Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Clinton Lies About Lying About Her Lies

The newly revived email controversy shows how she manages to be less trusted than Trump.

According to a Fox News poll conducted last week, 67 percent of likely voters do not think Hillary Clinton is "honest and trustworthy." That is five percentage points more than said the same thing about Donald Trump—an amazing accomplishment, since the blowhard billionaire can barely open his mouth without lying.

Clinton's credibility with voters may be even weaker than that poll suggests, since it was completed before FBI Director James Comey disclosed that agents had stumbled across another trove of emails that crossed the unsecured private server she improperly used as secretary of state. Whether or not the FBI finds any previously unidentified messages containing classified material, the discovery reminded everyone of Clinton's tendency to pile lie upon lie instead of coming clean about her mistakes.

"I'm not making excuses," Clinton said at a rally in Ohio on Monday. "I've said it was a mistake and I regret it."

Clinton did not manage to describe what Comey later called her "extremely careless" handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information" as a mistake until six months after The New York Times revealed her reliance on a personal email system during her tenure at the State Department. Until that interview, she did nothing but make excuses, and even afterward she continued to offer false assurances aimed at minimizing her misbehavior.

Clinton claimed that "what I did was allowed," that she "fully complied with every rule," that "there is no classified material" in the emails she sent and received, and that she "went above and beyond what I was requested to do." She also said she "opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two."

As investigations by the State Department's inspector general and the FBI later showed, none of that was true. Clinton did not comply with every rule, she did not turn over all her work-related email to the State Department or do so in a timely fashion, the email did include classified material, her use of a private account was contrary to State Department policy, and she carried multiple devices despite saying she sought to avoid them.

Notwithstanding these manifest misrepresentations, Clinton falsely claimed Comey had verified the truthfulness of her public statements about the email controversy when he said he did not have any basis to charge her with lying to the FBI. Then she said that whopper was based on a misunderstanding, which clearly was not true. In other words, she lied about lying about her lies.

"After a year-long investigation," Clinton said during her second debate with Trump last month, "there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using." As Comey pointed out in July, the fact that the FBI did not find evidence of hacking does not mean it did not happen, since cyber spies are good at covering their tracks.

Clinton also said "there is no evidence…that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands." Whether or not classified material in Clinton's email actually "ended up in the wrong hands," she recklessly took that risk, which is enough to charge her with violating federal law.

Explaining his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton, Comey said such a prosecution would be unjust without evidence that she had knowingly broken the law. But he conceded that the statute criminalizing the removal of classified information "from its proper place of custody" allows prosecutions based on "gross negligence."

After the FBI examines the newly unearthed emails, Clinton said on Monday, "I am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked at my emails for the last year: There is no case there." That may not be true even in the narrow legal sense, and it certainly is not true of the case against Clinton's honesty.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Unintended Consequence||

    "Hillary is a reliable person and an honest person." - Bill Weld

  • Bgoptmst||

    Weld in the "Never Trump" crowd?

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Now I'm just voting for Trump to annoy Bill Weld.

  • ioconnor||

    Yeah, I might do the same. The Democratic Machine threw all the horse shit at Johnson. I will continue to vote for Johnson but if anybody is too weak and wants to hurt the party that hurt Johnson then vote against Clinton.

  • Billy Bones||

    Unfortunately, I, too, am seriously considering voting for Trump. Have not voted for a non-Libertarian in 20 years, but election is close here in Georgia (very surprisingly, to me at least). It just really depresses me that this election has become an all out "vote against" campaign rather than "vote for", including now, the Libertarian party.

  • Animal||

    I'm in Colorado. We have mail-in ballots here. I voted Trump. So did Mrs. Animal.

    Sometimes the difference between good and bad is not nearly so stark as the difference between bad and worse.

  • ||

    Finally, all you Trumpets come out of the closet! You're voting for the KGB! Do you know what that means!? Commies!

  • ||

    You're voting for the KGB! Do you know what that means!?

    Burning my local polling place to the ground strikes a blow for democracy?

  • peerodin||

    Animal it appears that it is voting for the difference between catastrophe and armageddon. I can sure feel great about myself for voting for two ass clowns like Johnson and Weld. I've wasted enough of my votes since 1980, when I voted for Ed Clarke when he ran.

    It was best summed up for me about fifteen years ago while attending a Libertarian Function, when a guy sitting at my table remarked: "They have really interesting ideas but don't move the needle too much."

    Let this mother burn and hopefully out of the ashes something resembling a constitutional republic appears. Because from where I sit the constitution appears moribund. As a nation you get what you deserve.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Crossing 5% would help future libertarian candidates. Maybe they'd be shit candidates, maybe they wouldn't be. But I'd rather give improve their prospects then vote non-LP simply to spite Bill Weld.

    It was a mistake to put him on the ticket. Handicapping the next LP candidate does nothing to fix that.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That's true. The solution is vote trading - a swing voter (Johnson vs. Trump) voter in a safe state agrees to vote Johnson if a swing voter in a swing state votes Trump.

    I'm in NY. Who's willing to vote Trump to secure my Johnson vote?

  • R C Dean||

    They actually do a version of this in Congress - its called pairing, used when a critter will be absent for a vote. The one who will be absent finds somebody who would vote the other way, and the other critter agrees to not vote (technically, to vote "present"). That way the absence doesn't affect the outcome.

  • tarran||

    After 12 years of running candidates like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, I really don't see the LP as anything but another political party.

    You think Johnsons and Weld are bad? Just watch what the power hungry will do to the LP the moment they judge it to be a credible path to power.

    Thus, the "hold your nose and vote for Johnson/Weld so the next retread Republican candidate has an easier time getting on the ballot" argument is utterly unpersuasive to me.

  • ||

    Damn...

    *pounds head* refresh! refresh!

  • LynchPin1477||

    Well, if you think the LP becomes useless as soon as it starts to wield any real power then it seems like you've given up on libertarianism in the political process altogether.

  • GILMORE™||

    Well, if you think the LP becomes useless as soon as it starts to wield any real power then it seems like you've given up on libertarianism in the political process altogether.

    Not really.

    I've frequently said that the LP has little/no appeal to me, as i don't think a candidate who advertises themselves as "a Libertarian" (as in, "a Noun") instead of someone who has libertarian sympathies/instincts (an adjective) would ever be able to win or work within the DC political framework.

    My view has always been that libertarians make the greatest headway by latching on to single issues and pushing aggressively for reform. Its effectively "politics by policy". You don't need to give the policy any political brand, and it doesn't require people buying into a lot of unrelated ideology. They can support the given policy reform because its simply a better articulated/conceived approach.

    "Ending the drug war" is harder to sell as an ideological cause ("people have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies!") than as a practical one. (e.g.
    It simply isn't working, and look at the problems it has wrought?") Most agree with the latter but not the former case.

    That same disparity exists across the policy-universe. People will buy into the substance of the policy-shift, but not for libertarian reasons - but because its a plausible alternative.

  • R C Dean||

    My view has always been that libertarians make the greatest headway by latching on to single issues and pushing aggressively for reform.

    I tend to agree, but there's a missing link here: you can't push policy very far unless it moves votes (mainly) or otherwise has some kind of incentive for the other politicians to support it (like favorable press coverage, etc.). I'm not sure how we, as libertarians, fill that missing link in.

  • LynchPin1477||

    At the risk of sounding contradictory, I don't think we will make progress unless we see a larger cultural shift towards more libertarian-friendly attitudes. But that doesn't mean a libertarian political party is useless. There are feedback loops and having a visible political party that can make the case for libertarian policy can assist that cultural shift and when (or if) it occurs, provide a vehicle for change.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    At the risk of sounding contradictory, I don't think we will make progress unless we see a larger cultural shift towards more libertarian-friendly attitudes.

    Everyone's a libertarian when they're looking in a mirror judging themselves.

    They turn into progs or wingnuts when they're looking out the window judging the neighbor.

  • LynchPin1477||

    That's all reasonable, but tarran seemed to be arguing that once something becomes influential that it will be overrun by opportunists and it will become diluted. I don't totally disagree with that but I don't see it as an argument for non-action. But more to your point, why would it be any different if it was small or big "L" libertarianism?

  • Prince Iple of Pal||

    Libertarians seem perfectly happy to let their political philosophy wither on the vine by not participating in the political system. The wisdom seems to be that the only way to win is to not play. Of course this is a giant pile of horse shit.

    The only way to play is to be the opportunists, and get involved at every level of the political process. Drop the idea of getting people to subscribe to your label, run under the party banner that gets the most votes in your area. Most people cast straight party votes, they're not going to switch sides for you and they won't notice a subtle shift in their party. Almost anything can be excused as long as the right letter is next to your name.

    Libertarians can find commonalities with either major party, only push issues where this overlap exists with your chosen party, abstain if it conflicts. Find areas where libertarian issues can be tacked onto your host team's platform. See if you can't find an after-rationalization that's a shoe-in for your "team", like "racism", or "security".

    Even if only a few hundred people (ie. the number of people who comment here daily) did this, every level of government would be pretty libertarian within a couple of decades. All that is needed is enough people to control the swing vote in a given legislative body.

    When enough people are entrenched in the system, you can start walking back the status quo by "reaching across the aisle" on liberty issues.

  • GILMORE™||

    It also reminds me of a phrase a guy said to me when i was trying to pitch a consulting deal. He wanted to achieve X goal, and i started to lay out the myriad services we could provide to get there, and he laughed and said,

    "You're trying to sell me a cadillac and all i want is the ashtray"

    I liked that. His point was really that he could only sign off on tiny portions of the project, because he didn't have the kind of purchasing authority; and he could only use small parts of the work himself as well. Selling the whole project would require getting buy-in from 8 other people, and he didn't care about their parts.

    Same idea applies to the whole "Libertarianism as a "Single Political Package" instead of as a buffet of ideas. Lots of people want to come to the buffet, but nobody wants to swallow the whole shebang. Even if people find the ideological parts *appealing*, most people don't think about politics that way, and are simply interested in some alternative that feels comfortable and trustworthy.

  • ||

    It was a mistake to put him on the ticket. Handicapping the next LP candidate does nothing to fix that.

    I'd say Weld was the second mistake. Voting LP would only encourage such behavior.

  • tarran||

    I envy you for your succinctness

  • LynchPin1477||

    I think the dynamics of the LP are qualitatively different than in the other parties because it's smaller, and true believers have more influence. I don't think the LP is going to embrace someone like Weld in 2020 just because they barely managed to scratch 5%.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Exactly. The LP ruined a great chance to get some really good publicity in an election cycle where they could look like the responsible adults in the room. Instead they run the black-sheep uncle and Mata Hari. The Johnson/Weld strategy cost the LP way more than they could've hoped to gain; the national party's resources are much, much better spent supporting local and state candidates. If you can't get a Libertarian in Congress there's not a chance in hell that you'll get one in the White House.

  • Peripetaia||

    Agreeing with Tarran on mad.casual's response. Much better than I've been able to articulate without a string of expletives and guttural sounds.

    The LP has to be held to the same standards as the legacy parties. I've voted Libertarian since Marrou in '92. But if these jokers think they earned it with this clown circus, you're only encouraging them for more of the same stupidity.

    It didn't take much to shine in this electoral cycle. A power-hungry entitled psychopath versus a bellicose sociopathic narcissist. Or did I get that backwards? It hardly matters.

    WELD? Disconnected, Boston brahmin, country club Republican, and Clinton sycophant. Something you'd want to scrape off of your shoe quickly if it got on there.

    On the LP ticket, no less. What a stinking piece of establishment dross.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'd rather give improve their prospects then vote non-LP simply to spite Bill Weld.

    Not to mention the fact that Weld will never know that you voted Trump to spite him. Unless you personally tell him. Anyone got his email address?

  • DenverJ||

    bweld@clinton.com

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Heh. Good one.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Georgia is solid Republican. Don't believe the Georgia is a swing state nonsense.

    If you live in Atlanta, the votes there only account for a few counties. Most of the counties will go Trump, so Georgia goes Trump.

  • Fribley||

    Think of the future of the party, Weld is not going to win anyway but if we can get 5% of the vote then that is a game changer for the future. Voting against the ticket just to say "fuck you" to Weld (who won't be able to run as a Libertarian ever again) is only going to hurt the party and the nation.

  • Ron||

    I decided i had to vote for Trump because he is the only hope we have of at least maybe saving the 2nd amendment and stopping Hitlery and hopefully in four years all parties will have learned their lesson and put forward real candidates. i won't hold my breath

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'm just not going to bother voting. In fact, I may never vote again after this shitshow. Fuck the system, I don't care anymore.

  • ||

    winner, winner chicken dinner.

    I'm out of the game too.

    But I will admit that I am a second order Trump supporter - I think, even for all his awfulness, he will be a better president that Hillary. Of course one term of Trump could make the next Democrat president even worse than Hillary as the public decides anything is better than the shitshow of Trumpism.

    W's Iraq misadventure allowed Obama to get in and he, by any historical measure, was (and still is) unqualified to run a lemonade stand.

    Again, hard to read the tea leaves. Obama really did change the course of American politics - stuff that would have been laughed at twenty years ago are now considered serious ideas.

    Lately I've been feeling that the America I grew up - the idea of equality before the law, free speech, free market, etc- is dying before my eyes.

  • Ron||

    I don't think there is a democrat as evil and criminal as Hillary keeping her out is the best thing. there are others that I disagree with but they are not Hillary

  • ||

    I'm just not going to bother voting. In fact, I may never vote again after this shitshow. Fuck the system, I don't care anymore.

    Down ballot still applies. Otherwise, I really want to bring a hamburger to throw at someone.

  • thom||

    Then you have no right to complain, right?

    (Of course, if you do vote you're agreeing to the outcome of the election, so no complaining in that case either.)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's what "they" want you to do.

  • Fribley||

    Allow me to thank you for helping to fuck up the entire nation just so you can annoy Bill Weld.

  • eyeroller||

    Weld was half right: she is reliably dishonest.

  • Chipwooder||

    Bill Weld is one of the very few people on earth I'd consider less trustworthy than Hillary! Clinton. Fuck that guy with a rusty reciprocating saw.

  • MJBinAL||

    Bill Weld is ALMOST what he has always been, a Liberal Democrat posing as a Republican. Now he is a Liberal Democrat posing as a Libertarian.

    He is still a establishment insider, just like always.
    He is still a tax raiser, just like always.
    He is still a confirmed liberal, just like always.

    And, as Gary Johnson's chosen VP, tells us more than we ever wanted to know about Gary Johnson.

    Never Trump?

    NEVER CLINTON and NEVER JOHNSON.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I cringed when Weld mentioned that he has known Hillary for 40 years. it was all down hill from there.

    Weld has been a LINO for some time. Before that he was RINO.

    I am more surprised that he was not actively sabotaging the Libertarian tickets since the convention.

  • ||

    Jesus fuckity fuck. I did have a 'meh' attitude about the Libertarian ticket. Now I am pissed. Who selected Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne as the L candidates?

    Bravo.

  • spqr2008||

    Damn... Now I have to convince some family friends (The Christmas family) to name one of their kids Lloyd. First or middle doesn't matter, they'd think it's hilarious, considering the first of my generation is Anna Marie Christmas.

  • Radioactive||

    OMG, you mean to say that possession of a vagina does not confer sainthood?

  • MikeT1986||

    Damn CosmoCuckitarians, look how in the bag they are for Hitlery!

  • Eric Bana||

    I think this is what Weld was actually trying to say. He's clearly nuts otherwise.

  • Rockabilly||

    Anyone but Clinton.

  • Bubba Jones||

    If Weiner has classified information on his laptop, doesn't this go from hypothetical recklessness to a verifiable mishandling of classified information?

    Why isn't that a big deal? Why is that brushed off as "these are the same emails we knew about"?

  • Animal||

    Because Clinton.

  • ThomasD||

    When a Clinton says "move on," you move on.

    It's a sort of reflex action that practically defines the Cosmotarian. It's like they aren't even aware that they are being brushed off.

  • ThomasD||

    cf. "No smoking gun"

  • R C Dean||

    It was a verifiable mishandling when they found the first classified email on Hillary's private server. Period, full stop.

    Applying the same "super mens rea" standard to email found on Weiner's laptop will lead to the same result as when it was found on Hillary's private server.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It was a verifiable mishandling when they found the first classified email on Hillary's private server. Period, full stop.

    This. She should have already been indicted. Since she wasn't, it's safe to assume she won't be over this new batch of emails either. Unless they find a classified email that she personally forwarded to Saudi royals, the Chinese government, Putin, or whoever, they'll never charge her. And even then I think she'd still skate.

  • ||

    Unless they find a classified email that she personally forwarded to Saudi royals, the Chinese government, Putin, or whoever, they'll never charge her. And even then I think she'd still skate.

    Yeah, the only thing that she wouldn't skate on would have to be something that ends along the lines of 'BTW, Lynch might as well be a muppet with our arm up her ass and we'll hang Comey out to dry when the time comes.'

  • ||

    Exactly Bubba. Hillary Clinton's official SOS emails are on the personal laptop of a guy who sends dick pics to underage girls. A laptop the FBI is searching for child pornography.

    I cant even imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if it were an R in this position, yet for her it is crickets. The situation is unbelievable.

  • Ron||

    Republican or a General or anyone but Hillary and her legion of minions

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because Trump is Hitler and anything goes to stop Hitler.

    There is probable cause to arrest Clinton on mishandling classified information. The government refuses to do that.
    This new investigation is either real or an attempt to take the blame off Clinton- last minute- and have a scapegoat go down for "tricking Queen Hillary".

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, Trump was already going to win before all this new FBI stuff. Watch Democrat reaction and it is very telling because they know Hillary is losing. The more desperate Team Hillary gets, the clearer the Trump landslide will be.

  • the other Jim||

    Clinton also said "there is no evidence…that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands."

    If there is a single piece of classified information on Anthony Weiner's computer, I would like to revisit her claim. Because if Anthony Weiner doesn't count as "the wrong hands," I'm not sure who would. You couldn't ask for a more untrustworthy little twerp, and one who would be massively vulnerable to blackmail, to boot.

  • I can't even||

    Yes - although Clinton rules dictate that she never admit it.

    And...the emails she sent to Sid Blumenthal included details on the locations, movements, and security detail of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

    Certainly classified material and, since Blumenthal had no government posituon or need-to-know, the "wrong hands".

    Then his email was hacked and, coincidentally?, the Ambassador was murdered in a well-planned attack by people who knew where to find him and what to expect for security.

  • ||

    I have been saying this since the email scandal broke...that she is personally responsible for what happened in Benghazi because of her email. You know damned well if we can figure that out that military and leo brass knows it.

  • tarran||

    Who needs blackmail?

    I'm sure a hot teenage girl could get him to install a rootkit on his computer very easily.

  • ||

    Silk-stocking cryptanalysis?

    With Weiner's track record of intelligence, I wouldn't be surprised by half-a-dozen emails to a Russian bride named Ivana Passvort.

  • R C Dean||

    There has been plenty of classified emails already found in "the wrong hands". Again, as long as the DOJ applies their
    Hillary-only "super mens rea" standard, we'll get the same result.

    About the only thing that would lead to actual criminal action against Hillary or her immunized minions under this standard would be an overt offer to sell classified info to a foreign nation, with a documented paper trail of payment and subsequent transmission of the info.

  • ||

    I find it hard to believe that some foreign actor hasn't catfished the Weiner.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    18 US Code 798 Disclosure of Classified Information:
    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    ....

    It does not matter is Weiner is that unauthorized person. Hillary knowingly and willfully communicated, transmitted, furnished and used the classified information in a manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the US.

  • ||

    I wonder if the Clintons sent over Guido and Antonio to pay Comey a nice visit, and on Friday he's going to make the final announcement exonerating Hillary of any wrongdoings, or else.

  • Adans smith||

    Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Commence Operation "Big Pussy".

  • ||

  • straffinrun||

    4~8 years of this. Just looking at the silver lining.

  • straffinrun||

    Outed myself as the guy who doesn't click on links, eh. Meh, Great minds, right?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I can't wait for this thing to be over.

  • PurityDiluting||

    This train will never reach the station. Not Nov 8, not ever

  • Social Darwinist||

    She lies when the truth would serve her better. When she isn't lying, she speaks in legalese so that her true position is obscured. A good example is her stance on TPP. She says she is opposed to TPP "in its current state". What that means is up to interpretation. It could mean that if she wins the election she would change one word in the TPP agreement and shazam now it is good enough for her to support. Or, it could mean she would want to completely rewrite it. When pressed to define her position she starts talking about tangent items then pivots off the topic. This is how she operates on every item.

    What is her biggest lie? If not the whole e-mail/private server debacle then it has to be the lie of her being a champion for women and children. We've heard from everyone supporting her that she has worked her whole life fighting for women and children, yet while she was a senator, her only legislative position, she did not get any legislation for women or children passed. http://www.nationalreview.com/.....e-success, Wikipedia shows 3 bills enacted into law, all 3 were for naming or renaming buildings and highways. Yeah she's a real champion.

  • ||

    She's a sociopath. I wonder if she even knows herself now, after decades of pathological lies, if she's even telling the truth or not?

  • I can't even||

    I watch her with the sound muted. She looks fucking nuts with her eyes zipping in opposite directions whenever she gets excited.

  • ||

    That pointing thing she does is extremely creepy.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't think she knows anymore. There's an email pointing out that Clinton's "I opposed gay marriage in order to block the Republican's proposal for a Constitutional amendment" is completely false, but that there was no point in trying to get her to change because after she tells a lie a few times, she believes it. And these are her inner circle, supporters, who say this.

  • commodious cam't contmpla..||

    She is a sociopath and highly solipsistic. She doesn't think she lies, she thinks she shapes the truth. Lies are for little people who have something to hide from the world, but Clinton believes she owes nothing to the peasants and enablers beneath her.

  • R C Dean||

    She says she is opposed to TPP "in its current state". What that means is up to interpretation.

    My interpretation is that she is putting the US negotiating position up for sale. "In its current state" means she's willing to agree to changes? What changes? Why, those changes desired by the highest bidder.

  • Paper Wasp||

    The most gobsmacking part of this whole season has been watching many social media friends basically parrot this virtuous "history" of hers that never was, ever. The "worked her whole life fighting for women and children" thing is incredibly common in my FB feed. My other favorite is all the magical things she's done for black and brown people that she's never actually done, at all. (The evidence usually boils down to, "she has black friends." Ah. OK.) I think I've got 10 people left whose posts I can fucking stand to read.

    It's painful to watch, because you think you have smart friends, and then, the smug Clinton drinking buddies over at the New York Times print some fantasy horseshit about her being "the most honest candidate" who's "spent her career fighting for the rights of minorities and women", and without a citation of a single incident or resulting piece of legislation or policy to back up their hagiography, your friends just repost this shit without a split second's critical analysis, usually with a metric ton of emetic virtue-signaling about how dangerous it would be to vote for Trump. Because the NYT said she was honest, so it must be true.

    Trump is a worthless, incompetent mafioso shit sculpture, but I confess to hoping he'll beat Hillary, just because she and her followers' planet-sized sense of entitlement and self-approval is begging for a beatdown next Tuesday night.

  • tarran||

    I find all these developments quite cheering.

    A long time ago, having concluded that there were no registered candidates running for president who were capable or inclined to doing a good job, I decided I would write in "None of the Above".

    It's pretty clear that decision was a wise one; all the subsequent events have confirmed that early conclusion that there was no one I wanted in that seat. Sure, I joke about the internal battle between NOTA and voting for Freddy and the Biped, but in reality, I haven't had to agonize about the decision at all.

    Incidentally, Johnson isn't the only one betrayed by his VP; Mike Rowe recently asked people not to vote for Freddy, a vicious stab in the back of the only decent candidate in the race by one who should be his best friend.

  • Chipwooder||

    +1 Mongomery Brewster

  • ||

    I wonder when The KGB Assange releases the big one?

  • The Other Kevin||

    I'm wondering about this too. Kim Dotcom has mentioned there is a big email release coming. (Some have guessed he is the hacker behind this, not Russia). And it has been pointed out that none of the emails so far have been from Clinton; they were all from her underlings. Were they saving her emails for last? Will Clinton and her October surprises be out-flanked by a November surprise?

  • spqr2008||

    I wouldn't be surprised that Kim Dotcom wants revenge against the U.S. Government for taking him down at the behest of Hollywood, and since the ultimate way to piss off Hollywood is to help get Trump elected, maybe he is behind it.

  • thom||

    They should get on that then. We're going into the last big news-cycle before the election. Get that stuff out there so America can chew on it over the weekend.

  • the other Jim||

    Agreed. I have been waiting for the Clinton camp to unload their final, damning piece of oppo research on Trump. I figured there has to be something worse than the Billy Bush footage floating around out there, and that the Clintons or their allies have it, waiting for the ideal time to release it. But now it's getting down to the wire, which makes me wonder if they really did already use up their ammo.

    Same would apply to Wikileaks. If they have something of Hillary's, they're running out of time to publish it and influence the election.

    (Disclaimer: I detest both of these candidates and am not rooting for either of them. Just trying to derive entertainment value from this shitshow.)

  • I can't even||

    The Peter Kadzik angle is getting juicier.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....ds-podesta

  • commodious cam't contmpla..||

    Wow, is that dirty. And the odds of heads rolling over this are...

  • ||

    Zero as long as Clinton wins.

  • straffinrun||

    This is how you lie.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You don't get elected and make a lot of money by telling a bunch of truth.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    In addition to the lies, there are the constant attempts at changing the subject. Trump said the word "pussy"! The Russkis are trying to throw the election to Trump! By releasing facts to the public, those insidious bastards!

    The whole thing with Democrats slagging the Russians is extra funny. I can remember a time when anybody who harbored the slightest suspicion of Russia was mocked by the Democrats as a whackjob.

  • R C Dean||

    As recently as four years ago, in fact.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    +1 "Cold War mentality"

  • ||

    "I'm not making excuses," Clinton said at a rally in Ohio on Monday. "I've said it was a mistake and I regret it."

    "It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

    -- Joseph Fouché about the execution of the Duc d'Enghien

  • PurityDiluting||

    She never explains what she means by "it", leaving people to fill in the void with their preferred definition of what 'it' is.

  • Mr Lizard||

    Welcome to the cocktail party assholes.

  • Florida Hipster||

    Thanks. I'll have a sidecar.

  • Cyto||

    Ok, I'm going to drop an anecdote on you guys. It may not sound momentous, but it is earthshaking.

    My sister-in-law, a school teacher, union member, lifelong yellow-dog democrat and rabbid repeater of DNC talking points told me

    "I just can bring myself to vote for Hillary. I was a Hillary supporter until a few weeks ago, but then I just realized that I cannot vote for her."

    I asked her if she was going to vote for Jill Stein.

    "I don't know if she's on the ballot. Anyway, I'm not voting for her. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

    To underscore the power of this shift..... this is the woman I've told you about before. The one who was all mad at George Bush because her all-Democrat school board in a straight democrat county wasn't offering her union enough of a raise so they were going on strike. No explaining that the President has nothing at all to do with her salary negotiations could move her.

    From that we have evolved to a Gary Johnson vote.

    Maybe those polls are full of crap.

  • ||

    I've overheard several women while on-site at one of my client's workplace, in the past couple weeks, say they aren't voting because they can't support Clinton. This is sort of shocking in that the place is full of Democrats. Seriously, I don't care what a buffoon Trump is, how can anyone actually watch Clinton talking and not be totally creeped out by her? Everyone knows by now that she's a lying crook. A lying crook who is extremely creepy.

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    Can you imagine 4-8 years of having to listen to that shrill, nails-on-a-chalkboard cackle every time you turn on the news? It would be like a never-ending repeat of the Wizard of Oz, except without the heartwarming witch-melting at the end.

  • GeoffB1972||

    But why couldn't it end that way? I heard the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice so...

  • skunkman||

    Well, she won't make it even four years because she will end up resigning in disgrace because she will lose too much dem support and they won't want to get their ass kicked in 2018. That is, if she wins.

    Trump is awful. But there has not been a worse candidate for President that Hillary Clinton is. Heck, even Leonard Peltier was a more honest candidate.

    Shrillary talks about the basket of deplorables. Deplorable is anyone that would vote for her; they are just bad people. Sure, there are some real asshats voting for Trump but most of his support seems to be coming from people that are so pissed off that his stupid comments don't matter.

    I wish Johnson has prepared better and had a better organized campaign. I'll still vote for him, despite his dumbass VP, but he can't win.

  • ||

    Did you send her a clip of Also Sprach Zarathustra? Union zealots rarely have a moment of such self questioning and clarity.
    This vote could have the unintended consequence of having many of the "low-info" voters realizing there are more than two parties.

  • ||

    Go with O' Fortuna, has a better initial impact.

  • Paper Wasp||

    This is what I've been thinking of every new poll result: there's a distinct possibility that the people they're polling won't have a damned clue who or what's actually on their ballots until Tuesday. Or that the poll is scrubbed afterwards, like the CNN poll was after the first Prez debate to lump 3rd-party and independent voters into a generic "Undecided" bucket, to filter out candidate choices the pollsters feel are fringe or noise.

  • PurityDiluting||

    There is so much concern trolling to lower the Johnson vote. Even Weld's in on the act.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But I have it on good authority* that Clinton is a "reliable... trustworthy person."

    *Fuck Bill Weld in the ass with a rusty chainsaw and then run the remains through a woodchipper. I had offered tepid defenses of his anti-Trump statement from last week, but that shit he said on Madcow last night was the straw that broke this camel's back. I'm officially not bothering to vote this year. Not that it would have mattered if I did.

  • ||

    Why should a libertarian vote for Johnson just because he's running on the LP ticket? Isn't that just more of the same old team shit that we're all against?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Why should a libertarian vote for Johnson just because he's running on the LP ticket?

    You shouldn't. I've never argued that anyone should. Everyone should just vote (or not) as they like. I'm just tired of having to justify voting for Johnson when his running mate is out there spouting horseshit. The Madcow stuff is just the final straw. I don't think I can justify voting for Johnson at this point. If I could vote for President and VP separately I'd vote for Johnson for president and I don't know who for VP (maybe no one). But since I don't think that's an option in CO, I'm just not gonna bother.

    In a lot of ways, it's actually kind of relief to no longer care enough to expend the minuscule amount of effort it would take to fill out a ballot.

  • ||

    My post was a sort of concurring with what you said. I'm not voting. There is no one worth a vote who's running. If I did vote, it would be for Trump as a fuck you to that hag on team blue.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "They" don't want you to vote. At least go and vote for other positions besides president, but it's your right not to vote.

    I voted for Trump because then I piss of Weld, Hillary, progressives, Democrats, liberals, Madcow and the biased media, most of Congress and Obama. Trump winning is literally the biggest fuck you that can happen to most corrupt people this year.

    It will be glorious!

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • Sevo||

    Clinton lies like most people breathe.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I did not RTFA, as usual, so maybe it was addressed, but-

    Everybody left of Attila the Hun is bitching and moaning about Comey's apparent change of heart (or whatever you want to call it). What if he has been sitting on an honest-to-god simmering insurrection among rank and file FBI agents since he so loudly proclaimed "Nothing to see here"?

  • Sevo||

    "Everybody left of Attila the Hun is bitching and moaning about Comey's apparent change of heart (or whatever you want to call it)"

    Toles' editorial cartoon today has Comey emptying a tank labeled "Federal Bureau of Innuendo" into something labeled 'the GOP campaign' or some such.
    Darn that guy for releasing facts!

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    Toles is such a butthurt little bitch. Steve Urkel oozed more testosterone than that guy.

  • Mark P||

    It is not just Hillary Clinton that is a pathological liar. The entire Clinton organization is a cesspool of liars and cheats: Bill Clinton, John Podesta (dump those email ASAP), Donna Brazile (fired from CNN for lying and cheating), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (fired for favoritism as DNC chair), Loretta Lynch (saying that her secret meeting with Bill Clinton was only to talk about their grandchildren), Huma Abedin (lied to the FBI), etc etc etc. Hillary is just the head of a gigantic snake.

  • ||

    I can't believe this sociopath liar is going to lead a country.

    She's WORSE than Trump on so many levels.

  • Ron||

    I don't mind crooks but Hillary is more dangerous than Trump as well

  • zombietimeshare||

    "I'm not making excuses," Clinton said at a rally in Ohio on Monday. "I've said it was a mistake and I regret it." adding, "I've learned from my mistakes and next time I won't get caught."

  • woodNfish||

    Are the people at unReason really so stupid that had to have the leaked emails to figure this out? You'd think HRC didn't have the history of shady and most likely criminal activity that she does.

  • Johnny B||

    Now Hillary is saying she was in NY on 9/11. Powerline is all over it. She was on the capitol steps singing "God Bless America" with every other senator...

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....-lying.php

  • John C. Randolph||

    Seems to me that the best possible outcome in this fracas is Hillary wins the vote, gets indicted, tried and convicted, then gets impeached and removed from office on Inauguration Day. What's his face, the veep candidate won't get shit through the congress. He'll be basically the Democrat version of Jerry Ford.

    -jcr

  • SamHell||

    lol

  • Kevin47||

    Isn't it high time Reason vouched for her?

  • FarmboyEsq||

    Hillary needs a theme song, and here it is...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXjbXGyQDsE

  • Alan@.4||

    If the ordinary citizen pulled half the crappy stunts Clinton pulls, it would have been Off To The Bastille with them, long since. Think she has compiled her own Black Book, akin the one J. Edgar Hoover supposedly had compiled?

  • RonR||

    While Hillary has not formally taken the 5th Amendment in any forum, I consider that Hillary has de facto taken the 5th Amendment constantly. She has not had a press conference for close to a year, and either refuses to answer questions all together or deflects questions with non-answers and changing the subject. That, in reality, is not really practically different than taking the 5th. It is so obvious that it is ludicrous - laughable if not so sad. But she mostly gets away with it all. It is bad enough to be lied to but it is worse to be lied to by a person who knows that you know she is lying but just doesn't care.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online