The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Simon_Jester]

Among the elements I perceive, either latent or explicit, in the words and deeds of Trump and his supporters in this campaign, I perceive the following elements. I number them as Eco numbered them in his article The Eternal Fascist, so certain numbers are missing.

I am not going to discuss your assessment point for point as I don't really have a major issue with what you say as mere data points, only how you interpret them. More on that after my assessment of HRC.

1.) The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

I think you have let Trump off the hook on this one, though I won't do the same for Hillary. Trump for instance, in the "Make America Great" message, is essentially hankering back to some mythologized past where the answers are clear. HRC does the same thing with all these allusions to an imaginary mid 20th century where the middle class lived some utopian lifestyle, tax rates were proper, civil rights were somehow better, etc. These are both build around a fetishized narrative of a traditional America that has all the answers.

Its mild relative to actual fascist examples in both instances, but it is present.

I think you have missed Eco's point somewhat, in that the 'cult of tradition' refers specifically to the idea of ancient knowledge (not just "when I was young," but ancient) is somehow special. Mussolini fetishized the Romans; Hitler obsessed over a grab-bag of largely fictitious pseudohistory intended to make the 'Aryans' of his imagination impressive. By contrast, there is simply no such cult of ancient tradition in modern America among almost any relevant political faction.

There is a difference between saying "it used to be better" and having a cult of the past, especially when one can cite statistics. In any event, this is assuredly not an area where there is an advantage favoring either side.

There's a reason I didn't accuse Trump of this.

2.Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism

Rejection of Globalization. Market Protectionism (almost mercantilism in some rehetoric). Assaults on due process. The worship of obsolete economic models like heavy manufacturing over modern models. The derailing of academic freedom. Even the rejection of the due process of law for sexual crimes. Sure we get talk about how cool Teslas are, but just as your source noted about past fascists these are thin veils to cover a true longing for antiquated and imagined return to how things ought to have remained from decades past.

I think you need to go into more detail about which of these things Clinton is offending against, and in what ways.

Moreover, you have missed Eco's point; "modernism" does not just mean "some things which have happened in the past few decades." Modernism means the entire tradition of reason, intellect, enlightened self-interest, and freedom that stretches back to the Enlightenment. There is, again, a reason I did NOT apply this to Trump.

Literally every political viewpoint that exists will say "some of the things that have changed in the past X years were bad." "Que sera, sera" is not a meaningful ideology and no serious candidate for office would espouse it. So "rejection of modernism" digs a little deeper than just disagreement about whether globalization is a good thing.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

N/A. She is an opportunist, and that means doing nothing if its expedient.

Again, missing Eco's point.

There is more to this question than just whether a person acts or declines to act. Eco is not just talking about what people do, he is talking about what a movement reveres. Hillary does not have followers honoring her for being a bold woman of decisive action who shoots first and asks questions maybe afterward if she feels like it. Trump does, except for the 'woman' part, obviously.

Nor does she have a mass of supporters who disdain 'culture' or 'intellectuals' for overthinking things.

4) The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

This is damning indictment of the left in general including HRC. If you are not on the exact narrative you are a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a war criminal, etc. You don't even have to be on the right to get the treatment as Bernie supporters found out in spades. Trump is definitely a with us or against us type of guy, but that's in regards to support of him. He doesn't really five a crap what you think as long as you vote for him. Only one side is working off of ideological purity tests in the current atmosphere.

This is a point you can justly accuse some figures on the left of.

What you're missing, though, is that this isn't just about the candidates. It's about the movements they associate themselves with. Trump personally will say whatever he feels like and accept anyone's vote. But he encourages his supporters to think of 'different' people as traitors, not just to the party but to the nation at large.

Clinton tolerates this and maybe encourages it in the context of her own personal candidacy. But you don't see her trying to drum up support by saying, or even implying, that Sanders supporters are a fifth column of potential traitors who should be rounded up and deported. Whereas Trump does exactly that when talking about Muslims and illegal immigrants.

5) Disagreement is a sign of diversity

Hell, there are few more talented class warriors out there than HRC. She is only marginally less talented at race baiting.

I don't even understand how you think you're accusing Clinton of this element of Eco's profile of a fascist. Could you please finish supporting your thesis, rather than expecting me to fill in the blanks for you and agree with you automatically?

6) Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

This is the bread and butter of the HRC only with the boogey man coming from the top rather than the bottom. Of course now her and Trump share the distinction of using the job stealing penny wage masses of the developing world as their economic scapegoat on top of that.

Clinton and Trump are, yes, both digging into the frustration of the middle and upper-lower class. Then again, the middle class is frankly rather frustrated with the current state of affairs- whether they're male, female or neuter, and whether they're black, white, or green. Most Americans aren't happy with the status quo, so in and of itself trying to tap into that to get elected isn't proto-fascism in my opinion.

If it were just a class thing and Trump were trying to appeal to everyone who works for a paycheck, I wouldn't have held this one against him.

However, he's not just doing that. He's also been digging into the racial frustration of whites who resent black and brown and yellow people who don't stay subordinate- which is the basis of the birther movement and just about the only reason it lasted past about mid-2008 at the latest. Trump hopped on that bus in 2011, so you can bet he knows he's cashing in on latent racism. And he's also been exploiting xenophobia, a related issue.

So while both candidates are tapping into the frustrations of their potential voters, Trump has chosen to exploit nastier frustrations. And one of the hallmarks of fascism is that the Party likes to designate acceptable targets for the nasty frustrations of the masses, then uses a mix of mob violence, legislation, and denial of due process to destroy those targets in a very public way, so that The People get to feel like progress is being made. That's what worries me- that if elected, and especially if he wants to get re-elected, Trump is going to have every reason to make vicious examples of the same groups he dumped hate on during his campaign.

Clinton has no incentive to do that. Even minorities she's willing to allow to suffer, she has no incentive to heap extra suffering on. She doesn't get extra points with her voter base for trying to criminalize homosexuality or launch massed expulsion of immigrants and refugees, even if she'd stand by and let others do it if it were the convenient choice.

But if Trump does that, there is a high chance he'll be rewarded for doing it. Because that's the sort of movement he created- one with that type of fascist leaning.

7) To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

How many times do we have to be lectured about the majority minority nation and how this is sooooo much better, how the current America doesn't embody REAL American values, and how we have to live up to our potential, and the white people are screwing you? There is a weekly diatribe about how the "corporate fat cats" are colluding to destroy the American way of life. Kochs and co orchestrating the destruction of anything not old and white? She coined the term VRWC after all

This... doesn't really relate to Eco's point (7). Now, it does tie into (8), so I'll answer it there.

8 ) The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

Again, this is HRCs bread and butter. The rich people are screwing you. The white people are screwing you. The police are screwing you. The men are screwing you. Globalization is screwing you. At the same time you are destined to overcome them all because you are on the right side of history.

The reason I object to the way you pitch this is that it is not always the case that any group which is in some way victimized is proto-fascist for objecting and trying to resist their bad treatment. A great deal depends on how it is presented, and on what specific rights and policy measures the self-identified victims call for.

In other words... If Bob thinks wealthy bankers are undermining his country and his solution is to stage pogroms and drive out all the Jews because there are lots of Jewish bankers, then Bob's a fascist. If Bob thinks wealthy bankers are undermining his country and his solution is to reinforce the SEC regulations limiting their actions, Bob is probably NOT a fascist.

Now, a "my-faction liberation" movement can BECOME fascist. But it isn't born that way automatically.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

This is basically SJWism 101. Everyone is a victim, everyone is struggling against injustice. There is a new strain of this, picked up by HRC and others, where its no longer sufficient to be an "ally," you have to be in the street with us or you are just a collaborator. This was especially outspoken in the HRC crowd regarding gun control recently. But we get the same thing regarding women's rights and others. You better be actively fighting the man, or you are gain a label of racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc. This is used against their own as often as against the other.

That's a fair criticism of that particular element of the left. Permitted to run out of control I can imagine a 'fascism of the left' which tries to crush its idea of the establishment in the name of a poorly defined coalition of minority interests. However, while the right has been trying to make people think of this as a threat for about the past forty years, there is very little evidence of it having ever amounted to more than a tempest in a teacup. I'm not very concerned.

10) Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic... elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

We couldn't have had a better example of this regarding HRC than her email fiasco. She is not a NORMAL, she doesn't have to follow the rules. She knows better because of her supposed experience and can't be bothered to follow basic rules like everybody else.

This is true, and I strongly disapprove of Clinton's tendency to think of herself as above the law. If she were running against a Republican who didn't seem to have at least as strong a sense of narcissist entitlement, I would be taking that weakness in her character more to heart.

Rule by the enlightened intellectual or technocrat is baked into the cake with pretty much any mainstream left candidate.

Uh... how so? Can you provide evidence for that? Note that wanting to appoint people who have a lot of knowledge about a thing to run that thing is not in itself being a technocrat. Technocracy requires an extra level of contempt for, or rejection of, the normal safeguards in place to keep authority from running rampant. While you occasionally get that in the American left it has not been a common thing to my knowledge.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

"If you don't vote for Hillary you are a misogynist" is a major element of HRCs campaign even if it isn't always overtly spoken. It has, however, been overtly spoken before by official HRC campaign surrogates such as Albright and company's missteps regarding Sanders. You want to make herstory right? Why would you not want to may herstory...

This is, frankly, a gross misunderstanding of Eco's original point. If you want to try to update his analysis to a 21st-century version that includes the cult of personality in female politicians go ahead... but you need to lay a lot of groundwork to explain that.

Again, this is not an issue where you can just blow the dogwhistle and expect people to draw the 'correct' conclusion that you expect. By all means, go ahead and actually make your case.

13) Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

This is just everyday leftist politics. HRC is well versed in in. I will quote Eco in particular regarding "Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism." Thats a dead ringer for HRC and her surrogates.

You have asserted without proof once again. And you have, yet again, missed a major part of Eco's point, which is that there is no real place in fascism for activism, except to have overzealous goons doing the specific will of the Leader.

By contrast, the left has always been a playing ground for activists, often to the extent that the lunatics among the activists wind up running the asylum (e.g. the 1968 Democratic convention).

Because in fascism, The People is carefully defined down to include only the 'correct' sort of people. Namely, the people who do as they are told. Whereas the left's version of populism tends to include a supermajority of the population, including people who do not necessarily do as they are told and do not fit into a hierarchy but who have genuine reasons for wanting what they want and pursue them independently.

This is, for instance, how gay rights became a left-wing issue even though most 1990-era left wing politicians would have been just as happy not to take it on. Because the left's definition of The People is generally not exclusionist, and you can join it and get them to work for your interests by appealing to them with "hey, we deserve a better deal too!"

There are other ways the left can fall to the dark side, but the selective populist approach of fascism generally isn't one of them.

So I count 12 which apply directly to HRC, with three being relatively mild. Note I would expand your assessment of Trump by one as well.

I think in many cases, you apply these points to Clinton by abusing or misunderstanding Eco's point in his article, so I must disagree with you there.

But this is my issue with lists such as this. There isn't any party or politician that does not fit into most of these categories in a superficial way which is how I would describe what I did with HRC and you Trump for the most part. The context matters, the severity of the activity in each category, etc.

My view is that nearly every politician taps into at least some of this some of the time, ESPECIALLY if you are willing to abuse Eco's definitions by saying "any politician who disagrees with anything that's happened in the past thirty years is a traditionalist and is therefore part of the cult of tradition."

However, we can reasonably 'index' this in some sense, and have some kind of "fascism-o-meter" scale. Say, calling Mussolini 100% a fascist, and Hitler 150% or something. And certain kinds of 'strongman' political figures might be running around at, say, 50%. And picking a random not-very-fascist historical politician like, oh, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and calling him 1% fascist or something.

My argument is that Trump is too high on this scale, even if he's a hell of a long way down the scale from Mussolini. Maybe his score would be 20%, or 10%. Whatever. That is still too high, for anyone you actually want to elect in a democracy.

And my argument is also that Clinton is significantly below Trump on this scale, because she rings those fourteen bells much less forcefully, or not at all.

For instance, if I really wanted to make a fascist comparison the most direct link would be the recent violence from organized left groups stalking Trump supporters from event to event with the explicit and proudly announces purpose of interfering with their freedom to engage in political activity via violence. As heinous as that is, its still stupid because compared to Brownshirts the gulf between them on the spectrum becomes so significant to make an equivalency ridiculous.

Actually if you'd like to talk about that more, I'm open to it.

[Patroklos]

I have his "member of Congress" business card with a fucking gmail account on it. That's clear evidence that he received official emails on a private account.

You seem to imagine an equivalency between an elected official and a government employee. You should stop doing that, they are very different things with very different rules. For one, it should be obvious to you that not everything a Congressmen does is government business. They are a representative TO the government, not a representative OF the government regarding where their authority flows from. More importantly they are a representative OF the people, not a worker of the government that is thus beholden to it. As it should be. As was mentioned earlier, would campaigning government business? Its done in his capacity as a Congressmen. No. Is his communications with his constituents government business? Its done in their capacity as a Congressmen. No.

Not until you start getting into work in their capacity of a government official, such as being the head of a government committee, acting in an official capacity, do you start getting into the same realm HRC was operating in.

I don't have the contents of his private email account because I don't actually care. The classification system is a massive clusterfuck, with experts estimating that 50%-90% of all classified material doesn't need to be classified at all. I'm sorry that less-exalted political officials and employees have had their careers ended over it, because I have little doubt that at least half of those cases, if not more, are utterly irrelevant and pose little to no threat to the national security apparatus.

That number ignores things like aggregation from derivative classification. In other words some things are not classified directly, but it is known that if they are combined with just a bit more information they can easily become classified by combination.

Its also the case that in the case of people for which most of their work has to be done on the classified side, its just good policy to have them do all of their work on the classified side. There are whole departments of people like this. It avoids things like paying for two workstations, wiring two different networks with required segregation into the same space of building, or alternatively have workers spend their time moving between secure and non secure locations. Most importantly it avoids mistakes when moving from one world into the other. Because of this the lunch plans you emailed to your coworker who also works on the high side become classified. Do you think we should spend money to have someone declassify that sort of thing?

This isn't always the case mind you. If you rarely work with such information that's when you use SCIFs.

Just some things to consider when people throw that sort of number out there. There are years of my career where every scrap of hardcopy and electronic work product I created is classified simply because of where it was generated. Its just the way it is.

My sole concern in this particular matter is over the use of private email for official business, because I think transparency is better than the opposite. Sec. Clinton wasn't particularly transparent because of her use of private email, lack of record-keeping of deleted emails, and incomplete information handover when requested, but she appears to be no worse than anyone else in DC.

That's a bold statement. Does Secretary Carter have a private email server someplace? Tens of thousands of emails missing from government records? Classified information residing in a spare bathroom? This is not business as usual.

The second President Bush administration deleted millions of emails regarding the firing of state attorneys rather than turn them over.

Which is a gross violation, but not a classified one mind you.

Multiple GOP representatives apparently keep private email accounts and receive official email on them, as did

They recieved official emails on them? You have evidence of this? You keep saying this but nothing you have provided actually demonstrates this.

Gen. Powell and Sec. Rice preceding Sec. Clinton. Sec. Clinton is no worse than any of the other above-the-overzealous-law politicians running the country. However, I don't think she's much better, either, which is why I didn't vote for her.

So who there hat tens of thousands of emails missing from the record? Had classified information residing in a private server? Wiped said server in violation of court order? Which ones lied about it? Which ones deleted emails required to be turned over by legal action once discovered? Which ones were noted as being uncooperative with IG investigators? Sought immunity in order to talk to investigators?

Names please.

[Simon_Jester]

Part of the reason that (inexplicably to you, it seems) not everyone turns on Clinton over the email scandal is this.

[Note that I am trying to make this a value-neutral observation about what people think, not an endorsement of or statement of approval for Clinton, her actions, or for that matter any particular reaction to her actions.]

Clinton's actions can be interpreted in two separate ways. One is, "did she violate the law?" The other is "did she violate the public trust by violating the law?"

Someone who sells out classified information to a foreign power has clearly betrayed the public trust in a way that most members of the public would find objectionable in and of itself, even if there were no legal punishment for it.

Someone who leaves classified information on a table in a conference room where the cleaning staff could get at it... that is not a thing that most members of the public find strongly objectionable in and of itself. It is in fact illegal, and there are good reasons it's illegal. But leaving the classified document on a conference table simply fails to provoke the same level of outrage in the average citizen that a person would provoke by taking the same information to the Russian embassy.

Honestly, there are very few people aside from, oh, Clinton, her lawyers, and her staffers who seriously think Clinton did not violate the law.

There are, however, a lot of people who fail to be outraged by the specific violation of the law that was committed.

[maraxus2]

Part of the reason that (inexplicably to you, it seems) not everyone turns on Clinton over the email scandal is this.

[Note that I am trying to make this a value-neutral observation about what people think, not an endorsement of or statement of approval for Clinton, her actions, or for that matter any particular reaction to her actions.]

Clinton's actions can be interpreted in two separate ways. One is, "did she violate the law?" The other is "did she violate the public trust by violating the law?"

Someone who sells out classified information to a foreign power has clearly betrayed the public trust in a way that most members of the public would find objectionable in and of itself, even if there were no legal punishment for it.

Someone who leaves classified information on a table in a conference room where the cleaning staff could get at it... that is not a thing that most members of the public find strongly objectionable in and of itself. It is in fact illegal, and there are good reasons it's illegal. But leaving the classified document on a conference table simply fails to provoke the same level of outrage in the average citizen that a person would provoke by taking the same information to the Russian embassy.

Honestly, there are very few people aside from, oh, Clinton, her lawyers, and her staffers who seriously think Clinton did not violate the law.

There are, however, a lot of people who fail to be outraged by the specific violation of the law that was committed.

I think there's an even more basic reason than that; the email scandal basically doesn't pass the "who gives a shit" test. I know I'm not the most credible person to judge here - being an avowed Clinton partisan and all - but there's a pretty solid heuristic to evaluate these kind of political scandals. Namely, "Can you explain this scandal to people, and make them care, in two mid-length sentences or fewer." E.g. "Nixon used illegal money to spy on his enemies. He then tried to cover it up, and broke the law in the process." Or, "Reagan sold weapons to the Ayatollah because he needed the money. He needed the money to fund death squads in Nicaragua, which was illegal." Or "Bill Clinton got a blowjob in the White House. Then he obviously lied about it, in public, many times."

This heuristic doesn't really work with the email thing. Nor did it really work in Benghazi. Nor any one of any number of stupid Clinton "scandals" post 1992. If you're a partisan Republican or movement conservative, this is not good. Not just because the "scandal" clearly didn't pan out like they thought it would, but the public truly doesn't seem to give much of a shit about it. People have made up their minds about Hillary, mostly for ill, but sometimes for good. I have no doubt that the GOP will keep trying to squeeze blood out of the Servergate turnip, just like they did with Benghazi.

But she still crushed in the Democratic Primary and she looks exceedingly likely to crush Trump too. Whatever the law enforcement/intelligence world thinks about her extremely careless behavior, the public at large basically doesn't give a shit. At least, not relative to the catastrophe that is Trump.

Speaking of which, the man himself had a meeting with Congressional Republicans today, with hilarious results.

Trump, seeking GOP unity, has tense meeting with Senate Republicans
By Sean Sullivan and Philip Rucker July 7 at 1:43 PM

Donald Trump’s private meeting Thursday with Senate Republicans — designed to foster greater party unity ahead of the national convention in Cleveland — grew combative as the presumptive presidential nominee admonished three senators who have been critical of his candidacy and predicted they would lose their reelection bids, according to two Republican officials with direct knowledge of the exchanges.

[u[Trump’s most tense exchange was with Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been vocal in his concerns about the business mogul’s candidacy, especially his rhetoric and policies on immigration that the senator argues alienate many Latino voters and others in Arizona.

When Flake stood up and introduced himself, Trump told him, “You’ve been very critical of me.”

“Yes, I’m the other senator from Arizona — the one who didn’t get captured — and I want to talk to you about statements like that,” Flake responded, according to two Republican officials.[/u]

Flake was referencing Trump’s comments last summer about the military service of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict. Trump questioned whether McCain was a war hero because he was captured.

Flake told Trump that he wants to be able to support him — “I’m not part of the Never Trump movement,” the senator said — but that he remains uncomfortable backing his candidacy, the officials said.

Trump said at the meeting that he has yet to attack Flake hard but threatened to begin doing so. Flake stood up to Trump by urging him to stop attacking Mexicans. Trump predicted that Flake would lose his reelection, at which point Flake informed Trump that he was not on the ballot this year, the sources said.

Asked in a Senate hallway later about his exchange with Trump, Flake declined to elaborate.

“No, I’ll just leave it,” he told reporters, adding: “My position remains, I want to support the nominee. I really do. I just can’t support him given the things that he’s said.”

Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign’s chairman and senior strategist, who attended the meeting, disputed the characterization of it as contentious.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Manafort said: “Today’s meeting was positive and productive and these characterizations, attributed to unnamed sources, are wholly inaccurate. The conversation was very positive and substantive. The Members were in total agreement with Mr. Trump of the need to unite the Party and work together to win the Presidency and keep a Republican Congress. Mr. Trump was pleased with the discussion and looks forward to working together with the Republican Party leadership towards defeating Hillary Clinton in November.”

Trump also called out Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — who withdrew his endorsement of Trump last month, citing the business mogul’s racially based attacks on a federal judge — and said he did not approve of the senator’s action, the officials said.

Characterizing Kirk as a loser, Trump vowed that he would carry Illinois in the general election even though the state traditionally has been solidly Democratic in presidential contests. Kirk did not attend the meeting with Trump.

Asked later in the day about Trump’s comments, Kirk declined to comment other than to say, “I guess he lit me up.”

Trump also singled out Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who has refused to support Trump and has emerged as perhaps the most vocal advocate for a third-party candidate. Sasse declined to speak with reporters as he left the meeting.

“Senator Sasse went to today’s meeting ready to listen. Senator Sasse introduced himself to Mr. Trump, and the two had a gracious exchange,” said James Wegmann, the senator’s spokesman. “Mr. Sasse continues to believe that our country is in a bad place and, with these two candidates, this election remains a dumpster fire. Nothing has changed.”

Trump’s trip to Washington on Thursday highlighted the continuing concerns among congressional Republicans over controversial remarks he continues to deliver on the campaign trail and how they may affect GOP members facing tough reelection battles in the fall.

Before his meeting with Senate Republicans, Trump visited with the House GOP conference in what leaders billed as a chance for rank-and-file members to get to know the party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

“What I thought was especially helpful today was our members just got access and got to ask their questions and talk about their issues,” said House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.). “I thought he did a great job engaging with our members, and I think our members appreciated it.”

Ryan said members talked to Trump about the constitutional roles of the president and Congress, reducing regulations and overhauling the tax code — all issues included the “A Better Way” policy blueprint House Republicans have rolled out in recent weeks.

“We clearly have a presumptive nominee who wants to work with us on moving this agenda forward,” Ryan said.

Trump was greeted by applause from more than 200 House GOP members at the standing-room-only gathering, according to GOP aides, and was introduced at the event by financial commentator and TV personality Larry Kudlow. Trump opened the discussion with a speech on the importance of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court, members said.

In his discussion with senators, Trump claimed that he had inside intelligence about Hillary Clinton’s vetting process for Supreme Court vacancies and that he knew the names of two people the presumptive Democratic nominee is considering nominating, two Republican officials said. But Trump would not reveal those names.

Trump has long cited vacancies on the Supreme Court as a reason for Republicans to unify behind his candidacy, pledging that he would appoint more-conservative justices than Clinton.

Despite House leaders’ positive statement about the gathering, several GOP lawmakers leaving the morning meeting said they are still unconvinced that Trump can be a good standard-bearer for the party.

“I still need to be persuaded,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a moderate member of the conference.

Several lawmakers said questions were raised about derogatory comments Trump has made about minorities and women, as well as his inability to stay on message.
Trump dismissed the issue and insisted he has great support from Hispanics, Dent said.

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) left the meeting worried about Trump’s grasp on the basics of the Constitution. At a lunch with reporters afterward, he recalled that the candidate did not seem to know what he was promising to defend.

“I wasn’t particularly impressed,” Sanford said. “It was the normal stream of consciousness that’s long on hyperbole and short on facts. At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,’ going down the list. There is no Article XII.”

Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), who said he was “uncomfortable” with Trump’s language, gave him a pass on the Constitution flub.

“When he made the comment about the Constitution, I love this article and that article, I assumed he was talking about the amendments, because he was off on the numbers,” he said.

But both Griffith and Sanford tempered their criticism, contrasting Trump’s sometimes slipshod approach to Clinton’s adroit politicking.

“He may be loose on some facts, reckless on some, but there’s not malicious intent there,” Sanford said.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said Trump brought up his recent comments about Saddam Hussein “in the context of how unfair the media has been to him.” Trump has praised the former Iraqi dictator for being “so good” at killing terrorists, while adding that is all he thinks was good about a “bad guy, really bad guy.”

Kinzinger called Trump’s previous comments about Hussein “disgusting and despicable.” He said it was “awkward” to hear the GOP nominee defend his remarks in the room.

Other members expressed confidence that Trump understands he needs to tone down his rhetoric.

“If you look at the trajectory of his unforced errors, he’s getting better,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.). “I mean, he’s not where we want him to be, but he’s getting better.”

The gatherings with House and Senate Republicans came after Trump said at a rally in Ohio on Wednesday night that it was a mistake for his campaign to remove a tweet attacking Clinton with a six-pointed star placed on top of a bed of money. The image reportedly appeared last month on an online Web forum frequented by white supremacists and has widely been condemned as anti-Semitic.

The controversy started to quiet by Tuesday as Republicans moved to draw attention to Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state, which had come under investigation by the FBI. But now it has returned to the forefront of the national political debate.

Trump repeatedly said Wednesday that the six-point star was “just a star,” not the Jewish Star of David, and that media outlets that covered the controversy are “racially profiling.”

House members leaving the meeting said Trump did not address the controversy in his remarks and was not asked about it by members.

When asked whether he was bothered by the tweet, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), the only Jewish Republican in Congress, said, “I don’t think it helps him.”

David Weigel, Paul Kane, Karoun Demirjian and Kelsey Snell contributed to this report.

[Simon_Jester]

I think there's an even more basic reason than that; the email scandal basically doesn't pass the "who gives a shit" test. I know I'm not the most credible person to judge here - being an avowed Clinton partisan and all - but there's a pretty solid heuristic to evaluate these kind of political scandals. Namely, "Can you explain this scandal to people, and make them care, in two mid-length sentences or fewer..."

This heuristic doesn't really work with the email thing. Nor did it really work in Benghazi. Nor any one of any number of stupid Clinton "scandals" post 1992. If you're a partisan Republican or movement conservative, this is not good.

Well, frankly, I can summarize it in two sentences:

"Clinton was supposed to keep confidential State Department secrets on secure State Department computers. Instead, she routed piles of such secrets through a random unsecure computer she had her aides set up in her basement."

The problem is, well, making people care. The average American does not, it appear, value the same things the military and security communiies value. Not when it comes to the handling of state secrets. Namely, the careful handling of these secrets is not viewed as a positive good in and of itself, nor is the reckless handling of these secrets viewed as a positive evil in and of itself.

This represents a major cultural divide between the military and security organs on the one hand (whose respect for classified information and secure IT is high) and the general public (whose respect for secrets is illustrated by reading their Facebook pages).

[maraxus2]

Well, frankly, I can summarize it in two sentences:

"Clinton was supposed to keep confidential State Department secrets on secure State Department computers. Instead, she routed piles of such secrets through a random unsecure computer she had her aides set up in her basement."

The problem is, well, making people care. The average American does not, it appear, value the same things the military and security communiies value. Not when it comes to the handling of state secrets. Namely, the careful handling of these secrets is not viewed as a positive good in and of itself, nor is the reckless handling of these secrets viewed as a positive evil in and of itself.

This represents a major cultural divide between the military and security organs on the one hand (whose respect for classified information and secure IT is high) and the general public (whose respect for secrets is illustrated by reading their Facebook pages).

Sure, it's easy to summarize this scandal or that, and I think you're right that it's partly a difference of culture, but there's something less tangible at work. Sometimes, the public decides things that are fairly minor are worthy of ending a career, but major scandals are fine to overlook. Joe Biden blew up his first Presidential bid in 1988 with a plagiarism scandal, something that very obviously didn't have any meaningful impact on his skills as a politician. Yet Newt Gingrich held on for far longer than he had any right to in 2012, despite being, well, Newt Gingrich.

This "who gives a shit" applies across party lines, too. Florida's Governor got elected despite being involved in a 1.7 billion dollar Medicaid fraud suit. This seems like it should be an issue since the guy is running the fifth-largest Medicaid program in the Country. Yet Florida voters do not seem to give much of a shit about that, since they elected him twice. Hell, Congress and State governments have had lots of guys (nearly all of them guys anyway) who were as crooked as forked lightning, yet they kept getting re-elected to their bailiwicks.

Honestly, I'm pretty glad that the public doesn't give a shit about Servergate. The scandal, and all the congressional bullshit surrounding it, smells an awful lot like the 90's, and I have no doubt that they'll keep throwing this particular shit at that particular wall throughout her presidency, especially if the GOP keeps the House.

[eyl]

Sure, it's easy to summarize this scandal or that, and I think you're right that it's partly a difference of culture, but there's something less tangible at work. Sometimes, the public decides things that are fairly minor are worthy of ending a career, but major scandals are fine to overlook. Joe Biden blew up his first Presidential bid in 1988 with a plagiarism scandal, something that very obviously didn't have any meaningful impact on his skills as a politician. Yet Newt Gingrich held on for far longer than he had any right to in 2012, despite being, well, Newt Gingrich.

This "who gives a shit" applies across party lines, too. Florida's Governor got elected despite being involved in a 1.7 billion dollar Medicaid fraud suit. This seems like it should be an issue since the guy is running the fifth-largest Medicaid program in the Country. Yet Florida voters do not seem to give much of a shit about that, since they elected him twice. Hell, Congress and State governments have had lots of guys (nearly all of them guys anyway) who were as crooked as forked lightning, yet they kept getting re-elected to their bailiwicks.

Honestly, I'm pretty glad that the public doesn't give a shit about Servergate. The scandal, and all the congressional bullshit surrounding it, smells an awful lot like the 90's, and I have no doubt that they'll keep throwing this particular shit at that particular wall throughout her presidency, especially if the GOP keeps the House.

There's also the issue that the more actual facts that become known, the more underwhelming this becomes.

For example, with all the leadup you'd think there were large amounts of classified materials in the server. What was actually found:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

So, about 110 emails with information which was classified at the time. Now, TS information on an open system is a very serious matter. But what did those consist of?

Top secret information is another matter, but the stuff that showed up in Clinton’s private email wasn’t so special. Seven of the eight email chains dealt with CIA drone strikes, which are classified top secret/special access program—unlike Defense Department drone strikes, which are unclassified. The difference is that CIA drones hit targets in countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not officially at war; they are part of covert operations. (Defense Department drone strikes are in places where we are officially at war.) But these operations are covert mainly to provide cover for the Pakistani and Yemeni governments, so they don’t have to admit they’re cooperating with America. Everyone in the world knows about these strikes; nongovernment organizations, such as New America, tabulate them; newspapers around the world—including the New York Times, where some of the same reporters are now writing so breathlessly about Clinton’s careless handling of classified information—cover these strikes routinely.

The other top secret email chain described a conversation with the president of Malawi. Conversations with foreign leaders are inherently classified.

So 7 of the 8 involved information which is publicly accessible, and the last is something which is firmly in the SoS' purview and is classified TS by default; the actual content may not be anything explosive or damaging (likely isn't, in fact).

Also, almost all of these fall into the "should have known they were classified camp". Apparently only three had markings, and they weren't properly marked either:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman.

CHAFFETZ: Without objection...

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

Then you have other things like the accusations of her deliberately deleting work emails and Comey then stating he considered the deletions reasonable and so on. Or compaining that her server might have been hacked when the SoS server has in fact been hacked multiple times.

I fail to see laymen becoming too excited about this (hell, I deal with classified information (albeit not in the US) and I'm not too bothered about the specifics, although what she did was wrong).

As I see it, this investigation turned up several things:

1) An excessive desire for secrecy on behalf of Clinton (although I can sort of understand it given the history of attacks against her).
2) A culture of relative laxity in handling classified materials in the Department of State compared to e.g. the DoD or CIA which precede's Clinton's tenure
3) OTOH, a tendency to overclassify infomration on the side of DoD/CIA/etc. and disputes with State on the appropriate classification for specific information.

The proper response should be a top-down review to try to reconcile theses issues in the system, rather than playing whack-a-mole by trying to go after individuals.

[Grumman]

Top secret information is another matter, but the stuff that showed up in Clinton’s private email wasn’t so special. Seven of the eight email chains dealt with CIA drone strikes, which are classified top secret/special access program—unlike Defense Department drone strikes, which are unclassified. The difference is that CIA drones hit targets in countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not officially at war; they are part of covert operations. (Defense Department drone strikes are in places where we are officially at war.) But these operations are covert mainly to provide cover for the Pakistani and Yemeni governments, so they don’t have to admit they’re cooperating with America. Everyone in the world knows about these strikes; nongovernment organizations, such as New America, tabulate them; newspapers around the world—including the New York Times, where some of the same reporters are now writing so breathlessly about Clinton’s careless handling of classified information—cover these strikes routinely.

...
As I see it, this investigation turned up several things:

1) An excessive desire for secrecy on behalf of Clinton (although I can sort of understand it given the history of attacks against her).

How far have the Democrats fallen that this is considered a defense of their candidate? Oh, she was only evading FOIA requests regarding the executive's strategy of assassinating people in countries we are not at war with, without oversight? Well that's alright then. Nothing to see here, folks.

[Simon_Jester]

1) An excessive desire for secrecy on behalf of Clinton (although I can sort of understand it given the history of attacks against her).

This is an interesting psychological observation.

The Clintons have been on the receiving end of massive numbers of accusations of basically every kind of corruption and illegal activity imaginable ever since the early 1990s. Either they are literally the most corrupt politicans in American history and some of the most corrupt in world history... or the vast majority of those charges and accusations are false. Given that virtually none of the charges led to convictions or any real consequences whatsoever, the conclusion more in line with Occam's Razor* is "the vast majority of the accusations are false."

If you've been on the receiving end of twenty years of false or mostly-false allegations specifically intended to ruin your reputation, ruin your prospects, and ruin your career, if you've been accused of arranging murders and frauds and massive corruption and bribery... Hell yes at some point you become secretive. Because you're accustomed to seeing frivolous requests and demands made of you, purely as an attempt to trawl for some evidence of wrong-doing. You're accustomed to being lied about, to having your actions methodically misinterpreted and cherrypicked to place you in the worst possible light. You accept that, as a routine everyday part of your life, there are enemies who are thinking "what story can we upsell to shit on this person today?"

And Hillary Clinton is far from the only person who's been on the receiving end of such treatment in history.

None of which changes the point that she's an establishment stooge, but it does explain a lot about how she's conducting herself, even where it is not an excuse.
______________________

*Because if the accusations are mostly true, a vast and well organized conspiracy is required to cover up the Clintons' wrong-doing to the point where they haven't wound up in jail. Whereas if the accusations are mostly false, no such conspiracy is required.

2) A culture of relative laxity in handling classified materials in the Department of State compared to e.g. the DoD or CIA which precede's Clinton's tenure
3) OTOH, a tendency to overclassify infomration on the side of DoD/CIA/etc. and disputes with State on the appropriate classification for specific information.

The proper response should be a top-down review to try to reconcile theses issues in the system, rather than playing whack-a-mole by trying to go after individuals.

This is also an interesting observation, but I have nothing in particular to say about it.

======================

How far have the Democrats fallen that this is considered a defense of their candidate? Oh, she was only evading FOIA requests regarding the executive's strategy of assassinating people in countries we are not at war with, without oversight? Well that's alright then. Nothing to see here, folks.

Er... to be clear, information about the executive's strategy of assassinating people in countries we are not at war with would be part of the CIA's side of the drone war. Which is all "Top Secret" according to the article Eyl linked to. Legally, she couldn't voluntarily disclose that information even if she wanted to.

So while I'm not denying that she did or did not avoid a FOIA request, if she evaded a FOIA request on the CIA drone war, then that is pretty much exactly what she's supposed to do if she's going to obey US information security regulations.

And apparently she was trying to be the oversight on this, which is why she even had information about it in the first place.

Maybe I'm not understanding your objection?

[Exonerate]

You know, if I were the target of politically motivated throw-shit-and-see-what-sticks attacks, I'd make sure everything I did was above board and clearly document it (aka what government transparency is supposed to be about).

I'm a little disappointed but not surprised by the outcome; any recommendation to proceed with charges would've basically had to be bulletproof. Imagine the shitshow if Clinton was indicted, Trump won, then Clinton was later found Not Guilty. Even so, the results have blown the idea that Clinton Did Nothing Wrong out of the water, unless you're one of those people whose ethical code coincides with the bare minimum to avoid prosecution. I'm not optimistic about any administrative consequences, considering she doesn't really have a boss anymore.

I suspect there's a simpler explanation for the lack of interest by most Americans - Republicans spent so much time crying wolf on Benghazi that by the time they actually stumbled upon wrongdoing, people were already disinclined to attach any credence to it. One needs some background knowledge on classified information handling to grasp what normal procedure is, how Clinton violated them, and what impact that information getting out might have. The separate issue of FOIA compliance and supporters on both sides muddying the waters didn't help either.

Anyways, I find it funny that emailing news articles of drone strikes is OK when Clinton does it but viewing Wikileaks is not OK for State Department employees. Once again, the message is that rules are for little people.

[bilateralrope]

I suspect there's a simpler explanation for the lack of interest by most Americans - Republicans spent so much time crying wolf on Benghazi that by the time they actually stumbled upon wrongdoing, people were already disinclined to attach any credence to it.

I'm suspecting it's a bit of that, and a bit of people who don't care about their own personal secrets (given how little they care about intelligence agencies doing bulk data collection) finding it hard to care about state secrets.

[eyl]

You know, if I were the target of politically motivated throw-shit-and-see-what-sticks attacks, I'd make sure everything I did was above board and clearly document it (aka what government transparency is supposed to be about).

That's great in theory.

In practise, when you have enemies who are willing to take anything you say or do and try to turn it into an attack on you, whether it's legitimate or not, it's not that helpful.

Add to that the only people who are truly clean, with no statements or actions which can be held against them (even if it's only from a given point of view) are usually the ones who don't really do anything. You get engaged in high-level politics - you are going to get some dirt on you, or at the very least a lot which can be presented as dirt.

Look at the follow-up to the email scandal - the GOP wants to have Clinton investigated for perjury. They're going to go over every statement she made before Congress with a fine-tooth com to try to present it as perjury, even though the chances of their actually getting any charges are miniscule (if that).

[maraxus2]

You know, if I were the target of politically motivated throw-shit-and-see-what-sticks attacks, I'd make sure everything I did was above board and clearly document it (aka what government transparency is supposed to be about).

That's great in theory.

In practise, when you have enemies who are willing to take anything you say or do and try to turn it into an attack on you, whether it's legitimate or not, it's not that helpful.

Add to that the only people who are truly clean, with no statements or actions which can be held against them (even if it's only from a given point of view) are usually the ones who don't really do anything. You get engaged in high-level politics - you are going to get some dirt on you, or at the very least a lot which can be presented as dirt.

Look at the follow-up to the email scandal - the GOP wants to have Clinton investigated for perjury. They're going to go over every statement she made before Congress with a fine-tooth com to try to present it as perjury, even though the chances of their actually getting any charges are miniscule (if that).

Exactly. Over the last 24 years of her political life, Hillary's experienced a level of utterly partisan scrutiny that makes my bones hurt just to think about it. Hell, Ken Starr got in on the act back in the 90's, and gave all these bullshit investigations the imprimatur of a legal investigation, when most of them were just partisan witch hunts. What's more, the media's been, to put it lightly, less than thorough when reporting on these "scandals" to the wider public. All of these facts on the ground makes HIllaryland extremely paranoid, and they treat the Press much like villagers in 13th century Europe treated the Black Death.

Take Benghazi as just one example. From the very beginning, there was no evidence that Hillary, or anyone else in the State Department for that matter, did anything wrong - much less illegal. Yet, the GOP ginned that tragedy into a media sensation, relentlessly attacking the Obama Administration, and Hillary in particular, over...something that is still unclear to me. Being honest and forthright is all well and good, but in this case, the Republicans literally just made shit up. Hard to place faith in transparency when it gets used against you in a partisan witch hunt.

Hillary's experiences from the 90's are probably, on the whole, her weakest aspect as a politician. It's made her very paranoid, extremely suspicious of the media (she hasn't had a press conference in at least seven months, IIRC), and very insulated from the public. She sounded silly back in the 90's when she talked about the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy" that was out to get her and Bill. Today, though, I can buy that explanation a little bit more, mainly because there obviously IS a Vast Right-wing Conspiracy out to get her.

[Flagg]

The FBI didn't charge her which everyone with a functioning knowledge of US politics knew was going to be the result. So it's the result, the end, finito. So why are we still hearing about it a week later? If you're still sore over it, cry in your beer.

I'm pissed that Obama is slowing troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, a country we're supposed to be totally withdrawn from for years now.

[Channel72]

I really couldn't care less about Hillary's email shenanigans, because I am essentially a non-apologetic partisan hack for the Democrats. Even if she did something flagrantly illegal and was then caught on tape laughing about it I'd still rather she just gets away with it, because I want a Democrat to have control of the Executive Branch. Really, what else could I be, in this country? The Republican Party actively fights against shit that really matters, like climate change, gay rights, social welfare, etc. Who gives a shit if a Democrat POTUS is kind of shifty?

[Simon_Jester]

I can imagine offenses Clinton could commit that would make me abstain from the election (regarding both candidates as equal criminals and equally unfit).

I suppose that there is some scale of offense that would cause me to think of Trump as the lesser criminal and less grossly unfit... but I'm at a loss to imagine what, realistically, it could actually be.

[Knife]

I really couldn't care less about Hillary's email shenanigans, because I am essentially a non-apologetic partisan hack for the Democrats. Even if she did something flagrantly illegal and was then caught on tape laughing about it I'd still rather she just gets away with it, because I want a Democrat to have control of the Executive Branch. Really, what else could I be, in this country? The Republican Party actively fights against shit that really matters, like climate change, gay rights, social welfare, etc. Who gives a shit if a Democrat POTUS is kind of shifty?

Or... and just spitballing here, a Democratic POTUS who isn't shitty?

[Gaidin]

I really couldn't care less about Hillary's email shenanigans, because I am essentially a non-apologetic partisan hack for the Democrats. Even if she did something flagrantly illegal and was then caught on tape laughing about it I'd still rather she just gets away with it, because I want a Democrat to have control of the Executive Branch. Really, what else could I be, in this country? The Republican Party actively fights against shit that really matters, like climate change, gay rights, social welfare, etc. Who gives a shit if a Democrat POTUS is kind of shifty?

Or... and just spitballing here, a Democratic POTUS who isn't shitty?

Somebody should've figured that out before SEC Tuesday.

[maraxus2]

Or... and just spitballing here, a Democratic POTUS who isn't shitty?

Who would that be?

[Knife]

Been listening/reading you say it's your party and your rules for months now. Not my fault your party can't put someone up with better (worse) negatives than Hillary Clinton. In all of the Democratic party, is there nobody who isn't a pile of shit that a majority of the country doesn't trust and put a negative connotation on that can beat the great orange monkey on the GOPer side?

[Knife]

Pretty much anyone in the Dem primary could have beaten Trump, most of those were not as shitty as Clinton.

[maraxus2]

Pretty much anyone in the Dem primary could have beaten Trump, most of those were not as shitty as Clinton.

This point is extremely debatable. Given Bernie's performance in the primary (i.e. stupendously well among a small slice of the party, terribly among everyone else), I'm by no means sure that he could beat Trump. Same is true with O'Malley, Lessig, Webb, and Chaffee. Of the people running in the primary, Hillary has by far the best shot at winning the general election. If nothing else, she has the broad support of the Democratic Party and has the best shot at recreating the Obama coalition without Obama on the ticket.

Been listening/reading you say it's your party and your rules for months now. Not my fault your party can't put someone up with better (worse) negatives than Hillary Clinton. In all of the Democratic party, is there nobody who isn't a pile of shit that a majority of the country doesn't trust and put a negative connotation on that can beat the great orange monkey on the GOPer side?

That's really more of a question for you to answer. Personally, I think Hillary's a terrific candidate given her circumstances. She's managed to unite the Democratic Party and shown that she's broadly acceptable to the constituencies that make up the Democratic Party. I can't think of anyone else who would be so broadly acceptable, apart from Obama himself. I'd vote for him over Hillary in a heartbeat, and I think that much of the Democratic Party feels the same way.

I don't really want to get into a spat with you over this as I respect your contributions to this thread. But you've asserted that the Democrats could have nominated someone better than Hillary vis-a-vis her personal negatives. Seems to me that it's incumbent on you to put up someone else who could have done better in the Dem primary and the general. Again, apart from Obama, it's tough to see who that would be.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't really want to get into a spat with you over this as I respect your contributions to this thread. But you've asserted that the Democrats could have nominated someone better than Hillary vis-a-vis her personal negatives. Seems to me that it's incumbent on you to put up someone else who could have done better in the Dem primary and the general. Again, apart from Obama, it's tough to see who that would be.

Elizabeth Warren could have, but she categorically does not want to be president. Which I think is the real barrier. No one who actually wants the job would be better than Clinton.

[Dalton]

Just heard that Bernie will be campaigning with Hillary tomorrow. An endorsement won't be far behind.

[Terralthra]

I owe maraxus2 lunch, but I'm also satisfied with the reasons why. Sec. Clinton's platform has moved significantly left on two key issues (higher ed and public option/Medicare for all) in courting Sen. Sanders' endorsement.