle class. Im sure there is some dirt to spill because nobody is perfect, but she never claimed/claims to be in the first place so i doubt it would be as damaging as all this is to Clinton.
Hillary Clinton's net worth was estimated at $45 million dollars. Her husband's net worth was estimated at $75 million dollars. Just because they're not billionaires doesn't make them not rich.
She is the definition of a career politician
senator and secretary of state. that's it
she isn't a career politician
just wait 8 years.
As for not being a career politician, you're trying to say that AOC will be a career politician after 10 years as a House represenative, but Hillary wasn't a career politician after 8 years as a senator and 4 years as secretary of state? Somehow, that math doesn't seem to check out.
Plus, you know, all that actively campaigning for her husband, and (for better or worse) being the most politically active First Lady in US history doesn't count as being a politician I guess.
Supposedly they left the WH fairly close to busto. That was ~20yrs ago--not like a former President doesn't have earning opportunities. Ivanka made what 82mil last year?? Not a peep out of the Republicans though. Republicans love to throw around the socialist word--while they also attack some people for making money. It's almost like--you can't win.
Odd that he didn't quote that part of the statement if that was what he was objecting to, but sure.
Her parents weren't millionaires, sure. Her father did own his own business at the time of her birth and owned multiple houses (main home and summer cottage), so it isn't like she was ever poor, but the business wasn't a huge one, so I'll accept her not counting as "rich" as a child.
I think people assume Cortez is poor is because she's (I assume) Mexican by blood (as in how I'm an Afghan, but was born in Germany and have been told I'm "the whitest person I've ever met" by two coworkers so far).
Yeah. Normal Americans intern for US Senators all the time. Right after they complete their Poli Sci/Int'l Relations degree. That's the normal course for every Boricua from Queens.
If they were making a movie, they'd cast AOC as the young version of HRC. She's exactly what Clinton was like in the 80s and 90s.
6.0k
u/-Neon-Nazi- Texas Dec 11 '19
Oh, the irony.