Slashdot Mirror

The irony is for the rest of us it would be an epic screw up but there's never be a discussion of actual charges.

At least according to common practice:

Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.

“Based on everything I’ve seen in the public media, not only don’t I see the basis for criminal prosecution, I don’t even see the basis for administrative action such as revoking a clearance or suspending it,” said Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

“Looked at as a potential criminal case, this would be laughed out of court,” said William Jeffress, a Washington attorney on the defense team for former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby during his trial for lying in a leak investigation. “There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought,” Jeffress said.

Step back and apply a bit of common sense, she wasn't trying to sell the secrets, leak them to the press as part of a hatchet job, or anything else evil. She was trying to do her job and took some bad short cuts.

This was so uncontroversial that she did it completely in the open as was obvious to everyone she exchanged emails with and no one even thought it was an issue for years!!

Ordinary people get reprimanded for screw ups like that, they don't go to jail.

Not only is that incorrect, in that it quite possibly could be misdemeanor, that is wholly inconsistent with historical precedent on these types of cases.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Obama is acknowledging what is common knowledge and the subject of numerous news articles -- the government grossly overclassifies documents and frequently does it with the sole purpose of saving some politician from embarrassment, which has nothing to do with National Security. Overclassification was named as an issue in the 9/11 Report.

The lesson of the Pentagon Papers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

NY Times Op-Ed in 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/national-security-and-americas-unnecessary-secrets.html

President signs law in 2010 to reduce overclassification: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/president-signs-hr-553-reducing-over-classification-act

Not sure what you're implying here, but you would have a very hard time convincing me that, somehow, Donald Trump is not an intelligent and decent person. Despite some of his wacky outbursts, he is in no way unfit to be president of the US, and might be exactly what this country needs right now.

I don't know about intelligent or not, since that's very hard to judge, but he's ignorant, not at all decent, and wildly unqualified to be President. He doesn't know about basic aspects of US military and foreign policy, like the nuclear triad which combines with his terrible ideas about using nukes as a serious threat instead of conventional troops. This combines with his general deep misunderstandings of basic issues in international relations http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11318722/trump-foreign-policy.

As for being a decent person, decent people don't attack war heroes for being POWs http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317, they don't suggest they'll pay legal fees for supporters who engage in violence http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317, and then lie about it http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/15/fact-check-trump-claims-he-never-said-hed-pay-legal-fees-for-rally-attendees-who-hit-protesters/. They don't have such thin skins that they get upset over a comment about the size of their hands and then proceed to reference the size of their genitalia on at a Presidential debate http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/03/04/donald-trumps-obsession-with-size-surfaces-in-crude-ways.html .These are only a few examples.

He's an unqualified, egotistical blowhard. It is a deep shame that the party of Lincoln has been reduced to this.

Not sure what you're implying here, but you would have a very hard time convincing me that, somehow, Donald Trump is not an intelligent and decent person. Despite some of his wacky outbursts, he is in no way unfit to be president of the US, and might be exactly what this country needs right now.

I don't know about intelligent or not, since that's very hard to judge, but he's ignorant, not at all decent, and wildly unqualified to be President. He doesn't know about basic aspects of US military and foreign policy, like the nuclear triad which combines with his terrible ideas about using nukes as a serious threat instead of conventional troops. This combines with his general deep misunderstandings of basic issues in international relations http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11318722/trump-foreign-policy.

As for being a decent person, decent people don't attack war heroes for being POWs http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317, they don't suggest they'll pay legal fees for supporters who engage in violence http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317, and then lie about it http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/15/fact-check-trump-claims-he-never-said-hed-pay-legal-fees-for-rally-attendees-who-hit-protesters/. They don't have such thin skins that they get upset over a comment about the size of their hands and then proceed to reference the size of their genitalia on at a Presidential debate http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/03/04/donald-trumps-obsession-with-size-surfaces-in-crude-ways.html .These are only a few examples.

He's an unqualified, egotistical blowhard. It is a deep shame that the party of Lincoln has been reduced to this.

You're applying traditional political analysis to Trump, when it should be clear by now that his situation is very different from that of just about every candidate of the past 50 years, and perhaps much longer than that.

We need to look at the 1920's, especially if Donald Trump loses in double digits and takes the Republican Congress with him.

But victory can be a fleeting thing. In 1928, Republicans won 270 seats in the House. They were on top of the world. Two years later, they narrowly lost their majority. Two years after that, in 1932, their caucus shrunk to 117 members and the number of Republican-held seats in the Senate fell to just 36. To borrow the title of a popular 1929 novel (which had nothing whatsoever to do with American politics): Goodbye to all that.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/1928-congress-last-time-republicans-had-a-majority-this-huge-112913

Of course, I'm only citing statistics.

The demographics don't favor the Republicans either.

By combining presidential election exit polls with mortality rates per age group from the U.S. Census Bureau, I calculated that, of the 61 million who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, about 2.75 million will be dead by the 2016 election. President Barack Obama's voters, of course, will have died too—about 2.3 million of the 66 million who voted for the president won't make it to 2016 either. That leaves a big gap in between, a difference of roughly 453,000 in favor of the Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dying-off-literally-118035

How about speeches to Wall St. and Clinton Foundation donations. Also, what about the running of the private email server.

What about Donald Trump's tax records?

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/739614e/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F04%2Ff7%2Ff20a98ff4804bd684ea9f53e250b%2Fwuc160406-1160.jpg

The REAL problem with the Panama Papers is that they were turned over to the mainstream media outlets, who have ONLY published dirt on people who we already knew were dirty. And people are noticing:
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/04/the-panama-papers-where-are-the-americans-000083

Here's a "partial list" of people named in the Panama Papers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_in_the_Panama_Papers

This article is not even findable via Google no matter how specific you are with the search terms:
http://undergroundreporter.org/something-oddly-missing-from-largest-leak-since-snowden/

Now, I know this is going to sound like conspiracy theory talk, but who benefits from this leak? Western power brokers, that's who. Their foreign contemporaries are all now embattled, especially that Icelandic guy who had the nerve to *gasp* allow the banks to fail after the GFC. What fucking cheek!

There's no evidence that the backscatter X-Ray machines are a cancer risk to passengers (they are probably more of a risk to TSA employees that are exposed long term).

And that is because the X-ray scanners did not go through FDA testing for safety, and also because we are relying on the manufacturer's measurements of the delivered dosage.

And relying on the manufacturer's estimate that the screeners will engage the system once, and not several times (as for example, when a really hot looking redhead goes through).

If you extrapolate the X-ray-to-cancer curve dosage to the amount the scanners are reported to deliver, and multiply that by the number of passengers per year (about 3/4 of a billion, more or less), it comes out to about 10 extra cases of cancer per year *caused* by the airport scanning.

(And this doesn't account for the number of people who die because they drive long distances rather than have their teenage daughter scanned or groped in public.)

You are confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when [newspapers] write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money... So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected.

To me that sounds like what a dictator might say. I doubt Trump is capable of pulling it off though, he's widely ridiculed by half of the country, and that's worse than simply being hated.

If he aint talking about government ownership of all means of production....he isn't a communist.

He may not be talking about it openly, but there are enough dog whistles in there to attract vast packs. But, whether he talks about it is irrelevant — whether he believes in it is important. And he does... Bernie Sanders is a member of an organization, that is a thin front for Communists.

They know of the toxicity of the "Communist" label (preferring "Socialist" instead), but aren't shy about their admiration for Marx. For example, here DSA speaks fondly of the founder of Communist Party of Italy. Separately a member of DSA's "National Committee" David Green once wrote:

Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Our immediate task is to limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace.

— David Green, 2007 (page 10)

Ah, you'll say, that's all from capitalist haters, just can't be true, right? Well, here is fresh from DSA's own mouth (emphasis mine):

And while Sanders’ platform calls primarily for government to heal the ravages of unrestrained capitalism, it also includes more radical reforms that shift control over capital from corporations to social ownership

Good enough for you? Far less evidence was used to claim "Trump is a KKK-supporter" or something like that...

Anyone replying to this post and expecting to continue the conversation, please, be sure to state unambiguously:

• Whether you dispute DSA being a Communist organization (at least in substantial part).
• Whether you dispute Bernie Sanders being a member.
• Whether or not you think there is anything wrong with Communism to begin with.

Responses missing clear answers to the above will be returned unopened. Thank you.

I pray. I believe the Scriptures. For me to pursue public office, while leaning heavily on the appeal of my faith, while having skeletons such as this is just too much. I'm far from a perfect man, I battle with my sinful nature, but there are things that even I just won't abide. Either a man's faith determines his walk in this world or he is a fraud.

I'm curious, does this mean you wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz if the allegations prove true?

And would you even considering voting for a man of even lower character like Donald Trump, who admitted to committing adultery against his previous wife with his current wife? Who admitted lust for his own daughter?

Or will you support the man that even nature itself endorses?

http://www.politico.com/video/...

ask and ye shall receive!
http://www.politico.com/story/...

well today's your lucky day!

He embarrassed Castro in public on live Cuban TV about exactly those human rights issues at their bilateral press conference.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

Not that the RW media is covering it.
All they've done the past 24 hours is talk about Obama daring to let his picture be taken while a giant Che monument was in the background...
in a foreign nation's capitol, where such things tend to exist...
and much wailing and gnashing of teeth has ensued.

I swear if the man walked on water they'd say he can't swim.

Here is what Senator Ted Cruz wrote about this:

News reports say there are more than 100 long-term prisoners of conscience in Cuba. Nobody knows for sure, as the Castro regime does not grant international organizations access to its prisons. But we know they are there and that hundreds are held for shorter periods, and beaten in prison regularly.

Just two months ago, the president told Yahoo News that he would only travel to Cuba "if, in fact, I with confidence can say that we're seeing some progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of ordinary Cubans. ... If we're going backwards, then there's not much reason for me to be there."

I have news, Mr. President: No progress has taken place. Cuba is going backward.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-cuba-visit-ted-cruz-213749

If you are a fan of President Obama, could you please explain to me why you think Senator Cruz is wrong about this? Because at the moment I agree with Senator Cruz. President Obama's administration has dropped the embargo and helped out the government of Cuba, and I'm not aware of a single demand that Cuba has granted in return. Set free political prisoners? Allow Amnesty International to visit the prisons? Maybe beat the political prisoners a little bit less? No, no, and no.

Not only did President Obama not make any demands of Cuba, but now Cuba is making demands of President Obama. Pay reparations, return Guantanamo Bay.

I do hope that President Obama will at least use his "bully pulpit" to say something about human rights in Cuba. Words are what he is best at. I would have preferred a binding agreement, but he already didn't do that.

Maybe because the embargo probably really isn't doing any good and there's no reason to continue it? Nobody is going to try and host nuclear weapons there ever again, I don't think. And we're not going to win any friends by trying to destroy the economy of the country. I'm not saying that we should concede to any demands about Gitmo (though I do not agree with the prison camp there), but we could certainly be better neighbors to Cuba and many other Latin American countries.

Here is what Senator Ted Cruz wrote about this:

News reports say there are more than 100 long-term prisoners of conscience in Cuba. Nobody knows for sure, as the Castro regime does not grant international organizations access to its prisons. But we know they are there and that hundreds are held for shorter periods, and beaten in prison regularly.

Just two months ago, the president told Yahoo News that he would only travel to Cuba "if, in fact, I with confidence can say that we're seeing some progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of ordinary Cubans. ... If we're going backwards, then there's not much reason for me to be there."

I have news, Mr. President: No progress has taken place. Cuba is going backward.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-cuba-visit-ted-cruz-213749

If you are a fan of President Obama, could you please explain to me why you think Senator Cruz is wrong about this? Because at the moment I agree with Senator Cruz. President Obama's administration has dropped the embargo and helped out the government of Cuba, and I'm not aware of a single demand that Cuba has granted in return. Set free political prisoners? Allow Amnesty International to visit the prisons? Maybe beat the political prisoners a little bit less? No, no, and no.

Not only did President Obama not make any demands of Cuba, but now Cuba is making demands of President Obama. Pay reparations, return Guantanamo Bay.

I do hope that President Obama will at least use his "bully pulpit" to say something about human rights in Cuba. Words are what he is best at. I would have preferred a binding agreement, but he already didn't do that.

Actually Democrats are the worst offenders in this department:

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

Leave it to a Republican ass clown like you to point that out. FUck off ok? GO to hell, back to your corporate masters and let them know you failed!
Dick!

Actually Democrats are the worst offenders in this department:

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas

Gas prices are lower today than they were during the Bush Administration.

You stupid sonofabitch.

I'm pretty sure you've been bitch-slapped over this issue before, so here it goes again:

Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil

“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.

He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.

High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied.

So when the price of gas was $4/gal and higher, Obama had ZERO interest in trying to lower gas prices.

Now you're here trying to give credit to Obama for lower gas prices? Calling you dumb as a post would be an insult to every acorn with dreams of being buried, sprouting, growing up, getting cut down, and then sawed into a post, you stupid dumbfuck.

Any unlike you, I back up my claims with cites from actual Obama Administration officials who implement his policies.

So STFU.

“Somehow,” [Obama Energy Secretary] Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Who cares if it's a hideously regressive tax on the poor.

You mean, if they'd sent work email from a personal account? That has been pretty common practice, at all levels of government and private industry, with laws restricting state business to state computers being relatively recent impositions.

While I've seen people do it on occasion as a matter of expediency when they were away from work, I don't think it was at all common to use a non-work address as a primary address, and certainly not for a job with sensitive information.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

"The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned. "

With much grubbing around, there's maybe a dozen emails on that server that might merit security classification

There are at least 22 with Top Secret classification, not just "might merit security classification". Of course, it's just common sense that using a personal address as primary address for government business greatly amplifies the risk for this happening.

If, out of thousands of secure and insecure communications over four years, there were a dozen transmitted over the wrong system, this hardly seems the traitorous breech of national security it's made out as.

I suggest reading the link from my last post, which shows the government going after low-level employees for relatively minor breeches.

The whole thing reeks, from her "Foundation", to her and Bill's speaking engagements, to her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, all the way to her use of a personal email server as a primary government business address completely under her control:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Experts such as Metcalfe agree that these practices are allowed by federal law,[25][28] at least in case of emergencies,[20] but discourage the practice, believing that official email accounts should be used.[19] Jason R. Baron, the former head of litigation at NARA, described the practice as "highly unusual" but not a violation of the law. In a separate interview, he said, "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario--short of nuclear winter--where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business."[20][29][30] Baron told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2015 that "any employee's decision to conduct all email correspondence through a private email network, using a non-.gov address, is inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies".[31]"

and xenophobic

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/obama-on-small-town-pa-clinging-to-religion-guns-xenophobia-007737

His numbers are better than _ANY_ of the Republicans he is running against.

He's getting 35% to 45% of the votes per primary election, which means approximately two-thirds to one-half of Republican voters didn't vote for him. The question becomes will they vote for him as the nominee, if he gets the nomination since he won't have enough delegates to declare an outright victory. Republican voters are notorious for staying him on election day if their favorite candidate doesn't get the nomination. If a large portion of Republican voters stay home, the White House and the Senate will go Democratic.

I think you need to stop and consider what you spout before you spout, because you look like a fucking idiot [...]

This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.

"Go Romney", right you twat?

With the 2016 electoral map identical to the 2012 electoral map, Trump will have to do better than Romney. Since Trump already pissed off the minority and independent voters he needs to win the general election, he has to win 70% of the white male vote (see link below). Reagan and Bush I got 67%, Bush II and Romney won 63%, and no Republican has ever won 70%. In short, he's screwed the Republican Party.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699

Obama brought down the price of gasoline with CAFE standards, just as promised.

BULLSHIT!!!!

The price of gasoline has dropped IN SPITE of Obama's efforts, not because of them.

Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil

The Energy Department is working to decrease U.S. dependence on oil, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe.

DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget.

...

  He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.

High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.

“But is the overall goal to get our price —”, asked Nunnelee, who didn’t finish the sentence.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied.

Seems as if HIGHER gas prices are Obama's goal.

Too bad such higher prices the US became the world's largest producer of oil, and the resulting addition to world production capacity combined with a[n other "unexpected" Obama] economic downturn to result in an oil glut that drove prices down.

Oh, I bet you've been fooled by the "pretty picture" Obama's been painting of the US economy.

Bill Clinton hasn't been

Bill Clinton Says Obama Painted a ‘Pretty Picture’ of the U.S.

“Why is it such a wacky election? Because millions and millions and millions and millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it to save their lives,” Clinton said.

Rising health care premiums:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Anyone who actually pays the bill for their healthcare is reporting the same thing - higher premiums and even higher deductibles. Our company has multiple insurance brokers competing for our healthcare policies - every single one, every year, has come back with significant cost increases.

This issue is going to hurt the Democrats during this election cycle. They pushed for the ACA, and told everyone that it would control costs and increase coverage. They can't blame Republicans for this as not a single Republican voted for this mess.

Weird. Cruz is also an old white.

Cruz is relatively young for a pol.

He's also Latino.

If Ted Cruz is white, so is Barack Obama.

Neither Hillary or Cruz are running on a platform of soda sizes. You are a nutjob who cannot form a reasonable argument against Hillary.

BWAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAAA

What color is the sky on the planet you live on?

Plenty of people covering the entire political spectrum from Bernie Sanders' most ardent supporters to rabid right-wing crazies can form a reasonable argument against Hillary!

Even Hillary! herself has formed many reasonable arguments against Hillary!:

Clinton responded by adding her spokesman Philippe Reines to the chain to see whether they could forward it to some reporters — if it wasn’t classified: “If not classified or otherwise inappropriate, can you send to the NYTimes reporters who interviewed me today?” she asked. “Copying Philippe.”

Oh shit. That's Hillary! telling her underling to send an email off her illegal server to the NYTimes - but only if it's "not classified". That's a tacit admission that Hillary! KNEW she had classified information on her illegal server.

Too bad that server wasn't wiped. You know, with a towel or something.

Do you need any more example of why Hillary! is unqualified?

My cat can form a reasonable argument against Hillary! He does so continually. And then he buries them - because they smell almost as bad as her candidacy does, but nowhere near as bad as the intellectual stench coming from the arguments put forth trying to support Hillary!

"Vote for Hillary! She only smells a little bit worse than rancid cat shit!"

Of course, this issue is moot considering the real old white who is forming his brown shirts. Have fun with that #oldwhite, whitie

Hillary! Old, white, politician.
Bernie Sanders: Old white politician
Elizabeth Warren: Old white politician - only 2 years younger than Hillary!
Joe Biden: Old white politician

Donald Trump: Old white businessman
Ted Cruz: Young Latino politician
Marco Rubio: young Latino politician
Ben Carson: Oldish black doctor

That's gotta fucking hurt if you're a Democrat who lies to yourself about how "diverse" your party is.

The only white person who's made it this far in the Republican nomination process isn't a politician.

And never mind physical diversity. The ideological lockstep reactionary leftism coming from Democrats is pathetic in its pandering sameness:

"MOAH FWEE STUFFS!!!!"

How's that "MOAH FWEE STUFFS!!!" working out for Detroit? Greece? Venezuela?

Wasn't North Korea Nuke deal one of Hillary's " accomplishments"?

As secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a hands-off approach to North Korea. Under a policy called "strategic patience," the Obama administration refused to offer any new incentives to Pyongyang to induce it to return to nuclear-disarmament talks following the collapse of an attempted deal at the end of the Bush term. The North Koreans were infuriated, and more nuclear and missile tests ensued, along with open hostilities between North and South Korea in 2010.

Politico

Those are BORN Classified.

On an unsecured server? Doubtful.

Congratulations! You have just outed yourself as a fucking Hillary Kool Aid drinker and cult member.

As moderate conservative, I'm voting for Hillary. If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, the neocons will vote for Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

The laws forbidding using a 3rd party server for communication were put in place AFTER Hilary's email server was shutdown.

Those are BORN Classified.

On an unsecured server? Doubtful.

Congratulations! You have just outed yourself as a fucking Hillary Kool Aid drinker and cult member.

As moderate conservative, I'm voting for Hillary. If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, the neocons will vote for Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

No, she doesn't get things done. Go through her history. She went home early while her diplomats were being killed. Anyone that "got things done" would have spent all night trying to save their people. She didn't even care enough to keep her chair warm much less lift a fucking finger to anything about it.

Wouldn't expect it, because outside of Hollywood movies, Presidents, Secretaries and other bureaucrats aren't action movie stars, and leave that business to the people who do it professionally.

Even those videos of the OBL mission were just a stunt, the real work had been done long in advance, without much input by the putative leaders. (Not that that will stop her from using it, mind you.)

Sorry, but the thing about political leadership in the modern days? It's not exciting, you don't lead an army on the charge against the enemy anymore. Even Ronald Reagan didn't defeat the Russians by force of arms, they just gave up calling themselves communists, then went on with their business.

Meanwhile, the GOP Congress tried their best to get any of that Benghazi mess to stick to Clinton, yet all that happened was the public became even more disillusioned by it. They basically inoculated her against any attacks on that front.

I know I know... You're going to against tell me she gets things done... well, "what" she's done has been asked of experts, advocates, and her many supporters... and generally what happens when people like you are asked point blank what she's done... deer in the fucking headlights.

So lets try that right here and now. What has she done? Something specific please that she actually did?

*gets popcorn*

Apparently gotten to the Democratic nomination while doing nothing. That's quite an accomplishment.

Nonetheless, you should be aware, that getting credit for things, and getting things done are two different horses.

But hey, if you want to talk to her cheerleaders go ahead.

Plenty of things to hang her hat on. Whether you believe she did them or not.

Not like it matters, what's she up against, a guy who had a TV show, a few casinos, and two chaps who can't manage more than a couple of filibusters between them? The former is a joke for getting where he is, and the other two could be beaten just by getting a promise of free elections in Cuba. They're all puff and powder.

At least Eisenhower and Grant could pretend they won a war, even while they had no political understanding whatsoever.

You could at least provide a link for your contentions.

For example like this or this.

Not that you should necessarily believe anything, as they say, only a fool uses his own money.

You could at least provide a link for your contentions.

For example like this or this.

Not that you should necessarily believe anything, as they say, only a fool uses his own money.

A pathological narcissist, a skilled liar, and possibly a sociopath.

Ya know, you're right. After reading your post, I've had a realization that Trump is everything YOU say he is, and am switching my support to $YourCandidate.

...and this is one of the problems with the current elections, and previous ones. People think that name calling makes a difference, that saying something is "dumb" will make others change their views.

It works if you're an insider, because other insiders are the ones who give you campaign money. If a politician says something slightly controversial, the press takes it to an unreasonable extreme and spashes it everywhere, your big-money donations dry up, and you end up spending less on your campaign. And the candidate that spends the most money wins the election(*).

Unreasonable extreme? Trump is compared unfavorably to Hitler, he's the "nightmare scenario", his presidency is "too terrible to contemplate". I just read an article that started "Trump will be elected, and this will start humanity's dark final chapter".

Trump is a populist candidate, his support comes from the people, not the elites. He plays the media like a violin, using it for free advertising and otherwise ignoring the insiders.

(I read an article where one of the Koch brothers was quoted "You’d think we could have more influence".)

His statements are not "mindless rhetoric", they're just ignored, pushed out of context, and ridiculed. No one *anywhere* posts a discussion of why building a wall is a bad idea, or whether having a temporary ban on muslims from conflict areas can't be done, or whether simplifying the US tax code is a good idea.

You think he's Alien vs. Predator? Call him Cthulhu for all we care.

No one cares what you say.

(*) True to a high degree of probability in the high-level elections, less so at the state and local level.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=...

DOJ filing, page 18, footnote 7.

(credit: https://twitter.com/grimmelm/s... on twitter)

Just like there are multiple dimensions to politics (fiscal, social, economic, civil rights, foreign policy, ...) instead of just one (hates black people, doesn't hate black people) * there is more than one dimension in which recess appointments can be measured. Here's a question for you: which recent US president received a 9-0 smack down at the US Supreme Court over recess appointments? Clinton? Bush? Obama?

SCOTUS strikes appointments

Do you think that the Supreme Court did this because it is "racist"? Just "trying to keep the black man down"? Or is there something else going on there? Well, there is something different than "hates the black man" in striking down Obama actions there, just as there is something different going on in opposing Obama's other policies and actions by members of Congress. Frankly, attributing opposition to VERY LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC president Obama to "just racism" is more than a little stupid and dishonest.

By the way, are you familiar with the writings of one of Barack Obama's friends and mentors? Kind of "outside" the mainstream, huh?

* You following this?

Oh bullshit. Its one thing to have lower classified material be later classified higher. BUT there is indeed laws against mishandling TS codeword files. ALL are considered classified TS until they are declassified. You always consider them ultra sensitive and have to be ultra careful when dealing with them. You never email them to an unapproved server. She knew this and did it any ways (1200 times with 22 being deemed TS or higher).... as IDK.. she is a clinton and above the law?... and you dont see a problem with that? http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/... http://www.politico.com/story/... So you are wrong. She should be in jail.

Reminder mods, just because you like the idiot doesn't mean she isn't a pro-authoritarian pos. This is the idiot in question. And still the idiot in question And still some more idiot in question. All along with the help of this idiot.

Time they read this.

One problem with this analysis is that it doesn't take into account *successful* conspiracies.

Suppose there are conspiracies which succeeded completely - in that the public was defrauded, suspected nothing, and life went on as normal.

If we are using past performance to predict future trends, shouldn't those conspiracies be counted? There's no realistic way to account for or even detect them.

Take for example the 1968 presidential campaign of Richard Nixon.

During that campaign, [incumbent president] Johnson was negotiating with Vietnam to bring an end to the Vietnam war.

Nixon though that this action would ruin his chances of being elected, so he contacted the Vietnamese government and said that if they obstructed talks, they'd get a better deal when he was elected.

(An example of an American interfering with the political process, prolonging a war for 7 more years, with enforced conscription, and causing the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.)

This action was known to Nixon's campaign manager (Mitchell) and several aides. Johnson knew about it (a tape in the Johnson presidential library has Johnson denouncing Nixon for “treason”)

Neither side wanted to push the issue, so it was dropped.

This was a conspiracy, involved several dozen people (including FBI agents), and was monstrously important at the time. It took 50 years for the documents to be released describing the situation. Johnson's tape was released in 2008, and some other files are still hidden.

I don't have a lot of faith in this paper - it doesn't take into account conspiracies that actually succeed.

It was on Politico: http://www.politico.com/magazi...

While the fantasy that the Clinton campaign is somehow in charge of two other leading candidates - one of which is in the other party, makes for a cool narrative, it takes a particularly kind of naivete and never-mind lack of faith in investigative journalism to believe it's even logistically possible to do, let alone keep it a secret.

Really? how hard would it be for Hilary to suggest to Trump in a private conversation that he run for president as a Republican to derail the GOP? After all, it's not like she doesn't know him. Also, I didn't say she was in control, but Trump & Sanders are more like useful idiots. And you're right, I have no faith in investigative journalism. The press glosses over any kind of negative story linked to Clinton because the majority of them are in the tank for her.

... whatever semblance of a meritocracy remains in this country.

Compared to the meritocracy where AIG gambles, gambles big, and loses, and then gets a $185Billion bailout?[1]

At the tax payer's expense!

And then after being forced to step down, the former CEO of AIG, a certain Hank Greenberg, sued the government for another $40Billion because he didn't like the bailout deal?

Should I mention that Greenberg just gave Jeb Bush's faltering campaign $10Million?

$10Million that came, essentially, from the bailout W gave him!

Yeah, don't talk to me about our meritocracy.

[1] http://www.politico.com/story/...

They've said this about Rubio:

"So Rubio's foreign policy and national security strategy is to invade Middle Eastern countries, create power vacuums for terrorist organizations, allow their people to come to America unvetted, give them legal status and citizenship, then impose a massive surveillance state to monitor the problem,” ... “I'm trying to figure out if it is more incoherent than dangerous or vice versa.”

One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing.

The Republicans won the 2014 midterm elections with the lowest voter turnout since the 1920's, as Democratic voters typically stayed home during non-presidential years. Of course, the last time the Republicans held both houses of Congress was just a year before the 1929 stock market crash. Something to think about.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/1928-congress-last-time-republicans-had-a-majority-this-huge-112913

Essay/Article

TED Talk: Nich Hanauer - The Pitchforks are coming for us.

General Patraeus knowingly gave top secret information away. Secretary Clinton unknowingly received it on her unclassified email system. If you can't understand the difference, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.

Nice try, shill. Not.

Clinton’s email woes deepen as classified messages pile up

The number of emails now considered classified total more than 400, with three of the 215 newly classified documents marked as SECRET

Gee, and gullible you thought none of the emails were marked on her server.

I guess Hillary!'s wiping towel missed a few spots.

Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.

You are lying, clueless, or an idiot. Classifications of things is not always that simple. [redacted Hillary! brown nosing]

Oh yes it is:

The number of emails now considered classified total more than 400, with three of the 215 newly classified documents marked as SECRET

Oopsie poopsie!

Hillary! LIED and you got a nose full of shit.

I can't wait to see your justification now. "But it was ONLY THREE emails!!!!"

And that will make me wonder just how big a felony Hillary! would have to commit before you wouldn't attempt to run interference.

Because make no mistake about it - those emails being marked SECRET is proof that Hillary! not only committed a felony in running her private email server, they PROVE she lied about it.

And you're now going to defend her, right?

You're not even slimy enough to rate "partisan hack" for a label.

"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"

...

And that's a lie anyway:

The number of emails now considered classified total more than 400, with three of the 215 newly classified documents marked as SECRET

Don't tell me the woman who claimed to be named for Sir Edmund Hillary seven years before before he conquered Everest lied?

Again.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, if Hillary! told me water is wet, I'd have to figure out some way to independently confirm it.

The information was classified from the beginning and was never declassified.

The fact that almost every one of the emails had the classification markings removed does not mean the classification was done "retroactively".

Except Hillary!'s "wipers" missed a few

The number of emails now considered classified total more than 400, with three of the 215 newly classified documents marked as SECRET

Ooops. So there were emails clearly marked as classified on Hillary!'s illegal server.

Hillary! lied.

Imagine that.

A big recession or mass automation-related job loss could trigger it. More:

http://www.politico.com/magazi...