Slashdot Mirror
FBI Finds 14,900 More Documents From Hillary Clinton's Email Server (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: The FBI uncovered nearly 15,000 more emails and materials sent to or from Hillary Clinton as part of the agency's investigation into her use of private email at the State Department. The documents were not among the 30,000 work-related emails turned over to the State Department by her attorneys in December 2014. The State Department confirmed it has received "tens of thousands" of personal and work-related email materials -- including the 14,900 emails found by the FBI -- that it will review. At a status hearing Monday before federal Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is overseeing that case, the State Department presented a schedule for how it would release the emails found by the FBI. The first group of 14,900 emails was ordered released, and a status hearing on Sept. 23 "will determine the release of the new emails and documents," Sullivan said. "As we have previously explained, the State Department voluntarily agreed to produce to Judicial Watch any emails sent or received by Secretary Clinton in her official capacity during her tenure as secretary of state which are contained within the material turned over by the FBI and which were not already processed for FOIA by the State Department," said State Department spokesman Mark Toner in a statement issued Monday. "We can confirm that the FBI material includes tens of thousands of non-record (meaning personal) and record materials that will have to be carefully appraised at State," it read. "State has not yet had the opportunity to complete a review of the documents to determine whether they are agency records or if they are duplicative of documents State has already produced through the Freedom of Information Act" said Toner, declining further comment.
Anyone who has ever sent an email knows there are at least 2 copies. One on the sender's account. One on the recipient's. If anyone else is CC'd, then they have a copy too. Did anyone believe when she 'wiped her server' (even without a cloth), that they all disappeared forever?
Of course she had intent. She used a personal email server to avoid this very event. Now it is happening anyway.
Of course, it will be whitewashed anyway, too.
Not because he's necessarily more honest than Hillary but simply because 95% of the press will refuse to give him a free pass for literally everything he does.
If Hillary gets elected then press-protected official bribery becomes the new "normal".
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I can't wait to see Hillary in an orange jump suit and Bernie Sanders in his rightful place as King of murica
... win?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
These are the candidates. You either vote for a walking Meme, conveniently resuscitated as a living anachronism of our post apocalyptic plutocratic future, or a woman who could have faced charges for everything from obstruction of justice to murder or even treason yet unaccountably shows up once a week in a $12,000 designer potato sack to advocate on behalf of the middle class.
alternate candidates? why i thought youd never ask! it boils down to a woman who openly questions the science of everything from GMO's to simple vaccination, and laundry list of "break glass in case of party meltdown" candidates with about a fortnight of facetime with the american people. See you at the polls! and in 3 years immediately behind the burnt out wreckage of an MRAP as we trade rations for ammunition and clothing amidst what used to be a shopping center.
Good people go to bed earlier.
As a moderate conservative, I'll be voting for Hillary. Any other choice is criminal.
None of Hillary Clinton's work-related emails discovered by the FBI after being deleted from her private server have been released, raising questions about whether any will be seen in public before Election Day.
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
Would you want a president who is incapable (or simply unwilling) to separate her personal affairs from work related ones? Of course, the other choice is a guy completely out of touch with reality. This will be an amusing election, and the next 4 years....
And anyone that doesn't think you're a turd is also a turd.
The porn. Did they find her porn? Or account credentials for Ashley Madison?
Those are Bill's, you silly goose.
The people at State who have to appraise this material are the ones she was supposed to turn ALL of her co-mingled material over to on the day she left office. State's archivists are the ones who are supposed to weed through and figure out what's personal and what's not when someone in her role chooses to make everything personal. If she'd actually followed the rules and delivered all of it to them years ago as she was supposed to, she could have spent a solid year or two talking down all of the conflicts of interest and signs of corruption between her family business and access to her and her power as SoS and have Clinton-ed most of it into "the past" by now. She's got only herself to blame for deliberately ignoring her departure requirements, and then for slow-walking and hiding all of this stuff until it had to be pried out by the damn FBI and through suits pointing out FOIA shenanigans.
State will now say that it will take until next year to review this new material - plenty of time to stonewall and foot-drag past November. Her supporters are still running around claiming she hasn't once lied about any of this, and that nothing inappropriate to a private home-based mail server ever passed through her hands, despite the FBI pointing out the opposite.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
> As a moderate conservative, I'll be voting for Hillary. Any other choice is criminal.
Never trust anyone that pushes too hard of a sale or wants you to act in panic.
On the other hand, our system is supposed to be resistant to wannabe Emperors. If it isn't, then we have far graver problems than Trump.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Giving people two bad choices is a classic way for them to accept being screwed over.
It is kinda funny how so few people realize the trick and just tell you to fuck off.
You think one server will hold Bill's collection?
Vote for the Libertarian and the Greens and get a proper debate going for once. America has a lot of problems which need real attention. The two major parties are a crapfest of corruption and greed. There needs to be an open dialog. It's time the third parties got a say. It's funny how Americans bang on about free speech yet they deny their political parties a voice.
Yeah well there's just so many other options to choose from. You've got the corporate Teflon, the thought crime promoting nutcase, the de facto plutocrat who would let the invisible hand screw us right on over, and the conspiracy nutter who thinks wifi will fry your brain, and two of them don't even count. The options are so shitty I can't even protest vote, and if you go to any of the more minor parties you find theocrats, would-be communist overlords, and other assholes. There is literally no one who represents me, no one promoting reasonable reform where necessary without all the usual wingnut idiocy. This election day I see no get out of bed, except maybe to write in I. C. Wiener on my ballot. This election is genuinely disheartening.
Wow!!! The intelligence and courage of this reply is astounding. AC has some the most amazing debate skills for a 12 year old.
There needs to be more investigations into Hillary Clinton. It's not like Congress is busy doing anything else.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hello obvious shibboleth, is the truth squad money really that good?
Why should take money for telling the truth? Trump is a failure.
I guess they didn't use the secure erase towel when Hillary's minions wiped the server.
Hillary is stupid, not malicious. Let's assume for the moment that neither Donald or Hillary are actually as evil as we make them out to be.
Let's also assume for the moment that Hillary wanted to have an e-mail address with a domain name the added to her marketing value and she asked some egg-head if he/she could make it happen. Now assume that the egghead recognizes that she's the secretary of state as well as the former first lady of a two term president.
Now the egghead hears her ask for this and he's like "Well, I can't put that on our internal servers... what else can I do to make it happen?" Of course the egghead isn't a lawyer and he/she doesn't want to be cock-blocked by some manager and then go back to Hillary and tell her/him (still not sure) that he screwed up and now her dreams of having a her marketing slogan as a domain name for her e-mail will not be possible.
So... what does he do? Well, not being a lawyer or understanding what it would mean, he sets up a new mail server that would allow her to send messages to Bill like "Make sure you leave your cigars at your intern's house before coming home... oh and buy milk." without them ending up as public record.
I honestly wonder if the e-mail is the best thing they can come up with. Hillary isn't particularly exciting, but she's pretty awful at her job... unless you consider her job as Secretary of State as a personal self-promotion, optimal for ladder climbing... where in that case, she's great at her job. She has to have incredible amounts of crap they can use on her without even digging too deep. And the e-mail thing which I'm damn near convinced is basically technical incompetence as opposed to intentional malicious deception of the country.
Let's also consider that there's absolutely nothing related to the e-mail that will cause Trump to win. He's like the golden goose or the gift that keeps giving to anyone who opposes him. After all, I think that even Dan Quayle could have won running against Trump. Al Gore could have creamed him. Instead, the country leaves Hillary as the opposition and while she looks like she has a landslide, you know you suck when it's months before election and people can still identify a possibility that Trump could possibly win.
Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?
Republicans... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Trump?
You both had better candidates and you actually chose the most entertaining ones as opposed to someone you might actually want in office.
Disregard Clinton actions. Why on earth no one from intelligence agency noticed that one of the top officials (secretary of state) is using insecure, not approved email server?
you sound biased.
Hillary lives to serve.
That's funnyn comparing "tax returns" to a mountain of historic, verifiable corruption. I blame the public schools for removing critical thinking concepts from their curriculum.
This. Soooo much this. And, if you squint hard enough most of the pejorative monikers for one candidate can be interchanged with at least one or two others.
Makes me want a shorter election cycle for president with a corresponding shorter term. Flush the system quicker, limit the damage, burn through the current chaff and get some damn wheat. Only problem is the people we elect to the "feeder" offices (like governor, etc) are just as tainted and tarnished as the crop of whackjobs we fielded this time. And if Trump is indicative in the slightest of our private sector offerings for the position of POTUS our American experiment is well and truly over.
The worst part is that there are so many die-hard fans of these imbeciles. Watching large swaths of the electorate fawn over these incredibly flawed humans has somehow further degraded my already rock bottom apprehension of the American public. It seems the worse the candidate the more the people voting for them have to overcompensate with fervor and gusto for their candidate du jour. Its sickening to observe.
I hate being resigned and cynical, its so gauche. Seems the only other options are to revel in the embarrassing spectacle that is the American political system, or actively contribute to its downfall. With the latter I used to think that armed uprising was the only way to bring down this country. Now it looks like pulling a voting lever will do the job quite thoroughly. You don't even have to worry about messing it up, any one will do.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
The fact that there exists actual paid groups which are dedicated to 'correcting the record' about her, sometimes with truth, often without suggests why.
Because... ? Trump Steaks? Vodka? Air?
I can think of no successful business person who has never suffered a failure or two.
I'm no fan of Trump, however unlike you, I can recognize he has been very successful at enough to be in a pretty good spot today.
Whoever may win will have numerous officials (military, state dept, several other agencies) who will not give the President deference like they traditionally have done. So get ready for some embarrassing moments. Oh also various diplomats from various countries.
mfwright@batnet.com
Can't the FBI just get copies of *all* Clinton's email from the NSA? :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
A crook, two losers, and a buffoon.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Because... ? Trump Steaks? Vodka? Air?
By offending every voting bloc except white males, Trump has one and only path through the electoral college. He must win Florida (which can go either way), Ohio (no Republican has ever won the White House without this state) and Pennsylvania (which haven't gone Republican since 1988). If he loses any one of these states, it's game over. His support among white males is starting to weaken.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/donald-trump-white-men.html
I'm no fan of Trump, however unlike you, I can recognize he has been very successful at enough to be in a pretty good spot today.
As a politician, Trump is failure. George W., as the first CEO president, was a success in comparison.
Clinton's Success stories:
Movie : Clinton Cash Movie:Free
Movie Fact Sheet: Fact Sheet
Clinton Death Count: Death list Dont forget Julian assanges head attorney hit by a train, the father of the doc that did hillary's checkup who released some info.
Bill Clinton's Rape Sheet: Victim list Not sure if the 19 year old when he was in the CIA in oxford is on that one at 19 or his supposed best friend at 16 either.
Hillary getting a rapist off, while accusing a 12 year old virgin of being hot for older men: Article with sources here is the interview with her last month: Interview with victim 2016 Because you know a 12 year old wants stitches in her vagina.
I dont have to link hopefully what Comey said about all the lies, treason, and death she caused with her pay for play clinton foundation or the fun mails that keep coming out with FOIA. All though this one should give you an idea of the kind of treason we are talking about: Treason so high this guy can't even get access to the pages
Those of you that say I'm voting for Hillary because Trump is a meanie or a scoundrel, take a look at what this woman has caused already. If she is elected you will have done the world the biggest proof is in the pudding injustice ever.
The public has a short memory. There is still time for him to reinvent himself - throw away the offensive persona that served him well in the primary, bring on a new moderate one that will stop talking about or outright change position on all his worst primary stances.
If other parties have a decent showing then it may force the media to start paying attention to the other parties. A third-party vote is not a non-vote, it is a vote against the 2-party system. The desired outcome is presidential debates which feature more than 2 people, so that people can actually educate themselves about who represents them the best instead of voting based on fear.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Do you completely separate your personal email from the work-related email? Have you ever mentioned work-related items in personal correspondence? Have you ever mentioned personal matters in work email?
You are living in a glass house, my friend. What's with all the stones?
https://slashdot.org/journal/2... (You (and I) are at least as "guilty" as Hillary).
On the Trump aspect, I'm not sure. The problem with trying to assess a con man and liar is that there is no evidence in his statements about what he actually believes. I am not convinced that Trump is "completely out of touch with reality". He might be lying about that, too, and merely exploiting the insanity of other people. Right now I'm inclined towards the theory that he does feed off the crowd, and he might even be something of a method actor, and while he's on stage he tries to convince himself of the reality of the role he is playing. If that theory is correct, then when Trump is on stage in front of a mob of angry racists, then he sincerely becomes a racist, but he might shake it off as soon as he returns to his dressing room. But shake it off completely? With no residual mental damage or side effects in the form of mental aberrations? That seems REALLY hard to believe, even compared to some of Trump's flaming lies.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
For this election, no. But if third parties get more votes this election they stand to do better next election. They might poll better next election which helps get them onto national televised debates, increasing their exposure. This election season has already shown people are sick of the establishment. People need to see third parties as a chance to get away from the establishment.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Funny, whenever you mention Nader's name, Democrats get all red-faced. I guess they disagree with you.
There's no law requiring candidates to release their tax records - Nixon did it as a ploy to show he was a 'good guy' and thus begat the tradition. Are you a big fan of Nixonian traditions? If you are, then Hillary is your candidate this time.
Candidates ARE required to file full financials with the FEC under oath which are far more detailed and which Trump did indeed file a year ago.
Now, how about that other tradition of campaign transparency:
Candidates have never (before Obama) refused to release their academic records and birth certificates. Obama refused to produce a birth certificate until long into his administration, when he produced a low-res PDF of what may be a copy of his as a manipulation of the public. His refusal to release is what caused Hillary's 2008 campaign to start the whole "birther" thing, which brought wider attention to it. I'm NOT a birther, I think Obama cleverly used the whole issue to bring out the conspiracy nuts and then paint ALL his critics as crazy birthers. Obama has kept all his academic records sealed. We do not know what courses he took, what his grades were, or even if and when he graduated. It's curious that unlike past presidents, we do not know who his teachers were or who was in classes with him, etc. Again, I'm not implying a conspiracy here other than to ask why he is so opaque and why his supporters do not want to know this stuff that we have easily known about all past presidents- and why they demand to know stuff about Trump that they did not need to know about their messiah.
If you're voting for Hillary, other than being "anti Trump" what are you resting on that you think she is ANY better than Trump?
Because quite frankly, both Trump and Clinton are disastrous, and I can't see why most people would vote for her anymore than him. Unless of course you're a single issue Abortion voter, that is.
And for most people Gary Johnson is the ONLY sane choice out there.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Trump is under no legal obligation to share his tax returns. I think that he should, but that is just an expectation of a candidate for the office - it holds no legal weight. But his situation is *very* different from the criminal activities that Hillary has been engaging in.
Crook - Could be either Hillary or Donald.
Two Losers could be Hillary, Jill Stein and or Donald, depending on what your definition of "loser" is.
Buffoon - Could be Hillary or more likely Donald.
So, you're voting for Johnson! Good to hear!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
seriously. What event? Aside from the scandal itself what, exactly, did Hilary do that was a) a criminal offense and b) revealed in the emails?
While I'm on it, which is it? Is she a fool who couldn't run an email server or a Machiavellian genius who successfully evaded the FBI and an entire political party's attempts to bring her to justice?
Oh, and this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is ONLY because the system has been rigged by the two parties to be a two party system.
Imagine for a second, that NO party affiliation marking for office holders appeared on the ballot, and all you saw were names.
So, instead of Hillary Clinton (D) - it was just "Hillary Clinton"
And all the idiot (D) and (R) voters who know NOTHING about actual candidates randomly picked whomever from the list of 5 - 8 names on the ballot, how that would spread the vote out, so that no person ever got to 50%.
Imagine for a second, that ONLY two or three people were on the ballot for the General Election, having secured those positions by voting in the primary (completely open none-partisan) election where no party was ever mentioned.
Imagine then, the following, California primary for President, has the primary winners being Hillary and Bernie, with Jill Stein as third place (and qualified for Nov), and Texas has Trump and Cruz and possibly Hillary, and Florida, Trump, Rubio and Bernie. And Ohio for Kasich, Hilary and Bernie ...
Now, imagine how the ENTIRE population is properly represented, rather than the crappy choices we have today between Dumb and Dumber, and two third party candidates that people WANT to vote for, but are too afraid that it might mean Hillary or Donald actually wins.
I mean, if EVERYONE I know, who is voting, but is voting not FOR someone, but rather to keep the OTHER out actually voted for Gary Johnson (L), he would win in a landslide. So, if you aren't voting FOR someone, please vote FOR Gary Johnson.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
why are you insulting 12 year old kids like that?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
because he'll fall in line with the edicts from our ruling class (he's one of them, after all). All that talk of Tariffs and jobs will quietly go away. Meanwhile Mike Pence will cheerfully push his Dominionist agenda though (for those who don't know it's like Sharia Law but with Christianity in place of Islam). Maybe you want that. I don't, and I'm guessing most /.ers don't.
Trump's a patsy. A Trump presidency is really a Pence one. Pence is Cruz without the backstabbing. I guess you'll get to see the knife coming when he twists it in your gut. So I guess there's that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hilary isn't going to do much of anything except stay the course. She's economically conservative and socially indifferent. The only good thing about her is she won't upset the apple cart. Trump won't do anything except yell. It's Pence you have to worry about. Essentially a Dominionist, you do not want Pence in charge unless you too are a Dominionist...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
His most recent reinvention lasted a day before he went on yet another crybaby tirade against some news show hosts and implied that they're having an affair. Trump is too goddamned stupid to reinvent himself.
we were thinking "How the _fuck_ are we suppose to create a viable progressive candidate when we've got to deal with the right wing in our party who think Jesus will somehow make Flint's water clean again?".
Hilary is a compromise between our right wing and our progressives. That's kinda the point of progressivism: Progress. Hilary is progress. Not a lot. Lots of us want more. But there's a _lot_ of aging baby boomers scared out of their wits right now who don't want _anything_ changed. Hilary's there for them. Bernie was there for the progressives, but we let him slide after he got some concessions out of the establishment because otherwise those boomers will stay home. They won't vote the big R. But they will stay home. Out of fear of Bernie the Big Bad (Democratic) Socialist. And we'll lose the election.
We did the same thing to get Mr Clinton in the Whitehouse. Worked then too. It'll probably work now. If Hilary was a man it'd probably be going smoother. Folks don't like Bossy chicks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Every time hillary or trump does some head smacking stupidity, beyond the usual, send $5 to Johnson/Weld campaign. The debates are going to be unbearable if we don't get Johnson in between Cheeto and Cheater.
Many people don't know why they're expected to share their returns, or when it started. They don't realize that when President Nixon said, " I am not a crook! " he wasn't talking about the Watergate break-in scandal, he was talking about his low tax rate and was insisting that his lack of direct participation in taxation was legal.
The whole point is to lay your connections bare, show that you pay your share, show what your lot in life actually is.
Trump says, hey, it is none of your business who he is, who he is connected to, what his lot in life is; he's just running for President, he's not required to convince you of all that. And it is true; nothing requires him to campaign in a way that meets the minimum requirements of the mainstream voters.
And WTF does being audited have to do with any of it? You should be telling the truth perfectly during an audit. He hasn't even made any sort of specific case as to why being under audit makes an different. As in, on the level of verbs, what does he think will happen? What is the concern? No answer.
You say something about "criminal" stuff in regards to Clinton, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest looking it up.
Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?
The super delegate system, plus some rigging at the DNC, ensured there was never really a choice. Potential qualified competitors realized that Hillary had all the super delegates bought and paid for, so they didn't even bother. Bernie was dug up as an 'opponent', a sham primary was had- it got a little out of control- and in the end, the pre-determined outcome was obtained.
I think few people really support Hillary. They're just being obedient to the party.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
What I've never quite understood is: what, specifically, bothers people about this email issue? The worst case scenario is, of course, that one or more of the deleted emails shows some sort of criminal activity (separate from the act of having an unauthorized email server, that is-- granting, arguendo that having such an email server is in fact illegal). Nothing I've read has suggested that such an email has been found, or exists. Absent that, then the most it shows, as far as I can see, is that she felt she was above the rules, that the rules applied to everyone else but not to her. That's bad, but I'm not sure it's worse than what most of us put up with from our managers every day.
I've read several stories about people emailing requests for access to Hillary, or to her staff; a prominent example was the Crown Prince of Bahrain ( http://www.politico.com/story/... ). Admitting up front that I don't really know that much about what the State Department does, or is supposed to do; but the crown prince of Bahrain sounds exactly like the sort of person who could access the State Department, who should get a response from the State Department. And, the linked story doesn't indicate any favors or quid pro quo, as far as I could tell.
Let's further grant (for the sake of argument) that she lied about what emails she had, what emails she released, what emails she deleted. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I have the impression that lying is half of a politician's job; just to get through the day; A necessary evil just to get anything accomplished.
So again, my question is: what, specifically, about this email issue bothers you?
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
You say something about "criminal" stuff in regards to Clinton, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest looking it up.
I agree with everything you said about showing your tax returns. Trump should do it - but he is under no legal obligation to do so. But Clinton has acted criminally - the decision not to prosecute her was left to a Democrat political hack. That doesn't change the fact that what she did was criminal.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have managed to run across a few criminals in my 50+ years on the planet. One of the more common characteristics of accomplished criminals is they are often charismatic. They are also often possessive of a high IQ. And they are pragmatic.
Now, I also have run across criminals with the personality of a doorknob, the intelligence of a Spaniel, and the practical skills of someone who has never held a job. I had to recover a new Milwaukee cordless drill-driver from the trash on the street once because an adult male who had the opportunity to work for 30+ years but actually never did any, thought it was broken because the battery wasn't installed and therefore the grip was partly hollow. This is not a man who has ever held a job, folks.
But neither candidate (or if you must, none of the four candidates) are that stupid. Far from it.
If I am going to elect someone to represent my interests against those of some other nation, I want someone with some guile, some smarts, and some backbone. I don't want some brutally honest "nice guy" in that job. A criminal who is on your side is a formidable weapon. I say let's elect one.
Neither presidential option is vote-worthy.
She sent email from the wrong server! Lock her up!
Not the guy you decided to attack, but:
Do you completely separate your personal email from the work-related email?
Yes. It's called being a competent adult who is able to use a computer.
Have you ever mentioned work-related items in personal correspondence?
No. Again, it's really not hard to do.
Have you ever mentioned personal matters in work email?
Nope. Again, not really that hard to do. Believe it or not, my boss does not need to see my child's latest artwork from preschool.
Btw, I eagerly await your demand that Manning be released from jail, and all charges against Snowden be dropped. After all, they just made mistakes with classified too.
I blame the public schools for removing critical thinking concepts from their curriculum.
That's their job. What parent wants to give their kid one more reason to start another argument? It's hard enough to make them shut up and eat their vegetables without filling their heads full Voltaire and Kant.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
that the Obama administration has clearly been running interference for Hillary, as the FBI essentially admitted when it announced it would not recommend indictment for Hillary but WOULD for anybody else doing the same thing.
So, here's the deal:
Scenario #1: Obama protects and supports Hillary, Hillary gets elected, Hillary gets pardoned by outgoing Obama and she then pardons him if anything he has done is exposed and possibly rewards him with appointment to Supreme Court (or any number of similar back-scratching political corruption between the two). In this scenario, Hillary is to Obama what Jerry Ford was to Nixon, and the bi-partisan corruptocrats in both parties get the message that there is no limit to the corruption the voters will tolerate.
Scenario #2: The people pick the guy who cannot stop himself from telling people what he actually thinks, and who is DESPISED by the total bi-partisan political machine in DC. In this scenario the public has ignored an enourmous effort by almost the entire press corps and the Democrat party elites and the Republican party elites. The administration in DC for the next four years is a bit nuttier than we are all used to, but it is run by somebody who owes few favors and has no true friendships with all the corruptocrats, and lobbyists, and therefore the message percolates through the permanent political class that the voters still have a say in things.
Incidentally, this rogue-ish say-anything hated-by-the-bi-partisan-political-elites New York republican 'thing' worked out really well once before in our history. It's a gamble. Hillary is no gamble at all. Elect her and everybody on Wall St and in DC are as happy as pigs in mud for the next 8 years.....
why you think Hillary is such a terrible person?
Can you provide some concrete evidence of a terrible crime she has committed?
The (current) lack of a conviction is completely irrelevant.
The information management decisions and activities she appears to have performed indicate a lack of integrity and a skewed sense of ethics. I would expect you would want the leader of your country (I am not American) to be an aspiration to your people.
As a public servant myself, I would be summarily dismissed had I shown the same type of judgement in my work decisions and activities as Hilary Clinton did as Secretary of State.
Your election process however seems to have placed you between the proverbial 'rock & a hard place'.
should find out what's in the 14,999 emails. Are they spam emails that were filtered out?
Seriously, she was Secretary of State. Any mention of a foreign government, country or place should have not been deleted. In fact, nothing should have ever been deleted. She could have put them in escrow and allowed an arbitrator, like a judge, decide what should or shouldn't be released.
She broke the damn law and got away with it. If that makes you happy then really there is nothing to discuss with you.
At this point, I doubt it. I just don't think he can avoid the twitter meltdowns. Soon as someone/anyone prods him about his stances, he pushes yet further right it appears. No, the chance to look moderate is long past, the media is now working against him, he's blown it (intentionally perhaps).
Waiting for an amusing sig.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
It's a basic matter of definition. It's not sane to be planning to ride a unicorn in a hores race.
Barring some severe disruption like nuclear war, a massive plague, an assassination, a severe medical event, or the FBI growing a spine and suddenly deciding laws mean things for the elites too, the next POTUS will be either Hillary Clinon or Donald Trump.
You can pretend otherwise and crawl into your "safe space" and not vote, or vote green, or vote libertarian, etc and essentially hand your vote to somebody else and spend the next four years pretending your hands are clean of whatever bad things whichever winner does or says, or you can vote.
Your choice is actually simple:
The lifetime political hack whose experience is: beign married to a governor, married to a president, given a senate seat and voting for war, given a cabinet job and screwing it. A person who has a life-long history of hiding/stealing/destroying government documents to thwart congress, the courts, and the public (from her Watergate activities (1970s), to whitewater(1980s), the White House travel office docs(1990s), the FBI background files(1990s), the StateDept/Benghazi/ClintonFoundation emails(the 2000s and 2010s). A person who claims to have been penniless when leaving the White House in 2000 but become worth $100,000,000.00+ in only a few years by making NOTHING but speeches to bankers and foreign government leaders. This is a person who has been entrusted with government power and regularly and repeatedly abused it, and always gets away with it, a person who, along with her supperters, exhibits supreme confidence that she always gets away with corruption. She rejects the traditional concept that any politician has legitimate political opponents and instead has spent 20+ years insisting that her opponents are illegitimate "enemies" arrayed against her in a "vast right wing conspiracy". This is positively Nixonian, and just as rare in US presidential politics as it is toxic.
The lifelong businessman and real estate developer, who built his image over the years with lots of high-profile pop culture goofyness up to and including a reality TV show, and complementing/funding/hosting nearly every politician in both parties and many celebrities. A guy whose politics were mostly squishy and unknown and not particularly controversial until he tossed his hat into the ring a year ago. Social conservatives are afraid he's actually a social liberal. Fiscal conservatives are frightened that he is actually a [gasp!] populist/agrarian/leftist on economics. He's a guy whose rise to political power has been fuelled more by pointing out the (easily identifiable) failings and lies of regular politicians and promising to "fix" some of the big unresolved issues that a huge part of the population is angry about never seeing solved, without being very sepcific about his plans for the fixes. This is a person who has been accused of abusing people with his businesses but has never been found to have done so more than any other businessman with a similar sized empire, and who cannot be analyzed for abuse of government power because he has never had any. He cannot hold up his government resume because he has never worked in government.
The one is a certainty, and certainly very corrupt. The other is an uncertainty, and of uncertain governing stability.
THAT is the choice: known corruption or unknown possible instability. Anything else is pixie dust.
How would you get an entire jury to agree on nullifying in a trial against Hillary? Why would they? Why would they want to?
This is relating to the emails already considered in Comey's decision. Nothing tho see here, move along.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
even some of the FBI investigators on the case were not allowed to read them, the chairman of the congressional oversight comittee is not allowed to read them, and the ones the congress is allowed ot see are currently only accessible to members of congress inside a special snoop-proof documents room in the Capitol called a SCIF.
Mishandling those documents, including just moving themfrom a secure serrver to an insecure one, is a felony; a violation of the plain-text of the law ( 18 U.S.C. 793(f) ) and one of the few Federal laws that explicitly requires no "intent". That particular law was specifically written to even cover and punish recklessness and incompetence.
so, yeah, prison for email on the wrong server.
If it's good enough to jail you or me for the same actions, then it's good enough for Hillary.
LAW: Learn it. Love it. Live it. (or else live under a capricious tyranny like most humans in the dark past of human history)
It would be nice to know if the person we may vote into office has engaged in tax evasion or if they actually pay what they owe. It's also a nice opportunity to remind people just how rigged the tax system is and on insanely optimistic days I can even imagine people caring enough to demand a change, but those days are getting rare). Of course, if the person gets good accountants and lawyers they could probably hide quite a bit of shady dealing, and I assume most do. So at the end of the day the tax returns help voters identify the criminals that are sloppy or dumb. We only want smart organized criminals running our country.
I thought that's why the IRS is auditing his return, to make sure it's correct? I'm pretty sure than anything short of an army of IRS agents and auditors could work through the stack of paper that is his tax return... On the other hand, we KNOW that Hillary! has outright lied several times about retaining all her relevant e-mails. And that (as well as deleting them in the first place) IS an actual crime.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Time for strategic voting. If you are conservative and in a deep blue state like CA, vote for the libertarian. Conversely, if you are liberal / progressive in a deep red state, vote for the Green Party. Those votes font matter for your regular party because your candidate isn't likely to win the state no matter what. However, those votes are VERY helpful to the other parties.
Don't forget Ross Perot! Bill Clinton may have lost both elections without Perot in the race. Note that Clinton is the only two-time Presidential winner who didn't win the popular vote for either election since the 1800s.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The head of the CIA is a Republican.
Please, that word, "criminal" doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up . It doesn't mean, "me not likee."
Ooops. THe head of the FBI is a Republican, is what I meant to say.
No, the FBI said that she committed crimes, but they are not recommending prosecution (they cannot prosecute) because they do not believe you can find a Federal prosecutor who would take the case. Meaning they most likely looked for a prosecutor - and couldn't find one. The FBI can only recommend, it's the Justice department that prosecutes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This is ONLY because the system has been rigged by the two parties to be a two party system.
Imagine for a second, that NO party affiliation marking for office holders appeared on the ballot, and all you saw were names.
So, instead of Hillary Clinton (D) - it was just "Hillary Clinton"
We used to have this system and it lasted what, three elections?
There's actually a less nefarious reason for the two party system. It's consequence of having a 50%+1 voting system, at least in theory. This is why I'm a fan of alternate voting systems like instant runoff or ranked-choice voting.
I should have said failed to win 50% or more of the vote. Every other two-time (or more) President has won with 50%+ of the popular vote at least once, if not twice/all times.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I don't know that's an accurate way to describe it. The truth may be more nuanced:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/co...
It appears he did make a general recommendation related to an outside account, but perhaps Clinton's aides over-spun it, not necessarily Hillary herself.
She has been legally and politically pressured to describe in detail why she didn't use the gov't system, and recommendations from Powell would be a legitimate part of that.
Table-ized A.I.
Actually, no. The media machine has been co-opted long ago. They won't give any time to non officialy approved candidates.
Conservative spinners keep spinning the "What difference does it make" comment. Here's more detail and quotes:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
My interpretation was that she was saying a category classification of "terror" versus "non-terror" was a premature and/or irrelevant question JUST right after the attacks had taken place. The terror/protest dichotomy was something the news cycle created, and is possibly useless (especially being it was likely a combination of both: a smaller plan expanded by the existence of protesters).
But, pundits frame it as a summary dismissal of the question.
Table-ized A.I.
Obama won't allow her to be prosecuted and the average American wants to vote for her. Waste of tax $$ :(
I like your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I have a similar idea. Currently every even year we have an election, that stays. On odd years we have an automatic recall vote for everyone in office. If they win then they continue to serve their term. If they lose then they must leave office as soon as the vote is certified as official. Then their lieutenant/vice/deputy/whatever takes their place for executive positions until the next election. Legislative seats would be empty or filled by appointment like we do now for cases like retirement, illness, or whatever. In the next election that person in that seat currently can choose to run for the rest of that term as can anyone else eligible. This includes the person that was voted out the year prior.
At the normal end of the term there is a normal election. This keeps things relatively normal for things like keeping a four year term for POTUS, six year staggered terms for Senate, and two year for the House.
This means a continuous election season but how is that different than now? All it does is allow the voters to do something about it more often. While someone voted out of office could run again for the same seat there will be pressure from the political parties for them not to. If things are going well then the same people stay in office. These people would then be campaigning on how awesome they are and telling us about all the laws they got passed or voted down. Politicians would have a harder time hiding unpopular legislation during the off seasons.
These recall elections could be for appointed positions too, like cabinet positions and justices. This does not bar them from being appointed again but the person making that appointment is going to have to defend that or get voted out too.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Yeah, a lot of stuff about Hillary is fabricated. And likewise, a lot of stuff about Trump is fabricated. In both cases, though, what we have video of actually coming out of their mouths is sufficient.
Hillary, I am convinced, is an enemy of the Constitution. There are a lot of anti Second Amendment "quotes" attributed to her which are completely made up. However, her proposal to implement something like Australia's gun laws -- which were, indeed, outright bans and confiscation -- is completely contrary to the to clear and declarative words of the Constitution. If she wants to repeal the Second Amendment, fine, get the votes for it and do it. But if "The Right of the People ... Shall not be infringed" can be abolished without the amendment to make it constitutional, then what possible protection do you imagine might exist for other rights which are the more weakly stated "Congress shall make no law." Not to mention rights that are emanations conjured out of penumbras.
Think about that. "Your Guys" are not forever and always going to be the ones running Washington DC. NEVER advocate giving "your guys" powers that you would be uncomfortable seeing in the hands of the "other guys."
I don't know if Hillary has learned anything from the email server thing. Her response has been one part "I didn't do anything wrong" and one part "I didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything." Anybody who has ever held any sort of security clearance knows full well what would have happened to them if they had done what she did. Ask anyone who has ever held a clearance to access TS/SAP stuff what would happen to them. The FBI Director, in declining to recommend prosecution, added a statement that basically said "But nobody else had better try this, because they will suffer consequences, because they are not Hillary Clinton."
I absolutely abhor having anyone in public office who thinks they are above the law. And that goes exponential when the top law enforcement officials of the country agree that, yes, they are above the law.
It will be fine to vote third party of your choice if you don't live in a swing state. All this Prisoner's Dilemma garbage is how the public is continuously convinced to vote against their best interests, and all these years of hoping that things will be better the next election has shown quite the opposite. Also I would humbly disagree that it can't impact the outcome; quite the contrary if the third parties build up enough support, they become bigger thorns in the side of the major parties that have enjoyed a monopoly on their respective wings' votes. Make them compete instead of forcing a sham down our throats every four years.
The Democrats punch hardest to the left.
While I am no Trump supporter and think he will be a disaster for this country the funny thing is that he's right about sticking to his original behavior and his campaign staffers are wrong. In such frustrating economic circumstances the public is very vulnerable to demagoguery (whether it's blaming immigrants or blaming "privilege") and he charmed a substantial portion of the country with his "alpha male" approach, which if nothing else, should be applauded for eliminating the likes of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz from this race.
Even more baffling is the mainstream media openly snorting about Trump refusing to pivot, as if the Clinton family treachery of feigning left during the primaries and then running to the right during the general is somehow commendable behavior.
Truly, the country is in a terrible way when Donald Trump manages to be more honest and sincere.
Sorry, completely unpersuasive response. Not one actual crime? Just your feeling that she is a secret enemy of the Constitution?
If you are so sincerely afraid of someone taking your guns away that it overwhelms all other factors, then there really isn't much to say to you. However, even if you do sincerely believe that such a thing is possible in America, then it seems obvious you should only be afraid of a madman trying it.
No, I'm not convinced that Trump is insane, but sometimes he definitely says things that are insane. However, I still think he might be faking them and just playing to his fans. If he is faking, then the main danger is he starts believing himself. If he actually is insane, then of course all bets are off.
Hillary has said plenty of things I don't agree with, even things I strongly disagree with, but I can't point at anything insane. Her critics, on the other hand...
Hmm... Okay, I'm pert' shure I should stop there, but I'm going to say something about the 2nd Amendment: President Lincoln already repealed it. Myself, I don't much care, and I served in the military and owned guns when I lived in Texas, but even in those days I knew that the 2nd Amendment had been effectively repealed by the Civil War. However, I still think it was primarily a war of the Northern bankers against the Southern debtors and slavery was largely an excuse (to claim the moral high ground) and partly a cause (due to the economic inefficiency of slave labor that caused the debt). I think the human and economic cost of the Civil War was certainly not justified by any need to protect the bankers from default. Those high costs were why the Southern states believed the North would be insane to interfere with slavery--as long as they had the armed militias of the 2nd Amendment, but the outcome of the Civil War did finally settle the slavery question that had bothered the nation since its founding. To add insult to injury, those same Northern bankers supported and profited from the war profiteers. Or maybe the main insult is that their descendents are now supporting the so-called Republican Party?
If you study the history of those years, the entire point of the 2nd Amendment was NOT the personal and individual right to arms, but the independence and sovereignty of the individual states to be enforced by the states' well-regulated militias. The Bill of Rights was only tacked onto the Constitution at the last minute to persuade the states to ratify it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The decision was made by a republican - and made on a basis that a LOT of such decisions are made: insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
The thing about the favour-the-accused legal systems of the free world is they ALSO favour the accused when the accused is rich and powerful. If you can come up with a way to change that without destroying liberty for everybody else who doesn't have those resources I would like to hear it - but for now, it's the worst system in the world except for all the others.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
In this case it would also be nice to know if the persistent (and well supported) rumours of his dealings with the mafia are true.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Pretty racist to assume that all other voting blocks vote in lockstep.
Nobody is assuming that- but we are all (almost certainly correctly) assuming that no voting bloc habitually supports a politician that has declared them "the enemy" or grossly offended them.
How many Jews do you think voted for the NAZIs in 1929 (the only election they ever took part in - and where they actually got trounced winning only about 14% of the vote, not nearly enough to govern but sadly enough to get mainstream rightwing parties to try to appease them by giving Hitler a cabinet post... from which he could manuever his way into absolute power through what was really an armed coup).
For that matter, how many blacks do you think voted for George Wallace or Barry Goldwater ? (To avoid the above being construed as a Godwin - on this occasion those similarities have nothing to do with my argument).
The point is - even the dumbest voters tend not to vote for people whose policies threaten their safety or rights.
That's why we can assume that virtually all voting blocs will be voting in lockstep this election - because bar one all of them have had a target painted on their backs by one of the candidates - and that means voting for the person who is NOT aiming at that target.
Trump isn't in for a landslide, he is in for an avalanche... face it Hillary is an absolutely terrible candidate and she absolutely deserved to get trounced by Obama in 2008. She also deserved to get trounced by Bernie this time round (despite that sadly not happening). But Trump is the one candidate who makes Hillary not just a winner but a winner of absolutely historic proportions.
The republicans are in for the biggest electoral loss since Goldwater - and it's not just Trump who is going to lose, he's going to have a massive negative effect on the downballots. Thanks to running Trump the GOP has just handed Hillary the white-house AND a congressional majority in both houses.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
She'll pack the Court with elitist police state advocates. Trump probably will too.
Do you completely separate your personal email from the work-related email? Yes, I do. 2 accounts. One work, one personal. It's not hard.
Actually Trump's personal income taxes would probably be quite boring, the income taxes of all of the corporations, foundations and partnerships is where things will get more interesting. The same with the Clinton's, they donated nearly a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, a pretty hefty tax deduction to a non-profit foundation with an 85% overhead.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Unless the FBI has changed their minds and decided to pursue an indictment, what has or hasn't been found on her server is completely irrelevant.
She could have email on there linking her to the JFK assasination, 911 and hit lists of all the people that have died under mysterious circumstances over the years and it won't matter one iota.
She is one of " them ". She is also a Clinton. The laws simply do not apply to people like her.
Trump isn't stupid, impulsive (definitely) and narcissistic (probably), but not stupid. Clinton is spending $Millions to counter what is basically free publicity for Trump. Trump's first TV ad is just now ready to air, think about that. In his last couple appearances he stayed on script and didn't go rogue; He maybe re-invented already.
Clinton is going to have to get on stage again in the debates, and she going to have to stay on stage, if Trump pushes, she likely to have another seizure on TV; and nobody is going to be there to talk her through it there.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
1st, Comey is no longer a registered Republican.
2nd, Obama appointed Comey to the position, so mentioning his previous affiliation with the Republicans carries no weight whatsoever.
3rd, insufficient evidence to secure a conviction is a falsehood. They have proof of multiple transmissions of classified information. There's absolutely zero chance that they couldn't get a conviction on the charge of mishandling classified information. They don't need to prove intent to mishandle or any other difficult to prove charges. Mishandling of classified information is pretty cut and dried. Did her emails contain classified information? Absolutely 100% yes. Was the information marked as classified? Absolutely 100% yes.
They might poll better next election which helps get them onto national televised debates, increasing their exposure.
The only possible endgame of that of course is that one of the other two parties dies out, so that we are back to two parties, but one of them has a new name and possibly a new coalition of voters. That's what happened in the mid 1800's when the Republicans killed the Whig party, and its what happened in the early 1800's when the Whig party killed the Federalist party.
As long as we have first-past-the-post elections, we by definition have a two-party system. That's just mathematically (and historically) how it works.
You can think of USA parties as like coalitions in multiparty Democracies. What is a "party" in those countries, is a "wing" in the USA. Wings can and do switch parties. For example, the Dixiecracts, who used to be the spine of the Democratic party, switched to the Republican party at the end of the 20th Century, and with this election now seem to be running it.
The two major parties compete for voters from the various wings. It works very much like a multi-party parlimentary Democracy, except that its before and during the campaigns that the ruling and opposition coalitions are formed, instead of after.
This is ONLY because the system has been rigged by the two parties to be a two party system.
No ... just... no.
We had two parties naturally form from the very first national election, when the "founders" thought parties were evil. Multiple times viable new parties have been formed, and every time within an election or two all but the strongest two had died out. Nothing more nefarious than human nature is at work here.
Any voting system with a first-past-the-post vote automatically has 2 parties as its stable state.. The only way to "fix" that is to get rid of all first-past-the-post votes (eg: No president, nationwide proportional representation for everything, people vote for parties rather than people).
Railing against "stupid" voters is as futile as railing against "greedy people" who won't let Communisim work. If you want people to behave differently, you need a completely different system that rewards them for behaving differently. Otherwise, you may just as well go to the beach and complain about the tide.
Worse than that, she'll replace Scalia with a leftist Jurist, as well as Kennedy who has already indicated he's ready to retire. She'll take the moderate balanced court we've had, 4-4 with Kennedy swinging based on the topic, to a hard left 6-3. Trump could do the same but he's already put forth a list of his candidates who are conservatives. But I could see him trying to keep a moderate swing vote to prevent either side from dominating.
On the SCOTUS issue alone We need Trump to win.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
The public has a short memory. There is still time for him to reinvent himself - throw away the offensive persona that served him well in the primary, bring on a new moderate one that will stop talking about or outright change position on all his worst primary stances.
Trump has less than two weeks before early voting starts in some states. If he haven't reinvented himself before then, he will get locked out of those states. Early voters are unlikely to wait until Election Day to cast their votes.
Do you completely separate your personal email from the work-related email? Have you ever mentioned work-related items in personal correspondence? Have you ever mentioned personal matters in work email?
Yes, I have separate email accounts for work and home. No, I've never mentioned work-items in my personal email. And no, my boss and cow-orkers don't need to read about my yoga classes.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
If your wealth is generating income, and it should be, then your tax returns do indeed give a very good sense of your overall wealth...
Except the US is the only first past the post that only has two parties. So the law works in the US, and fails to work anywhere else: "While one of the only principles of political science elevated to the level of a law, in practice most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and India have consistently had multiparty parliaments.[3][4] Eric Dickson and Ken Sheve argue that there is a counter force to Duverger's Law, that on the national level a plurality system encourages two parties, but in the individual constituencies supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing"
Pretty racist to assume that all other voting blocks vote in lockstep.
It's called the Southern Strategy. Republicans have been appealing to racist white males to swing the election their way for decades. Problem is that the United States is no longer a lily-white nation. A typical election splits 47% each way, leaving women, minorities and independents a 6% margin to throw the election one way or another. For Trump to win the election with only white male voters, he needs a turnout rate of 70%. That's unlikely to happen.
Isn't part of his selling point... that he's not a politician?
Even a non-politician recognizes the need for a nation-wide organization, especially in the battleground states that will decide the election. Trump has next to nothing — and proud of it. He's not running to win.
This FBI man has a history with the clintons, feel free to look him and loretta lynch up. HSBC anyone? which board was that he is on?
You are right. I stand corrected and apologize to all children of 12 years. I have learned from my mistake.
She'll probably have 4 years, I'll give you that. But 8 years is a stretch. Depends on whether her doctor can keep her sufficiently doped and rested while Huma runs the country in all but name. One ill-timed seizure during a State of the Union Address and her second term will never materialize.
That's 45,000 emails. How did she have time to send that many emails?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The end of your quote is the important part. They still have an effective two-party system in those places, its just that the identity of the two parties in question varies depending on where you live in the country. In other words, they have regional parties.
We have had that happen in the US. In fact, that's essentially what the founders thought would happen (if you substitute "parties" for "candidates"). However, that hasn't happened since the 1960's (when southerners were dead-set against Civil Rights for black citizens, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the party of Lincoln).
Oh - I take it you were part of the investigation? So - tell me: How do they mark classified email these days? Do they have extra email headers? X-Classification: Holy shit Or is the classification within the subject lile Re: Obamas breakfast [Classification: Important Shit] Or maybe in the email-address directly hillary-secret@ownserver.com Or maybe there's a background image with that famous red "Secret" rubber stamp in 0.5% opaque? As you are a 100% sure of things - you ought to know such details. Please enlighten me.
The two party system was a broken fix to a broken problem. The fix isn't the two party system, it is a system where the power resides in LOCAL leaders, not in a powerful central government. As the Federal Government increases in power, that power increasingly gets consolidated away from the people who are being governed.
The fact that Liberal, conservative, libertarian and socialists feel like they aren't being represented, is because in reality, none of them are. THE only people being represented are those that have access to the power structure in far away cities. I don't have that access, you don't, most people here don't. I can call my congress critter, but they don't listen to me.
The TWO party system has created the very thing that we hate, but we are unwilling to even look at breaking it up, because of the unknown results. Something about the devil you know verse the devil you don't.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Another link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...
Table-ized A.I.
Databases are rarely accepted as legal documents for some reason.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
by definition "early voters" wont wait until election day...
Not necessarily. Some people wait until the very last minute. I know several people who take their mail in ballots to the county office on election day.
It would be nice to know if the person we may vote into office has engaged in tax evasion or if they actually pay what they owe.
If he wasn't, there'd be a case filed by the IRS against him. If there's not, than what evidence is there to imply that he hasn't paid? I'm no Trump fan, and I do wish he'd release them, but this whole issue is just bloviating from the DNC campaign.
Just another day in Paradise
Did he say that, or imply that? I don't see it. I see him, correctly, stating that Trump has "offended" all of them. Effing learn to effing read.
Just another day in Paradise
She is not a witch.
How can you be sure she is not a witch? Are you preview to dark gods or goddesses that might or might not worship when we are all fast asleep? It is not far stretch to believe that dances naked (sorry about that mental image guys) around some pagan alter in the dead of the night. We will never be 100% sure till she passes the water test.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
CNN has already shown prime-time town hall events for both Johnson and Stein, they already are giving time to them. It's just not enough. But if 15 or 20% of people end up voting for third parties then during the next election cycle there will hopefully be a lot of people asking questions about why third party candidates are not included in the presidential debates, and those are questions that the Commission on Presidential Debates and the D and R parties do not want to answer. If the major candidates in the next election are anything like the crap we have in this one (and, statistically, one the candidates will be the same), then there are going to be a lot of people wondering why their candidates don't get to debate. It has nothing to do with popularity in the polls, and everything to do with who controls the debates. If you're not sure who controls the debates, look into the Commission on Presidential Debates to see who runs it. I'll give you a hint: their candidates always get to participate, and they always win the election. That's what needs to change, and enough people voting for third parties in this election will help swing the momentum away from the parties.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Hillary has not been convicted of a crime, true. And Donald has not been examined and declared insane by a psychiatrist. Also true. Neither of these are exactly ringing endorsements of their regard for the law or their sanity.
The difference between the two is, Trump's tax returns reflect the taxes of a private citizen. (Which he was before he started running for office) Hillary's work related emails do not belong to her, they belong to the United States of America. Trump should show his tax returns, but if he does or doesn't has no legal bearing. Hillary's emails were subpoenaed. I have no problem with people being democrats, but if you support this woman, your willful blindness is dangerous.
And there is NEVER any relationship between the two?
Let's pretend you have an actual life. Perhaps you have a spouse and a child? Have you ever sent an email message to your boss about needing to take a day off so you can be with your child?
If your answer is no, then I think you are an inhuman bastard.
If your answer is yes, then you were lying. Why are you so desperate to attack Hillary that you demean yourself?
I actually find the situation rather laughable. I don't like Hillary, but her most vocal enemies are so vile that I am actually beginning to like her quite a bit. That obviously does not seem to be their intention.
As regards the presidency, some people seem to think it's supposed to be some sort of gawd. NO human being is qualified for such a job. I think it was really a shame that Ford pardoned Nixon because the job of president has become insane and really needs to be dragged all the way down to earth and buried in mud for a while. Maybe that is Trump's real plan?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Roughly 50 Clintonian conspiracies, and so far no smoking gun.
Quiz: Occum's Razor would select:
A) Clintons are master criminals
B) GOP and conserv. media are full of it
Note that "A" also contradicts being sloppy with emails.
Table-ized A.I.
And you have never had to send an email message to your boss so you could take care of your child? Either you are a lifeless and inhuman bastard or you are so desperate to attack Hillary that you lie and demean yourself. Possibly both, now that I think about it.
I rather wish I had complete access to all of your email. I bet you would not like that very much.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I can't figure out which of my points you are trying to prove. Hillary haters are insane haters? Trump supporters are insane haters? Or perhaps the confusion is because you are both?
Or perhaps it was just a joke? However I also think that "Nuclear Pacification" isn't funny.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I've sent email to my boss requesting time off. He doesn't pry into the reason, as long as I catch up with whatever I've missed when I get back.
My boss probably wouldn't be happy if you had access to my work email. It's not "Top Secret", but there's quite a bit of "None of Your Business" stuff in there. Luckily, it's not in a server in my basement.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Looked it up: "adj: of or relating to a crime. Syn: unlawful, illegal, illicit, lawless, felonious, delinquent, fraudulent, actionable, culpable." I suspect that's exactly what the OP (and most non-trolls) think "criminal" means.
There's a very straightforward explanation here, by a career federal prosecutor. Spoiler:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) : With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
And that's just taking Comey's story at face value and ignoring any less charitable explanations (as well as any of the more recent revelations since he made his statement).
Let's start with the hypothesis that Hillary had committed some crime. Millions of dollars have been spent investigating EVERY aspect of her life seeking evidence to convict her, and yet she remains unconvicted. The investigations are driven by people who are highly motivated and extremely hostile. Sometimes even insanely hostile. And yet, no conviction after MANY years of effort.
No, you cannot prove a negative, but at some point you have to say that the preponderance of the evidence is that she's been been careful enough in following the actual laws. Lawyers tend to be like that, and I do think that her primary personal identity is probably "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer". I wish it was "philosopher" or even "statesman", but I'm not holding my breath, especially after Citizens United. (On the rapidly growing list of bad decisions from the Supreme Court, I think that one is already near the top.) I still don't like lawyers.
Now let's consider examples of Trump saying insane things. How do you feel about the idea that Mexico is sending rapists to America? Something is insane about that idea. Do you want more examples? (Oh, and by the way, quite a number of psychologists and psychiatrists have said that they think there might be something wrong with the Donald.) Maybe you're imagination is too limited, but I can certainly imagine Trump coming out against guns--but only AFTER he's in the White House. If he did it before the election, then that would convince me that either he is insane or his entire campaign has been a sham.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Is it credible that she - who appears to have been rather incompetent with her email server - has managed to eradicate only the really bad bits out of how many emails and documents?
Who said she eradicated only the really bad bits? There almost certainly are a lot of benign work-related emails that were deleted as well.
And why does it surprise you the results were scrubbed clean? Her people had over two years after the first FOIA request to go through them before she finally released them. And you don't exactly have to be a rocket scientist to make extra sure you didn't miss any by searching for all the standardized classification tags, terms like "Clinton Foundation," and a shortlist of no-no email addresses, now do you?
Okay, so now you are accusing your boss of being an inhuman monster and apparently trying to gain my sympathy for your sad work situation.
But mostly you're just proving my point that most of Hillary's enemies are nuts and will go to ANY length to attack her. I didn't like Hillary much, but I'm beginning to love her for her enemies. I have this visceral thing against liars, and her enemies are clearly the biggest liars in that valley.
After MILLIONS of dollars spent looking for smoke, her enemies have come up with nothing. Not for a lack of sincere effort and massive wastes of taxpayers' money. No, you can't prove a negative, but at some point the sane people are going to say there just isn't any fire there.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Oh, I can readily believe that The Donald's whole campaign has been a sham. With perhaps a dose of narcissistic personality disorder; I think that's the remote diagnosis that I've heard bandied about that doesn't seem entirely unlikely to me. (Please do not confuse me with someone who would ever under any circumstances vote for Trump.)
but we're not. It's more or less been admitted that Pence will run the show (and it would have been Kasich but he doesn't think Trump can win).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hmm... But the problem is that the Constitution defines the presidential election process in a winner-take-all way. That means that attacking Hillary, even by merely accepting and propagating the slander against her, is increasing the likelihood of the other winner.
In a winner-take-all election system there are only two stable states: Two balanced teams (parties) compete for the bulk of the voters in the middle, or one team has a permanent dominance of the game. In a sense the openness of the system actually makes it worse, because whatever technique works for one side will tend to be adopted by the other, and principles and philosophies be darned. I suppose the sad joke is that the founders feared the idea of political parties precisely because they expected the parties to put their partisan interests ahead of the nation's concerns--and I think the results have shown their fears were extremely well considered and justified.
If they had been even more innovative than they were, then they might have come up with the coalition solution, but they had their limits and that idea didn't come up until later. Nor could they anticipate the appearance of computerized gerrymandering...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It's very simple really, Hillary wasn't prosecuted because they would then have to prosecute Bush for war crimes, and then backtrack to prosecute nearly every political figure for the last fifty years or so.
None of them were clean, all of them were rich, and that makes for expensive prosecution. Once you reach a certain threshold in the government, you are pretty well insulated by all of the non-prosecuted, publicly known crimes everyone else committed.
As long as you don't hand it over to your Korean girlfriend. You're pretty safe.
Cthulhu/Dagon 2016
Vote for the Elder Party and usher in pure evil rather than the lesser of two....
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
It isn't a trope, I mean it literally and I stand by that as my choice of words. A trope is a figurative or metaphorical statement. For example, describing the act of governance as "guiding the ship of State," that is a trope. When I said "I don't think that word means what you think it means," I meant exactly that; no metaphor involved. "Criminal" is a specific word, that has meaning, and it is not figurative. And likewise, when I say it was used incorrectly, I mean that an incorrect meaning was used. It does not actually mean, "stuff that twists my underpants." See, there I was speaking figuratively. Can you tell the difference, or are there more words involved that you don't understand?
Words have meanings, and meaning matters.
I never disputed that I'm an asshole, so who cares? If you think I'm "insincere" that just shows you're an idiot who can't imagine people who come to different conclusions than you actually came to different conclusions than you.
I'd rather be "lazy and stupid" than an aliterate ignoramus.
So, in your universe 0 is a "multiple?" Wow, I so do NOT want to have to attempt math on your side of the wormhole!
And by "had a header," he actually means, there was an inline capital letter C enclosed in parentheses.
You lie and lie and lie and lie and just assume that eventually you'll have the moral high ground, if you only say enough bad things about somebody else.
You're actually upset that Hillary discussed her schedule with her aides in the wrong way, because you presume that her daily schedule is as secret as nuclear launch codes. To most people, her schedule is classified to protect her, and she would ultimately be the one who makes decisions about communicating details of it to her aides while in the field.
Actually Trump's personal income taxes would probably be quite boring
LOL nobody is going to believe that doozy. If it was going to be boring, he would release it, because it is part of what is seen as the basic application requirements for the position.
If it was a document nobody else has to share, like a freakin' birth certificate, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be boring, and that the reason it isn't provided is because nobody else was asked for it and that is unfair. But when it is something that every other candidate provides, except for 1 guy, then you can bet that it is anything but boring.
Or look at it this way: Almost everybody assumes he's hiding something big. The actual thing that it is, has to be bigger than what he thinks people will assume. There has to be something yuuuuuuuuuge in there for him to attempt to run for President without even submitting the full application that the voters expect.
Remember when Bill was POTUS? She was required by court to cough up her law firm records? Eventually when it was just about over they claimed they found all of these records on a table in the family residence in the White House?
Delay, omit, lie, same OLD Hillary. That leopard won't change her spots.
You are of course correct.
I recall a few years ago the Dems at midterm elections were set in stone to take both houses by large numbers after the Reps fumbled badly with the meetings to block Obama and make him a one term president and the Norquist pledge.
Then the Dems faltered and lost both houses, managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I don't recall the exact scenario (and too buzzed on my day off to care to look it up) but it was as I recall only about six months to a complete reversal.
And Romney can attest to the accuracy of polls...
Anyone proclaiming victory before the battle begins has not paid any attention to the past. I look forward to the debates. And I hope they are moderated to completely grill the candidates and not the candy-ass questions that we saw during the primaries.
I want to see them both sweat, I want to see how they react to pressure. It's their last chance to garner my vote for either. Both are dirty, both are dishonesty personified. On one hand we can elect the Antichrist, on the other hand we can elect Cthulhu.
At this point I don't know which is worse, but I lean toward Cthulhu basically on the premise of 'better the devil you know..", and we know Cthulhu from thirty-plus years of scandals, both real and imagined.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
So, those 'Russian' hackers, or WikiLeaks, or Snowden, or some other hero of the people... Go get us those emails BEFORE the election! Get them now! Voters need to know!
This sig intentionally left blank.
You're obviously a delusional Hilaryite. Nowhere in my post did I call my boss an "inhuman monster", and I don't follow whatever mental gyrations it took to get that conclusion.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
wtf are you talking about? Hillary and her crimes has nothing to do with Bush, but way to try and misdirect everyone's attention from the subject at hand. "Look! Bush! War crimes!".
You don't get it, It's not in his personal income taxes, those are just going to boring old stuff, some dividends, some salary, a few taxable perks and some deductions. All of the good stuff will be buried in the numerous corporate tax forms, the corporations, that own the corporations, that own the corporations. It's like the Clinton's, their personal returns are pretty boring, looking at The Clinton Foundation is where the fun begins.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I was for him until he said he would pardon the traitor Snowden, and was going to disband the IRS and NSA. While the second part is consistent with his platform, it isn't exactly a wise choice. The IRS needs to exist, unless he is going to also unilaterally get rid of the income tax, or change it to a different type of tax, and the NSA, while it has its issues, is a necessary organization as well. Without the NSA, no one is securing the communications of the US gov, and the NSA only does what the executive branch asks of it, so they can be reformed into anything the president wants them to be, why get rid of an agency that does so much good for the country?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You have that backwards. In a state (like Maryland where I live) where it doesn't matter who I or anyone I know votes for, Baltimore and Prince George's county will carry the election to D, no matter what the whole rest of the state votes for. If everyone not in those two counties was to vote for a third party, it would not cause them to win, but it would cause the big two to stop and take notice of them, like Nader did not to long ago.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Funny, according to political position analysts, Hillary is actually right of McCain, so she is less of a centerest than anyone ever from the DNC.
http://stop-the-oligarchy.tumb...
This Redditor summed Hillary up quite nicely:
https://www.reddit.com/r/polit...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
http://www.dw.com/en/alice-coo...
There is always the devil you know :)
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
My support of the 2nd amendment has waned over the years, but you are absolutely correct in calling that out. I'm not sure Trump really has a position on much of anything, which by default means that he is better on 2nd amendment rights than Hillary.
What I would call out more than that is her *general* disregard for the constitution. She fully supports the spy-on-all-American-citizens that has grown seemingly without bound since 9/11. She implicitly supports search & seizure without court order, and the indefinite retention of it. If Hillary becomes president I expect we will see the government's grip tighten even further. The fact that that calls to mind a certain Star Wars quote is cold comfort.
Yeah, I mentioned the Second Amendment because it's really a question of do the actual words of the Constitution have any actual meaning, or is the Constitution just some Rorschach blot that means whatever five out of nine black-robed oligarchs happen to want it to mean this week? If it needs to be amended or repealed, do so. That's the process.
All the other things... Yeah, Hillary is horrible on them, too, but The Donald isn't any better. ("Boycott Apple if they don't provide a backdoor!") It's flip a coin... or flush the coin down the toilet and look for a better coin.
Since you missed the point, here it is again.
" Once you reach a certain threshold in the government, you are pretty well insulated by all of the non-prosecuted, publicly known crimes everyone else committed."
Bush's war crimes are very much part of this.
Nice attempted (and failed) deflection from my point.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
My point flew right over your head, you didn't say anything about why I'm wrong, all you did is state the opposite.
And it is nonsensical; he isn't being asked for something different than anybody else, and taking a principled stand. He's hiding something that he knew he would be expected to provide, so obviously he has something to hide.
If it was going to be boring, he'd have to be a complete idiot not to release it. Which is more likely, that he has an IQ under 65 and throws a temper tantrum when his lawyers tell him it is OK to release it, or that he has at least normal intelligence and has embarrassing stuff to hide?
If there was nothing else going on, no refusal to release it, then the default idea would be as you say. But when there is an active refusal that leaves him unqualified for the job he's applying for, even in the eyes of many members of his own party, he has to either have yuuuuuuuge stuff to hide, or he's yuuuuuuuugely more stupid than he looks.