Hillary Clinton lied when she said Edward Snowden could have received whistleblower protections under federal law. Or is she just totally ignorant?
Hillary Trashtalks About Snowden
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
14 Comments. Leave new
Hillary is a slow learner, not aware of how insecure emails are, refusing to learn anything from Snowden.
uh-huh. You sing to the cops, Tony Soprano takes out a contract on you, then he invites you to talk about it in the lowest level of the parking garage under Bada Bing. Do you go?
Well, why not? There’s a law against him harming you, right?
i’m a little confused about the last panel. not? not what? not just trash talk? not like no she won’t be droning people based on less? not evil? i wanted to repost this but it’s a little confusing. 🙁
“Not evil.” (I hate the current trend of placing periods after every word for emphasis.)
«(I hate the current trend of placing periods after every word for emphasis.)» Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, mein verehrter Lehrer ! Men as I understand it – and myself use it – ellipsis is used not for emphasis, but to indicate that there may be more to come – i e, a pause, rather than a full stop….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
You made me laugh. 😀
I was not referring to ellipses, which I often use myself.
I. was. referring. to. the. use. of. a. period. after. every. word. for. some. idiotic. reason.
In the cartoon, it was: “Not. Evil.”
I hate that.
That Hillary Rodham Clinton trashtalks Edward Joseph Snowden – and would do far worse to him were she to have the opportunity – hardly comes as a surprise ; people like Mr Snowden, Ms Manning, et al are the mortal enemies of everything she stands for….
Henri
What lie? Are you saying he could not have gotten all the protections of being a whistleblower? Maybe there aren’t any such protections, or maybe the protections are inadequate, but that’s a different matter. Have you never seen a Clinton before?
… and the progressive camp claims that this “Best-of-what-Bubba-left-over” is the sane-est choice among America’s circus crowd of professional clown/candidates. Meanwhile, Bernie S. may be — perhaps — 15% socialist. The other, under-the-radar 85% of him is Zio-fascist. He is absolutely enamored with how Bibi’s East-Eurocentric, imported barbarian invaders are genocidally slaughtering their way towards a greater Zionland.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
https://thewordsmithcollection.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-supports-the-right-wing-war-lobby/
http://dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Smith15.htm
So, this is the newest face of “most-sane?” We are so screwed.
DanD
Alas, DanD, while Mr Sanders’ position on many domestic issues in your country has been far better than most, you are entirely correct in your assessment that when it comes to foreign policy and the invasion of foreign countries to bring about «regime change», he has with very few exceptions supported business as usual (albeit a slightly better «business» than that espoused by Ms Clinton). Even in the unlikely event that Mr Sanders were to be elected US president on 8 November 2016 and in addition, were able to implement his policies, the latter would not, alas, suffice to save the world from the Empire of Chaos. It would seem that the only thing that can do so is sufficient countervailing power from other states ; the question is whether this will be forthcoming and whether the US government would choose the (thermo)nuclear option in the case they saw their position of global hegemon seriously threatened. Perhaps this question will be answered on 20 January 1917….
Henri
1917?
I must have missed your point.
🙂
Alas, mein verehrter Lehrer, you are reacting not to my point, but to my typo – I meant, of course, to write 20 January 2017. As we know, Ted’s webmaster doesn’t allow us to correct our inadvertent errors ; he seems to prefer us warts and all…. 😉
Henri
@ mhenriday –
Au contraire, mon frère!
I really thought (based upon what I’ve observed concerning your extensive knowledge) that you were making some sort of analogy to WWI.
I was looking forward your expounding upon the analogy.
Ain’t that a hoot?
😀
[I’ve learned to proofread my posts BEFORE clicking “Post Comment” — and even then I can make errors, which I quickly follow with something like “stupid remake = stupid remark” — usually within a minute or two! 🙂 ]
I don’t think Hillary is slow at all – instead, she is cold, calculating, and has honed her skills in side-stepping direct questions and avoiding saying anything of real substance unless it fits her agenda. With the candidates we are faced with from both political parties – it is fairly obvious that almost no one of substance who truly cares about making substantial changes wants to be president (Bernie, Trump aside). Taking that road now requires incredible amounts of funding to even get any traction. Anyone who runs now knows that they will be faced with incredible opposition and constant under-a-microscope criticism and yup, hate. It’s not a job anymore that many people want to take on, except those who see it as a way to power and control, satisfying their masters. Getting most of the American public to wake up and understand what is happening to them and garnering their support for real change and reform of our dysfunctional, corrupt country is like corralling cats.