Clinton Audio from 2006 Emerges about Rigging the Palestinian Elections - Polidicks

[quote] On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press. The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer. The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton’s Republican opponent Donald Trump that the [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-defending-rigged-election-talk-calls-president/story?id=43053336"]current election[/URL] is “rigged.” Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats). “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.” Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral equivalency. Regarding capturing combatants in war—the June capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas militants who came across the Gaza border via an underground tunnel was very much front of mind—Clinton can be heard on the tape saying, "And then, when, you know, Hamas, you know, sent the terrorists, you know, through the tunnel into Israel that killed and captured, you know, kidnapped the young Israeli soldier, you know, there’s a sense of like, one-upsmanship, and in these cultures of, you know, well, if they captured a soldier, we’ve got to capture a soldier." Equating Hamas, which to this day remains on the State Department’s [URL="http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm"]official list[/URL] of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, with the armed forces of a close American ally was not what many expected to hear in the Jewish Press editorial offices, which were then at Third Avenue and Third Street in Brooklyn. (The paper’s office has since moved to the Boro Park section of Brooklyn.) The use of the phrase “these cultures” is also a bit of a head-scratcher. [/quote] [url=http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/]Observer[/url] [url=https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1]Link to the Audio Clip[/url] Oh boy, this is gonna be a shit-filled week for the Clinton Campaign.

Oh yeah, an out of context and easily manipulated and edited out audio is totally a good evidence. /s

I don't think you understand how big of a rift this could cause with the left. Most left folk are pro-palestine, and this is clear evidence and audio of her saying they shouldn't be allowed self-determination.

Have they released the whole tapes? Or only this clip? [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51275771]I don't think you understand how big of a rift this could cause with the left. Most left folk are pro-palestine, and this is clear evidence and audio of her saying they shouldn't be allowed self-determination.[/QUOTE] That doesn't sound correct, I thought the Democrats were very pro-Israel as well?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51275773]That doesn't sound correct, I thought the Democrats were very pro-Israel as well?[/QUOTE] It's mixed. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg[/media]

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51275773] That doesn't sound correct, I thought the Democrats were very pro-Israel as well?[/QUOTE] Old guard is Pro-Israel, while the new guard of kids coming out of college have been giving a very Pro-Palestine vibe and criticizing Israel for constantly attacking flotillas and the like. What this will do though without a doubt in my mind is drive a wedge between Hillary and muslim voters.

Did Clinton pressure Comey to reopen the investigation against her to cover this up????

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51275795]Old guard is Pro-Israel, while the new guard of kids coming out of college have been giving a very Pro-Palestine vibe and criticizing Israel for constantly attacking flotillas and the like. What this will do though without a doubt in my mind is drive a wedge between Hillary and muslim voters.[/QUOTE] I'm curious if there's polls for the later. Maybe it's just because I'm in Texas but most young people I've ran into were either pro israel or just apathetic

This story shouldn't be dismissed wholesale, but coming from a source that [url=http://observer.com/2016/04/in-the-republican-primary-donald-trump-for-president/]endorsed Trump in the primary[/url] and is owned by his son-in-law (which they did disclose at the bottom of the article in the OP), it's reasonable to ask for more than a 14-second extract from a 45-minute tape. Why haven't they released the whole thing?

Even out of context, she's not saying they did that but that they should have.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51275891]Even out of context, she's not saying they did that but that they should have.[/QUOTE] It is still some dangerous thing to say for someone in any political position.

[QUOTE=patrioticturtle;51275921]It is still some dangerous thing to say for someone in any political position.[/QUOTE] Then put Cheney in jail for the same thing then He's as guilty as sin of controlling foreign democracy

Without context, her statement doesn't necessarily mean literally rigging the nomination and trying to correlate it with Donald Trump's bizarre and baseless conspiracy theories is pointless. It's an apples and oranges comparison between our election between presidential nominees in political parties and Hamas and Fatah, the former of which doesn't recognize Israel, respects it's current borders, and supports random rocket attacks against populated civilian centers. I wouldn't blame anyone in our government from trying to sway an election in that context, but there isn't even enough context provided to believe Clinton meant that in an overt (or covert) way.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51275967]Without context, her statement doesn't necessarily mean literally rigging the nomination and trying to correlate it with Donald Trump's bizarre and baseless conspiracy theories is pointless. It's an apples and oranges comparison between our election between presidential nominees in political parties and Hamas and Fatah, the former of which doesn't recognize Israel, respects it's current borders, and supports random rocket attacks against populated civilian centers. I wouldn't blame anyone in our government from trying to sway an election in that context, but there isn't even enough context provided to believe Clinton meant that in an overt (or covert) way.[/QUOTE] furthermore, if the contextless audio clip is as representative of her meaning as is claimed, then the title of this thread is still wrong determining who would win an election as a precaution to starting an election is just controlling your influence as a foreign power why would you push to bring democracy to an area that you believe will only fuck itself up with that power? it isn't rigging an election to put extra consideration into how much you really want to convince a non-democratic government to start an election but of course OP and other trump voters will use this as "proof" of their need to rebel

[QUOTE=bitches;51275997]furthermore, if the contextless audio clip is as representative of her meaning as is claimed, then the title of this thread is still wrong determining who would win an election as a precaution to starting an election is just controlling your influence as a foreign power why would you push to bring democracy to an area that you believe will only fuck itself up with that power? it isn't rigging an election to put extra consideration into how much you really want to convince a non-democratic government to start an election but of course OP and other trump voters will use this as "proof" of their need to rebel[/QUOTE] Yeah, but the problem is that in order to be consistent, she is going to have to give the "Democracy isn't for everyone" speech in public.

Here's the actual extract, for those who actually want it. [QUOTE]“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”[/QUOTE] [media]https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1[/media] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006"]Here's what she's referring to.[/URL] This was an election for the PLC (Palestinian Legislative Election), where Hamas won the majority. At the time, Israeli and Palestinian officials turned to the U.S to make some sort of judgement on the allowing of voting in East Jerusleum, which could disrupt the elections. Specifically, this was Fatah Palestinian officials, since they were concerned they would lose the election if voting was allowed - which ended up happening. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006#Voting_in_East_Jerusalem"]George W. Bush said for the elections to continue.[/URL] [QUOTE]On 21 December 2005, Israeli officials stated their intention to prevent voting in East Jerusalem, which, unlike most of the Palestinian-inhabited areas that are planned to participate in the election, is under Israeli civil and military control. (Israel annexed East Jerusalem in the wake of the Six-Day War; this move has not been recognized by most other governments, or by the PNA, which claims Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital.) Israel's stated motivation was not the argument about sovereignty over the area (Palestinian voters in East Jerusalem had been allowed to vote in previous PNA elections despite the dispute) but concern over Hamas' participation in—and potential victory in—the election. Muhammad Abu Tir, Mustafa Barghouti, and Hanan Ashrawi were all briefly detained by Israeli police when they attempted to campaign in East Jerusalem. In response, PNA officials stated that the election would not be held if East Jerusalem voters could not participate[20]—[B]though this move was seen more as a pretext to postpone elections that Fatah might lose to Hamas than a debate over principle. [/B]After privately agreeing to use the issue as a pretext for delaying the elections again so as to avoid Hamas electoral gains, Israeli and Palestinian officials raised the issue with the United States. [B]But President George W. Bush made clear the elections should go forward as scheduled[/B].[21][/QUOTE] The specific wording I think is what's creating the issue. 'Determine' could mean that they decided the outcome, but it could also mean that they should have done further research to see whether allowing Eastern Jerusalem Palestinians to vote would create an Hamas victory. Interestingly, all opinion polls (at least, those on wikiped) showed Fatah being the most popular by some margin. A pre-brexit like upset? [URL="https://www.ndi.org/files/2068_ps_elect_012506.pdf"]Also worth mentioning that an 84 international body found the election to be fair and democratic.[/URL] [B][U]In conclusion, it's most likely that she was referring to figuring out who would win, rather than literally controlling the vote.[/U][/B]

[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51277032][B][U]In conclusion, it's most likely that she was referring to figuring out who would win, rather than literally controlling the vote.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] Ok that's exactly what I was thinking when I heard that. The wording just didn't make a lick of sense in the context of rigging an election.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;51277195]hillary isn't really worse than other politicians we've had, she's just getting more shit dug up on her than usual. this sounds like some horrible revelation, but it's really nothing new. it's not like the us doesn't rig international elections on a yearly basis. they've been doing it for literally 60 years.[/QUOTE] Except the U.S didn't rig the Palestinian elections?

wow this is horrible

[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51277210]Except the U.S didn't rig the Palestinian elections?[/QUOTE] This is the best part. Basically nobody in the US supports Hamas, even though a lot of people support Palestinian independence. "Hillary says we rigged the Palestinian elections! This is terrible!" Fucking Hamas won. If we rigged anything we did a shit job. Pretty clearly shows that we didn't.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51277760]Fucking Hamas won. If we rigged anything we did a shit job. Pretty clearly shows that we didn't.[/QUOTE] Who says the US isn't just awful at rigging elections? Maybe the 2016-election [B]is[/B] rigged as Trump claims, but done so poorly it ends up with a Trump-victory? [sp]Honestly only realistic way he'll win[/sp]

Even if they did try to fix the elections I don't care, they're fixing them against literally genocidal terrorists. How evil of them!