President Trump

[DavidG]

From the article Jim linked:

Based on polls with a median field date of Aug. 21 or later.

Jim, didn't you say upthread that polls over a week old are useless? How much data that would be useless based on your own criteria went into that report?

The polls conducted over the coming week, which should reflect the response to the "Commander-in-Chief" interviews (assuming no other major bombshells), will be very interesting. If the gap doesn't widen despite Trump's obvious display of gross incompetence and the media's willingness to finally call him on it rather than just "tsk, tsk" him and play the both-sider game, there really are enough angry, stupid people in the US to mean that Trump could end up winning.

[Comte Flaneur]

Put me down also in the ‘Hillary sucks’ column too. I was living in CT in 2008 and was enthralled by the election campaign, especially Hillary versus Obama. It started off as a David versus Goliath contest. Hillary assumed she had a Divine Right to the Democratic nomination, and she had no contingency plan, no plan B, and who was this upstart and interloper anyway? When Obama wouldn’t go away Bill and Hillary played the race card in subtle ways, for example by comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson and other firebrand preachers. When Obama handed here ass to her in the debates she lost the plot; ‘Shame on you Barrack Obama’ I remember her saying. Her campaign was a shambles, a complete and utter shit show, Obama’s was a well-oiled machine. He ran rings around her. Her health care proposal in the early years of the Bill Clinton administration was unworkable and ill-conceived. She hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy, and she thinks she is above the law. Moreover she is incompetent, shambolic, dishonest, unprincipled, disingenuous, and basically a nasty piece of work.

But here’s a question - probably for J Scott. But what has she done wrong? What are her top five or ten nefarious acts? Let’s leave aside emailgate for now. Unlike George W. Bush, for example, she didn’t start any illegal wars. Making $22m in three years in public speaking engagements after she stepped down as Secretary of State ‘optically’ looks bad, especially as she is now running for President, but she didn’t break the law.

[DavidG]

Interesting take on the Obama/Clinton primary race. I do agree that Obama ran circles around Clinton. I thought the Obama team was just as dirty, but much more skilled at having surrogates slip in the knives without the candidate having to look dirty.

[JScott]

Comte, you have generally summed up my opinion of Hillary. As far as what she has done wrong, it's true she is a piker compared to the scope and scale of Bush. But that's not setting the bar very high, is it? "Vote for Hillary, she hasn't fucked up much." After thirty years in public office that's the best we can say?

She has a knack for bad "optics" because she has a penchant for flouting rules. Cattle futures, Whitewater, IRS abuse, Travel Office, FBI files enemy lists, Rose Law records, etc etc. How many are aware that she was fired from the Watergate House Judiciary Committee for being "unethical and dishonest?" I know many here view most or all of this as just relentless pursuit of nothing by detractors, but I'm hard pressed to think of another public figure where the pursuit is made so easy by continuous questionable behavior.

She supported DOMA, voted for the Iraq war, supported TPP, the Patriot Act. Times change, and people are allowed to evolve, but her moral compass is the latest poll data. Her priority is her.

Obama has said his single greatest regret was involvement in Libya, which by every account was a disaster and left a vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish. The plan was the brainchild of Hillary, who is a more hawkish than the left wants to admit. I actually worry more about her starting a war than Trump. She is now convinced that the Russians are also a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."

I have been vocal here about her role in Benghazi, an issue on which I am mostly alone here, I think. This was a covert gun running operation similar to Iran Contra that blew up ahead of an election. It is very clear in hindsight that at a minimum, State did not support the mission there adequately, that they abandoned those under fire, that they covered up the nature of the mission and attack and the she lied directly and repeatedly about it. I've been hearing for years "Bush Lied, People Died" from the left, but her lies (and Obama's, to be fair) get a shrug, maybe because it's a handful instead of tens of thousands. But if that's the case, we're not arguing principle, only degree.

I know you want to set aside the emailgate issue, but I don't dismiss it as easily as most here. First, despite all her various explanations of why she so needed a private server (first it was so that she could carry only her Blackberry - turns out she had 13 cell phones; this week she said it was "a classified server for classified information" - what????) it seems obvious that the only reason for this was to hide things. What she collected in speaking fees pales in comparison to what she collected through the Foundation while Sec State, as the emails amply demonstrate. She sold access, and whether it leads to a conviction or not, we are not in a court of law, we are exercising judgment. I am convinced beyond any doubt. Some here have said that everyone does it. Maybe so. Hot Rod Blagojevich is serving 14 years for attempting to sell an appointment. She appears to have made a cottage industry out of it and collected hundreds of millions. Usually we try to convict them when we have such evidence, not elect them.

[Racer Chris]

Comte, you have generally summed up my opinion of Hillary. As far as what she has done wrong, it's true she is a piker compared to the scope and scale of Bush. But that's not setting the bar very high, is it? "Vote for Hillary, she hasn't fucked up much." After thirty years in public office that's the best we can say?

Where do you get that Hillary Clinton has spend 30 years in public office? So you're basing your opinion on false statements.

She has a knack for bad "optics" because she has a penchant for flouting rules. Cattle futures, Whitewater, IRS abuse, Travel Office, FBI files enemy lists, Rose Law records, etc etc. How many are aware that she was fired from the Watergate House Judiciary Committee for being "unethical and dishonest?" I know many here view most or all of this as just relentless pursuit of nothing by detractors, but I'm hard pressed to think of another public figure where the pursuit is made so easy by continuous questionable behavior.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that Clinton was fired from the Watergate committee. It's a "he said, she said" situation, with nothing more to back it up.
If the Clintons were really responsible for the things their haters claim, I'm sure by now they would have been taken down by at least one of the "scandals".
I think that anyone who has come through such a gauntlet with as few scratches as she, deserves more credit than has been given.

She supported DOMA, voted for the Iraq war, supported TPP, the Patriot Act. Times change, and people are allowed to evolve, but her moral compass is the latest poll data. Her priority is her.

Obama has said his single greatest regret was involvement in Libya, which by every account was a disaster and left a vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish. The plan was the brainchild of Hillary, who is a more hawkish than the left wants to admit. I actually worry more about her starting a war than Trump. She is now convinced that the Russians are also a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."

I have been vocal here about her role in Benghazi, an issue on which I am mostly alone here, I think. This was a covert gun running operation similar to Iran Contra that blew up ahead of an election. It is very clear in hindsight that at a minimum, State did not support the mission there adequately, that they abandoned those under fire, that they covered up the nature of the mission and attack and the she lied directly and repeatedly about it. I've been hearing for years "Bush Lied, People Died" from the left, but her lies (and Obama's, to be fair) get a shrug, maybe because it's a handful instead of tens of thousands. But if that's the case, we're not arguing principle, only degree.

There was a covert CIA operation being conducted out of the Benghazi outpost. I haven't seen any evidence of a gun running operation, but the Covert Ops certainly hampered public officials from being transparent about the attack.

I know you want to set aside the emailgate issue, but I don't dismiss it as easily as most here. First, despite all her various explanations of why she so needed a private server (first it was so that she could carry only her Blackberry - turns out she had 13 cell phones; this week she said it was "a classified server for classified information" - what????) it seems obvious that the only reason for this was to hide things. What she collected in speaking fees pales in comparison to what she collected through the Foundation while Sec State, as the emails amply demonstrate. She sold access, and whether it leads to a conviction or not, we are not in a court of law, we are exercising judgment. I am convinced beyond any doubt. Some here have said that everyone does it. Maybe so. Hot Rod Blagojevich is serving 14 years for attempting to sell an appointment. She appears to have made a cottage industry out of it and collected hundreds of millions. Usually we try to convict them when we have such evidence, not elect them.

Your "facts" about the email "scandal" appear to be deeply flawed.
Its amazing how bad one can be made to appear when starting from the point of view that the person has an evil motive, and selecting data based on that bias.

I would bet that she went through so many devices by using them one at a time for the most part, but when in certain foreign countries she needed a "registered" device or she would have no cellular access. Each of those countries would require a separate device.

Have you seen the contents of Colin Powell's email to Mrs. Clinton about accounts, devices, and how to avoid trouble?
The one where he told her that he ignored the rules because they got in the way of conducting business?
Yeah, that Colin Powell - the same guy who complained that the Clinton campaign was trying to throw him under the bus - when they were in fact telling the truth.

She certainly did not say her server was for classified information.
In fact she said very clearly that when handling classified information she used the government system specifically intended for that purpose.
She also explained that conversations about sensitive topics are on her "public" account specifically because government officials are questioned about such topics by the press. The conversations are not about the information, but more likely about how to speak about it without compromising national security.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Clintons or the Foundation donors benefited personally from their interactions, and there is no evidence that any of the private donors she met with as SoS received special treatment because of their donations.
It's just another attempt by the anti-Hillary crowd to bring her down with false accusations.
But there are lots of Americans who never let facts get in the way of their opinions - as evidenced by the popularity of Trump.

[Racer Chris]

Colbert's show opening from last night:
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/vide ... journalism

[JScott]

Chris,

Regarding Hillary and the 30 years, I did not mean to say that she has been in public office. You are completely correct, that is a mis-statement. It is more correct to say that she has been in and out of office, but certainly in the public eye and politics for 30 years. I retract nothing on this basis.

You're also correct when you say she claims she used the government server for classified information. 'The problem is that it is utterly and completely false. Classified information was transmitted on the private server. The FBI investigation and available emails all show that she did. This is not disputable at this point. Her claim now is that she did not know it was classified. Powell did suggest she use email (which at the time was relatively new and not done) but most certainly did not advise her to set up a private server for classified information and did not do so himself. In fact, this week it was revealed that she continued to do so after she left office. Some off Blumenthal's emails show that he had access to the most highly classified information available within hours of their creation. I suppose it's possible he hacked her server too, but more likely he obtained them from her in the emails she unilaterally deleted as personal. How else did he get them? I know, you will say there's no proof she sent it to him (because of course she destroyed it).

There is a shitload of evidence that the Foundation benefitted from these interactions and there is evidence of special treatment. There is a friggin full length feature movie about it. The NYT has weighed in on it. Hillary supporters are urging the Foundation to be closed.

Do you mean to say, by your last statement, that it is not factually possible to find flaw with Hillary? Which *facts* are we disputing here? Are you saying that someone imagined her private server? Or the classified emails on it? Or her testimony before Congress where she stated that she had turned over everything, only to have 15K more emails turn up later? Are these not *facts* or are they just a complete fabrication to smear poor Hillary again? Who made up these lies that never happened? You might claim that you don't find them compelling, but it simply isn't possible to pretend they aren't factual.

[Comte Flaneur]

Interesting JS thanks for taking the fine to respond in detail.

I wouldn't vote for her. You would be voting for a system that earned her and Bill hundreds of millions of dollars. You would be voting for more of the same. All the vested interests would get their pay offs.

If you vote for Clinton you will also be voting for the abolition of cash, negative interest rates and the subsequent prohibition of owning gold.

By a process of elimination I would have to vote for Jill Stein because Gary Johnson hasn't even heard of Aleppo!

Lucky I am not entitled to vote.

How depressing.

Fuck it. I am going to open a bottle of 1997 Haut-Brion.

[Racer Chris]

Interesting JS thanks for taking the fine to respond in detail.

I wouldn't vote for her. You would be voting for a system that earned her and Bill hundreds of millions of dollars. You would be voting for more of the same. All the vested interests would get their pay offs.

If you vote for Clinton you will also be voting for the abolition of cash, negative interest rates and the subsequent prohibition of owning gold.

By a process of elimination I would have to vote for Jill Stein because Gary Johnson hasn't even heard of Aleppo!

Lucky I am not entitled to vote.

How depressing.

Fuck it. I am going to open a bottle of 1997 Haut-Brion.

If you knew much more about Jill Stein you would have trouble voting for her too.
The odd thing about Johnson/Weld - Weld would actually make more sense at the top of the ticket. He's the only one with foreign policy awareness between the two of them.

[Comte Flaneur]

Interesting JS thanks for taking the fine to respond in detail.

I wouldn't vote for her. You would be voting for a system that earned her and Bill hundreds of millions of dollars. You would be voting for more of the same. All the vested interests would get their pay offs.

If you vote for Clinton you will also be voting for the abolition of cash, negative interest rates and the subsequent prohibition of owning gold.

By a process of elimination I would have to vote for Jill Stein because Gary Johnson hasn't even heard of Aleppo!

Lucky I am not entitled to vote.

How depressing.

Fuck it. I am going to open a bottle of 1997 Haut-Brion.

If you knew much more about Jill Stein you would have trouble voting for her too.
The odd thing about Johnson/Weld - Weld would actually make more sense at the top of the ticket. He's the only one with foreign policy awareness between the two of them.

What must be frustrating for you guys across the pond is that we could have had two candidates with some degree of gravitas and respectability.

You could have had Ryan vs. Kerry for example What is wrong with the system that turns out two such awful candidates? This is no laughing matter. The rest of the world is watching intently.

[JimHow]

I think the Clinton campaign would have us believe that Hillary has engaged in a lot MORE than thirty years of "public service."

[Racer Chris]

Do you mean to say, by your last statement, that it is not factually possible to find flaw with Hillary?

I don't mean that. I have no trouble finding fault with many things she has said and done.
However, I don't think any of those faults rise to the level at which her detractors are spinning them.
I certainly don't think the hard facts behind any of her "problems" are enough to disqualify her, or enough to dissuade me from voting for her.

BTW, I don't think "Clinton Cash" is a valid news source.

[Racer Chris]

...
You could have had Ryan vs. Kerry for example.

Lots of us would have been very happy if Joe Biden had run.

[JScott]

Chris,

Regarding Clinton Cash as a news source, it doesn't appear that anyone is disputing the facts presented, only what they mean and how to interpret them. Again, the NYT has not disputed the issues raised, for example. As you point out, there is no video in a back room of someone receiving a briefcase full of cash, but the transactions, timing and the rest do not appear to be in dispute. I also understand your point of view regarding the issues I raise, that they are not central for you, especially in the context of the election as a whole. I'm just getting tired of voting for the least shitty person.

Comte, you must be occupying some lobe of my brain. Again, I agree completely down the line. I was almost resigned to vote Johnson, lightweight place marker that he is. "What's an Aleppo?" Are you effing kidding me?

[JimHow]

More bad polling news for Hillary:

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ ... 1157187588

Johnson seems to be taking more votes away from the Hillster.
He was surging into the key 15% range before the Aleppo gaff, we'll see if it is fatal for him.

[Racer Chris]

I guess I'm just more optimistic than many of you.
When I was a young adult I thought the world would end in nuclear holocaust. I felt hopeless about the present, and depressed about the future.
However, after a commitment to self improvement and years of constant introspection, I'm much more positive about the present and confident for the future.

I don't judge Hillary harshly for her actual mistakes and her real flaws, and I don't hold her personally responsible for any of the "bad" things that happened while she held office.
In fact, as a Senator she worked very hard to help the victims and first responders after 9/11. Even Peter King, a hardcore conservative, has no trouble working with HRC.
Sure she's ambitious and egotistical. That's no different from all the other politicians, pretty much as soon as you get above one's local representatives.
I totally discount the perpetual drumbeat of corruption, because after 30 years of exposure there has never been a smoking gun.
The Hillary Haters fit one definition of insanity - to keep attempting the same thing in spite of repeated failure.
Their only real success was in commandeering the media into maintaining press-ure, and thereby creating bias against her.

The audited books of the Clinton Foundation show that more than 90% of It's income is distributed to the charities they work with, and no member of the Clinton family takes any financial compensation from the Foundation.
The email string supports the fact that there was never any action taken by State which could be construed as a favor based on a donation to the Foundation.
There's just no there, there.

I think the trouble for Donald Trump is just beginning.
The good journalists are no longer letting his surrogates get away with making ridiculous claims on his behalf.
It looks more and more like there is fire causing the smoke coming from the news about donations to Bondi, Birtherism, Putinlove, security briefings, tax returns, and more.

Statistically, Trump is a liar and Clinton is honest - in spite of a popular perception to the contrary.
Historically, Trump has acted entirely for his own financial benefit, while Clinton has devoted her work to helping women and children.
Her heart is in the right place. He behaves as a heartless businessman.
The list of respected people happy to support Hillary Clinton continues to grow, while the same list for Donald Trump is shrinking.

So from my optimistic perspective, HRC really is the best candidate, and not the least worst.

[Comte Flaneur]

"Statistically, Trump is a liar and Clinton is honest - in spite of a popular perception to the contrary.
Historically, Trump has acted entirely for his own financial benefit, while Clinton has devoted her work to helping women and children.
Her heart is in the right place. He behaves as a heartless businessman."

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the polls for the US Presidential ejection appear to be narrowing...

Chris, the Clintons have earned $153m in public speaking engagements since 2002. The system, which is rotten, which is rigged, has benefitted them enormously. As JScott said her moral compass only extends to the latest opinion polls.

The danger here is that while most people find Donald Trump repulsive - me too! - they do not find him as repulsive as the rotten system, which Hillary epitomises. He has positioned himself as the anti-establishment standard bearer. Some people will vote for him simply to express their extreme disillusionment and anger with a rotten system, which has seen their living standards stagnate or even slide over 30 years, while the Clintons have banked hundreds of millions. The more establishment figures throw their weight behind HRC the more that perception is reinforced. I think it will be close. squeaky bum time for HRC fans.

[JimHow]

See, the problem is that, as the national poll numbers even out, her electoral college advantage disappears. (See latest Reuters numbers.)
What terrifies me is that she spent the whole summer outspending him by hundreds of millions of dollars in TV ads, and he spent like nothing.
He had a miserable month of August.
He hasn't even really begun to fight yet.
And yet the race is a dead heat.
God, she is a weak candidate.
As bad as he was, Romney was much less offensive than Trump and Obama beat him handily.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

[JimHow]

The most terrifying thing is that he has apparently pulled even in Michigan which, of course, would mean a Trump victory if he wins that state.
Other reports say he's even in Wisconsin and closing in in PA. Incredible.

[Racer Chris]

"Chris, the Clintons have earned $153m in public speaking engagements since 2002.

(I think they were actually private engagements, not public.)

Last I checked the US followed a capitalist financial system.
When they were earning from those speaking engagements they were private citizens.
They had every right to accept those gigs.

The Clintons pay lots of taxes on their earnings, which is all on the public record.
They don't live above their means.
Their income allows them to make substantial charitable donations.
Why would you begrudge them their success?

I wish I could claim earnings of 10 mil a year. (well, not really. I'm mostly satisfied with my station in life.)

[Comte Flaneur]

Chris

Tony Blair, who lied to the British parliament and electorate, with a ridiculous claim that we could be attacked by Saddam Hussein and we would only have 45 mins to scramble for the bunkers - if you are gonna lie you should tell a whoppa- went on the public/private speaking circuit and earned as much as HRC per speech. He is reviled in the UK 1. for taking us into an illegal war and 2. For earning millions and millions for speaking engagements. Yet he is not seeking the highest political office in the land. Nor is he ever likely to.

Honestly Chris you need a reality check. You say they pay their taxes. If I earned $100m a year I would be happy to pay my taxes, and I would struggle NOT to live within my means -even if I drank Romanee Conti every night!!!

They are not successful, they have milked a rotten and corrupt system.

[stefan]

Um, Ian, the Clintons have successfully milked a rotten and corrupt system. OTOH, they do not mix Petrus with Coca-Cola, as far as anyone knows. At least they pay 34% of their income in taxes. This is likely more than twice the percentage that Trump pays.

I am convinced that Romney would have won if he had published his tax returns and proclaimed, "see what is wrong with our tax system? We must adjust it so that people who make as much as I do pay a higher percentage than the middle class." Obama would have been toast. But Romney was too out of touch to do that.

[Racer Chris]

...
Honestly Chris you need a reality check.

I choose not to look through the same lens of cynicism which apparently colors your view of reality.
That does not make my reality any less valid than yours.
You may choose to disagree with me but my opinions are based on being well informed by credible reporting, not flights of fancy.

[JimHow]

Oh no, another Hillary Clinton health scare at this morning's 9/11 memorial ceremony.
The Republicans are gonna have a field day.

[JimHow]

Maybe she's getting dizzy over today's poll results, which seem to have even more bad news, especially in Nevada, a state she should be winning. Man, Joe should have run....

By the way....
Could it be that she really does have some health problems?
That she really is concerningly "low energy"?
I mean, she wants to be president, with stresses unimaginable by anyone else on the planet.
And she can't sit through a two hour ceremony?
Just asking.

[jal]

It looks pretty bad

https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774 ... 00/video/1

[JimHow]

Jesus, looks like she fainted.

[JScott]

Chris, I have no idea what you mean by "statistically Trump is a liar and Clinton is honest." I also have a very different definition of optimism and pessimism than you.

My instinct is to say that medical records, tax records and the like are private and I see no particular reason for the idea that they must be released. Obama never released his college records and was none the worse for it. Having said that, fainting in public is hard to keep private and it looked pretty bad. It will not help her with the storyline that has been brewing already.

Quaint now to think about the press helping keep FDR's wheelchair out of the public eye.

[JimHow]

Pneumonia...
What to make of all this?
This is not good.

[DavidG]

I think the statistical comment is based on HRC's honesty/lying ratio being on par or better than most politicians while Trump is 99.44% lies.

Yes fainting does look bad and the way the media is playing it no doubt it will hurt in the polls. If it had happened to Trump, or any other man, the story would be about how tough and dedicated he was to push on with the important business of campaigning and honoring the 9/11 observance despite having pneumonia, and being willing to push to the breaking point. But instead we'll hear about how frail she is and how she was dishonest about her medical condition when in fact she's been as open or more so than most candidates. Just look at Trump's BS health statement supposedly written by his physician if you want to compare transparency.

And tax records have traditionally been released, so refusing to do so makes you wonder what Trump is hiding besides his fraudulent "charitable" contributions.

[JScott]

I don't know David. This is another observer bias issue. As I recall there was a steady dose of McCain's health issues and age throughout his entire campaign, as there was with Reagan. Also, as I mentioned, every candidate had traditionally released their college transcripts prior to Obama. What was he hiding? While I don't believe every private detail of a candidate's life is automatically the property of the public, I also don't believe she is getting any different treatment. At this point her health statement is looking more BS than Trump's, if anything.

I'd love to see the raw data on those a statistics.

[DavidG]

I don't know David. This is another observer bias issue...

...I'd love to see the raw data on those a statistics.

Agreed, it is an observer bias issue.

I don't know how neutral vs. D- vs. R-leaning Politifact is considered, but the best I can do regarding the statistics is their analysis of the candidates' truthiness:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ton-trump/

Trump told the truth 2.5% of the time. So it turns out I exaggerated. Mea culpa.

[DavidG]

To your other points, Scott...

Health is a legitimate issue. I just don't think the coverage is close to offering a realistic view of what's really happening or what's relevant. And perception is everything.

I think taxes are legitimate as well. I'd like to know where the candidates made their money and what they did with it, based on what they had to (presumably) truthfully put down on the IRS forms.

College transcripts - I could go either way. Though I am tempted to point to W's less-than-stellar transcript, I'm not convinced that performance in college or grad school is a great predictor of performance in government. The further back you go, the less relevant the facts become. Unless the candidate was an animal mutilator as a child. I don't know that Trump was an animal mutilator. I've heard some people are saying that, but I don't know. There's something going on...

And then there's that very first transcript: the birth certificate. Oooh, and Apgar scores!

[jal]

LOL David

[JScott]

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt there are plenty of things on Trump's IRS return he'd rather not try to explain (I recall Bill's tax deduction for donating his used underwear). If I were him, I'd say I'll release my full tax return when she releases her full health record. Until then, you can take my word for it that all my accountants say it's solid, like Hillary has done with her health. More likely he will just drag his feet forever and never release it, and now Hillary is going to have to do something about her health record.

[DavidG]

Clinton's deduction for used underwear! LOL! I thought it was funny that he deducted it, but a little creepy that he donated them in the first place. I mean really... used underwear? I suppose there are those who might need them, and no doubt a cohort that would collect anything from someone famous, no matter how weird.

[JScott]

Lol exactly. And let's be honest, those shorts probably had seen some wear......

[Racer Chris]

My research suggests that it was 3 pair of underpants donated, for a total deduction of $6, one year while Bill was Governor of Arkansas.
They were quite possibly still in the original packaging - not ever worn by Mr. Clinton.
I'm pretty sure they would have been refused by the charity if they didn't meet a standard for being re-salable.

Once again, nothing to see here, only an important part of the "scandal" that is the Clintons' lives.

[Racer Chris]

Jesus, looks like she fainted.

Do you think she'll die?

[JimHow]

I don't know I'm not a doctor.
I heard a report that pneumonia is the leading cause of death for people over 65.