Back on April 7, a friend of mine who supports Bernie Sanders pointed me toward a huffy poster named Kris Seto who asked 27 questions he had to say were "honest" (because they aren’t) and which he directed toward "Hillary Supporters." As far as I know, no one bothered to answer those questions, maybe because wasting one's time on clearly dishonest queries usually isn't productive. But hey, Seto spent the time to ask. Someone should take the time to mock.
There is a well-known technique of stopping just short of a blatently dishonest slander by putting the obviously false accusation in the form of a question, and then admitting one doesn't really know the answer. Observe: Did Kris Sato eat many babies this last month? I have no evidence that he did. But then, I have no evidence that he didn't. As far as I know, there is nothing that would have prevented him from doing so. Mind you, I'm not even suggesting that he might have. I'm Just Asking Questions.
This is known in the professional literature as "JAQing off."
That's what Sato did. Right in front of everyone, exposing his exercise for all to see
But don't take my word for it. Let's go through his questions and watch as he does it.
The very first “question” of Sato’s sets the tone. It’s full of dark innuendo, suggested awfulness, but no details, no specifics, nothing that anyone can say Sato is actually saying. He says nothing, but makes it sound as if he could say something if he wanted to. Presumably, he doesn’t because he’s too polite or something.
1. International Money Ties
Sato says that the State Department during the Obama Administration ("Clinton's state department", he calls it--it wasn’t, it was President Obama’s state department) helped secure "arms deals" with "foreign countries who made donations to the Clinton Foundation." (Queue the spooky music.)
Okay. So? What is Sato accusing Ms. Clinton of? He doesn't quite say. He doesn't say, because there is nothing to accuse her of. See, the Obama Administration (and by the way, Congress) wanted to sell arms to various allies of the United States. It is the State Department's job to carry out some of the negotiations for such things. Duh. Is that a problem? (Hint: No.)
Also, the Clinton Foundation solicits and accepts donations for its charitable work from nearly every nation on Earth. Believe it or not, some of those countries are our allies. Some of them buy weapons from the United States. What, exactly, is the problem here? (Hint: None.)
Sato adds an additional twist: "Many of these countries include the world’s worst tyrants with abysmal human rights records..." Yeah, well, some of America's allies suck. Ugh. I admit, that’s a Bad Thing. But it’s been true for like forever. Some of them suck. And yeah, we still sell them arms, and we have done so for far longer than since Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State. She didn’t invent the idea. Neither did President Obama. Again, it’s hard to see what, exactly, Sato is implying here. Whatever it is, it’s awful and Clinton is the cause of it. Right?
What about those donations to the Clinton Foundation from America’s tyrant allies? Well personally, I think it's kinda neat that the Clinton Foundation was able to get even sucky tyrant countries to contribute to the Foundation's charitable work that makes the world a better place. Why doesn't Sato like this? Does he want children to die? (I’m not saying he does. I’m just asking.)
So, what, exactly, is Sato’s accusation? What does he say Ms. Clinton did wrong? Oh, he doesn't have an accusation. He doesn’t actually accuse her of anything. He's Just Asking Questions.
2. Wall St.
More of the above. Ms. Clinton has often castigated Wall Street for its excesses, and has pushed for reform. The Boston Globe, Sato says, published an editorial attack claiming she was "hands off" Wall Street as a Senator. What does this mean? I might think it means the Boston Globe editorial writer doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. Occam’s razor and all. Sato, however, thinks it means something nefarious, but he doesn’t say what that is. Sato doesn't point to a single event or policy or action that shows any awful anything, but instead just asks, "What are we to make of" all this? and "who is she really representing?" He makes no accusation. He's Just Asking Questions.
3. The Transcripts
Ms. Clinton got paid for making some speeches. Big whoop. Seriously, who cares? Oh, but she must release her birth certificate transcripts! Really? Why? Who else has ever done that? And why would anyone want to? Sato has zero knowledge of anything untoward (or even not-boring) in those speeches. He's Just Asking Questions.
4. Campaign Finance
Ms. Clinton has not unilaterally disarmed. Like almost everyone (not quite everyone, but almost everyone) who has run for president in, well, ages, she has some SuperPacs supporting her. Okay, the fact that nearly everyone does it doesn't make it right--but that doesn't make it unethical or nefarious either. Yeah, Clinton doesn’t have a personality cult to give her as many individual donations as Bernie has. That doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be able to get donations the same way almost everyone else does.
Ms Clinton, like virtually every other Democrat, has called for campaign finance reform and for overturning the terrible Citizens United decision. Let's get her elected so we can do that.
Sato asks, "When Clinton remains silent on issues of money infiltrating our politics, how are we to trust that she will prioritize people over big moneyed interests?" Well, the answer to that is, listen to her fucking policy positions, in which she frequently complains about money infiltrating our politics.
5. Panama Papers
Sato just threw this in because it's a hot topic. He doesn't even try to draw any line from A) anything revealed in the Panama Papers to B) Hillary Clinton. He just says "Panama Papers" and "Obama and Clinton" in the same paragraph to imply that maybe there is something something mumble something.
6. LGBTQ Rights
Clinton didn't come out in favor of LGBTQ rights soon enough or loud enough for Sato. He doesn't like her explanation for how DOMA and DADT got enacted twenty fucking years ago. And Clinton recently said a dumb thing about Reagan. All fodder for some unspecified something.
Does this mean Clinton doesn't support LGBTQ rights? Well, no it doesn't, and Sato doesn't say it does. He Just Asks why she isn't “better informed.”
7. Mass Incarceration
Sato asks, “As Clinton continues to push her social justice platform, how do we make deal [sic] with the fact that she took money from the private prison complex up until October of last year?” Sato wants us to draw a connection between those two facts. The connection I draw? I think it’s pretty clever to use money from the private prison industry against the private prison industry. Is that what Sato means? Probably not, but in his cowardly fashion, he doesn’t come out and say what he means. He engages in hints and innuendo because he’s got exactly nothing on which to base any sort of actual accusation. It’s a cowardly technique, because he never actually ever says anything. He just asks dishonest questions.
Oh, he also criticizes other two-decade-old decisions and statements (including some sentencing laws that Ms. Clinton has said should be changed and that Sanders voted for). But there’s something untrustworthy there because something. Not sure what, because Sato doesn’t say.
8. The Iraq War
Sato asks, “How are we to justify Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War when Sanders was presented with the exact same evidence?” That one’s easy. The answer’s in three obvious parts.
A) Sanders and Clinton came to different conclusions. Honest people of good will and similar intent, when presented with the same evidence, can come to differing conclusions. Believe it or not. Is that what Sato is getting at?
B) Write this one down: It wasn’t a fucking vote for the Iraq war. It was a vote on allowing President Bush to decide whether or not to invade Iraq. That’s not the same thing. Bush insisted he hadn’t made up his mind yet. The vote was on whether to allow Bush to decide to invade, should the UN inspectors find evidence of WMD’s. (Unfortunately, Bush lied about his intent and didn’t wait for the inspectors to finish their job, but that’s another topic.) So Sato’s question is dishonest on its face.
C) Clinton made an error, which she has owned up to, and said she’s learned from. Sanders has made errors too, even some big ones (by the way, he voted for the “mass incarceration” bill that Sato complained about as part of Question 7). Again, Sato implies Something Awful, but it’s just not there. He wants us to conclude something about “judgement” based on a single vote. Yeah, it was a big vote, but nearly everyone in the country at the time would have voted the same way. (I argued with my wife about this at the time; I would have voted against the bill, she would have voted with Ms. Clinton). One bad vote (because we were all lied to), of which Sanders also has examples. Get over it.
9. Foreign Policy
Sato criticizes President Obama’s foreign policy that Ms. Clinton helped to carry out as his Secretary of State. This “question” is almost legitimate, since he’s pointing out some of his policy disagreements with President Obama. Of course, he is assigning those policies to Ms. Clinton, which is not completely honest, but what the hell. We’ll give Sato only half a JAQoff for this one.
10. The Patriot Act
Sato doesn’t like the Patriot Act (neither do I) or its reauthorization (neither do I). He asks “How are we to justify Clinton’s vote[s]”? I would suppose we’d justify them by saying that she felt some aspects of the bill were necessary. Is that the answer Sato was looking for? Probably not. But I would ask Sato, “Why do you ask? Exactly what are you implying? What terrible Orwellian thing exactly do you want us to imagine Ms. Clinton will do, and what policies has she proposed to make you think she will do it?” The answer to my question, of course, is “Uhm, well, uh, I don’t uhm, well, uh, have anything specific in mind, uhm well, I’m just asking questions.” He doesn’t say what terrible things he expects Ms. Clinton to do. Nor does he point to any recommendations or policy proposals she’s made that should scare us. He just wants us to be scared anyway.
11 …..
Forget it. I'm not going to make it through the 27 questions. I’ll leave them as an exorcise for the reader.
The point of JAQing off is to make some snide innuendos, imply (without stating) some dark and nefarious unstated ugliness, and leave the worst of the mumble something for the hearer to imagine—so that the JAQer doesn’t get sued, or even accused of making accusations.
All 27 of these stupid questions are pretty typical of things a rightist concern troll would come up with. I'm not saying Sato is one of those. I have no reason to think he is. I'm just saying it's the sort of article a rightist concern troll would write.
I'm sure he's not a rightist concern troll. But what are we to make of his dark and unsupported innuendo? How can we trust that he has America’s interests at heart? This sort of negativity and attack campaigning is not consistent with Bernie’s brand as a clean and honest campaigner. So who is Sato really supporting?
I'm just asking.