Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Dept. Releases 5,500 Hillary Clinton Emails, 275 Retroactively Classified (nbcnews.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the still-this dept.

An anonymous reader sends this report from NBC News: The State Department on Thursday released 5,500 more pages of Hillary Clinton's emails, but fell short of meeting a court-ordered target of making 82 percent of the former secretary of state's messages public by the end of 2015. The email dump is the latest release from the private server Clinton used during her time as America's top diplomat. The State Department said it failed to meet the court's goal because of "the large number of documents involved and the holiday schedule." Portions of 275 documents in the batch were upgraded to classified, though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email, according to the State Department. In total, 1,274 of her emails were retroactively classified by the government before their release.

44 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. State doing the CYA thing by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.

    These sort of things are too complicated for the public and press to understand, which is why the State Department and Clintons keep saying them. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be aware of, say, the rules behind classified information.

    If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.

    1. Re:State doing the CYA thing by tsqr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Nkwe · · Score: 2

      Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.

      So was the content classified when the emails were originally sent, or was the content later re-categorized as classified? By "content" I mean the information conveyed by the text, not the specific text itself.

      I have not idea what the answer is, but I believe it is the question that should be asked and reported on.

    3. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, if the information in those messages wasn't classified when it was sent or when she read them, she wasn't breaking any laws by leaving them on her server. And, to be fair, she wouldn't have had any reason to clear them off the server unless she learned later that somebody had decided that the information should be classified. I'm no fan of hers, and can't imagine any circumstances that would make me want to vote for her but I'm not going to blame her for this. If you want a scapegoat, look at whoever sent those emails and didn't bother to let her know about the change in status.

      Of course she was breaking the laws. Who do you think classifies information? She was not some Joe off the street she was the Secretary of State. She was in a position to know how to classify information and she should have known better AND she should have classified them herself. So 1,274 retroactively classified emails tells me 1,274 times the country was put at risk.

    4. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Yeah, for you. Too bad your last name isn't "Clinton", eh?

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    5. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is a good question. But it's irrelevant, in that we've already seen examples of email she kept on her server that DID have born-classified payloads at the time she received it. Never mind that she let her personally employed foundation subordinates sift through it later, or that she put copies of it on thumb drives for her not-cleared lawyer to also keep in his own offices. Truly, any other person would be out of a job and looking for an easy-going thing to confess to, months or years ago.

      Technically, she is out of a job, but that doesn't matter when foreign governments and rich people give you millions of dollars.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    6. Re:State doing the CYA thing by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do not understand how classified etc works. It's not about the markings it's about the content. If you can legitimately mark it as classified later it always was classified and she was instructed how to understand this. The corner case is something that seems entirely unrelated to anything and then turns out to be part of a state secret, as in you need other knowledge to know that this is classified. All the markings do it make it entirely unambiguous.

      It realy does not matter if they were or were not classified, 2009 Federal Records Act requires all emails that are part of official business be preserved by the federal government. The Classified not classified bit is political spin to keep the discussion on that not the much broader law she violated.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    7. Re:State doing the CYA thing by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      My company's policy on email is crystal clear: Company business is done on company systems. It doesn't matter if I am just ordering pencils . . . everything work related has to be able to audit. Same for government stuff . . . if Hilary claims she didn't know that, she lies like a rug. She purposely used a private server, so no one could ever really see what hanky panky she was really up to.

      If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.

      I would be nailed by my scrotum on the wall. And a Roman soldier would come by to rub vinegar on my lips and poke me in the ribs with a spear.

      However, as in the words of the Pledge to the Flag: "One Nation, under God, with Freedom and Justice for the rich . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless the State Department gives you explicit permission to do as she did. Which they did. Until they didn't.

      I'm sorry. You're either being a partisan shell or you don't understand the issue. No one can give you permission to hold classified information on an unclassified server.

      Frankly, I think the problem runs deeper. How does an unsecured server end up on the same network as classified information?

    9. Re:State doing the CYA thing by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Classifying something retroactively seems a bit odd though.

      Yes indeed. My best guess is that whoever went through that email looking for classified stuff ran across things that should have been classified all along and did the retroactive classification bit to keep them from getting out.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    10. Re:State doing the CYA thing by StevenMaurer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:State doing the CYA thing by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      You do not understand how classified etc works. It's not about the markings it's about the content.

      I beg to differ. Back when I was in the USN, I had a Secret clearance, and if it's been pulled, I've never been notified. (It certainly should have been by now, as I got out in early '73.) I never had access to the type of classified information we're talking about here, but I do know that for most people, if a document isn't marked as Classified, the default assumption is that it isn't.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    12. Re:State doing the CYA thing by cirby · · Score: 2

      You do not understand how classified etc works. It's not about the markings it's about the content.

      I beg to differ. Back when I was in the USN, I had a Secret clearance, and if it's been pulled, I've never been notified. (It certainly should have been by now, as I got out in early '73.) I never had access to the type of classified information we're talking about here, but I do know that for most people, if a document isn't marked as Classified, the default assumption is that it isn't.

      If you had a Secret clearance back then, it was changed to "inactive" when you left the service. There's almost certainly a piece of paper that you signed when you got out. It's possible to reinstate that clearance within 24 months, but after that time lapses without an active clearance, you have to be re-cleared.

      Most people may believe that part about "if it wasn't marked, it's not classified," but it's a false assumption, and when they gave you the initial briefings for that clearance way back when, they certainly told you.

      More to the point, a lot of the information in the Clinton emails was initially classified and marked as such - but someone took the markings off when they sent it. For that matter, if you know something classified and merely re-type it into an email, it's still classified. In a position like Secretary of State, a LOT of things are "classified by nature."

    13. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 2

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

      Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.

      The article says that the classification was upgraded later, not that it was stripped from the version she received in her email? Your comments regarding classification and markings are interesting but are they really relevant in this case? Maybe I'm missing something but if the information was not classified, and was subsequently released into a public domain, then the information is retroactively upgraded... it's too late, all originator controls are gone? How could someone be held accountable for something like that?

    14. Re:State doing the CYA thing by LaurenCates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unknowingly receiving is one thing. Not doing anything to correct the problem (as the Secretary of State should be MORE than well-versed in what constitutes classified information) is the thing that's really irking people.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    15. Re:State doing the CYA thing by g01d4 · · Score: 2

      If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.

      Not really. The whole issue revolves around incompetent IT management in government that enabled Mrs.Clinton's setup in the first place. While her competence can also be clearly called into question it's certain that she's not alone getting outed in the casual treatment of this type of information - Petreus comes to mind - and that her position, rather than her person, is what provides the most immunity.

    16. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 2

      Someone gets it. Also, as an Original Classification Authority (In fact, the first Department head mentioned in the Executive Order that defines who OCAs are (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority) ), she should have had specific training and a very good understanding of this stuff. ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... )

      Fron the second link:
      "((d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. "

      --
      -- My Sig is a P228.
    17. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 4, Informative

      I posted this link elsewhere but:
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

      The whole thing is interesting and relevent, but in particular:

      "(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable."

      Rarely or not, she should have had annual training, and to dodge this is to say that a person who reaches that level of government has no responsibility to uphold the more "mundane" things of their job.

      A person who dodges this responsibility is not fit to lead others who are held to the same responsibility (the entire Executive branch)

      --
      -- My Sig is a P228.
    18. Re:State doing the CYA thing by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      You mean like with a towel or something?

    19. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      2. Just because it is classified, it doesn't mean that if it got out it would harm America or Americans.

      That is irrelevant. Each individual who has access to classified information is not allowed to make such decisions without going through the process of declassifying the information.

      It appears that you believe a crime that doesn't actually harm anyone should not be prosecuted. If someone that dislikes you shoots at you every time you leave your home to go to work or the market, as long as they miss (and the bullet doesn't harm property or someone else), is it your position that there's no crime (no one is hurt) that should be prosecuted until such time as they manage to put a bullet in your brain stem?

    20. Re:State doing the CYA thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      I held a secret clearance for 20 years, as a military officer, and while working on defense contracts. The spooks would hold security sweeps about once a month, checking desk drawers, file cabinets, computer drives. The ALWAYS found violations, and the worst consequences were verbal reprimands and mandatory remedial training. No one was ever fired or demoted or paid a fine. Certainly no one went to federal prison.

    21. Re:State doing the CYA thing by mveloso · · Score: 2

      Clinton knowingly had classified information on a server that was not secured. If you can't understand that, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.

      As SecState, she should be highly aware of what was classified and what wasn't...markings notwithstanding.

      Just because you don't understand the rules doesn't make what she did OK.

    22. Re: State doing the CYA thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [pro-Clinton ranting redacted] the official state department system had the exact same security classification level of her personal server, that is none.[shilling removed]

      Well, that shows that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, now doesn't it?

      "the official state department system"?

      WHICH ONE, YOU FUCKING CLOWN?!?!?

      Because State has more than one. And some of those are highly classified and connected to, say, CIA and NGA, the sources of several of the TOP SECRET emails found on Clinton's illegal basement server.

      Whoever copied the email to the outside committed a felony.

      And if Hillary! didn't recognize that intelligence data as TOP SECRET, she's not qualified to be President.

      Let me repeat that: If Hillary! didn't recognize intel data from CIA or NGA as TOP SECRET, she's not qualified to be President.

      Answer THAT one, clown.

      Tell us how Hillary! can see intelligence data from CIA or NGA, not recognize it as TOP SECRET (and more because it's probably SCI also) and still be qualified to be President.

    23. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure some might even be prosecuted, but those rules are focused not on the person that screws up, particularly if that person is otherwise executing due diligence

      Ah, there's the rub. She wasn't performing due diligence. As soon as you know that you have classified information on your unclassified system, you are required to immediately disconnect it from the network and contact the facility security officer. You are not supposed to make additional copies. You are not to give them to your uncleared lawyer. You are not to have uncleared personnel peruse it looking for personal information to delete.

      I voted for Hillary in 2008. I won't be voting for her again.

    24. Re: State doing the CYA thing by jmac_the_man · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tell us how Hillary! can see intelligence data from CIA or NGA, not recognize it as TOP SECRET (and more because it's probably SCI also) and still be qualified to be President.

      There's no "probably" involved. Hillary sent at least two emails which were redacted as Talent Keyhole. Talent Keyhole is an SCI program involving a specific imaging satellite or set of imaging satellites. All Talent Keyhole images are SCI because we don't want the enemy to know the capabilities of the satellite. (On the other hand, the fact that "NGA has a super cool spy satellite named Talent Keyhole" isn't classified and shows up in the press. Just the images are classified.)
      TLDR: The State Department has admitted that Hillary's server was used to send spy satellite images that are more classified than TOP SECRET.

    25. Re: State doing the CYA thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      What if Trump is her opponent?

      Then I think the Libertarians and the Greens will get a lot of votes.

    26. Re:State doing the CYA thing by StevenMaurer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clinton knowingly had classified information on a server that was not secured. If you can't understand that, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.

      Clinton's private email server was set up to receive mail from the State Department's UNCLASSIFIED email system. That State Department network was: 1) Not encrypted, 2) Had been hacked multiple times (including during the 1990s when Bush was in office), and 3) Not supposed to have classified information on it in any way.

      There actually is a scandal here, but it's not the one morons like you think it is. The scandal is how so much classified information was being put onto the unclassified State Department servers in the first place, long before it got copied to clintonemail.com, and the lax attitude that many State Department employees had in regards to handling such classified information.

      So in short, if you want to bash Secretary Clinton for failing to recognize that the Department of State had a serious cultural attitude problem in properly handling classified information, and failing to fix it by directing her staff to find the people who were putting classified information onto the unclassified State Department server system - well, be my guest. That's a fair critique. (Though one, Secretary Powell would also have to cop to, and he was a general, so my assumption is that he should have been more aware of this than Clinton.)

      If, on the other hand, you want to act like some sort of typical hyperpartisan loon and try to accuse her of some sort of crime, by making up complete bullshit about the system or her private server, well then I can't exactly stop you - I can only laugh at your idiocy, as common as it is. I understand that we're fully into silly season by now, with basically half the country acting sounding like the Cobert Report's Steven Colbert, except actually being serious about it.

    27. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Tell that to David Petraeus.

    28. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Yes. She unknowingly sent and received classified information for 5 FUCKING YEARS. She could kill your mother and you'd find some twisted logic to explain it away.

    29. Re:State doing the CYA thing by xrobertcmx · · Score: 2

      Exactly! I just went through that blasted classification training. If a is not classified and b is not classified than a document comprised of a+b is not classified, except in cases when it is. The rules are a mess, every single thing requires checking a fact sheet to see if something suddenly changed status. I could care less about Hillary, she had a private server, shouldn't have. But as for the emails, and the millions we have spent wasting our time, it is stupid. We have a Ruplican shouting classified information from the window of the clown car.

    30. Re: State doing the CYA thing by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      So... Yellow Dog Democrat?

      In case you are unfamiliar with the term:

      Yellow Dog Democrats was a political term applied to voters in the Southern United States who voted solely for candidates who represented the Democratic Party. The term originated in the late 19th century. These voters would allegedly "vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican".

      Not derogatory, unless you consider having a closed mind politically to be derogatory.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    31. Re:State doing the CYA thing by budgenator · · Score: 2

      She get any emails from that Ben Gozzi guy?!

      She got 600 emails that last night from "Ben Gozzi"; she never replied to them.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  2. Trump to the rescue! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's there to scare people into voting for her anyway. *Think of the alternative!* is working out to be a neat trick.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Trump to the rescue! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we should make the election like an SAT multiple choice test. There should be an choice "none of the above" . . . no Clinton, no Trump.

      This could toss back both mainstream political parties to come up with some better, more palatable candidates. Hell, maybe even a fringe party might get a chance to squeeze someone reasonable in . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Trump to the rescue! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trump is running the most successful false-flag operation in the history of American politics.

      He's also running one of the most successful campaigns this season.

      I just read an article where the polls show that Bernie would have a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.

      The Republicans don't want Trump as their candidate, and the Democrats don't want Bernie.

      We could very easily have an election where no one wants *either* candidate!

      This is turning out to be a most hilarious election season.

    3. Re:Trump to the rescue! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      I think we should make the election like an SAT multiple choice test. There should be an choice "none of the above" . . . no Clinton, no Trump.

      They would just take advantage of that to make Obama a king that never gets moved out of office.

    4. Re:Trump to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who cares what you think? No one does really. You should be more concerned with your vanishing cultures.

  3. Re:WHY WAS SHE USING HER PERSONAL MAIL SERVER? by meadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably for some really grubby reason such as making it easier for her to accept bribes, etc.

    On a side note, its really interesting when the oligarchic-controlled news media and political "pundits" crap their pants over they way Donald Trump has verbally thrashed her recently.
    What they fail to understand is that Big Media and "pundits" crapping their pants over his statements only increases his popularity with people, who see through the years and decades of lies and BS.

    If the oligarchic-controlled Big Media and all the "pundits" were such great guardians and watchers of our democracy, how the hell did it become this effed up and broken?

    And now we're supposed to be concerned when they crap their pants because someone insults one of the foremost, lying hypocrites?

  4. Make government public. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

    You know how to make government work for the people... ALL meetings are public. every correspondence is public, ALL of it.. there would be no "covert" "back-room" "national security" anything... meetings with foreign leaders.. PUBLIC, ALL of it.. and if people want to keep things hush hush then they just won't deal with a public government and it would expose all those who are doing things for nefarious reasons. You want world peace, this is the way to do it.. The more people realize that they can't just work a deal for their own benefit the better this world will be... let issues stand on their own merits, not part of some "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine" BS...

  5. Re:What about the IRS bitch? Anyone get her emails by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The Justice Department "decided it wouldn't be worth their time" to prosecute Lois Lerner. Also, the IRS's dragnet was FAR larger than Ron Paul fans and included most of the medium sized players on the Right (i.e. nobody big enough to afford huge legal fees.)

    The DoJ has done a lot of "deciding it wouldn't be worth their time" to prosecute Obama cronies though. One of Hillary's top aides, Huma Abdelin, got caught claiming to be at the office (for pay purposes) while she was on vacation and other types of leave, to the tune of a few hundred thousand. Plenty of VA corruption (whistleblower retaliation and bonus fraud) also went unpunished. (Keep in mind, the relevant Inspectors General recommended that the DoJ pursue jail time in the cases on my list.)

  6. Re:Jail is for Poor People, Dear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A couple years ago a rancher, Cliven Bundy, had a dispute with the Feds. A lot of "supporters" showed up armed and the feds backed down when it looked like they would have to start shooting civilians to get their way. I hadn't seen any evidence Cliven was in the right, but the rules the feds were using seemed unethical.

    So, yea, that boom-boom stick can mean something to the feds. I suspect that kind of thing will happen more if they keep doing crap to the "little people" with boom-boom sticks.

  7. Re:WHY WAS SHE USING HER PERSONAL MAIL SERVER? by khallow · · Score: 2

    Incompetence which had the side effects of

    1) Avoiding sabotage by her frenemies elsewhere in the Obama administration.

    2) Allowed certain toadies access to information which they otherwise couldn't access (due to it being illegal and all).

    3) Allows her to evade FOIA requests, congressional investigations, and destroy evidence.

  8. Ops team "converted" secure emails to insecure by steveha · · Score: 2

    The real problem, which gets far too little discussion, is that Hillary Clinton seems to have set up a system where state department employees (from the "ops" team) would read classified emails on the secure email system, and then type up a summary and send the summary to her personal (non-secure) email system.

    In the first e-mail, Clinton curtly instructs Sullivan, "It's a public statement. Just email it." Minutes later, Sullivan responds, "Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/classified-rules-hillarys-disregard-for-them

    Naturally, when ops "converted" the emails, they didn't copy over any classification markings, allowing Hillary Clinton to truthfully say she never received any emails marked as classified.

    It is partisan spin to use the word "retroactively" to describe these emails being newly marked with classification markings. If the information in the emails was classified, the emails were classified all along; it doesn't matter whether the emails were marked as classified or not... and Hillary Clinton, who is not dumb and is a lawyer, knows this.

    This process of "converting" emails from secure to insecure is go-to-prison stuff. It's truly amazing that Hillary Clinton thought she could get away with doing this.

    Unless the information in this article is fabricated or otherwise untrue, she is going to be in very big trouble:

    That Hillary and her staff at Foggy Bottom were wittingly involved in a scheme to place classified information into ostensibly unclassified emails to reside on Clinton's personal, private server is the belief of every investigator and counterintelligence official I've spoken with recently, and all were at pains to maintain that this misconduct was felonious.

    "The FBI will get someone to talk, we always do."

    "This was about a lot more than just some classified emails," a senior Capitol Hill staffer told me, "and we'll get to the bottom of it. But we're happy to let the FBI do the heavy lifting for right now."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/will-hillary-clinton-s-emails-burn-the-white-house.html

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  9. *slow clap* by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What they fail to understand is that Big Media and "pundits" crapping their pants over his statements only increases his popularity with people, who see through the years and decades of lies and BS.

    Hum. Look a bit closer. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is broadcasting said crapping of pants?

    I really don't want to play the IRL version of Fallout 4. Hint: it won't be Trump that causes it. Why do you think Jeb! isn't polling so well despite being a well-reasoned man who might have some interesting debates with Sanders?

    Clinton. That isn't the candidate you're looking for. Move along.

    One more thing. Why... exactly why did Trump switch from being a Democrat, to independent, to Republican once the [Bill] Clinton administration had finished? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the coronation in progress....