• spider@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Bill Clinton, who was elected president in 1993, is younger today than the person they’re throwing into the ring 31 years later.

    Hillary’s refusal to bow out when it was clear how deeply unpopular she was put Trump in office in 2016

    If that hadn’t happened, Bernie might’ve been winding up his second term at almost the same age as Biden starting his.

    Also, this story more or less flew under the radar…

    From CNN, via Internet Archive, October 11, 2022:

    Shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered retired British spy Christopher Steele “up to $1 million” to prove the explosive allegations in his dossier about Donald Trump, a senior FBI analyst testified Tuesday.

    The cash offer was made during an overseas October 2016 meeting between Steele and several top FBI officials who were trying to corroborate Steele’s claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to win the election.

    FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that Steele never got the money because he could not “prove the allegations.”

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Trump is absolutely compromised by Putin. The Kremlin leak in 2021 confirmed that, but that story also flew under the radar for most people.

      It would have been nice to have 2 terms of Sanders, and be ready to move on to a younger candidate now, but now he’s too old as well. Oh well.

      • spider@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Thanks; that was an interesting read. However, it needs to be read closely…

        according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.

        …an assessment is an opinion as to their authenticity – i.e., they may or may not be real.

        Contrast that with the FBI agent’s more cautious approach.

        The bottom line is, even with Russian interference, Hillary would’ve easily won the presidency if she was a decent candidate and ran a competent campaign. Neither is true, so she chose to use alleged Russian collusion as an excuse when she lost.

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.

          Yes, an opinion by experts. It is an opinion, but not one that can be dismissed without competing opinion from others of equal credential.

          Hillary would’ve easily won the presidency if she was a decent candidate and ran a competent campaign.

          Absolutely agree, although I think it’s ‘more true’ stated the opposite direction: even without Russian interference, Hillary was never going to win, because she was a bad candidate, and her disastrous campaign was the nail in the coffin.

          • spider@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Yes, an opinion by experts. It is an opinion, but not one that can be dismissed without competing opinion from others of equal credential.

            Correct, but it also cannot be regarded as irrefutable evidence.

            Hillary was never going to win, because she was a bad candidate, and her disastrous campaign was the nail in the coffin.

            And, like Trump, she will never admit that she made any mistakes.