United States Congress 5: Still Looking for a Spine

[AmazonGrace]

She should seek political asylum as long as she's able to.

[Howl]

On a happier note: 

[fraurosena]

And on a gleeful note: 

 

[Howl]

OK, @fraurosena, doing a big happy dance!  I think Congress reconvenes next week.  Going to be a REAL Infrastructure Week! 

[formergothardite]

So when does the new Congress start? January? I hope that the current congress doesn't do too many horrible things to protect Trump between now and then. 

[GreyhoundFan]

17 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

So when does the new Congress start? January? I hope that the current congress doesn't do too many horrible things to protect Trump between now and then. 

Yes, they take office in January. The current gang can still do plenty of damage in the interim.

[Howl]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

I think Congress reconvenes next week.  Going to be a REAL Infrastructure Week! 

Hah! I was delirious and got way ahead of myself! 

Yes,  I suspect plans are underway to ram things through.  They knew the Blue Wave predictions for the House were accurate and have had a LOT of time to prepare a battle strategy. Filling judicial vacancies may be at the top of the list. 

[formergothardite]

9 minutes ago, Howl said:

Filling judicial vacancies may be at the top of the list. 

That is the Senate and we have no way of stopping that. They are filling so many judicial seats with far right judges that we might be in big trouble if something can't be done. 

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, Howl said:

Hah! I was delirious and got way ahead of myself! 

Yes,  I suspect plans are underway to ram things through.  They knew the Blue Wave predictions for the House were accurate and have had a LOT of time to prepare a battle strategy. Filling judicial vacancies may be at the top of the list. 

Don't forget, the Dem's will be working their tails off with their own battle strategy between now and January. As soon as they've taken office, they'll be ready to act from day one.

Although they have some time yet to do harm, isn't there a break in Congress for the holiday season in December?

[AnywhereButHere]

Spinal infusion surgery set for January. Please may the spinal graft take!

[GreyhoundFan]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Don't forget, the Dem's will be working their tails off with their own battle strategy between now and January. As soon as they've taken office, they'll be ready to act from day one.

Although they have some time yet to do harm, isn't there a break in Congress for the holiday season in December?

They normally do have a break, however McTurtle and Lyan can play games with the schedule. McTurtle has done it many times, getting a crapload of alt-right judges passed during recess periods. Lyan is probably completely out of give a fucks as he is out of here in January, off to ply his trade at a far right think tank or as a speaker for hire.

[SassyPants]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

They normally do have a break, however McTurtle and Lyan can play games with the schedule. McTurtle has done it many times, getting a crapload of alt-right judges passed during recess periods. Lyan is probably completely out of give a fucks as he is out of here in January, off to ply his trade at a far right think tank or as a speaker for hire.

Wonder if we'll see Ryan in a future presidential race?

[47of74]

One GOP fuck stick will get to be a guest of the United States Government for a while

Quote

Disgraced former Texas Congressman Steve Stockman will serve 10 years in federal prison for conspiring to bilk at least $775,000 from conservative foundations that intended the donations for charities and voter education.

Stockman was convicted in April on 23 of 24 counts, including mail and wire fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. He was sentenced Wednesday in Houston.

Prosecutors say the 61-year-old Republican misused the donations for personal and political use.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Color me unsurprised: "Republicans’ campaign promises are already vanishing into thin air"

Spoiler

As any political scientist will tell you, presidents keep most of the promises they make on the campaign trail, or at least try to. It can be a little harder to judge members of Congress. Most have little power on their own; you may have voted for Congressman Forehead because he told you he would clean up Washington, revive the economy and protect Social Security, but he won’t be accomplishing those things single-handedly.

And yet there are times when a party makes a collective argument in a campaign, and we can look to see whether it followed through.

That’s one of the main functions the campaign serves: Each party tells the voters what the urgent challenges are and what it thinks needs to be done about them, and then the voters judge it on those agendas. And this year, the Republican Party could hardly have been clearer. Its agenda came down to two things:

1. Protect Americans with preexisting medical conditions.
2. Save us from a caravan of migrants filled with MS-13 gangsters, Middle Eastern terrorists, and probably a Nazgul or two, all of whom were on their way to kill you and your family.

Some candidates emphasized one more than the other, but that was the core of the Republican argument. So now that the election is over and Republicans still control the White House and the Senate, they’ll be keeping those promises. Right?

Weirdly enough, they will. How? By making them disappear. Let’s start with the first promise. This was one of the most shocking collective lies in memory, as the entire GOP did an abrupt 180-degree turn to claim that it was firmly, passionately committed to maintaining the protections in the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have been fighting to destroy ever since the law was signed in 2010.

While they obviously couldn’t say so explicitly, at times it sounded as though they had literally switched sides and were now battling to protect the ACA from some unnamed antagonist, which of course was themselves. To take just one example, Martha McSally, who may or may not be the next senator from Arizona (votes are still being counted), claimed she was “leading the fight” to “force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions,” which of course they’re already forced to do by the ACA.

Fortunately, keeping this promise requires Republicans to do nothing more than stand down and let the ACA be. Which (in Congress, anyway) is exactly what they’re doing:

The day after crushing midterm election losses handed Democrats control of the House, GOP leaders signaled they had no appetite to make another go at shredding the signature accomplishment of Obama’s presidency anytime soon.

“I think it’s pretty obvious, the Democratic House is not going to be interested in that,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who suggested instead that lawmakers address the flaws in the Affordable Care Act “on a bipartisan basis.”

Beyond the practical barriers, Republicans also offered a political imperative for abandoning the nearly decade-old fight: the defeats they suffered to Democrats who ran hard against their efforts to roll back the law.

So congratulations, Republicans, on keeping your promise to protect people with preexisting conditions by no longer trying to take away protections for people with preexisting conditions.

Unfortunately, there’s the small matter of the lawsuit filed by Republicans in 19 states and supported by the Trump administration, which would nullify the entire ACA, not to mention the administration’s promotion of junk insurance plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions. If that lawsuit succeeds, the whole game will be up. Which is why I suspect that they’re secretly hoping it fails. After spending all that time claiming they wanted to protect people, the last thing they want is for the public to be reminded, in a catastrophic way, of what they’ve been trying to do for so long.

What about the other promise, to protect us from the terrifying invasion of asylum seekers from the south? I have some good news there too: You and your family will not be killed by the caravan. Thanks, Republicans!

Of course, the reason is that the caravan was never a threat in the first place. It wasn’t full of gang members and terrorists, and as previous caravans had, its numbers will diminish on the hundreds of miles its participants still have to walk as some people turn back or decide to stay in Mexico. When those who remain reach the border, they’ll present themselves to American officials and request asylum. Those requests will be evaluated in a process our government conducts every day; some claims will be successful, and others won’t.

What we do know is that now that the election is over, Republicans will stop talking about it. What two days ago was a terrifying threat to the life of every Fox News viewer will be quickly forgotten. As for President Trump’s campaign gimmick of sending 5,200 troops to the border to protect against the onrushing horde, the Pentagon has already dropped the self-parodying name for the mission (it was called “Operation Faithful Patriot,” because I guess “Operation Trumpmerica Star Spangled Eagleflag” would have been a bit much). Don’t be surprised if in the coming weeks, the troops are quietly sent back to their regular duties.

In other words, everything Republicans promised and talked about during the campaign will simply disappear into thin air. They won’t bother talking about safeguarding protections for preexisting conditions any more, having given up on their effort to do just the opposite. They won’t bother talking about protecting us from the migrant menace, because it was always largely hyped. Republicans can just lay low and hope people forget about all of it. Whatever else you might say about them, you have to admit they’re clever.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Accountability is finally coming to the Trump administration. Its members should be terrified."

Spoiler

Democrats won’t actually take control of the House until January, but they’re ready to hit the ground running:

Fresh off a resounding midterm elections victory, House Democrats on Sunday began detailing plans to wield their newfound oversight power in the next Congress, setting their sights on acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker while rebuffing calls from some liberals to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

As the article above explains, multiple Democrats who will be chairing committees in the new Congress made clear that they already have a clear idea of the matters they’ll be investigating and they’re ready to use their subpoena powers if the administration refuses to cooperate. You can be sure that when all this begins, Republicans will portray it as madness, a chaotic eruption of politically motivated probes with no legitimate purpose. The truth, however, is that Democrats seem to know exactly what they’re doing.

That’s part of the message they’re trying to get out. Here’s what Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who will chair the House Oversight Committee, said on ABC News’s “This Week”:

I’m not going to be handing out subpoenas like somebody’s handing out candy on Halloween. I take this as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, I take subpoenas very seriously. And I plan to, if I have to use them, they will be used in a very — in a methodical way and it must be in the public interest.

And here’s what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation”:

Well, we are responsible. We are not scattershot. We are not doing any investigation for a political purpose but to seek the truth. So, I think a word that you could describe about how Democrats will go forward in this regard is we will be very strategic.

You can dismiss their protestations that none of it has a political purpose as the kind of thing politicians have to say but that fools no one; of course it has a political purpose. But when they describe their investigation plan as a strategic one, you can take them at their word. Pelosi hasn’t stayed in charge of House Democrats for the past 16 years because she doesn’t know how to act strategically.

Keep in mind also that Pelosi has been in this position before. She became House minority leader after the 2002 elections and led Democrats through taking over the House in 2006 and then doing exactly what they want to do now: opposing an unpopular Republican president until a Democratic one could be elected two years later. One of her greatest strengths has been her ability to persuade everyone in her caucus to move in the same direction and stick to the plan she has constructed for them (something that her counterparts, including John Boehner and Paul D. Ryan, failed at repeatedly).

We don’t know exactly what that plan is, but the biggest challenge will be finding room on the calendar to conduct all the probes Democrats have lined up. There’s the strong documentary evidence that the president and his family undertook a years-long conspiracy to commit tax fraud on a massive scale, and the administration’s attempt to rig the census and its repeated lies about it, and the possibility that the president intervened in the decision on where to locate the new FBI headquarters to avoid competition for his hotel, to name just a few of the dozens of matters that cry out for investigation. There are things we can’t yet anticipate, like whatever will be revealed once we’re finally able to see President Trump’s tax returns. (If you think they won’t contain evidence of a pile of misdeeds, I’ve got a degree from Trump University to sell you.) And, oh yeah, that Russia thing.

And, of course, there are a raft of policy decisions ranging from the questionable to the horrific that administration officials need to answer questions about, whether it’s the sabotaging of the Affordable Care Act or the separation of children from their parents at the border.

When Republicans inevitably begin whining that Democrats are being too aggressive in all this oversight, remember how they be-clowned themselves through the Obama years, trying to gin up one phony scandal after another, including mounting seven, yes, seven separate investigations of Benghazi. We can and should have vigorous debates about what is being uncovered, how to understand it and what should be done about it. But the last thing we should do is waste our time arguing about whether there are too many investigations.

So, yes, it’s all political — just like everything else Congress does. But that doesn’t make it any less legitimate, especially given how Republicans have utterly abandoned their oversight responsibilities for the past two years.

If the Trump administration is a bastion of integrity and public-spiritedness, that’s what the investigations will reveal. And if the president himself has displayed nothing but the highest ethical standards and respect for law throughout his career, that’s what we’ll learn. The sense of dread spreading over the White House and the Republican Party right now isn’t because they think House Democrats will waste everyone’s time with these investigations; it’s because they know there’s so much misbehavior to be uncovered. The public deserves to see and understand all of it, and if that winds up hurting Republicans, they have only themselves to blame.

 

[fraurosena]

So that's what a spinectomy costs...

McConnell Received $3.5M In Campaign Donations From Russian Oligarch-Linked Firm

Quote

Len Blavatnik donated $3.5 million to Mitch McConnell's PAC from 2015 to 2017.

Ukrainian-born billionaire Len Blavatnik, who holds dual U.S.-U.K. citizenship, used to be a fairly run-of-the-mill campaign contributor, donating relatively modest amounts in a bipartisan fashion — and then the 2016 election cycle hit.

Beginning in 2015, Blavatnik lavished contributions on Republicans, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell alone on the receiving end of $3.5 million between 2015 and 2017.

Via Dallas News:

Blavatnik contributed a total of $3.5 million to a PAC associated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Blavatnik contributed $1.5 million to the GOP Senate Leadership Fund PAC in the name of Access Industries and another $1 million in the name of AI-Altep Holdings during the 2015/2016 election season. And as of September 2017, he had contributed another $1 million this year through AI–Altep.

Blavatnik, whose family emigrated to the U.S. in the late 1970s, is a longtime business associate of Russian oligarchs Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, both of whom have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Along with McConnell, Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham received hefty sums from Blavatnik as well.

Read the full report here. (link)

 

[fraurosena]

What a great idea. What a wonderful issue for a Democrat to run on. I hope this get's a lot of traction in the coming months!

 

[fraurosena]

Wow. Go Sen. Feinstein!

The wording of the letter is rather revealing. "The circumstances surrounding Attorney General Sessions' departure". Departure. Not resignation...

Sadly I doubt they will hold any hearings of the sort before the Dems take over.

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

"GOP senator: It’s a ‘great idea’ to make it harder for ‘liberal folks’ to vote"

Spoiler

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) is facing backlash for her remarks once again after saying laws that “make it just a little more difficult” for some college students to vote are “a great idea.”

A video tweeted Thursday afternoon shows Hyde-Smith telling a small crowd in Starkville, Miss., that “they remind me that there’s a lot of liberal folks in those other schools who maybe we don’t want to vote. Maybe we want to make it just a little more difficult. And I think that’s a great idea."

Her campaign said Thursday that the senator was joking and that the video was “selectively edited.”

“Obviously Sen. Hyde-Smith was making a joke and clearly the video was selectively edited,” said Melissa Scallan, spokeswoman for Hyde-Smith’s campaign. “Now the liberal media wants to talk about anything other than Mike Espy’s record of corruption and taking $750,000 — and lying about it — from an African dictator now charged with war crimes, including murder, rape and torture.”

Hyde-Smith is facing a Nov. 27 runoff against Democrat Mike Espy, and her campaign has been reeling from another remark caught on camera in which she joked about a “public hanging.”

In an email to The Washington Post, Scallan said Hyde-Smith’s comments about voting came on Nov. 3 while the senator was “talking to four freshmen at Mississippi State University about an idea to have polling places on college campuses.”

“That’s what she said was a great idea,” Scallan wrote. “Someone pointed out that college campuses were liberal and that’s when she made the joke about not wanting everyone to vote. That was a joke. The polling places on college campuses is what she said was a great idea.”

Scallan added: “The senator absolutely is not a racist and does not support voter suppression.”

Espy’s communications director, Danny Blanton, said Hyde-Smith talking about voter suppression was “not a laughing matter” and called her a “walking stereotype.”

“For a state like Mississippi, where voting rights were obtained through sweat and blood, everyone should appreciate that this is not a laughing matter,” Blanton said. “Mississippians deserve a senator who represents our best qualities, not a walking stereotype who embarrasses our state.”

In 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, effectively allowing officials in Southern states such as Mississippi to change election laws without federal approval.

The video was posted Thursday by Lamar White Jr., a blogger and journalist who also shared the video of Hyde-Smith in which the senator is heard joking that if she were invited to a public hanging, she’d “be on the front row.”

After the “public hanging” video went viral, Hyde-Smith suggested in that statement that she was using an “exaggerated expression of regard.”

She was reluctant to apologize or provide more context for her remark when she was questioned by reporters at a news conference Monday.

“I put out a statement yesterday, and that’s all I’m going to say about it,” Hyde-Smith said when asked by reporters whether she was familiar with the history of hangings in Mississippi. She was also asked whether the phrasing was in her everyday vocabulary and to specify why the remark should not be viewed with a negative connotation.

Hyde-Smith, who has been endorsed by Trump, became the first woman to represent Mississippi in Congress in April after she was appointed to replace Republican Sen. Thad Cochran, who stepped down because of health problems.

She is facing Espy, a black Democrat, in a runoff to determine who will serve the remaining two years of Cochran’s term. Neither candidate was able to win more than 50 percent of the vote in the Nov. 6 special election.

Espy and Hyde-Smith had the top two vote tallies, each receiving about 41 percent. If Espy were to win, he would become the first black senator to represent the state since the Reconstruction era. Espy served three terms in the House of Representatives, from 1987 to 1993.

Many critics of Hyde-Smith’s “public lynching” comment noted the history of racism and hangings in the state. Statistics from the NAACP show that nearly one-eighth of the 4,743 lynchings between 1882 and 1968 in the United States took place in Mississippi.

“Hyde-Smith’s decision to joke about ‘hanging,’ when the history of African Americans is marred by countless incidents of this barbarous act, is sick,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement. “Any politician seeking to serve as a national voice of the people of Mississippi should know better.”

Hyde-Smith is a former Democratic state senator and agriculture commissioner. In 2010, she switched to the Republican Party, according to the Clarion Ledger. She recently vowed to keep pushing Trump’s agenda, asserting that “Republicans are going to keep this seat” and that she would “fight like nobody’s business the next three weeks.”

Gee, she seems charming. End sarcasm font.

[GreyhoundFan]

"How Marco Rubio’s sad decline explains the Republican Party"

Spoiler

One of the most revealing sidelights to the recent Florida recounts was to see Sen. Marco Rubio tossing off conspiracy-mongering tweets about missing ballots and stolen votes, a positively Trumpian display that more than a few people who once admired Rubio found disheartening. Sean Sullivan reports:

Just four years ago, Marco Rubio was gearing up to run for president with an inclusive and sunny message designed to capture the imagination of a modernizing Republican Party — and maybe even the country.

Those days, and that candidate, are long gone.

Like many Republicans, the second-term Florida senator has sounded more and more like President Trump since the 2016 election — striking a notably darker and foreboding tone while adopting some of Trump’s slash-and-burn political tactics and controversial positions.

This could be an object lesson in the moral perils of political survival, a story about how easy it is for a politician to lose his soul if he cares too much about one day reaching the brass ring of the presidency. But Marco Rubio’s story is also a microcosm of everything that has happened to the Republican Party over the past decade — its promise and its shameful descent.

In fact, you can get an almost-complete understanding of that history just by marking Rubio’s highs and lows, his setbacks and ill-fated reinventions.

Rubio won election to the Senate in 2010 as part of the tea party wave and was immediately hailed as a future star. He was intensely conservative but lacked the off-putting hard edge of so many of his ideological compatriots. Many believed he was the person who could sell Reagan-style conservatism to a changing America. Eloquent and charismatic, Rubio was young (only 39 at the time), bilingual and more tuned in to pop culture than your average senator. He liked to quote hip-hop lyrics on the Senate floor.

Not long after the presidential election of 2012, which many Republicans felt Mitt Romney lost in no small part because of his harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric, Rubio appeared on the cover of Time magazine under the headline, “The Republican Savior.” The accompanying article said, “GOP leaders know they have a demographic problem. They hope Rubio can help provide the solution, which is why they’ve chosen him to deliver the response to Obama’s State of the Union address on Feb. 12—in English and Spanish.”

Rubio worked hard with the bipartisan Gang of 8 to produce an immigration bill everyone could live with, one that included both increased border security and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Then came the backlash. The immigration bill passed the Senate in June 2013 but died in the House, and Rubio found himself the target of withering contempt from many of the same right-wing media figures who had celebrated him so recently but now portrayed him as an advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants. So when he decided to run for president in 2015, he thought he could repudiate the bill he helped write, advocate a tougher stance on immigration and use his firm conservatism on every other issue to convince the GOP base that he could still be their champion.

But he still misunderstood where the party was. “The time has come for our generation to lead the way toward a new American Century,” he said in the speech announcing his candidacy. “Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.”

Then Donald Trump happened, and the problem for Rubio wasn’t just Trump himself but what he revealed about the Republican electorate. It turned out they weren’t looking for someone who could sell conservatism to a changing America. Instead, “going back” was precisely what they wanted. Only one candidate told them he could make America everything it was when they were young, especially that he could get rid of all the immigrants they so despised.

The most emblematic moment of Rubio’s fall may have come in an ad, little noticed at the time, that he ran as his fortunes were declining during the primaries. In the ad, Rubio says, “This election is about the essence of America, about all of us who feel out of place in our own country.”

This was stunning, because the whole point of Rubio’s entire political career had been that he doesn’t feel out of place in modern America. But even he resorted to channeling the anxieties and resentments of old, white people when it became clear where the nomination battle was being fought.

And, of course, he lost. He was supposed to be the Republican version of Barack Obama, but it turned out that wasn’t what Republicans wanted at all. And now, his antennae still tuned to the party’s base, he tries to be just Trumpian enough to maintain their affection in preparation for his inevitable 2024 presidential run.

But what will Rubio find when he mounts that campaign? Will the party decide its members really do need to find a way to appeal to nonwhite voters — for real this time? Or will Trump’s white nationalism have become so inextricably woven into what it means to be a Republican that Rubio will find himself in the same position with primary voters that he was in 2016, unable to break through the voters’ attraction toward the candidate offering the most direct appeal to their fears and hatreds?

A great deal depends on whether Trump wins reelection in 2020. If he loses, Republican voters may be more open to Rubio’s appeal, the loss of power convincing them that the party has to change if it’s to survive. In the meantime, Rubio will keep trying, however insincerely, to give the GOP base what he thinks it wants. But he can’t change who he is. Rubio was supposed to be the Republican who could sell a changing America on Reagan-style conservatism. But as long as Trump-style conservatism is what the GOP wants to sell, Rubio probably won’t get the chance.

 

[fraurosena]

Yep, that's what you do for Thanksgiving: issue subpoenas.

[fraurosena]

Good to see Comey's fighting back and will not agree to a closed door session:

 

[fraurosena]

*does a double take* 

Trey Gowdy is going after Ivanka Trump’s emails — and he’s given her a deadline

Quote

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is demanding that President Donald Trump turn over information about his daughter's use of a private email account to conduct government business — and he is imposing a deadline.

Gowdy — who currently chairs the House Oversight Committee, although he will have to turn over his gavel once Democrats take control of the chamber in January — sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly demanding information on Ivanka Trump's use of a personal email account when performing public work, according to multiple reports. Establishing Dec. 5 as a deadline for complying with his demand, Gowdy wrote that the Trump daughter's use of that email account while serving as an adviser to the president might "implicate the Presidential Records Act and other security and recordkeeping requirements."

Gowdy also wrote that "in light of the importance and necessity of preserving the public record and doing so in a manner that is reflective of relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, the Committee must assess whether the White House took adequate steps to archive Ms. Trump’s emails and prevent a recurrence."

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., is the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and is expected to take it over once Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives. In a statement to Fox News, Cummings also made it clear that he expects to learn more about both Ivanka Trump's use of personal email and reports that her husband and fellow presidential adviser, Jared Kushner, may have done likewise.

"We launched a bipartisan investigation last year into White House officials’ use of private email accounts for official business, but the White House never gave us the information we requested," Cummings explained in his statement. He added that "we need those documents to ensure that Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and other officials are complying with federal records laws and there is a complete record of the activities of this Administration."

In a report from earlier this week, it was revealed that Ivanka Trump had used a private email account for much of her government business during a large chunk of 2017. When confronted on the matter, she claimed she was unaware of the record-keeping regulations imposed on government officials about their use of personal email. This is in spite of the fact that her father focused on Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for government business during the 2016 presidential election, arguing that she should be thrown in jail for doing so. He also frequently brought up Clinton's email scandal in his tweets during that campaign, such as writing, "How can Hillary run the economy when she can't even send emails without putting entire nation at risk?" and "Look at the way Crooked Hillary is handling the e-mail case and the total mess she is in. She is unfit to be president. Bad judgement!"