MSNBC: Libertarian VP candidate Bill Weld discusses the new investigation into emails related to Hillary Clinton’s email server. Weld also reads from George Orwell’s ‘1984.’
Weld’s running mate, Gary Johnson, appears to hold a different position on the issue.
H/T to Michigan Voter in the comments on that article who alerted me to Weld’s most recent Morning Joe appearance (video above). Michigan Voter writes, in part:
…Bill Weld made clear this morning on Morning Joe that people should vote for her. When asked about his own campaign, Weld said in a passive voice “The Libertarian argument is”, making it clear that it was not something he believed. He was asked who he was voting for (amazing that it would even be in question). He said something along the lines of “I am going to vote for the ticket I am on, but the most important thing is that Trump be defeated.”
He also spent most of the show as a Clinton surrogate fighting against the FBI Director. ….
“I don’t have endless time to play games. If you want to demonstrate how the articles say something other than what they seem to say, make your case, otherwise I am taking them at face value. This is taking more than enough time already.”
Matt, you do realize that the person who first revealed the Clinton private email server was Guccifer, a Romanian lone wolf extradited to the United States(on other computer crime charges). This is an objective fact…no dispute. The face value is that at least one lone wolf hacked Clinton/DNC.
A statement like:
“The recent DISCLOSURES of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the agencies said.”
is state propaganda. Period. It doesn’t even address hacking. It addresses DISCLOSURES. As such, there is no face value to that statement. It is a McCarthyist association logical fallacy. E.g, Scientist X is a Soviet agent because X’s methods (the scientific method) are consistent with the methods of Soviet-directed scientists. In this case, however, I’m not even sure it even meets the gutter standard of guilt by association because I’m not aware of any “leak platforms” exposed as Russian fronts. It actually is more like a Doublethink standard, which is: anyone who leaks something we don’t like, we reserve the discretion to smear them as agents of Russian intelligence. Certainly in the case of Assange/Wikileaks you have a 10 year history of publishing leaks of governments/corporations all over the world, including previous far more damaging leaks against the US Govt such as Collateral Murder, Iran and Afghan war logs, State department cable leaks. Yet, this is the first we hear of Assange being someone who employs methods and exhibits characteristics consistent with Russian-directed efforts. Of course, the huge archive of leaks against the Russian government
https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia&exact_phrase=&any_of=&exclude_words=&document_date_start=&document_date_end=&released_date_start=&released_date_end=&new_search=True#results
are consistent with what? Double-agent? Assange the CIA operative?
Beyond me how anyone can take such obviously comical state propaganda seriously. Particularly when you have the resources at your fingerprints to immediately dispel such nonsense. I’m sure the Dept. of Fatherland Security would love to have a Ministry of Truth on hand to erase/change history, but as this instance demonstrates, it often doesn’t seem all that necessary. I appears Orwell was too much of an optimist(he thought things like “ministry of truth” being a necessity for governments to be able to get away with it).
What a disgrace. He may yet get Johnson to come in behind Stein.
Bill’s on Rachael, MSNBC Now..
Hopefully he helps save the Republic again
YES… Though he didn’t say then word Vote for her…
“I disagree with that statement”… the GJ Statement putout with his picture.
“I am here to speak up for Hillary Clinton”…
He didn’t say a person in NC should vote for her, but he did everything but!!
Bill’s on Rachael, MSNBC Now..
Hopefully he helps save the Republic again
“If you want to demonstrate how the articles say something other than what they seem to say”
They say EXACTLY what they seem to say. Two US intelligence agencies say they are “confident” that the hacks come from the Russian government because they appear “consistent” with Russian government cyber operations (the same release says they’re less “confident” that the election site hacks are Russian state in origin).
No actual evidence or reason to believe that it’s anything other than what it looks like: The most that they can get away with saying in support of the Clinton campaign’s “pay no attention to the content, just hate on !THEM RUSSIANS!” line without looking like assholes if real evidence ever appears and that real evidence exposes the claim as complete bullshit.
In Podesta’s case, he appears to have been compromised in at least one case by a standard phishing tactic: He — and his IT staff — fell for an email telling him that he needed to update his Google password, click here to take care of that.
Is that method used by Russian state actors? Quite possibly. Of course it is also used by pretty much every cyber-criminal in the world. Probably 50 such attempts a month make it past my filters and into my inbox.
I don’t have endless time to play games. If you want to demonstrate how the articles say something other than what they seem to say, make your case, otherwise I am taking them at face value. This is taking more than enough time already.
Matt,
OK, you have two intelligence agencies that say something other than what you said they are saying. Anything else?
Knapp,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/us-blames-russia-for-targeting-election-systems/
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/07/us-officially-blames-russia-for-political-hacking-attempts.html
“Especially since he is simultaneously refusing to sign on to the report of multiple other intelligence agencies that says Russian government agencies are involved with interfering in the US elections and hacking Clinton emails etc.”
I keep hearing/seeing references to multiple agencies saying that.
What I haven’t been able to find is a single instance of any agency ACTUALLY saying that.
A couple of agencies have made statements to the effect that it’s possible that the techniques they think may have been used to obtain the Clinton emails could be consistent with the hacks having originated in Europe, maybe even in eastern Europe, possibly even in Russia and conceivably with state or state-connected actors.
If you’ve seen any actual statements from any actual agency saying anything more firm than that, I’d be interested in a link.
“The question that bugs me is this: Was Comey genuinely (if reluctantly) trying to cover Clinton’s ass and keep her out of jail in July, or was he just pretending to be doing that when he actually had every intention of reversing himself in late October?”
My guess would be the latter. Especially since he is simultaneously refusing to sign on to the report of multiple other intelligence agencies that says Russian government agencies are involved with interfering in the US elections and hacking Clinton emails etc. And also refusing to release public statements about the inquiries into Manafort’s dealings in Russia and Ukraine “because it would unduly prejudice the election” as if the statement about the unknown content of the emails on the Abeddin/Weiner computer doesn’t do that.
Well, the timing is certainly suspect as political considerations go. No doubt about that.
On the other hand, without knowing what’s in the emails, there’s no way of knowing whether or not it’s a “nothingburger.”
And keep in mind that the whole “no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary Clinton for things that anyone except Hillary Clinton would be in orange coveralls and leg irons over because, after all, she’s Hillary Clinton” thing was clearly political as well.
The question that bugs me is this: Was Comey genuinely (if reluctantly) trying to cover Clinton’s ass and keep her out of jail in July, or was he just pretending to be doing that when he actually had every intention of reversing himself in late October?
He was brought on to be asked about Comey.
He gave his opinion, not a surrogate, his opinion.
Nothingburger, mis timed, solely to interfere with election, and hopefully after election a fireable offense.
Then he showed a small part of what a Trump presidency will look like.
And hopefully his small, limited vote total (See “”what Is Aleppo?) will other than the Libertarian 1-2 will come from Trump.
Bill Weld and Evan Mcmullen may just be saving our Republic.
“Weld (at least in theory) is part of a ticket that is running AGAINST Hillary Clinton. For him to use all of his air time to passionately defend her and basically be a surrogate is a betrayal to the party that nominated him and to Gary Johnson. He should use it as an opportunity to gain Clinton votes and be part of the attack.”
You are absolutely correct.
“I am not a Libertarian, but I watched him at that convention and it makes sense now as to why he did not want to answer the question as to whether he would betray the LP or not.”
Actually, he did answer the question, and promised he never would. I do not believe he told the truth.
“We have only ourselves to blame for Weld. He lied to the New York LP, pretty much fucking them out of ballot access, in 2006. We knew he was a snake and picked him up anyway.”
Also correct.
“Perot maximized his eventual support by dropping out in mid-July. He was under savage attack for appearing to be out of touch with reality. He had said the Republicans had doctored a photo of one of his daughters to make it appear that she was a lesbian. He had said the Black Panthers had invaded his home back yard by jumping over his fence in the middle of the night. But he seemed to have no evidence for either of these charges. By dropping out when he did, all those attacks on him vanished instantly.”
Except that he only brought that stuff up as a way to justify dropping out. Had he stayed in the race and not dropped out there would have never been any reason to bring it up unless
1) It was actually true, even though he had no evidence; but even then he should have realized it would sound crazy and thought up some better excuse as his public reason for dropping out
2) He really was crazy and paranoid enough to believe it, even though it wasn’t true, and didn’t know or care how crazy it would make him look by saying it for the cameras
or
3) He actually had some real reason that he wanted to drop out, such as not actually wanting to win and have to govern, so he had to find a way to come back into the race in a way where he would not have to actually worry about what he would really do as POTUS.
William Weld: Hillary Clinton’s number one cheerleader.
Weld won on the second round by 441-431. Just six people switching sides would’ve blocked him, at least for another round.
Perot maximized his eventual support by dropping out in mid-July. He was under savage attack for appearing to be out of touch with reality. He had said the Republicans had doctored a photo of one of his daughters to make it appear that she was a lesbian. He had said the Black Panthers had invaded his home back yard by jumping over his fence in the middle of the night. But he seemed to have no evidence for either of these charges. By dropping out when he did, all those attacks on him vanished instantly. And when he came back in on October 1, no one attacked him. He was only at 7% in the first poll taken after he got back in, so no one considered him worth attacking.
Michigan Voter,
We have only ourselves to blame for Weld. He lied to the New York LP, pretty much fucking them out of ballot access, in 2006. We knew he was a snake and picked him up anyway.
Some of you are missing the point. Weld (at least in theory) is part of a ticket that is running AGAINST Hillary Clinton. For him to use all of his air time to passionately defend her and basically be a surrogate is a betrayal to the party that nominated him and to Gary Johnson. He should use it as an opportunity to gain Clinton votes and be part of the attack.
I am not a Libertarian, but I watched him at that convention and it makes sense now as to why he did not want to answer the question as to whether he would betray the LP or not.
http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
“What do we learn in sum from these pre-election polls? First, we learn that from mid-July through September of 1992, Clinton’s lead over Bush was at its greatest, nationally, and consistently ranged at or in excess of 15 points, except for a very brief time after the Republican convention. Second, we learn that the race began to narrow as Perot picked up support after re-entering the race. Clinton ended up winning by about 5.5 percentage points, far below his peak margins of the summer.
Third, and most important, we learn that the vote share of President Bush stayed within a narrow range in all of the polls. In the polls cited above, his vote share ranged from a low of 31% to a high of 38%, and he ended with 37.5%. The “change” vote oscillated between the two challengers — when Perot was up, Clinton was down, and vice versa. Beyond the polls I’ve cited, the vast majority of other public polls taken between mid-July and the election showed Bush in the same range, and Clinton with the same kind of lead in a two-way match-up. Bush’s numbers just did not move very much, regardless of whether Perot was in the race or out of it.
These poll results are consistent with the dynamic of an electorate that has rendered a negative judgment on an incumbent that is very unlikely to change. Bush’s approval rating hit 40% in March of 1992 (before Perot was a major factor) and effectively stayed at or below that level until the election. By the summer and early fall of 1992, his job approval ratings were consistently in the upper 30s, and up to 75% of the voters said the country was off on the wrong track. This is a prescription for incumbent defeat; and Bush’s problems helped create Perot, not the other way around.
Exit Poll Data and the Perot Vote
Now, let’s briefly consider the 1992 exit poll data and the actual composition of the Perot vote. According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats. Fully 53% of Perot’s vote came from self-defined moderates, 27% from conservatives and 20% from liberals; so about 10 points of his 19% came from self-described moderates, with 5 points coming from conservatives and 4 points from liberals. We also know from the exit polls that the Perot voters were angrier at the political system than supporters of the other candidates. Do these Perot supporters really look like voters that would have gone heavily to incumbent Bush in a two-candidate race?
It is just possible that Perot cost Bush a state here or there where Clinton squeezed out a very narrow plurality (Colorado, Montana, Ohio and Georgia come to mind as possibilities), but there is no empirical evidence that documents this that I am aware of. Even if true for all four states (a very unlikely probability), it merely reduces Clinton’s electoral vote majority from a near landslide to very comfortable.”
“Considering how unwelcoming the LP had become to the left and progressives in the wake of the Ron Paul era, I see value in appearances like this”
How is center-rightist Bill Weld defending center-rightist Hillary Clinton from the center-right GOP Congress “valuable” to the left?
“The Libertarian argument is”, making it clear that it was not something he believed.”
Whoever wrote that is reading way too much into Weld’s comment there.
No clue why anyone but the reflexively HateHillary crowd is so upset with this appearence by Weld. He sounds eminently reasonable in the face of right wing hysterics.
Considering how unwelcoming the LP had become to the left and progressives in the wake of the Ron Paul era, I see value in appearances like this, in addition the the aforementioned reasonableness of Weld’s position, which can help to allay fears about Libertarians’ fitness for office.
Once again, none of our other VP possibilities in Orlando would have even been interviewed in a context like this. let alone for 5 minutes.
Weld’s mere appearence is a step in the right direction.
Tony,
Actually, Perot hurt Clinton more than he hurt Bush according to exit polling; his main effect was causing Clinton to win with a plurality instead of with a majority.
Bush ended up losing a number of states by a nose, including Ohio by about 1.5% and Georgia by about 1/2 of 1%. It was close coming in and that politically motivated indictment timing made a difference. There’s a good chance it made THE difference.
“He was already set to win. Thanks Mr. Perot.”
Nope. Perot’s support came equally from people who would otherwise vote for Bush and those who would otherwise vote for Clinton, plus a good chunk of those who would otherwise not vote at all or cast some other kind of non-duopoly protest vote. Bush lost because the economy sucked and the Clinton scandals had already gone through the news cycle.
Yes, I was only 18, but I do recall the indictment that was then dismissed.
Who became president? The guy whose hand I shook in 1994. Fun day.
The indictment wasn’t the reason Clinton won. He was already set to win. Thanks Mr. Perot. Had Perot not dropped out . . . who knows.
As much as this thread will be fun to go back and forth with, every time I refresh, the video on the top slows my browser down. So, I will have to depart this thread. No, please. . . don’t be upset.
Gen. Petraeus was fired by Obama for far less than what Hillary is accused of.
—–
There was a difference between “classified” and “confidential”
—–
Um, no. “Confidential” is one level of “classified.”
“Confidential” information is so classified because its disclosure would be deemed to cause “identifiable” damage to the security of the United States.
“Secret” information is so classified because its disclosure would be deemed to cause “serious” damage to the security of the United States.
“Top secret” information is so classified because its disclosure would be deemed to cause “grave” damage to the security of the United States.
Is it true that a lot of information is classified which shouldn’t be classified? Absolutely. It’s illegal to classify information to hide a crime or for political purposes, but it happens all the time.
But if you think anyone who wasn’t named “Hillary Clinton” would not have gone to jail for her grossly negligent violations of the rules pertaining to how classified information is handled, you haven’t bothered to look. Mere mundanes go UNDER the jail for far less than things that she doesn’t even deny having done.
It’s also a little bit rich for Clinton to suggest that this kind of thing is “unprecedented.”
In 1992 as the final week before the election began, polling had George HW Bush set, just barely, for re-election
Then four days before the vote, Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, on the basis of “new information” that had “come to light” in the four months since he had gained indictments against Reagan defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, got another indictment of Weinberger handed down. The “new information” mentioned Bush.
Bush’s lead went bye-bye. Do you happen to recall who became president after that, Tony? Maybe you don’t know, but I bet Hillary Clinton knows.
TK: You didn’t have to define Mens Rea for me (reminds me of Geraldine Ferarro chiding GHW Bush) . . . I have worked as a paralegal for both civil and criminal matter. . . .
If every person who had a technical violation of a law were prosecuted, our prisons would be even more overcrowded than they are now.
Of course, since we are not privy to classified information we will never know exactly what was there. There was a difference between “classified” and “confidential” and there remains a question as to when things became classified.
As Mr. Comey (not a fan of the Clintons) has said, no reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case. That remains true.
Tony,
Both Comey and Weld have, in public, completely re-defined mens rea (guilty mind/criminal intent).
According to Comey and Weld, in order to have criminal intent, Clinton had to have gleefully rubbed her hands together and cackled “breakin’ the law, breakin’ the law, I just love to BREAK THE LAW!” while breaking the law.
In real life, all she had to do to have criminal intent — if that is required, which in some cases including this one it is not — was to intend to do the thing which was a violation of the law.
You may have heard the old expression “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” If I come over to your house and shoot you, “I didn’t know shooting Tony was illegal” is not exculpatory. If I intended to shoot you, I had criminal intent.
Some laws do not require intent because they hinge instead on things like negligence or reckless disregard for consequences. If I come over to your house with a gun intending to show my gun twirling skills off and I twirl a loaded hair-trigger pistol around in front of you until it goes off and shoots you, I’m still breaking the law — manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc. — even though I did not, strictly speaking, intent to shoot you.
Clinton has admitted to actions which violated the law, even though she contends that those actions did not violate the law. Comey publicly laid out actions (both in his “ain’t prosecuting” statement and in his subsequent testimony) that there was abundant probable cause to believe she took and which violated the law, and he was quite clear that yes, they violated the law.
She was not prosecuted because she is Hillary Clinton, full stop.
^
This message paid for by Hillary Clinton. She’s Hillary and she approves this message.
Jill: ” . . . . Just wait, folks. This is not nearly over. . . . .”
Yeah, the Republicans will keep doing what they do best – obscruct, block and investigate – over and over regardless of the finding.
There was nothing to Benghazi, even after 9 investigations. Millions of Tax Dollars. This will be no different. Republicans love to claim how the want to lower spending — except when it is to fund their redundant investigations
TK: ” . . . . He already looked like an idiot in public for his “I’ve recommended not prosecuting Hillary Clinton, because even though here are 50 reasons why anyone else would be prosecuted, SHE’s Hillary Clinton” show in July. . . . ”
That’s not exactly what he said. . . I seem to recall something along the lines of “no rational prosecutor would bring this case . . . ” and that it “wasn’t even close.”
There was nothing there then and there’s nothing there now..
Just wait, folks. This is not nearly over.
Oh, and f*ck you, Weld.
“There IS nothing there.”
And you would know this how? Wait, you’re not Anthony Weiner by any chance…?
“Strange how Comey didn’t want to go public about the investigation regarding Trump / Manafort regarding Russia / Ukraine because he didn’t want to affect the election . . . .”
There, you do have a point.
Comey was between a rock and a hard place.
He already looked like an idiot in public for his “I’ve recommended not prosecuting Hillary Clinton, because even though here are 50 reasons why anyone else would be prosecuted, SHE’s Hillary Clinton” show in July.
If he hadn’t revealed that new material had been discovered now, the Republicans would have accused him of trying to affect the election by keeping it under wraps.
If he had revealed that new material had been discovered one week ago, two weeks ago, three weeks ago, or any other time, the Democrats would have accused him of trying to affect the election by not covering Hillary Clinton’s ass, just like they’re doing now.
There IS nothing there.
Comey’s decision to write the letter last week was as bad an example of poor judgement as Hillary’s decision to use a private e-mail server.
Strange how Comey didn’t want to go public about the investigation regarding Trump / Manafort regarding Russia / Ukraine because he didn’t want to affect the election . . . .