Battle of the dueling Hypocrites: HerM vs Drumpf

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 3:57am

For a good laugh, sometimes nothing beats a "serious'" article in HuffPo. Braving an enforced encounter with the EQ, which I did for the sake of journalism, I read and, worse yet, listened to HerM giving sage opinions on...wait for it! Hypocrisy.

Wow, amongst the many things at which the EQ excels is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is stock in trade for politicians and HerM had almost cornered the market. Her latest book Wha Happen'd includes the claim that she messed up by putting her presumably government emails on an unsecured illegally-operated private server but still found time to blame 19 other people and/or agencies for the biggest political upset since ~~Dewey beat Truman~~. Oops! It was the other way around, wasn't it?

For your delectation, circumspection, and delight, here is said masterpiece of hypocrisy rendered as only HerM could.

There are some smidgens of fact in her interview, as all good lies must be flavored by just enough veracity to reel in the fish. For instance, she refers to DJ Trump as a hypocrite. No! What a surprise! And those naughty Trumpistas in the WH using illegal private servers (or was it only email accounts?) to conduct official graft and corruption, much like Herself and Hussain.

HRC then condemns Republicans for "politicizing" the Benghazi disaster; seemingly forgetting the roles of Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, Patrick Kennedy, and other unindicted co-conspirators concocting the "spontaneous demonstration fable", so as to shift the blame from her lack of diligence in protecting the consulate. Chris Stevens--expendable. Truth--likewise.

But, since HerM emails were simply about yoga and grandchildren, this is all much ado about nothing. 110 SAP classified documents. Oh, forget that! Chelsea's wedding was much more important. Hussain promised to bomb an Iraqi wedding that same day as a fiery gift. He like this so much, he ordered a few more weddings and hospitals "neutralized".

Tags:

HRC

Trump

hypocrisy

Vote

Comments

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 7:36am

Thanks, AE. You and I seem to feel very similarly about

Hillary, to whom some Republicans refer as "Crooked Meemaw."

Only slightly less famous than the technique of the Big Lie is the technique of accusing others of your very own faults. Condemning others for your own faults, which Hillary has done for years, is the height of hypocrisy. And which hypocrite but Hypocritical Hillary could take hypocrisy to even further heights by hypocritically accusing others of hypocrisy? Bless her heart: Just when you think she can't possibly get any more deplorable, she outdoes herself!

IIRC, some fool here was doing a series on Hillary's hypocrisy, entitled Hillary, thy name is.....(Spoiler alert: the series was intended to prove that her name is Hypocrisy. https://caucus99percent.com/content/hillary-thy-name-ispart-seven IIRC correctly, the first part of the series even began with Hillary, thy name is......Hypocrisy, but I'm not sure and too lazy to look for it.) Same fool also wrote a couple of times about the technique of the Big Lie. https://caucus99percent.com/content/pants-fire; https://caucus99percent.com/content/big-lie-russia-interfered-us-preside...

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 1:13pm

Delving deeply into the Wayback Machine

@HenryAWallace I found a most erudite article by a fellow, coincidently also named Henry, explaining just one of the many hypocrisies (or do we now call them simply misstatements?) perpetrated by the EQ.

I will plug your essay for all the HerM-haters as a remarkable literary journal of HerM's many misstatements. I am particularly fond of the following string of nouns:

Wouldn't that be racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, parochialism and provincialism?

Mellifluous.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 2:29pm

Thank you, AE!

@Alligator Ed

Submitted by Lookout on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 8:35am

The Russians did it!

The ultimate hypocrisy. We know she manipulated the primary elections to defeat Bernie. We KNOW the $hill and DNC rigged the primary and corrupted the people's votes.

But wait there's more... how about interfering in Ukraine in order to weaken Russia. (Oliver Stone has definitive proof in his documentary "Ukraine on Fire" currently on Prime) The $hill was in the middle of that too. Not to mention outright aggression to change regimes in Libya. And then to holler election interference...she is too much. A liar, cheat, and warmonger. Please go away!

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 1:23pm

Unfortunately, HerM will not go away

@Lookout Because she is a sociopathic vampire, she feels only delight in spilling other people's blood (and perhaps imbibing it with her bloody Marys). The woman has no shame--nor heart. I am sure that chest imaging would show an elaborate blood distributing machine with gears and joints in place of the heart she doesn't have.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJRgKRCbY9Q]

Submitted by Snode on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 2:48pm

Hmmm

@Alligator Ed I think she'll be back because she's acceptable to both r's and d's. There's a lot of overlap in donorship, and it keeps the base riled up. She'd be gold for the NRA.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 3:07pm

@Snode

@Snode

...She'd be gold for the NRA.

I was going to make a 'target practice for money-throwers' joke, but then realized that this would be in poor taste... I hope you admire my restraint as much as I do, because it was darned close for a while there.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 3:19pm

As a reptile, Ellen, I admire your restraint

@HenryAWallace @Ellen North

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 4:31pm

@Alligator Ed

@Alligator Ed

Well, thank you. It wasn't easy to maintain!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 11:34am

And Billary's last big F.U. was...

The normalizing, ascendancy and election of her patsy, the Great Orange Cheeto, Dipshit Trumpsterfire.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 1:26pm

And who said you can't polish a turd?

@The Aspie Corner Comparing anything to HerM is to give lustre to the subject, including an orangutang.

Submitted by Socialprogressive on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 3:57pm

Speaking for Orangutans

@Alligator Ed

We like it when you don't spell our name with a G at the end, and we really like it when you don't compare us to that vile creature that masquerades as the president. A comparison we Orangutans have done nothing to deserve.

—

We come from dust. We will return to dust.
That's why I don't dust. It my be someone I know.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 4:20pm

Please forgive me, orange brother

@Socialprogressive

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 4:32pm

@Alligator Ed

@Alligator Ed

Orange you can believe in!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Socialprogressive on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 5:16pm

All is well brother gator

@Alligator Ed

You are forgiven.

—

We come from dust. We will return to dust.
That's why I don't dust. It my be someone I know.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 8:02pm

Fact or fiction?

@The Aspie Corner

Here are two articles that say that Trump was a Clinton plant.

Bombshell Report: Trump Is A Secret Clinton Plant

The Plan from the Beginning: "The Lesser of Two Evils"

This one goes in much more detail about how the election was planned for Hillary to run against Trump, but he wasn't supposed to win. I'm not sure what to make about all the issues in this article because I can't determine if it's based on facts or on conspiracy theories. How many times does one have to hear the same things before they aren't conspiracy theories?
I have no idea but what with many things in this article coming true or has already happened, I'm keeping my mind open.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 9:17pm

@snoopydawg

@snoopydawg

From the first link:

...An extraordinary secret collusion between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has been revealed in a Democratic National Committee file released by Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who claimed responsibility for breaching the DNC database. ...

Going by what I've read, it seems that anything based in info provided by Guccifer 2.0 needs to be examined for faked/previously publicly released information.

Not that I know anything about this stuff myself, and cannot seem to search out some very good breakdowns I'd read some time ago, but following a skim, this gives what looks to me like a comprehensive enough overview, with article lists at bottom:

http://g-2.space/

Guccifer 2.0: Game Over
We've seen deliberately placed "Russian Fingerprints", efforts to forge perceived association to Wikileaks, DNC breach claims discredited, How Guccifer 2.0 Used "Trump Opposition Research" like it was an identity card the day after it was cited by Shawn Henry in a Washington Post article, noted how he could only ever "hack" the DNC, lacked syntactical traits of a Russian speaking English and recently - has been shown as most likely to have accessed some of his files locally, probaby from the DNC network (within the Eastern Time zone).

The list of "Additional Articles" are articles unique to this site. These provide further information showing how, why, where and when questionable APT28/29 attributions to Guccifer 2.0 occurred (all were ultimately tenuous) as well as various other relevant topics.
Update - September 23rd, 2017

by ADAM CARTER (email) ...

http://theduran.com/russiagate-new-yorker-assange-guccifer-2-0/

More Russiagate: The New Yorker, Julian Assange and Guccifer 2.0

by Alexander Mercouris Alexander Mercouris
August 15, 2017

... Julian Assange announced in the middle of June 2016 that Wikileaks was preparing to publish information damaging to Hillary Clinton. When Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the scene in early July 2016 several weeks had already passed after Assange’s announcement. If Guccifer 2.0 wanted to claim credit for a leak of the emails it actually had nothing do with, then nothing would have been easier than for it to pretend to impatience as the days without the emails appearing.

As for the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was blackmailing Wikileaks by threatening to provide the emails to others unless Wikileaks published them, there is nothing in Khatchadourian’s claim that warrants that claim. Besides if Guccifer 2.0 wanted the emails published as quickly as possible, why would it go to the trouble of blackmailing Wikileaks rather than simply providing the emails to someone else would be less careful about publishing them? The blackmail theory not only lacks evidence but lacks logic.

As for some of the other claims Khatchadourian makes, such as that that some of the same material published by Wikileaks was also published by DCLeaks – which Khatchadourian assumes to be connected to Guccifer 2.0 basically because he assumes that both are connected to Russia – I am entirely unable to see why that proves that Wikileaks must have got this material from Guccifer 2.0, let alone from Russia. As I will discuss below, Scott Ritter is also unable to follow this logic, and is of the same view. ...

... In other words it is so unlikely as to be all but impossible that Guccifer 2.0 has anything to do with Russian intelligence; there is no hard evidence that connects Guccifer 2.0 to the alleged hack of the computers of the DNC and John Podesta claimed by Crowdstrike; and there is no evidence which connects Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks.

I have nothing to add to Scott Ritter’s points save to say that if Guccifer 2.0 really were a Russian intelligence operation then the logic behind it escapes me.

Why if Guccifer 2.0 really were created by Russian intelligence would the Russians go out of their way through Guccifer 2.0 to claim that Wikileaks had obtained the emails because of a hack, when most people’s assumption would otherwise have been that Wikileaks obtained the emails through a leak? Would the Russians not realise that claiming it was a hack would draw suspicion upon them? Would it not make far more sense to leave Wikileaks alone to do its job by publishing the emails? Is that not far more consistent with the sort of covert operation a highly professional intelligence service like the Russian might be expected to carry out than the all-too public bragging of Guccifer 2.0?

As for the Russians needing to use Guccifer 2.0 to pressure Wikileaks to publish the emails, why – as I have said previously – would the Russians if they were becoming impatient with Wikileaks not have provided the emails through someone else? Why if they wanted to blackmail Wikileaks could they not have done it privately? Why create a whole public persona like Guccifer 2.0 to do it when again that would merely have drawn suspicion back upon them?

Needless to say, if the Russians nonetheless really did create Guccifer 2.0 in order to blackmail Wikileaks – implausible though that frankly is – would they not have taken basic precautions to ensure their identity was concealed?

Overall the whole Guccifer 2.0 persona looks just too childish and amateur to be the work of Russian intelligence, which is of course precisely the point Scott Ritter makes. ...

With any luck, a number of others will have posted more useful information, but this at least provides a warning for that all-essential salt-shaker to be kept handy.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by MsGrin on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 12:48am

@Ellen North also http://g-2.space

@Ellen North also http://g-2.space/wapo2/

#3.2 From the first link: ...An extraordinary secret collusion between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has been revealed in a Democratic National Committee file released by Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who claimed responsibility for breaching the DNC database. ... Going by what I've read, it seems that anything based in info provided by Guccifer 2.0 needs to be examined for faked/previously publicly released information. Not that I know anything about this stuff myself, and cannot seem to search out some very good breakdowns I'd read some time ago, but following a skim, this gives what looks to me like a comprehensive enough overview, with article lists at bottom: http://g-2.space/ Guccifer 2.0: Game Over We've seen deliberately placed "Russian Fingerprints", efforts to forge perceived association to Wikileaks, DNC breach claims discredited, How Guccifer 2.0 Used "Trump Opposition Research" like it was an identity card the day after it was cited by Shawn Henry in a Washington Post article, noted how he could only ever "hack" the DNC, lacked syntactical traits of a Russian speaking English and recently - has been shown as most likely to have accessed some of his files locally, probaby from the DNC network (within the Eastern Time zone). The list of "Additional Articles" are articles unique to this site. These provide further information showing how, why, where and when questionable APT28/29 attributions to Guccifer 2.0 occurred (all were ultimately tenuous) as well as various other relevant topics. Update - September 23rd, 2017 by ADAM CARTER (email) ... http://theduran.com/russiagate-new-yorker-assange-guccifer-2-0/ More Russiagate: The New Yorker, Julian Assange and Guccifer 2.0 by Alexander Mercouris Alexander Mercouris August 15, 2017 ... Julian Assange announced in the middle of June 2016 that Wikileaks was preparing to publish information damaging to Hillary Clinton. When Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the scene in early July 2016 several weeks had already passed after Assange’s announcement. If Guccifer 2.0 wanted to claim credit for a leak of the emails it actually had nothing do with, then nothing would have been easier than for it to pretend to impatience as the days without the emails appearing. As for the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was blackmailing Wikileaks by threatening to provide the emails to others unless Wikileaks published them, there is nothing in Khatchadourian’s claim that warrants that claim. Besides if Guccifer 2.0 wanted the emails published as quickly as possible, why would it go to the trouble of blackmailing Wikileaks rather than simply providing the emails to someone else would be less careful about publishing them? The blackmail theory not only lacks evidence but lacks logic. As for some of the other claims Khatchadourian makes, such as that that some of the same material published by Wikileaks was also published by DCLeaks – which Khatchadourian assumes to be connected to Guccifer 2.0 basically because he assumes that both are connected to Russia – I am entirely unable to see why that proves that Wikileaks must have got this material from Guccifer 2.0, let alone from Russia. As I will discuss below, Scott Ritter is also unable to follow this logic, and is of the same view. ... ... In other words it is so unlikely as to be all but impossible that Guccifer 2.0 has anything to do with Russian intelligence; there is no hard evidence that connects Guccifer 2.0 to the alleged hack of the computers of the DNC and John Podesta claimed by Crowdstrike; and there is no evidence which connects Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. I have nothing to add to Scott Ritter’s points save to say that if Guccifer 2.0 really were a Russian intelligence operation then the logic behind it escapes me. Why if Guccifer 2.0 really were created by Russian intelligence would the Russians go out of their way through Guccifer 2.0 to claim that Wikileaks had obtained the emails because of a hack, when most people’s assumption would otherwise have been that Wikileaks obtained the emails through a leak? Would the Russians not realise that claiming it was a hack would draw suspicion upon them? Would it not make far more sense to leave Wikileaks alone to do its job by publishing the emails? Is that not far more consistent with the sort of covert operation a highly professional intelligence service like the Russian might be expected to carry out than the all-too public bragging of Guccifer 2.0? As for the Russians needing to use Guccifer 2.0 to pressure Wikileaks to publish the emails, why – as I have said previously – would the Russians if they were becoming impatient with Wikileaks not have provided the emails through someone else? Why if they wanted to blackmail Wikileaks could they not have done it privately? Why create a whole public persona like Guccifer 2.0 to do it when again that would merely have drawn suspicion back upon them? Needless to say, if the Russians nonetheless really did create Guccifer 2.0 in order to blackmail Wikileaks – implausible though that frankly is – would they not have taken basic precautions to ensure their identity was concealed? Overall the whole Guccifer 2.0 persona looks just too childish and amateur to be the work of Russian intelligence, which is of course precisely the point Scott Ritter makes. ... With any luck, a number of others will have posted more useful information, but this at least provides a warning for that all-essential salt-shaker to be kept handy.

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 3:23pm

@MsGrin Thanks!

@MsGrin

Thanks!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by MsGrin on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 12:52am

@Ellen North and https:/

@Ellen North and https://climateaudit.org/2017/09/02/email-dates-in-the-wikileaks-dnc-arc...

#3.2 From the first link: ...An extraordinary secret collusion between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has been revealed in a Democratic National Committee file released by Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who claimed responsibility for breaching the DNC database. ... Going by what I've read, it seems that anything based in info provided by Guccifer 2.0 needs to be examined for faked/previously publicly released information. Not that I know anything about this stuff myself, and cannot seem to search out some very good breakdowns I'd read some time ago, but following a skim, this gives what looks to me like a comprehensive enough overview, with article lists at bottom: http://g-2.space/ Guccifer 2.0: Game Over We've seen deliberately placed "Russian Fingerprints", efforts to forge perceived association to Wikileaks, DNC breach claims discredited, How Guccifer 2.0 Used "Trump Opposition Research" like it was an identity card the day after it was cited by Shawn Henry in a Washington Post article, noted how he could only ever "hack" the DNC, lacked syntactical traits of a Russian speaking English and recently - has been shown as most likely to have accessed some of his files locally, probaby from the DNC network (within the Eastern Time zone). The list of "Additional Articles" are articles unique to this site. These provide further information showing how, why, where and when questionable APT28/29 attributions to Guccifer 2.0 occurred (all were ultimately tenuous) as well as various other relevant topics. Update - September 23rd, 2017 by ADAM CARTER (email) ... http://theduran.com/russiagate-new-yorker-assange-guccifer-2-0/ More Russiagate: The New Yorker, Julian Assange and Guccifer 2.0 by Alexander Mercouris Alexander Mercouris August 15, 2017 ... Julian Assange announced in the middle of June 2016 that Wikileaks was preparing to publish information damaging to Hillary Clinton. When Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the scene in early July 2016 several weeks had already passed after Assange’s announcement. If Guccifer 2.0 wanted to claim credit for a leak of the emails it actually had nothing do with, then nothing would have been easier than for it to pretend to impatience as the days without the emails appearing. As for the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was blackmailing Wikileaks by threatening to provide the emails to others unless Wikileaks published them, there is nothing in Khatchadourian’s claim that warrants that claim. Besides if Guccifer 2.0 wanted the emails published as quickly as possible, why would it go to the trouble of blackmailing Wikileaks rather than simply providing the emails to someone else would be less careful about publishing them? The blackmail theory not only lacks evidence but lacks logic. As for some of the other claims Khatchadourian makes, such as that that some of the same material published by Wikileaks was also published by DCLeaks – which Khatchadourian assumes to be connected to Guccifer 2.0 basically because he assumes that both are connected to Russia – I am entirely unable to see why that proves that Wikileaks must have got this material from Guccifer 2.0, let alone from Russia. As I will discuss below, Scott Ritter is also unable to follow this logic, and is of the same view. ... ... In other words it is so unlikely as to be all but impossible that Guccifer 2.0 has anything to do with Russian intelligence; there is no hard evidence that connects Guccifer 2.0 to the alleged hack of the computers of the DNC and John Podesta claimed by Crowdstrike; and there is no evidence which connects Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. I have nothing to add to Scott Ritter’s points save to say that if Guccifer 2.0 really were a Russian intelligence operation then the logic behind it escapes me. Why if Guccifer 2.0 really were created by Russian intelligence would the Russians go out of their way through Guccifer 2.0 to claim that Wikileaks had obtained the emails because of a hack, when most people’s assumption would otherwise have been that Wikileaks obtained the emails through a leak? Would the Russians not realise that claiming it was a hack would draw suspicion upon them? Would it not make far more sense to leave Wikileaks alone to do its job by publishing the emails? Is that not far more consistent with the sort of covert operation a highly professional intelligence service like the Russian might be expected to carry out than the all-too public bragging of Guccifer 2.0? As for the Russians needing to use Guccifer 2.0 to pressure Wikileaks to publish the emails, why – as I have said previously – would the Russians if they were becoming impatient with Wikileaks not have provided the emails through someone else? Why if they wanted to blackmail Wikileaks could they not have done it privately? Why create a whole public persona like Guccifer 2.0 to do it when again that would merely have drawn suspicion back upon them? Needless to say, if the Russians nonetheless really did create Guccifer 2.0 in order to blackmail Wikileaks – implausible though that frankly is – would they not have taken basic precautions to ensure their identity was concealed? Overall the whole Guccifer 2.0 persona looks just too childish and amateur to be the work of Russian intelligence, which is of course precisely the point Scott Ritter makes. ... With any luck, a number of others will have posted more useful information, but this at least provides a warning for that all-essential salt-shaker to be kept handy.

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 10:05am

The analysis by Steve McIntyre is so compelling

@MsGrin that it leads me to wonder if there are ANY serious journalists in the MSM. The Devil is in the details--and also in Chappaqua.

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 3:23pm

@MsGrin And thanks again!

@MsGrin

And thanks again!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by MrWebster on Tue, 09/26/2017 - 3:34pm

Hillary will do for democrats what Jim Jones did for Kool-Aid.

With Hillary on the road running the same world view and persona of the campaign now through her book tour, the democratic party is engaged in a slow motion Jonestown. As in the primaries, Clinton, the democratic establishment and their media allies are attacking Bernie and the progressive wing. And if if they succeed, they as in the election will then offer voters nothing.