back to article It's Russian hackers, FBI and Wikileaks wot won it – Hillary Clinton on her devastating election loss

Hillary Clinton today gave her first full interview since dramatically losing the US presidential election – and has placed the blame for her downfall on Russian hackers, FBI director James Comey and Wikileaks. "If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president," Clinton told CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour at a …


  1. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge

    Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

    Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress if there was any material change in the Clinton email situation. And as noted, there was thanks to Wiener having approximately 20,000 Clinton emails on the laptop he & his wife both used. Clinton can finger point all she wants, but the entire email fiasco was of her own making. Had she not used her "private server" for Government business, there would have been no FBI investigation at all.

    (And no, I am not a Trump supporter.)

    1. MD Rackham

      Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

      There was no "email fiasco" except in the minds of low-information voters.

      She handled email the same way as her predecessors. Sorry if you fell for the Republican con.

      Really, really sorry if you fell for the Bernie con (which Clinton diplomatically didn't mention as another reason for her loss).

      1. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

        Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

        She was found to have been "extremely careless with classified information". Which is code speak for "if anyone else had done it they'd be in jail".

        As I may have mentioned in another thread on this, I previously worked on British MoD email servers, had TS clearance and was subject to the Official Secrets Act. If I'd done even 50% of what was done with her email I'd still be in jail being traded for a handful of cigarettes (on account of being so pretty).

        1. mike360

          Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

          SOLD! To the man in the braids.

        2. John H Woods Silver badge

          Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

          "... and was subject to the Official Secrets Act"

          Pedantic note

          EVERYONE is subject to the OSA, it's a law not a contract... signing it makes no legal difference whatsoever. It is customary to sign it when performing work where it is more relevant, but this is a reminder of its terms, not a voluntary acceptance of them.

          1. handleoclast Silver badge

            Re: Pedantic note

            True, we are all subject to the OSA. But only a handful of people have ever signed the OSA. Some, perhaps many, of the commentards here will have signed a piece of paper acknowledging that they have been acquainted with the OSA, its purposes and the penalties for breaching it. Only monarchs get to sign the act itself, when it is passed into law.

            1. Ninja Wabbit

              Re: Pedantic note

              How many fingers do you have on your hands?!? o.O

      2. cirby

        Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

        Her predecessors handled email much, much differently than she did, in many ways.

        Most obvious is that they didn't send classified information through their non-government email. Some staffers sent some very low-level information to Rice, but were corrected immediately. Clinton actively encouraged her staff to bypass classification, according to her own emails.

        Less obvious is that, when Powell and Rice did it, they still used their government accounts for the bulk of their work, with very few used through their other accounts. Clinton completely relied on her private server for all of her work emails.

        Clinton also lied flat-out about it, from first claiming that the server didn't exist, to claiming that it was only one unsecured email device - when it turned out to be over a dozen, some of which were lost, and others destroyed AFTER the investigation found out about them. That sort of action would land you in jail if you tried something similar when dealing with evidence in a government investigation...

        The last part - and the part you managed to miss - is that between the time Colin Powell and Condi Rice held office and the time Hillary and the Democrats took over, the law changed, making it illegal to use private email servers. Hillary knew this.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

          10 upvotes from me

        2. Jaybus

          Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

          Turns out she made a good choice to use a private email server. What would have happened if the FBI had also gotten the 30k deleted messages?

      3. Lord_Beavis

        @MD Rackham Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

        Your low-information voters were the ones that voted for this twat knowing she is a crook and a liar.

        1. Blank Reg

          Re: @MD Rackham Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

          Years of investigations, 100's of millions of dollars wasted and they couldn't pin a single thing on her.

          Either she's innocent, a criminal mastermind, or the Republicans are incompetent beyond belief

          No matter which it was, she would still make a better president than the insanely corrupt clowns currently running the circus.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @MD Rackham Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

            Untrue, for whatever reason she's been given "untouchable" status. Comey found that she was in breach of the law but claimed that she lacked "intent", something not required under the law, all that is required is negligence which indeed she displayed. Why did Comey not recommend prosecution - probably didn't want to do so at that stage of a presidential campaign which I guess one can understand.

            But the other charges, don't know why the DOJ isn't now investigating them; I would have empaneled a grand jury but perhaps they thought it would look particularly mean spirited post election ? <shrug>

            And something else just revealed, virtually all emails send via the Clintonmail server to Huma Abedin (who did have a security clearance) were forwarded immediately to Anthony Weiner's account (and he DIDN'T have clearance) so he could print them out for Huma to take to Hillary. That is yet another blatant breach of security given the highly sensitive nature of some of those eMails. Weiner is not the sort of person you would want with access to such material, probably post some of it tucked into his "bulging" boxers in a message to some teenager.

            Still think she should be properly investigated and charged if a proper independent review (aka Grand Jury) so recommends.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

        I'm afraid that the "low information voters" are those like you who swallowed the Clintonista spin hook, line, and sinker.

        1. She stored secret including highly restricted compartmentalized data on that server, which is strictly illegal - FBI investigation confirmed that;

        2. She committed perjury before a Federal judge by stating under oath that she had released all emails subject to a FOI request. The FBI investigation (which wasn't on this point) revealed that over 30,000 emails were deleted and of those few recovered most were relevant to the FOI, perjury is serious - that's what got her husband impeached after all;

        3. She (or those under her direct control) also are guilty of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. She/They received a subpoena for the email records on 3 March 2016 and the bulk of the emails were deleted on or about 25 March 2016.

        All three are serious crimes and if committed by anyone else (other than another highly connected politician) would have seen her charged , convicted, and imprisoned potentially for a lengthy stretch. She's still out walking around (sort of) which is a travesty of justice.

      5. Eduard Coli

        Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

        What is sad is that you believe that. If nothing was out of the ordinary in the way Hillary was using out of band communication even for classified information why did she feel the need to lie about it? First there was no mail server, then there was but it was decommissioned and erased, then it was in use but no classified stuff so on a so forth.

  2. Grifter

    Not entirely correct.

    "But the truth is, dodgy email security aside, Clinton didn't win because not enough of America liked her or wanted her to be their commander in chief. ®"

    Incorrect statement, see popular/electoral.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Not entirely correct.

      Sadly correct. Winning the popular vote doesn't mean much - see Al Gore.


      1. Grifter

        Re: Not entirely correct.

        The validity of the outcome of the popular vote isn't the point. The article could change to say that 'not enough of america's electoral college wanted'. But to suggest that not enough people wanted her to be president, when more people voted for than against, continues to be incorrect.

        1. 100113.1537

          Re: Not entirely correct.

          The article states it absolutely correctly. Not enough means not enough - it doesn't mean more than anyone else or less than them - it was quite clearly not enough to win the states that she needed to to win the Electoral College vote. This isn't hard to understand - given that it is the way US elections have been run for, oh let's see, 200 years.

          The fact that without California, the popular vote also fell for Trump (albeit very narrowly) goes to show why the Electoral College system was put in place - to prevent one (or two) large states having undue influence over the outcome of the election.

          1. Chris Miller


            And there was a Libertarian candidate who polled 4 million votes (absent which I imagine most would have gone to Trump). If you're going to have direct presidential elections, you either need a run-off system (à la France) or a transferable vote - otherwise you run the risk of the election outcome being decided by which third party candidates decide to stand. Had either of these been in place, Trump would probably still have won, though turnout might well have been different (there's little incentive for a Trump voter in California under the Electoral College system).

          2. Jaybus

            Re: Not entirely correct.

            Furthermore, take a look at the Presidential election map by county or voting precinct, where precincts that were won by Trump are in red and those won by Clinton in blue. The much greater detail shows that Clinton won large metropolitan areas and Trump won nearly all of the rest. At the time it was put in place, the worry was that the large cities, at the time Philadelphia and New York, would have undue influence over the election. Judging by the finer detailed election maps, they were correct in their assessment, and the 2016 election shows that the electoral college system is still working as expected.

      2. TReko

        Re: Not entirely correct.

        Or Nixon in 1960, who lost to Kennedy

      3. JCitizen

        Re: Not entirely correct.

        Looking at the popular vote for one candidate ignores the other part of the population.

        We are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy - a democracy votes the majority so the larger crowd can beat up on the smaller - that is not how it works in the US. That is how the Romans did it - we are not the Romans either, although our fiscal policy will surely defeat us in similar manner.

    2. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

      Re: Not entirely correct.

      Buzz: Wrong!

      The "Popular" vote was for "None of these bozos" which over 80 million eligible American voters went for and didn't vote at all. Next on the list was "anyone but Clinton*". At best she got third.

      * Taken as when you position yourself and the chosen one, she who has been anointed and so forth, everyone who votes otherwise clearly is against you regardless of whether they went for Trump, Johnson, Stein or others.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not entirely correct.

      The popular vote vs electoral college is a red herring. The states elect the president. Each state makes its decision via universal suffrage today, but in the past their electors were appointed or were elected by other means. Each state then casts its votes based on which candidate wins the majority in that state. This system was chosen deliberately, to prevent a small number of populous states from dominating the union.

      The USA is not a unitary state, but a confederation of states, each of which appoints its representatives to the federal government by whatever means they choose. The president is elected by the states. Keep that in mind in future and it will all make sense.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Not entirely correct.

        States choose electors as provided by their respective constitutions and laws. Maine and Nebraska elect two based on the state total and one in each congressional district. Accordingly, in Maine, Clinton got 3 electoral votes, and Trump one. Nebraska's three district and two at large electors all went to Trump, but it could have come out otherwise.

        A number of misguided states have entered into a compact whereby they will, by law, assign all their electors to the winner of a plurality of the national popular vote. The compact will take effect if joined by states having a total of more than 273 electoral votes Some people do not think this is a good idea, but there is little doubt that it is legal.. It has been approved by law in 10 states and the District of Columbia, with a combined total of 165 electoral votes; all of them, for the present, return a Democratic majority fairly reliably. My suspicion is that it would not long survive the first election similar to that of 2016 that was carried based on very large majorities in a fairly small number of states.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not entirely correct.

          The compact looks like it is mostly only going to pass in the large states it would benefit the most and those that heavily lean democrate and suspect it will help in national elections. Likely most Republican controlled states the proposition will die in committees. That the Democrats did worse in most state government elections this time make it less likely to pass than previous efforts that failed.

    4. streaky Silver badge

      Re: Not entirely correct.

      It's worse than that, the voter's view of Clinton is formed by the picture that was painted. Plus yeah hey she got more votes regardless. The key point here is a picture was painted, so yeah voter distrust. If voters chose to believe some of the things that were said part of me says you get what you deserve versus the guy that won't even show you if he paid any tax last year.

    5. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Not entirely correct.

      It is interesting to look at maps showing the election results. A number of them are at,_2016

      A total of four non coastal states went for Clinton. Four of the 21 (including DC) where she received a majority or plurality of the popular vote. The often mentioned popular vote majority was smaller than her margin in California alone, or the four adjacent states of New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. A look at the county level map shows her support even more narrowly clustered near the big waters or boundaries.

      1. Jaybus

        Re: Not entirely correct.

        "A look at the county level map shows her support even more narrowly clustered near the big waters or boundaries."

        Well, it is the large metro areas that she won. The large cities are, understandably, clustered near the big waters.

  3. Gene Cash Silver badge

    "Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years"

    BINGO. And that right there in a nutshell is the best explanation for the Trump presidency I've seen.

    Trump sucks asteroids through a millipore filter... but Clinton would have been worse.

    1. ST Silver badge

      voting for someone vs. voting against someone

      > "Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years"

      Yes. The Goldman Sachs & Friends bubble to be exact.

      Let's not forget Obama's economic policy failures for the eight years he was in office, and while he was de facto leader of the Democratic Party. Obama got elected to a second term at the expense of the destruction of the Democratic Party. Lying about the real-life provisions of Obamacare, and his stubborn opposition to a single-payer health insurance system didn't help much either.

      Hillary Clinton was unelectable from the outset IMO. Her campaign did indeed ignore states like WI, MI and PA, but it's not clear what the 20+ years champion of neo-liberal economic policies - read: outsourcing, globalization, free-trade agreements and wage-suppressing policies - could have done to tilt the electoral balance in her favor, in these states.

      Her campaign waged her win on (a) she's Hillary Clinton, and she is destined to win and (b) Trump is worse, so they will vote for her anyway. Didn't turn out that way. People need reasons to vote for someone. Betting a win on people voting against the other one is unpredictable. It also shows that the candidate either has no policy ideas of her own, or that she is deliberately trying to get elected without articulating any policy position that she would be beholden to.

      She can blame Putin, James Comey, misogyny, prejudice, etc. all she wants. If you look at the voting patterns during the 2016 election, a lot of voters who voted twice for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched to Trump in 2016. Enough to tilt the electoral college in Trump's favor. Those who voted twice for a black president in 2008 and 2012 are now suddenly misogynistic, prejudiced and racist?

      In the end, she lost the election to a television show clown with Cheeto-colored hair because she had nothing to offer, except arrogance, lies and a toxic sense of self-entitlement to the presidency.

      The fact that she needed an electoral college win, and not a popular vote win should have been known to her campaign before the election.

      I am not, and have never been a Trump supporter. Registered Democrat my entire voting life. And I am dismayed and saddened at the current state of the US Democratic Party, such as it was driven into near-extinction by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

      Does anyone know what the US Democratic Party stands for, these days?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: voting for someone vs. voting against someone

        "Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years. When you are paid over $200,000 just to give a speech, you have no meaningful connection to 99.9 per cent of voters."

        It's not just the Clintons. It's not even just the USA. It applies to Westminster (England) poliitics too (NI, Scotland, Wales seem to have slightly different rules).

        "Does anyone know what the US Democratic Party stands for, these days?"

        Does anyone know what any ambitious long term politician and/or largely corporate-funded political organisation really stands for these days ?

        "The Goldman Sachs & Friends bubble to be exact."


        Not just Westminster then (see above), Westminster and the City. Though frequently it's hard to see the difference.

        This map covers Europe in 2011:

        The picture hadn't changed much in subsequent years. The names in the frame may be about to change, voters having finally got fed up with being lied to by Head Office politicians and their chums, but will any control actually have changed hands?

    2. Lord_Beavis

      @Gene Cash

      ""Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years"

      BINGO. And that right there in a nutshell is the best explanation for the Trump presidency I've seen."

      That got you a +1

      "Trump sucks asteroids through a millipore filter... but Clinton would have been worse."

      That got you a -0.5 so I'll just round it up to -1.

      1. Swarthy Silver badge

        Re: @Gene Cash (@ Lord Beavis)

        You should double check your math.

        0+1+(-0.5)=0.5, which rounds to +1, at a minimum it floors to 0.

  4. tedleaf

    Sounds just like almost every loser at almost anything in recent history,blame anyone or anything else,except the fact that you yourself caused the failure.

    Arrogance and stupidity caused her to fail,thankfully,trump maybe be awful,I suspect Clinton would have been even worse for America and realy bad for those of us outside the USA,I.e,the vast majority of the world's population..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Least disliked

      Somehow the USA's 2 main ( only?) parties managed to select intensely disliked/hated candidates. As I read it Clinton managed to scrape a small majority of the popular votes and perhaps could have got more in the electoral college on a level playing field.

      Trump won that one. But ultimately it was a battle of the deeply mistrusted who might have been horrific versus the horrific but perceived as honest ( for any given value of honest). And it does seem to be a problem that extends beyond the USA. I won't vote for Corbyn's bunch, having voted Labour all my life - I actually left the Labour Party in the 70s when Militant took over, but still supported them. But won't be voting May. So I guess it's the no-hope LibDems for me ( sigh). The French have a choice of Macron the supposed outsider who isn't really, or Le Pen.

      AC because They might be reading this. :-)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Least disliked

        Clinton only gained the nomination by electoral fraud in the democratic primary, something that is consistently ignored by all the media coverage of her failed candidacy. If there had been a truly level playing field there, Sanders would have been the democratic candidate, and probably would have been president as well. Polls all suggested that Sanders v Trump would have swung heavily in Sanders favor.

        1. Captain DaFt

          Re: Least disliked

          "Polls all suggested that Sanders v Trump would have swung heavily in Sanders favor."

          One wag I drink with put forth the notion that if the Democrats had put anyone besides Hillary up for nomination, they'd be president today.

          Even, he claims, if it was a Labrador retriever or a Tabby cat.

          I'm not sure he isn't correct.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Least disliked

            The belief that Bernie would have easily defeated Don is just that, a belief. I would suggest that under the glare of presidential campaigning his rather extreme views and his interesting past would have been a serious drag, at the very least.

            1. Blank Reg

              Re: Least disliked

              His "extreme views" are only extreme by wacky right wing American standards. In the rest of the world he's a centrist, or slightly left of center at best. What you call extreme views are just common sense, something obviously not so common amongst US voters.

        2. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Least disliked

          While I am inclined to agree that Sanders would have had a better chance than Clinton against Trump, it was not in the cards for him to win the Democratic party nomination, and not alone because of sharp dealing within the party organization. For starters, he was not a Democrat until he decided to run, and was. Second, Clinton, had been running for years and had a well-oiled organization, as well as Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and the superdelegates. Sanders was a late entry and had much less in the way of an organization. Either one of those can be offset to a degree by supporters' enthusiasm, but in combination they are almost sure to be fatal.

          I am not a Democrat, but Sanders probably* would have got my vote over Trump. He is an experienced politician (in some ways more so than Clinton), and I judge him to be decent and honest. I doubt he would have had much success in getting his program through the Congress, any more than Trump or Clinton, but I do not think he would have treated us to the shenanigans of either of them.

          * There were other candidates.

          1. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: Least disliked

            As a Brit with no horse in the race, the Democrat party in the USA appears to be appealing to the young idealistic types. I think most of these people were supporting Saunders.

            It then comes to light just before the election that Clinton rather corruptly rigged the DNC selection in her favour and then expected the Bernie Saunders supporters to vote for her, even after this was revealed.

            My feeling is that a fair number of young idealistic Bernie Saunders supporters would have simply stayed at home on election night instead of voting.

            Clinton loses the election, blames various sources for revealing her being corrupt.

            So is the problem:-

            1) Clinton being corrupt.

            2) It being revealed that Clinton is corrupt.

            I suppose you could argue that either way.

          2. disgruntled yank Silver badge

            Re: Least disliked

            "For starters, he was not a Democrat until he decided to run, and was."

            Such is not without precedent. Wendell Wilkie was a Democrat until shortly before the Republican Convention of 1940. He lost, but is worth remembering for the remark of one of his home-state senators there: "You know, Wendell, back home in Indiana it's OK if the town whore wants to come to church, but we don't let her lead the choir her first Sunday back."

        3. pavel.petrman

          Re: Polls all suggested that Sanders v Trump would

          Of course they did. Sanders had a very capable team of persuators behind him (with Cialdini among them), who togetherat least amounted, if not suprassed the persuasive power of Trump. By the looks of it Clinton's team was built to lose.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Least disliked

        because NO ONE WANTED TO WIN

        the local, national and geopolitical fallout of over a decade of even greater policy failures guaranteed some serious nastiness happening in the next term.

        Remember that the GOP "Establishment" did NOT want Trump either. They wanted one of their boring, *guaranteed to lose* entries like Cruz. The Dems put Clinton KNOWING she'd fail, and thats why their own emails proved them doing everything they could to sabotage Sanders, who, regardless of whether or not his promises were doable, was a hell of a lot more likeable and electable than Clinton. So he had to go.

        Trump upset the apple cart and also managed to take the Presidency. All the while playing both the Perfect GOP Villain and the Ultimate Scapegoat so well it almost seems like his early Hollywood alliances and previous DNC contributions make us wonder which Party he's really working for. Now everything can and will be conveniently blamed on Trump and the GOP and guarantee the Dems will take Congress in the Midterms where the REAL power lies.

        Played correctly, the propaganda memes will allow the Dems to take the Presidency and hold it as well.

        Machiavelli is not unknown in DC.

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Least disliked

        "So I guess it's the no-hope LibDems for me ( sigh)"

        As we've seen since the Tories won outright, the LibDems did a decent job of keeping the Tories reined in during the coalition. It's a shame their fairweather supporters couldn't see that. Sadly, my local constituency is a ultra-safe Labour seat. The locals would vote for a stuffed teddy if it wore a red rosette.

        1. JimC Silver badge

          Re: The locals would vote for a stuffed teddy if it wore a red rosette.

          And judging by the way they stick to the party line, most MPs (of all sides) could be replaced by a stuffed teddy with little change to the business of government...

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When you are paid over $200,000

    More interesting by whom. How many of these speech payments were by "interesting people". The list of her speaking engagements and the list of donors of the Clinton foundation makes a phenomenally interesting reading (especially when you compare it versus her policy positions). Blair is not far behind too.

    Corruption the 21st century developed world way - everything above board and for everything you get an invoice for "speaking" or "consulting".

  6. Mycho Silver badge

    Being caught cheating in two debates probably didn't help her campaign much.

    In general the Right doesn't win half as much as the Left loses. It's a situation that people need to address.


POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019