Slashdot Mirror
FBI Probes Newly Discovered Hillary Clinton Emails and Reopens Investigation (telegraph.co.uk)
The FBI said Friday it is reviewing newly discovered emails related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server to determine whether she properly handled classified emails. The reopening of the investigation comes after the FBI recently "learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the Clinton investigation," FBI director James Comey said. Comey added, however, that "FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant." It is also unclear "how long it will take us to complete this additional work." FBI's announcement today is "certain" to become an issue in the final two weeks of the presidential campaign, however. Donald Trump is naturally pleased hearing the news, at New Hampshire, Trump said the new probe offered the FBI the chance to correct a "grave miscarriage of justice." He added, "We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office." Supporters responded with chants of "Lock her up!" Trump added that the email investigation is "bigger than Watergate."
"how ling it will take us to complete this additional work."
Who is this Ling and why is there a Chinese agent working on this?!
Dammit, the emale went missing again.
Sorry, I'll see myself out now.
I don't know about that. If they had gone further earlier, we might have a different Democratic nominee. If she were to drop out of the race now, Trump might be up against a write-in Democratic candidate.
However, they do plan to take 5 years to analyze the data, then decide that despite being complete flagrant violations of Federal law, the information leaked is no longer a national security issue, so they will not recommend any charges.
1. They did not say that they are reopening the investigation. The memo itself makes that clear.
2. The emails are related to the server, but not from Clinton
Pete Williams is reporting that the emails have A) nothing to do with Wikileaks, and B) were not withheld by Clinton.
Beyond that, we know very, very little right now. Actually it's rather bizarre that Comey would throw a bombshell like this 11 days before the election. But let's see where it goes.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Actually, Comey should drop out of the investigation, and someone else at the FBI should take over from him. He is either stupid, or compromised, or both.
And Trump is in no position to drive this or any other thing. Only people who can is the Obama administration. Yeah, WikiLeaks has been exposing all this, but they already have the standard template response of Putin pulling their strings, so why are they so worried?
I don't know about that. If they had gone further earlier, we might have a different Democratic nominee. If she were to drop out of the race now, Trump might be up against a write-in Democratic candidate.
That would doom the Democrats to failure. If anything they would force her to resign after the election leaving Kaine as the President-elect. TO alter the ballot now would be electoral suicide.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I want her to rot in jail, and I'm a feminist progressive. Suck it. Vote Stein.
Likewise, you can't stand the thought of someone becoming president with hair that bad! But it still doesn't justify you being a Clinton shill.
I wonder if the FBI, in their 'unrelated investigation' found evidence of 'intent'?
Even the other Democratic candidate considers it a non-issue, and has said so since the very beginning of the primaries campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Imagine all the people...
Correction: the FBI is not reopening the case, they're assessing some emails that they found in a different investigation to see if they are relevant. If they are relevant to Clinton, and if they contain classified information, then it's possible in the future that they might reopen the case. But that's not what the FBI said - that's all speculation by politicians looking for a "hook" to keep attacking Clinton.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I am not a Trump supporter, but I do not want the FBI and the AG to drop this investigation. It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws, but because her party has power in the executive branch, she's not being held accountable to the degree that anyone else in the country would be.
My solution for the whole thing is to not put up Trump signs, but to put up "Hillary for Prison 2016" signs. She'll make a terrible president. Trump will make a terrible president. What I'm secretly hoping for is that McMullin figures out how to sneak in, people take Kotlikoff seriously as a write-in candidate, or that something terrible happens to Trump/Clinton when they win and the VP has to take over.
I don't think 99.9% of Trump supporters have a problem with a female president. They have a problem with THIS female as president. If she supported their positions on things and wasn't horrible corruption incarnate, they would be more than happy to vote for her.
whiny asshats that don't like Hillary because she's a woman
No. I would've supported a President Jill Stein. I believe she'd be a better choice than Donald Trump.
I cannot support Hillary because she is corrupt. The depth of her corruption is breathtaking and her blatant disregard for the rule of law is a danger to the republic.
Why is anyone sending classified information over the clear?
I hope that this time round they made damn sure that Comey or anyone else that has shared business interests with the Clintons can't have anything to do with the new investigation.
What if she's found guilty and wins the election. Presumably if she's found guilty after taking office she'll pardon herself. If it happens between November and January though, does Kaine become president?
That I can live with far more easily than Trump or Clinton.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win. Nobody would have to be written in. Similarly, had Trump dropped out or anything happened to him, Pence would become the president in the event of a GOP win
This is a point also made in 1998 during the impeachment hearings on Bill Clinton. Dems were at the time fighting tooth and nail to save him, but had they gone along w/ the GOP and impeached Clinton, Algore would have become president, and he would have had the liberty to hire someone more to his liking than Joe Lieberman.
They are not Clinton emails. They are not Clinton server emails. And he didn't say "reopened" (only "review", "assess"). So yeah.
As the loser of a fixed race, are you sure he still feels that way?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The depth of Republicans spending three decades trying to convince Americans that she's corrupt is what's breathtaking. How many bloody investigations have they held into her? Now, how many times has she been convicted?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Had Sanders been the candidate, he would have been running 15 points ahead of Trump right now
There is no restriction on a President pardoning themselves. So we need to move fast or have there be an impeachment right after she get's in.
Apparently, there is suppose to be another dump sometime next week which according to wiki (doubt if I believe it) should "get Hillary arrested". Now, as much as I think the Clinton's are crooks, and should be in jail, I doubt it will happen. Interesting though, the Clinton's have transferred over 2 million dollars from their accounts in the USA, to Dubai. Are they planning some sort of escape in the near future, to a country that will not extradite them to the USA? Why transfer all of your assets to another country? She has to know, if she loses, Trump, even though I still have it in the back of my mind he only got into this election to help Hillary, by taking all of the spotlight off of other candidates, may of had a "come to Jesus meeting" and got his mind right with God...I hope so! This is about the screwiest election I've seen in my 57 years of life.
But if we have a hung result, why would the GOP vote in McMullin as the president elect instead of Trump, who has been their democratically elected nominee? And when the party opinion has been strongly in favor of Trump's positions on trade, borders, extreme vetting, et al?
If by fixed race you mean more people voting for the other person, then...well, who gives a fuck what he thinks after this is over.
I think the favorite female president of the Trump supporters would be Katrina Pearson or Judge Jeanene Pirro
I predict a day or two before the election the FBI will say everything is just peachy.
That might just push some fence sitters over to Hillary.
It sucks, but saddle up for 8 years of Hillary - it's going to be bad.
cares.
about.
the.
damn.
emails.
All politicians are corrupt. You have no idea how corrupt. All of them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yes, vote for the vaxxer-apologist who wants a moratorium on pesticides and whose primary economic policy initiative - ordering the Fed use quantitative easing to forgive student debt - is based on a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between the government and the Fed, and what quantitative easing even is.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
At this point, I'm OK with an extra 4 years of Obama. Is there a constitutional loophole?
Michelle. VP Warren.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Trump and his supporters ...
Its the FBI not Trump, the very same FBI that said there was insufficient evidence to file charges not so long ago.
... don't like Hillary because she's a woman ...
How delusional. Hillary is despised for many many reason unrelated to her gender. Plus her gender is an advantage, there are far more people voting for her because of her gender than voting against her because of her gender. How sad for feminism, for "equality".
Story where Terry McAuliffe (a long time Clinton friend) gave the lead FBI investigator's wife $500,000 for a campaign run in 2015 during the investigation. If you know Terry McAuliffe, you know dealing with him is basically the same as dealing with the Clintons.
I think you need to exclude anyone who took bribes from the Clintons as well.
Just hit the alt+right key
love is just extroverted narcissism
think the favorite female president of the Trump supporters would be Katrina Pearson or Judge Jeanene Pirro
Condoleezza Rice.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
How many of the emails have you actually read, and which ones specifically are you basing that on?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Just checked, as of 2pm central time, These news sites have it FRONT PAGE. cnn.com washingtonpost Nytimes msmbc Cbsnews abcnews nbcnews huffingtonpost wallstreet journal dailyKOS dailycaller Foxnews drudge report democraticunderground So, it's not like this isn't being reported on, unlike some past events. Also, not that it holds much weight, but, wiki also said next weeks dump will "get Hillary arrested". Doubtful, but seeing her do a perp walk would just tickle my innards. She & Bill have transferred almost 2 million dollars from accounts in the USA, to Dubai. Now why do that? Planning on fleeing the country on November the 9th if you lose?
Not if ALL Hitlery voters moved to Stein. You'd then have a Dem-Green coalition up against Trump.
You don't understand how this presidential election thing works, do you?
President Trump How's that??
I don't know about that. If they had gone further earlier, we might have a different Democratic nominee. If she were to drop out of the race now, Trump might be up against a write-in Democratic candidate.
No, Clinton / Kaine are the candidates being voted for. There is no other possibility at this point.
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Mars now please, not later. Where do I get in line?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Stalin wasn't ever convicted of crimes against humanity either. Was he a good leader?
No, she's very much a Bush establishment hack
The first investigation found that she was grossly negligent and irresponsible in her handling of classified material - what they didn't find was 'intent'.
Will the recently arrested NSA "leaker" be let off like her? After all the FBI seems to be saying that so far there was no intent to distribute the classified materials he had at home. So he too is merely guilty of have classified material on a personal computer without permission.
I've been hearing this naive and silly response a lot lately. Libs with agendas forget that it took that long to finally nail Al Capone. Hillary is the new Al Capone. Just because multiple investigations don't result in her direct prosecution doesn't mean she isn't guilty. In fact, in a number of investigations she was found guilty, there was just no real penalty (i.e. White House Travel Staff). Point in fact, Comey said she did violate laws related to handling classified material but that no prosecutor would attempt to prosecute the case so they recommended that the DOJ NOT press charges. But lying Hillary and others like yourself, run around saying that the FBI found her not guilty. False. They said she was guilty but that they thought it wasn't worth while. Meanwhile Bill Clinton is running interference with the DOJ on an airplane and the chief FBI investigator's wife is getting $800,000 in campaign donations from Hillary's "friends". It's no wonder Comey said it wasn't worth investigating. This is classic mafia-style tactics; racketeering. So remember, Al Capone murdered by the dozens for years but was never convicted of murder but he was never convicted of it. That doesn't mean he wasn't a murderer and likewise the lack of a conviction to date for Hillary doesn't mean she's not thoroughly corrupt.
(looks at new MacBook Pro keyboard and scratches head)
How many investigations into the Clintons ended abruptly after the main witnesses suddenly committed suicide? By shooting themselves. In the back of the head. Twice.
So it was the Republicans who set up Clinton Foundation and traded favors and money like candy?
MSNBC reaction to the latest Wikileaks Clinton Foundation leak. (for those not familiar with American news outlets; MSNBC is a left-leaning organization and normally a cheerleader for Democrats)
Now, how many times has she been convicted?
Lack of conviction can mean two things. 1) person is innocent, or 2) person is guilty but the accusers couldn't come up with enough evidence and/or the person is very good at dodging the legal system (perhaps because they're a trained lawyer)
It's pretty fucking clear by now that Clinton belongs in category 2)
Right, just like the GOP rigs it's internal game and always has; they just screwed up this time because none of the clowns the put up could yell as long or loud or bloviate as wildly at the Trumpster.
If you think the GOP is blameless at this game, go look into what happened in 1976 between Reagan and Ford. Political Brass knuckles is what happened: horse trading, double-crossing, and every power game you can think of and the Reagan (then the outsider) clique almost took the party away from the professionals. "Physical altercations on the convention floor" is a quote from an attendee.
Politics is a vicious, deadly struggle for money and power, and don't you forget it.
There is no restriction on a President pardoning themselves. So we need to move fast or have there be an impeachment right after she get's in.
IF she wins Obama will pardon her if charged and prevent a prosecution from occurring. Will of the people ... blah blah.
Any time Hillary is in one place for more than five minutes you'll find two things -- a steaming pile of shit and at least one other asshole around to provide plausible deniability. She's incredibly smart, I'll give her that, which is why she's so fucking terrifying.
Goodness, Stein is as bad as Hillary, although still preferable to Trump.
Stein's the crazy old cat lady without any cats.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Fuck Stein.
I really don't think I could bring myself to do that.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
In the leaked emails other Democrats were freaking out about Hillay's email. It is a huge problem and ignoring it is insane.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
(looks at new MacBook Pro keyboard and scratches head)
A common occurrence evidently....for that price you should at least get a fully functional keyboard.
That's a recurring problem. That's why people like Mitt Romney keep binders of women.
No. I would've supported a President Jill Stein. I believe she'd be a better choice than Donald Trump.
I cannot support Hillary because she is corrupt. The depth of her corruption is breathtaking and her blatant disregard for the rule of law is a danger to the republic.
You don't run for president unless you're corrupt. They're all corrupt, you just have to pick the least worst of the group.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Stalin wasn't ever convicted of crimes against humanity either. Was he a good leader?
Only in comparison to Trump.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Throughout history there have been many great women who led nations. You can make your own list, but on my list would be Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Aung San Suu Ki.
Hillary hardly stands in their company.
It would be great for the US to have a woman as president, but Hillary? I don't think so.
(Not that I want Trump either .... not at all.)
Exactly: the Right Wing Noise Machine is real and has been smearing HRC since she and Bill neary beat DC and the entire entrenched power/money structure with their health care bill in 1993. Ever since, that Machine has been lying and harassing HRC for everything and nothing.
I mean, Benghazi? Come on: an American foreign service facility is attacked every 2 years or so, and lots of people die in these attacks. That consulate was in a war zone, the cavalry was not just over the horizon (in the real world it usually isn't), and the GOP-run congress is allergic to spending money at all let alone for something as silly (to them) as foreign service facility security (look up how many requests were ignored at all levels).
And Vince Foster had a history of severe depression and a handgun. Bad mix.
Not if you are in a State that is solidly red or blue. You can do whatever you want, and it's not a "vote for Trump". Unless you vote for Trump.
As someone posting to a nerd site, you should also point out Stein thinks Wifi may cause some sort of brain damage.
She's awful, though in fairness, who isn't in this election? The main thing going for Clinton that the others don't have is that 99% of the allegations constantly made against her are complete fiction, but frankly, that other 1% is pretty shitty.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That would be true if Bernie could be on the ballot. But at this point, he can't -- the names have been set and, by law, can no longer be changed. He'd have to be a write-in, and the average voter can't be relied upon to follow the instruction to write in Bernie instead of ticking the box still labeled Hillary.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm also hoping some miracle happens and McMullin wins on account of a hung electoral college. He actually seems like a decent "compromise" type of candidate. He's not too extreme on either end of the spectrum, seems more a common-sense politician rather than an ideologue. If I were in Utah I'd vote McMullin. No point in my state though, so it's unfortunately a Hillary vote for me.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I personally think that it was not just external factors that made this decision. There are a lot of people _inside_ the FBI who have been screaming (and resigning in disgust) over letting HC off the hook. For those of us in US Govt positions (disclaimer, myself included) this is extra damning, because the FBI Agents and Scientists are a pretty good and competent bunch of folks. As a result, in my opinion, this just drips with "politically motivated decision" for the initial drop of charges. As this is a justice matter, that is very concerning...
Also, Putin is getting his email laundry aired. I'm rather shocked /. hasn't had a post regarding the Cyber Hunta email leak (http://http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/payback-russia-gets-hacked-revealing-putin-aide-s-secrets-n673956)
Ok, I'll bite... which laws has she broken?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
How does the head of the party and the entire party machinery "fix" something against the party? They ARE the party.
Thinking average once-in-four-years-at-best voters should have much of anything besides an advisory role to the nominee is the crazy part. Shoot, for all the complaints from traditional Republicans about their nominee, I wonder how many people just like me with no intention whatsoever for voting for a Republican nonetheless voted (or in my case caucused) for Trump?
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Doesn't one need to be convicted before a pardon could be granted? Think the DOJ could get its conviction of HRC before Obama left office?
No. Nixon was neither convicted nor impeached when he was pardoned by Ford. Ford wanted to preempt any prosecution.
It may be a stupid-ass canard, but can it work? I imagine right now every congressman and senator with an R after their name is leaning hard on every unofficial FBI contact they have to investigate hard any tiny infraction, just because it makes Hillary look bad - and if they investigate hard enough and from enough angles, eventually something has to stick. No person is entirely law-abiding.
I know that now he can't. But the GP seemed to be making the point that Bernie would not have a prayer if the Dems did nominate him, and it was there that I was making the case that he'd be 15 points ahead of Trump. B'cos Trump's negatives would still apply, but Bernie wouldn't have the baggage that Clinton does. And most of the media pretty much endorses his entire Leftist agenda, so would hardly raise any questions. Also, a lot of the blue collared support that Trump has in several battleground states would automatically be Bernies, b'cos the unions - to the extent that they still matter - would be a lot more enthusiastic about supporting him than they are about supporting Clinton
For fuck's sake man, it IS a fully functional keyboard. The top row can turn into other keys IF the application requests it. What is the anger against this cool gimmick of theirs? Am I missing something?
Member or non member, if a party sees a candidate draw the crowds that Bernie did, they would have happily welcomed and embraced him, since they'd want his supporters. Indeed, had this race been Bernie, O'Malley, Webb and Chafee, they would have been fine letting Bernie run away w/ it. But since Hilary had the whole setup rigged in advance, they did everything they could to sink his candidacy
Woosh!
Now, how many times has she been convicted?
When you've been investigated that many times, isn't this evidence of corruption? I mean, Martha Stewart was clean, and look at her conviction.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You're clearly a typical racist Democrat aren't you? Guess what? We dont' care what the color of a person's skin is. What matters is how evil they are, which is why Hillary is considered the anti-Christ.
And if the application doesn't request it? Or the new gimmick proves less reliable than a keyboard? Or you wanted tactile feedback?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
While it's true that the GOP establishment wanted a different outcome, the difference was that Reince Priebus did not interfere in the process when it was a contest, except for a couple of occasions, like making all candidates sign the pledge, or asking them not to make the debate R-rated.
While Trump was right to an extent about the rigging in that there were some states where he got more votes than Cruz but ended up w/ less delegates, the process was still fair (even if the mechanism was weird). But the RNC did not interfere, even though the Congressional GOP tried to, by getting Nikki Haley to endorse Rubio and set up SC as a firewall against Trump, which didn't happen. Also, the support for Trump in the party was so overwhelming and crossed every faction of the party that even though the number of real candidates were down to 3 (and 2 after Rubio dropped out following his debacle in FL), it's not obvious that it would have worked either.
It would be too late.
The deadline to get a name on the ballots has LONG passed in most if not all states.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When a candidate is 70, it makes sense that his VP should be in his 50s or 40s, so that there is a next generation of leadership in the VP slot. In that aspect, Newt, who is 74, would not have made sense here.
But ain't that what a good portion of the Left already thinks? Y'know, the people who voted Bernie in the primaries? Stein is the perfect vehicle for Bernie voters in the general election who don't support Trump, but who are pissed off at what Hitlary did to Bernie
(Disclaimer) I am NOT a Trump supporter.
Would you rather it be reopened AFTER the election when someone could potentially pardon ones self? It's okay, they'll give her 60 days to clean up the details.
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue. The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar (the last bastion of mass slavery in the modern world, with ISIS-funding government - very evil fuckers) is just a big "meh".
We expect all the politicians to be corrupt. So Hillary is the most corrupt politician in US history? Exceeds expectations - let's promote her! Even the right has no fucks left to give at this point.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Really?
Wow..I mean..just...wow...
Hard to believe some people drink kool-aid THAT strong.
Personally, in the republican debates, I like Carly Fiorina the best. I would have LOVED seeing her tear Hillary apart during a debate.
I have no problem with a female president....I just don't like Hillary, and it isn't because she is somewhat female...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
They seem to be perfectly fine w/ guys like Herman Cain, Ben Carson and so on
Actually, Comey should drop out of the investigation, and someone else at the FBI should take over from him. He is either stupid, or compromised, or both.
Wouldn't matter. Apparently everyone on the investigation *except* Comey wanted her indicted:
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
http://www.twincities.com/2016...
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-...
http://www.denverpost.com/2016...
http://www.azcentral.com/story...
BTW, I only keep hearing about "rigged" elections, fraud, stealing votes etc. from two kinds of people. Political dilettantes and Republicans.
Only difference being that as far as I can tell, while political dilettantes have always been partial to conspiracy theories because they are... well...dilettantes...
Republicans seem to have built their myth of "being cheated" around that time JFK beat their "not a crook" sweatball Tricky Dick.
Who just happened to be running multiple schemes to rig elections just as his party was busy implementing the "Southern strategy" in order to woo southern whites.
Who were at the time all hot and bothered about losing their "legitimate" ways of rigging elections against black voters, they went around dressed in nothing but dresses made out of bed linen.
Sorta like what ISIS folk do.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Trump assaulted multiple people and Trump University was a criminal enterprise. Whoever wins, you lose.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The 'unrelated investigation' is apparently the investigation into Huma Abadeen's (sp) estranged husband Anthony Weiner's Sexting Scandal...
No. Nixon was neither convicted nor impeached when he was pardoned by Ford. Ford wanted to preempt any prosecution.
In fact the very point was debated at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the side lobbying for pardons to be permitted before conviction won the argument. This was affirmed in 1867 by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Garland.
What same reason? Hilary is suspected of pay to play, or delivering favors via the State Department in return for bribes to the Clinton Foundation. Trump has been completely outside government. How does the question of impeaching him even arise?
And if the application doesn't request it?
The you get the default layout, including an ESC key, and volume control buttons.
Or the new gimmick proves less reliable than a keyboard?
Touch technology has been around for awhile.
Or you wanted tactile feedback?
You can still buy a Macbook Pro without the touch bar.
Even the other Democratic candidate considers it a non-issue, and has said so since the very beginning of the primaries campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Real issue, such as Clinton supporters being bullies?
There's not a one among you who can rub two words together without insulting someone.
Delete the insults from any pro-Clinton position and you have nothing left!
When you say, "I've read what's been posted online", I must repeat: did you read the actual emails, or things that other people wrote about them with little "gotcha!" excerpts?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Note, intent is not required for a violation of section (f), merely "extreme carelessness" aka "gross negligence".
They're both corrupt and crooks to booth. This election is about whether you want to elect a sane elitist crook or an insane populist crook.
Every country think they elect the leaders they need, but get the ones they deserve.
Fuck, and me without any mod points.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
Trump said the new probe offered the FBI the chance to correct a "grave miscarriage of justice." He added, "We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office."
If only people were presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country - oh wait ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Everyone, before you judge me, please think back to when you made a bad call, and had a joke go a little too far.
Trump says the election is rigged, but he is too nice to tell you who did it. If Clinton gets subpoenaed, though, it's going to come out anyway. I don't want everyone to go off half-cocked, so I have decided to come forward now.
I made a bet with my brother. It started out as innocent fun. I said, "I bet I can make the Republicans lose the presidential election, by tricking them into nominating the very worst loser they possibly can." He said, "oh yeah? I can make the Democrats lose the election. Same strategy, different tactics." At stake, a single six-pack of IPA. It was a joke! At the time, we didn't intend it to get out-of-hand. But then, you know, you see little ways you can get your little virtual avatar a step foward, and not thinking it would really result in any real-world consequences, you go ahead. Or you're confident that you've got it, and next thing you know, he's taking Bernie off the board! (That was amazing; I didn't know my brother was smart enough to figure out how to do that.) Next thing I know, we're having heated arguments. "Nuh uh! You'll never get yours nominated! People aren't that stupid. They don't want their party to lose." "Yeah, huh!" We have played so many war games and simulations and such, they're all just abstractions to us. It was so easy to forget this one was more real, than say, Clash of Clans.
Needless to say, once the nominations happened, we realized the horror of it all, and the bet was off! We aren't pushing the players around anymore. We have already split the cost of the sixpack and drank it together. It's over. Well, over except the election itself. But we're not pulling the strings anymore, and if my old account (running on autopilot, I guess) wins, I can't legitimately lord that over my brother, or vice-versa.
Look, people, I know it looks ugly, but it actually isn't really all that bad. You don't have to vote for our people. Just vote against them. There are plenty of people running for president, and at least one of them is probably actually pretty close to your own politics. (Even with good candidates, you wouldn't expect those two parties to have matched very many people anyway; peoples' opinions have way more diversity than that!) You'll do fine. Just curse us for our little prank and vote against our avatars. We will bear the shame. You need not.
And yes, I'm sorry! I won't do it again. Promise.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A lot of Democrats seemed focused on Hillary's genitals (ick!). I doubt many would have cared about gender just not Hillary because she is corrupt and evil. There are a number of possibly good candidates that could have run besides Sanders including a number of women. The fix was in though, The DNC had cut a deal with the Clinton's to buy their support and avoid a split ticket for the relatively unknown Barack Obama in 08. The deal included her appointment to SOS, a position Hillary had no qualifications for and totally botched, except for the funneling of money for access part. If there was a "normal" nomination you would have had about 30 people at the start and the losers, kooks and real evil people including Hillary Clinton would have been vetted out.
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win.
That's not how it works.
If the candidate cannot finish the race for some reason (death or infirmity is the supposed scenario), the party chooses a new candidate. That's Democratic party rules.
In this particular situation, and so close to the election they would *probably* select Tim Kaine, but the party is not obliged to choose him.
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Most enthusiastic Trump supporters obviously have their heads in the clouds but, with statements like that, obviously so do people like you.
misogyny
Every fence-sitter, Trump supporter and even many Hillary supporters I know realize that his campaign is not "built around" misogyny. That's fucking ridiculous and you know it. Don't mix up character criticism with policy criticism. In regards to policy, he's make some token anti-abortion remarks, very clumsily, because people were telling him that he had to work on his appeal to the base. That's it. In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
racism
Blacks: He's supporting the cops 100% as a ploy more or less. Any right-thinking individual would prefer he take a more nuanced approach (but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.) I don't think you can plausibly expand this to call it a racist platform. He's pro-police. He's never made it about race. And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home. Whether it's true or not true, they bring very little to the table... they have nothing to do with effective solutions.
Latinos: I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over. Any reasonable person living in those states should be concerned about the deterioration over the past few years, even if the amount that's been spilling over has been fairly limited until now. Trump was of course sensationalist and dumb as usual in this area (and in particular, a physical wall would of course be irredeemably stupid), but if millions of people have managed to make it across the border then I would say that's a decent argument for better border control just about any way you look at it. (With the path to citizenship thing being a separate issue that we can all probably strongly disagree on.)
Very, very few countries have or tolerate massive illegal immigration on the scale we've seen. It's not a ugly, racist American thing to want that situation to change, and if you're not concerned about violence in Northern Mexico you're either ignorant or apathetic. (Of course, where I differ from Trump on this issue is I would immediately scale back the war on drugs as much as possible, which will ultimately dry up the revenue streams that support the gangs.)
xenophobic isolationism
Muslims! Ok now, look motherfucker, you have two easy choices here:
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble. That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees", because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.) Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (includ
They are not her emails and nothing has been "re-opened". Sorry Trumpettes.
Problem w/ Carly was that Hilary would have torn her to shreds the same way Barbara Boxer did in CA - on the way she ran HP. In fact, in the 2nd debate on CNN, Trump pointed out how her claims of growing HP were actually skewed by the Compaq acquisition, and how she did a terrible job. Carly's biggest problem is that unlike Trump, she didn't have a record of success following a record of failure. Yeah, Trump had 4 bankruptcies, but following that, he did make his company a very successful one. Whereas the last noticeable job Carly did was at HP
For a female president, as a Republican, I might have looked at one of the governors. Had I been a Dem, I might have gone for Pelosi
Depends, what do you do now when things stop working? Do you cry to the heavens "If only I had less advanced technology!", or do you replace it like the rest of us?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
No, but I just really feel that this entire thing has pretty much been fully investigated already. Not to mention all the other times people have cried "wolf" and found nothing after it was fully investigated. This just feels like endless fishing in hopes of finding something rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing on a scale that matters. In fact, I feel this is all they have is a re-opening of the investigation, not any actual hopes of investigating anything. I really doubt they are going to find something, investigate it, write up their briefs, and put forth their case in the two weeks before the election. It seems like it is just one last chance at spreading FUD about somebody they don't like.
So how many people has Trump killed? The 'worst' he has said is that he'd keep illegals out, and deport them all. Whereas Stalin caused an artificial famine in Ukraine and killed more people than even Hitler in his purges.
If that's the yardstick, Trump is not guilty of anything either
Also, Putin is getting his email laundry aired. I'm rather shocked /. hasn't had a post regarding the Cyber Hunta email leak (http://http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/payback-russia-gets-hacked-revealing-putin-aide-s-secrets-n673956)
Ars also has a writeup on this: http://arstechnica.co.uk/secur...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I keep adjusting my sarcasm filter, and it just doesn't work during this election.
Must be me.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yeah but have we SEEN her birth certificate?
Not really. The same dirt that they're digging up on Trump now would have been dug up on Rubio - his absenteeism in the senate, his past loans, his usage of a party credit card... He may have explained that satisfactorily during the campaign, but they'd have been brought back to haunt him
finally
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Right, after all he was never convicted of murder, conspiracy to murder, illegal alcohol sales, prostitution, illegal gambling, bribery, intimidation, etc.
Clean as a Clinton!
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Stein's the crazy old cat lady without any cats.
We know who's been busy grabbing them cats of all them ladies. Maybe FBI should look into that too?
Seeing as they are willing to waste time and money chasing one party's conspiracy theories... might as well do something useful and look for those cats.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Can I skewer him for giving us IPv4 and NAT?
That's the point I'm making - Comey was the only one who didn't want to indict her. Which is why I'd like him to be removed, and the FBI to do a trial w/o fear of what the president may or may not do
Sorry - I read your post as pro-Clinton instead of pro-justice.
There's so many shenanigans going on right now that I've honestly lost track of the right thing to do. I 'kinda agree with your position.
The media entirely endorses Hillary and that's not giving her a landslide.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Hmm, you may have a point there. I can believe that the average Apple consumer reacts to their Apple product breaking in some minor-but-still-usable way by buying a new Apple product. It would explain a lot.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Indeed. He seems to have sent "illicit messages" to a 15-year-old girl. The FBI has reportedly confiscated both Abedin's and Weiner's phones and this is how they came to know about more possible evidence in the Hillary Clinton email case.
-SR
How you can argue that it's been "completely investigated" when new batches of emails are magically discovered on nearly a weekly basis?
Not to mention the fact that Commey and the FBI laid out every facet to convict, but stated that they didnt prosecute because they didnt think they could make a case that she intended to commit a crime. Intent is not a factor for conviction. An act (or lack of action) is a crime, or its not. Intent is a potential factor in sentencing, not in gaining a conviction. The FBI already laid out that she is unequivocally guilty. That ship has sailed.
It's strongly believed now that Commey (and Lynch and Obama) are being heavily pressured by whistleblowers within the FBI that there every criteria was already met to prosecute, and were going to come forward with the damning details if the FBI didnt reopen the case and treat it with equal justice under the law.
And dont forget that the case was dropped the first time after Clinton's husband, a former US President, met in private with the sitting Secratary of Justice, Loretta Lynch. If there's evidence now that the conversation was not in fact specific to yoga, and their kid, then the scope of the investigation could (and should) increase to whether or not there was prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, and corruption within the Dept of Justice, ALL under Obama.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I laugh at Republicans this election cycle.
I think that almost any other candidate would have beaten Hillary quite easily, but, instead, they chose the racist, misogynist, groper-in-chief, failure in business, tax avoider, non-profit abuser with ludicrous ideas and no detailed plans.
The GOP has got exactly what it asked for: to lose the presidential election and, quite possibly, also the Senate. That's what the Republicans asked for when they voted for Trump. He is the representative of ignorance.
He reliably embraces the wrong solution to any problem.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
How can you say it's been fully investigated when so much evidence was destroyed? They are still finding evidence.
...leaving Kaine as the President-elect.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If the FBI didn't bother to bring charges the first time around with the evidence of mishandling classified information being as obvious as it can get, does anyone believe anything will come of a sequel ?
The only thing it would do is show the World a second time that the DOJ is either corrupt, incompetent or both.
That the rule of law is selectively applied depending on who you are, who your friends are and how big your bank account is.
At this point, there is no fucking way the establishment will allow all the work they've poured into their darling candidate to get undermined by any pesky laws designed for us lower class types.
This is the favored candidate. You will vote for her and you will like it. Everone else is a racist Russian sympathizer or a member of the HeMan-woman-haters-club.
Imagine the shit she'll get away with once she's in charge.
Crime doesn't pay my ass. . .
They had to say something before the convention, so they said no problem. Now the convention is over and the issue hasn't gone away, so they "reopen" the investigation.
In fairness, the FBI can't investigate a parking ticket before the election, but they can do it before Obama leaves office. Assuming they decide she's guilty, the FBI recovers some of its image and Obama can pardon her 2 years before the next national election. He can spin that well enough: "For the sake of our nation, it's time to forgive this minor mistake, put this behind us and unite...." If the Republicans still don't have a viable candidate in 2020, it won't matter if anyone remembers.
Or, the FBI could say no problem again, depending on how afraid they are of a vengeful President Clinton. Better to be an international laughingstock with the US behind you....
Quick conspiracy theory: HRC really is sick, and she's hiding it because she wants to be the first female president. Dying in office is always better than dying out of office, and what do the people or the country matter to her? As a bonus she can propose anything she wants, and not be there when her "legacy" is voted down and her VP embarrassed.
I don't understand it at all.
If Trump loses, the Republican party will have been dealt a terrible setback that will take years to recover from.
If Trump wins, the Republican party is over.
At this point, nobody should be pulling harder for Hillary than the Republican establishment.
I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance.
If they did, the coroner's office would need to open a new branch at Fort Marcy Park.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
Hell, it's standard practice for President's to give Ambassadorships to big donors. Are you going to claim that the possibility that Clinton gave extra access to charity donors is really so much worse?
The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar
By "took millions" you apparently mean accepted a donation to her charity.
And by "support", you mean arranged a meeting and/or Clinton Foundation event in Qatar, ie, exactly the thing that charities do. Oh yeah, and she did it while being a private citizen.
I stole this Sig
I don't think 99.9% of Trump supporters have a problem with a female president. They have a problem with THIS female as president. If she supported their positions on things and wasn't horrible corruption incarnate, they would be more than happy to vote for her.
I don't think they have a problem with a female president.
But I do think they are much better prepared to accept evidence of corruption, health issues, poor temperament, and incompetence when it's a female president.
I stole this Sig
Bull. You can't disassociate the candidate from the campaign.
"crooked" Hillary Clinton
"goofy" Elizabeth Warren, aka (in his mind) Pocahontas
Declarations of intent and history of sexually assaulting women, with the claim that it's okay so long as he has a TicTac first.
Xenophobia goes far beyond the call to close the borders to all muslims, itself an abomination. What about the trade wars he wants to start and the treaties he wants to abrogate.
Look. I *live* in a border state... the largest border state in the union; indeed, the largest state IN the union. I count hispanics amongst my friends, neighbors, and coworkers. I can say without reservation that we are richer, personally, culturally, and economically, by having them here. We're hardly doing badly. We recently knocked off France to become the sixth largest economy in the entire world. And we are most definitely going Hillary in November.
Imagine all the people...
I wonder how many people just like me with no intention whatsoever for voting for a Republican nonetheless voted (or in my case caucused) for Trump?
If he wins I am blaming you.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
There's a huge leap from a spill (allowing classified data to make its way to an un-class storage), and removing TS+ data from secured facilities, and providing access to people who hold no level of clearance at all.
How about Kristian Saucier, was was sentenced to 1 year in prison for taking 6 photographs that were later classified "confidential" (the lowest possible classification besides FIUO), and the prosecution actually asked for 6 years sentence.
(http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/sailor-denied-clinton-deal-gets-1-year-in-prison-for-6-photos-of-sub)
How about Stephen Kim, who was sentance to 13 months in prison for sharing one classified report on North Korea with Fox News? http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
How about Thomas Drake, a former NSA employee who blew the whistle on waste and abuse INTERNALLY to his agency which was eventually upheld by a DoD IG, and then he was prosecuted and convicted of leaking classified data, although he didnt serve any time?
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While there might be cases where people get a slap on the wrist, there are plenty of cases in which people have their careers ruined and go to jail for far less than Clinton is suspected of. She mishandled the highest possible levels of classified data that our nation holds, she lied about, she destoryed evidence, and she allowed action to be taken that made it nearly impossible to a complete investigation of. And then the FBI destroyed the relevant devices for her !
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Am I missing something?
A sense of humour apparently.
Now, how many times has she been convicted?
Do we apply a statistical correction for being Clinton, a power politician, and currently running for president? I'm going with 27. She's been convicted 27 times in normal people adjusted terms.
$5 says this investigation disappears after the election (regardless of who wins) and nobody will care.
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet. It is better to have an inept poser in the white house who will advance the positions the party advocates than a competent person who will actively fight against those positions. With any luck he'll just strut around, occasionally say something offensive, but mostly just carry out what is one of the main responsibilities of any modern president: Put on a big show and serve as a focal point for the public while congress and the network of commitees, subcommitees and appointees gets on with the task of actually running the country.
There's a huge leap from a spill (allowing classified data to make its way to an un-class storage), and removing TS+ data from secured facilities, and providing access to people who hold no level of clearance at all.
You aren't saying it outright, but I take it you think that is what Clinton did. She did not. If she had, she would have been prosecuted for it because that's clearcut.
What actually happened was basically two things:
(1) Other people who do not have a clearance (specifically Sidney Blumenthal who operates a private intelligence service) sent her unmarked TS-SAP documents that someone else gave him. She did not solicit them and its not even clear she read them. Apparently he sends her a lot of shit.
(2) She participated in email discussions of ongoing events, some of what was said was classified post-hoc. Other things that were said were classified at the time, but the origin of the information was not necessarily classified. Information comes through multiple channels and it can be classified if it comes through one channel because everything through that channel is automatically classified, but if it also comes from another source it isn't necessarily classified. It is reasonable to say she should have been more pro-active in shutting down those conversations when they got in that territory, but it was not a deliberate act on her (or anyone else's) part. That's the FBI's own conclusion and why she was not prosecuted.
(3) And lets not forget, the only items with actual markings were not actually classified. And when they were classified it was just at the confidential level because it was the list of phone calls she was going to make that day.
And you think that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Or were you going to just do away with innocent until proven guilty?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I forgot to add -- yes you can cite someone like Drake who was unfairly prosecuted. But you are ignoring the thousands of other peons who were not unfairly prosecuted. The fact that there are a handful of people who were treated unfairly does not mean that unfair prosecution is the default, its the exception and its pretty much limited to malicious prosecution. So, if you want to argue that Clinton's survival of malicious prosecution is because she's rich and powerful, I agree. That's pretty much the only way anyone survives malicious prosecution. But that does not make the malicious prosecution appropriate to begin with.
"Clinton was the second United States President to be impeached after Andrew Johnson" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Not if ALL Hitlery voters moved to Stein. You'd then have a Dem-Green coalition up against Trump.
To get a Dem-Green coalition together you would probably need a Dem to lead the ticket maybe some one like Al Fraken, I can see it now
FrakenStien2016
But the Midwest wouldn't vote for that they would just get the torches and pitchforks out...
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Mittens had "binders of women" to ensure that, should he win, he would be sure to have a large list of qualified women to appoint and hire. He didn't say he HAD them, he said that women's groups had DELIVERED "binders full of women" to him.
"I had the chance to pull together a cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men... I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
This is Romney being sure that he couldn't be accused of being sexist, being sure that the "war on women" thing wouldn't apply to him, by working with people on both sides to avoid even the APPEARANCE of sexism.
It became, of course, "proof" of his sexism, with predictable media slant.
The message was clear: any Republican, whether or not they are sexist, will be painted as sexist by the media, the painting will be fully effective.
ALL this accomplished was the removal of "is not a sexist" from the list of requirements for Republican presidential candidates- after all, you'll be considered a sexist just for having (R) by your name, no matter your history, intentions, or statements.
I wonder if that had any effect? Now that you've opened up the pool of Republican presidential candidates to sexists, what would be the end result of that? Hrm....
Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.
Source
Source
Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).
The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.
Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.
Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.
This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.
There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.
Anything posted to a 'funny' thread on serious note should be marked -1 offtopic, including this post.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet..
I think you are the first person in the history of the Solar System to put "Trump" and "manipulatable" in the same sentence.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
On other facets you're flat our wrong. Here's a transcript of the exchange between Comey and Congressman Trey Gowdy during the Congressional hearing after the investigation was initially closed:
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent, three seperate times in this exchange alone.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State tha
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Here's the laws regarding classified material: U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 37 Section 798 and Section 793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 and U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 101 Section 2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Each of those laws require the actions to be "with intent", "knowingly", "willfully", or by "gross negligence". And "gross negligence" is legally different than plain negligence in that it also requires intent. The reason the FBI closed the investigation and said "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case" is because they found no evidence of intent by Clinton.
Comey ... What a dumb ass.
That's neither charitable nor true.
Put yourself in Comey's place--he might as well toss a coin. No matter which side lands up, half the country will be screaming for his head on a plate.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You can also write in someone, even yourself. The point is to send a message that we don't accept any sort of criminal scum for President, regardless of party.
but where's the play part? They payed her.. but what did they get other than her talking to them?
At the end of the day people vote. It doesn't matter if the party machinery is neutral or not; she won fair and square. It's not like the party machinery could count the votes for her twice and Bernie once.
"crooked" Hillary Clinton "goofy" Elizabeth Warren, aka (in his mind) Pocahontas
Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crazy Bernie. So it's misogyny when he treats women equally, is it? This is the exact thing I'm talking about here. It's people like you who are sabotaging the momentum the left was bequeathed after Iraq. The alt-right is built first and foremost on a rejection of self-flagellation and inferiority complex politics (racism is secondary and not as universally subscribed, although it is alarmingly common.)
'Pocahontas' has nothing to do with misogyny that I can see, and I'd go further and say there's no good reason to suspect racism because Trump's entire point (lame as it is) is that Warren was "pretending" to be of a ethnicity that doesn't show any significant connection to in either her appearance or her cultural upbringing.
Declarations of intent and history of sexually assaulting women
He said that women LET HIM kiss them / "touch their pussies". Without commenting on the likely veracity of that statement or the obnoxious tone in which it was delivered, there was no hint that I could discern that Trump was saying the women were in any way unwilling. In fact, his entire macho thesis was that they were willing.
As for accusers, the women who've accused him of crimes may or may not be telling the truth. The women who accused your former governor may or may not have been telling the truth. The women who accused Bill Clinton may or may not have been telling the truth. "Not relevant!", you say? Not even when Hillary hints that Bill might be placed in a high position in her administration? It's not at all relevant that she's talking about allowing an accused rapist to fix our economy?
My own take on this is our police and more importantly our culture need to be tweaked so that woman fight back and speak up earlier, but beyond that I don't think that new lurid claims of shit that happened decades in the past should weigh heavily in our decision making process. If there's enough evidence, arrest the motherfucker! If not, oh well, that sucks (if he is indeed guilty), but the idea that everything comes to a screeching halt the minute a few new accusers come forward talking about shit that happened decades ago... it's just not sustainable. It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting the alleged victims; it's a matter of their claims for justice being orthogonal to someone's political significance.
What about the trade wars he wants to start and the treaties he wants to abrogate.
That's a decent starting point to another conversation, a conversation that you SHOULD be having instead of this scattershot mud-slinging that's doing more damage to the left than it is to the right.
I'm against Trump! And I want to see the left effectively fight him off without disillusioning any more young people about what it means to be on or of the left.
And those crowds mattered as much to Bernie's final tally vs Clinton's as Trumps large crowds will matter in his final tally vs. Clinton.
Bush Jr? Cheney? Warren G Harding? She mishandled some emails to keep her political strategies out of the hands of her enemies (who were very actively against her). Something even Colin Powel did, and suggested she do too. Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails related to his administration and not a peep. Face it, this is how the sausage is made. Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
D.C. Republicans en masse aren't quite stupid enough to think Trump will be satisfied as a figurehead... based on his history he'll have his arm in the cookie jar elbow deep within the first week in office, and the stank of the resulting scandals from a Trump administration would be ruinous. Now would they have the guts to impeach him? Probably not, but if they did, then they'd be stuck with that cook Pence which would be its own flavor of awful for them,
The pro-trump (or anti-clinton-damn-the-consequences) factions, however, will staple legs on any story they see as beneficial, and there's not much the establishment can do to stop them.
Right now I'm just wondering if this disruption in the media cycle will be enough to unlatch the bomb bay on whatever anti-Trump oppo research was being saved for days before the election date.
Someone had to do it.
I *live* in a border state... the largest border state in the union; indeed, the largest state IN the union.
Global warming is going to be a godsend for you Alaskans.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
$20? More like $50,000 note with Trump's face on it, if he had his way. We'd also have crazy inflation, and much like Zimbabwe, everybody will be carrying around wheelbarrows full of 'em.
when new evidence arrives up to the moment you actually try someone. More emails keep coming up because, surprise, surprise, Hilary & Co send a _lot_ of email. I'm guessing that for the next 4 years every time somebody mentions her in an Email it's going to trigger a multi-million dollar investigation that will find precisely diddley and squat. This is how we do politics. Like she said, this is how the sausage is made.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Claiming corruption is rampant will never excuse it you evil bastard.
> Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet
This guy is campaigning on a platform that includes congressional term limits, has promised to appoint a special prosecutor, and is openly calling on everyone to be aware of voter fraud and even election fraud, which calls the entire democratic process into question (reminder: the only reason our government is considered legitimate is because of the democratic process). Meanwhile, almost all of his scandals and problems come from him doing whatever the fuck he wants to anyone he wants, at any time he wants.
If anyone thinks that Trump is their puppet, they are fucking deluded. I seriously doubt the RNC thinks that for one second.
I'd really like to know what all this this "damning" stuff I keep hearing about is exactly (as would the folks who dragged America along on this 20 year long fishing expedition too, I suspect).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because I've yet to find one, and neither did the FBI apparently. I've seen every Hilary's actions compared to various people charged with actively selling secrets to foreign powers as though they're the same thing. But I've yet to see anyone convicted and sentenced for clumsily handling state emails.
What I _have_ seen are emails where Colin Powell acknowledged everyone in Washington does what Hilary did and suggesting she do it to. I also saw Hilary stand up for Powell and double down on taking responsibility for her mistake before the emails he said that in leaked, which was a bit of bad assery that she got zero credit for.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you're still a Hillary supporter, it has to be through willful ignorance.
Hands over ears
Eyes closed
Saying, lalalalalalalala
no jury would convict her. Bringing it to trial would be worse than useless. It'd be a gross waste of taxpayer dollars and time. Prosecutors don't bring cases to trial they know they can't win. And as been pointed out these matters are normally handled by the employer when no intent is found, and the employer is the United States people. We'll know where they stand in 11 days.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
this right .
All successful politicians are corrupt. It's how politics work. They work that way _everywhere_. These are the compromises that get made in the real world. You don't have to like it, but if you pretend it's not real you're going to get destroyed. I don't like gravity but it doesn't mean I can fly.
And Hilary's corruption is par for the course. If you find it breathtaking that's because a multi-billion dollar industry with vested interests has been hammering that point home since it became clear she was going to run for president some day.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
+5 isn't enough.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
To clarify, it's not like I'm against all character analysis whatsoever, but it shouldn't be muddled with analysis of policies and any character analysis that betrays the mindset of a self-hating progressive is going to do more harm than good... when you claim that Trump admitted something that he clearly did not admit to, all you're doing is establishing your own untrustworthiness. I suppose this can also solidify your own "Never Trump" base, sure, but very few fence-sitters are convinced by this sort of hyperbole.
then this is the most brilliant feint in political history. I don't think anyone that matters cares about the emails anymore. Unless some smoking gun comes out for real this is gonna mean diddly. A whole lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. On the other hand it'll be a major distraction for the Trump campaign and get them hammering a point home that only their base cares about anymore.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and that's not cynicism or laziness. There are just some fundamental realities that crop up when you have the broad political coalitions that make up American Politics, particularity the Democratic party. As long as we have money there is going to be money in politics. Long before either Clinton or Trump were allowed to run they were vetted by billionaires (google the phrase "Sheldon Primary").
If you want to end corruption attack wealth inequality and limit the amount of wealth that individuals are allowed to have. If you don't have the stomach for that (most people don't) then you live with the corruption and try to make the best of it. When Hilary and Obama say they're "Progressive" that's what they mean. They're making the best of a bad situation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's absolutely incorrect. Read the statute again: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Note that section (a) uses the word "intent".
Note that section (b) uses the word "intent".
Note that section ( c ) uses the word "knowing".
Note that section (d) uses the word "willfully"
Note that section (e) uses the word "willfully"
Note that section (f)(1) uses the term "gross negligence"
If section (f) required intent, they would have used the word "intent". Reading through the statute, it's obvious that (f) is meant to catch the non-intentional, non-knowing, non-willful extreme carelessness.
Whether or not there's anything to this, the simple fact of the announcement is a big finger on the scale in favor ofTrump, merely by allowing him to change the narrative.
I know its sarcasm but this exactly reply is the one i hear every single day here, in a serious, non-sarcastic tone. Not that I'd want to vote for Trump either, but still. (thanksfully? I don't have to choose)
That's why we indict people and put them in front of a jury - to decide if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or are you just going to do away with any decision process for guilt and innocence, and declare people innocent if they're properly politically connected? :)
Yes, vote for the vaxxer-apologist
This is bullshit fabricated by the democratic leadership. Jill Stein is very clear in her support of vaccination, but Clinton supporters just have to invent BS to throw at Stein, because with her the sexism card doesn't work.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
They can't arrest a sitting president, and the criminal investigation won't finish before the election so she's safe. Once in office the new emails will disappear again so problem solved.
I *live* in a border state... the largest border state in the union; indeed, the largest state IN the union.
Global warming is going to be a godsend for you Alaskans.
How the hell did I miss that? With his economy comment, and the "we are most definitely going Hillary in November", I just parsed it to mean California. I have no idea where he lives now. Alaska is most definitely not the 6th largest economy in the world, Texas is most definitely not voting for Hillary, and California is most definitely not the largest state in the nation (third largest, isn't it?)
If this gets prosecuted, there are probably a quarter million individuals who have or have had clearance who would need to also be prosecuted in order to make it fair. Our defense and homeland security industries would be decimated. They ARE treating her like any other citizen. That is precisely why they didn't prosecute.
Yes, that's a law. Now demonstrate that she violated it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I want her to rot in jail, ...
He said, her having not been convicted of anything - ever.
(Sure, it may be "yet" but you're still putting the cart before the horse, so you're just wrong and part of the problem.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... but I do not want the FBI and the AG to drop this investigation. It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws ...
Well... Since you've proclaimed it "clear" that she's guilty, then an actual investigation isn't needed.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This election is a primary example of why democracies fail. Eventually you get to the point where people vote for leaders they want, not the leaders they need. Apathy and ignorance become major players. Emotion and ideology override simple logic and common sense.
Democracies depend on a well-informed, well-educated populace. The only reason we have people like Trump and Hillary as candidates is because WE put them there. So are we, as a country well-educated and well-informed? What does that say about us as a country when we have the equivalent of a pussy-grabbing Archie Bunker and the White Witch of Narnia as our so-called "best-and-brightest"?
*shakes head*
~X~
Everything I read about the emails from decent sources indicates this is all a bunch of hype. It's not any worse than most the other politicians and it is certainly not as bad as what Trump gets away with. His tax fraud won't put him in jail either but it sure would do any of us in. The last few secretaries of state did the same sort of stuff and they won't be caught -- or even investigated enough to find similar things. Only 1 person gets investigated for decades with millions of $$$ like this. I'd rather just pick somebody else; however, nobody else has survived this level of propagandized attack. None of it ever goes to trial, that says something... especially when there is often enough biased people involved to get it to trial. It's always political theater and never really gets serious. So I'm not going give it much attention.
I especially didn't like how old info was re-classified after the fact and then turned into a huge scandal because she had emails that were retroactively classified.
I realize Trump is a republican middle finger to the system but I'd prefer not to pick an African style "president" as the means to do that.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
CLAIM: Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein has stated that she opposes the use of vaccines.
ANSWER: False.
SOURCE: Snopes.com
Jill Stein had stated that she thinks big business and pharmaceutical interests are influencing the FDA's decision-making and others have spun this as anti-vaxination.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
I don't think 99.9% of Trump supporters have a problem with a female president. They have a problem with THIS female as president...
Of course they have a problem with Hillary as president. She isn't attractive enough for pussy grabbing. Maybe a slap on the ass or something. She still ranks high on the all important "Bring me a beer and a sammich, bitch!" scale, but that will only carry a female candidate so far.
~X~
You don't feel the slightest discomfort in electing a person who
* ignores sunshine laws
* mishandles classified information
* fights congressional subpoenas
* lies to congress
* intentionally destroys evidence in an ongoing investigation
?
I confess it gives me pause, and I'm no fan of the Donald.
This whole thing would be long dead if she'd said "I had a private email server because of the technical limitations of my office. Here it is."
She didn't do that last year, that's why it's still a topic.
And this may come as a shock to you, but we're not getting the data from old backups. We're getting them from hacks of people that had correspondence with Hillary.
For intent, you're absolutely right. You can be tried for a more serious crime if you intended to do whatever it is you do. But that's not a factor unless you choose to prosecute for the greater crime. It doesnt mean that no crime was committed. It just means you can (and probably should) be tried for a lesser crime.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Congratulations! Welcome to the "I'm part of the problem" gang.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I dont disagree. It's well past time to cleanse the cesspool of Washington DC and the federal government in general. If they can crawl up my ass with a microscope every couple of years at tax time and demand that I prove my innocence by providing 7 years of my records they can sure as well hold the people that I pay salaries for with my taxes to be held to an equal standard. Hell, It would be an improvement if these ass clowns could provide 2 or 3 years of records to prove they arent part of the corruption and laziness.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Risks slowing down touch typing with layout constantly changing, extra cost, potential reliability issues...feature maybe Ok for consumer laptop but for pros it seems more disadvantage to me
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
This is exactly my point. We should be outraged at the corruption - buying influence for money? Never in our country! But instead you ask "What's the damning stuff?"
The answer, BTW, it that it's very illegal to sell influence to foreign powers. Could I get a rousing "meh" from the crowd?
And by "support", you mean arranged a meeting and/or Clinton Foundation event in Qatar,
As SecState, she concealed Qatar's monetary support for ISIS (not just Qatar, of course), according to the email dump. Quid for tat. As if anyone still cares.
Heck, even the Clinton Foundation event is right up there with throwing a "hooray for slavery" party while wearing the Confederate flag, but no one cares because those evil fuckers are over there, nothing to do with us.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
One of the several laws that applies is 18 U.S. Code 793, section (f):
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Well, that's a job for the prosecution to do in a court of law. It's the job of her defense team to thwart the prosecution, and the job of the jury to decide the facts of law in the case after hearing both sides of the argument.
Certainly, it's reasonable to ask that this be adjudicated, rather than swept aside with political pressure to avoid the legal process.
Or do you assert that people shouldn't be subject to a court of law when they have enough political influence to avoid it?
And it comes as no surprise that, after even a small amount of digging, the emails have minimal to nothing to do with Clinton.... the letter was at most a "we're assessing" from Comey... and Republican Jason Chaffetz leaked a misinterpretation of said letter. No wait, lets not be pc: Jason Chaffetz lied like the worthless motherfucker he is.
Why is it that republicans have absolutely no integrity? Worthless lying sacks of shit. You want to know what's wrong in this country.. look no further than these republican pieces of shit who lie every time they open their mouth, and the worthless fucking idiots that believe them.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
No, I assert that people shouldn't be subject to a court of law when there's not any evidence to support it.
Everyone's so sure she's "guilty of breaking multiple laws". How come nobody can ever point out any evidence?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I want my grandkids to be realists. I don't want them sitting in imaginary glass towers waiting for their equally imaginary prince (or princess) charming to come sweep them off their feet. I'm hoping some day we can all live in the real world; warts and all.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What the hell do I care? She supports single payer health care, increased taxes on the wealthy and is only as hawkish as she needs to be to win over her party's right wing (the Dems are a _lot_ more right wing than people think).
Again, I live in the real world and have to vote for viable candidates. You're not going to get to where Hilary is now without a lot of money and influence. You say she sells influence and ignore her buying it to. She's a politician. A progressive. A real one who gets shit done. Like I keep saying (because it's a great quote): this is how the sausage is made. Either Deal with it, or get the hell out of the way for those of us who can.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
This is exactly my point. We should be outraged at the corruption - buying influence for money? Never in our country! But instead you ask "What's the damning stuff?"
The answer, BTW, it that it's very illegal to sell influence to foreign powers. Could I get a rousing "meh" from the crowd?
Then where's the outrage over all the Chinese businessmen funnelling money to Republicans?
And the point isn't that buying influence is fine, it isn't.
The first point is that HRC is most definitely not "the most corrupt politician in US history", I'm not even sure she's more corrupt than an average presidential candidate, and she's certainly far less corrupt than Trump.
The second point is that if since it is a completely standard practice then why is it suddenly such an outrage? It would be like if you were going 15 over the speed limit and got thrown in jail for a year. Sure it's wrong, but that is clearly not a typical punishment.
As SecState, she concealed Qatar's monetary support for ISIS (not just Qatar, of course), according to the email dump.
Which is fine. The reality is that other countries have complex politics and motives of their own, and that sometimes causes them to do things like give some support to ISIS. The job of a SecState is to deal with that reality as best they can, concealing that support is sometimes the best strategy.
Quid for tat. As if anyone still cares.
Heck, even the Clinton Foundation event is right up there with throwing a "hooray for slavery" party while wearing the Confederate flag, but no one cares because those evil fuckers are over there, nothing to do with us.
Again, other countries are real places with lots of internal complications. There are good people, bad people, and people who are good or bad depending on the topic and circumstance.
They're not just a bunch of "evil fuckers" who must be avoided by the plague.
I stole this Sig
I have never seen any evidence, only accusations. This is your chance to put me straight: Post a link to something that's both specific and correct.
But you know, the FBI investigated her and didn't find anything prosecutable. House Republicans have investigated her repeatedly and only succeeded in making themselves look like fools. The response from the disappointed right is to spin a conspiracy theory about her being too powerful to prosecute. A simpler explanation is that she simply hasn't done anything to go to jail for, let alone being "guilty of breaking multiple laws" as claimed up-thread.
But again, if the evidence is so readily available, how come no one can ever actually point it out? My best guess is right wingers don't understand the difference between accusation and evidence when it comes to things they really really really want to be true.
I'm guessing that any replies will, as with the previous ones, either try to change the subject or else provide assertions of guilt instead of evidence.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
How about Kristian Saucier, was was sentenced to 1 year in prison for taking 6 photographs that were later classified "confidential" (the lowest possible classification besides FIUO), and the prosecution actually asked for 6 years sentence.
(http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/sailor-denied-clinton-deal-gets-1-year-in-prison-for-6-photos-of-sub)
He definitely knew he was in the wrong and there were even suspicions he was looking to sell the data.
How about Stephen Kim, who was sentance to 13 months in prison for sharing one classified report on North Korea with Fox News?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
How about Thomas Drake, a former NSA employee who blew the whistle on waste and abuse INTERNALLY to his agency which was eventually upheld by a DoD IG, and then he was prosecuted and convicted of leaking classified data, although he didnt serve any time?
The aggressiveness with which the government goes after people who leak to the media is a worthwhile discussion. But it's a completely different discussion.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While there might be cases where people get a slap on the wrist, there are plenty of cases in which people have their careers ruined and go to jail for far less than Clinton is suspected of.
Though none in your examples.
She mishandled the highest possible levels of classified data that our nation holds,
Along with a bunch of other people in the State Department.
she lied about
Possibly, also quite possible she didn't realize the data, that wasn't obviously marked classified, actually was classified.
she destoryed evidence, and she allowed action to be taken that made it nearly impossible to a complete investigation of.
When she asked for the emails to be deleted she allegedly didn't think they were evidence any more. And when the IT guy delayed carrying out the request until after the subpoena it sounds like he was just being a moron.
And then the FBI destroyed the relevant devices for her !
Maybe they didn't want to be told to conduct 7 more investigations.
I stole this Sig
Such as?
I've no idea. Like I said, that isn't the "Easy Option" I favor. I should clarify, I meant easy as in cohesive and not self-contradictory... it's fairly easy to figure out roughly where you should be standing under those two philosophies. I didn't mean "easy" as in simple to describe a winning formula. I should have chose a different adjective. Easy is misleading.
None of it ended well.
Uh, I think some citizens of South Korea might disagree with you a bit there. It may be oversimplistic to say that if the North won then the whole thing would look exactly like it looks now (but also including the South), but I think it's a reasonable starting assumption that the South wouldn't be nearly so nice a place to live if they had lost.
The USA wants more than peace in Syria, they want regime-change and ignore any other policy.
There's been plenty of waffling there for years. Plenty of people have said that Assad shouldn't be opposed because the alternative is worse. Obama didn't use the apparent violation of the "red line" as a pretext, etc.
It's war-mongering over a penny-ante country that has caused the biggest human migration in history
Not all of which are refugees and not all of which are even from Syria. I've given up trying to find an authoritative set of numbers, but anyone who begins the conversation by pretending that all of the migration is due to displacement by war is a bit suspect. Even the poor dead boy on the beach was not dead because his family was desperately fleeing a war zone... he was dead because his family were trying to get out of Turkey (where they were safe, if not prosperous) for a better life in the EU. A lot of the migration needs to be viewed for the same sort of lens that we view immigration from Latin America. There is of course a humanitarian element even in people looking for jobs (or even just welfare or access to better basic services), but since the subtext of your post was blaming us for creating this wave of migration through causing war...
That's a problem borne by Europe, who has little involvement in the middle-east. It is not being borne by the culpable agents: middle-eastern countries, Russia and the USA.
It is a problem first and foremost borne of the crazier element in Islam, which is far larger than most people wanted to or would admit prior to ISIS's string of victories.
The Shia/Sunni conflict is the second most important element here (or possibly the most important element, as I'm not at all sure if ISIS would exist in its current form if not for the conflict with the Shia.)
The odious regime of Assad is the third most important issue here (which ties into the second issue, because he is part of a small minority of Shia ruling over the Sunni majority in Shia.)
Eventually as we go down this list we will of course come to our kicking a hornet's nest that we should not have. That is obviously a significant causative agent, but it was in no means a direct one.
The reason France is suffering terrorist attacks is because 1) the resurgence of militant Islamism; 2) the re-settlement and failed assimilation that occurred in France during the 1980s.
At this point I've no idea what your thesis statement is, other than perhaps you think I should defend "Easy Option 2" when I've already identified myself much more strongly with "Easy Option 1".
Please ignore my retarded confusion of born and borne. I even typed it the way you did, FFS.
to vote 3rd party. See here. Please Know what you're getting into with our two third parties. I'll be over here voting for the only politician besides Obama who's made it this far and supports single payer health care.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
His running mate signed a bill ordering that people bury or cremate abortions or miscarriages, and was one of the leaders behind the concept of simply forcing abortion clinics to close.
If Trump was content to let the VP do what he wanted on issues he didn't care about to appease the GOP (which is what he's signalled) then he'd have the most anti-abortion administration in a very long time.
(but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.)
That you don't see the nuance in the mainstream BLM party line doesn't mean it's not there.
I mean the Bundys who took over a federal facility, making very serious threats of a shootout in the process, were just found "Not Guilty". Do you really think a group of black men would have found a similar result? Can you understand the complaint now?
He's never made it about race.
Except for the fact the only time he talks about blacks is from the perspective they all live in inner city warzones.
And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home.
If you don't acknowledge the role that race plays you don't understand the problem.
I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
It's not clear at all. Besides, he only raises ethnic bias when the ethnicity isn't white. Do you really think Trump would claim a white judge wasn't qualified to judge a Black Panther?
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over.
Yet crimes rates among illegal immigrants are lower.
He also said "Mexico is sending", like there was a conspiracy to dump undesirables into the US. The weird foreign country secretly conspiring against you is a racist concept.
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble.
You know you caused this trouble? It's a short path from the invasion of Iraq to the refugee crisis in Syria. If any country has a moral obligation to take in refugee's it's the US.
That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees",
So because a few aren't being faced with the choice of living under a brutal dictator or horrific theocrats the whole lot of them are just being selfish.
because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.)
So keep out Syrian refugees because some different refugees aren't from Syria!
Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (including politically) and these background screening processes are not impressive to anyone who has been paying attention.
Said with the confidence of someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
"But Europe is taking an orders of magnitude more!" is not an argument that sways me much--most of th
I stole this Sig
The odious regime of Assad is the third most important issue here (which ties into the second issue, because he is part of a small minority of Shia ruling over the Sunni majority in Shia.)
I think my brain is deteriorating, holy shit. Majority in SYRIA*. Damn it. Probably more typos but the time I spend proofreading responses to ACs must be kept limited.
2) person is guilty but the accusers couldn't come up with enough evidence and/or the person is very good at dodging the legal system (perhaps because they're a trained lawyer)
It's pretty fucking clear by now that Clinton belongs in category 2)
Consider the fact that people are aware that a lot of people will assume #2, and as such people will happily launch baseless investigations.
I stole this Sig
At this point, nobody should be pulling harder for Hillary than the Republican establishment.
Why? They really, really don't want to see the sort of SCOTUS nominees that Clinton would seat. They may not like Trump personally, but he can only do so much without the legislature liking the agenda. Ask Obama about that.
This isn't checkers. This is chess. Neither candidate will be around more than a few years. But the Supreme Court will be shaped for decades. If you're from the party that prefers a more constructionist court, and which thinks changes to the constitution should come through amendment (rather than "reinterpretation," as Clinton says she wants to do), then no - pulling for Clinton is NOT a good thing for any flavor of Republican.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
His running mate signed a bill ordering that people bury or cremate abortions or miscarriages, and was one of the leaders behind the concept of simply forcing abortion clinics to close. If Trump was content to let the VP do what he wanted on issues he didn't care about to appease the GOP (which is what he's signalled) then he'd have the most anti-abortion administration in a very long time.
Point tentatively conceded. This is actually one of the great unacknowledged dangers of a Trump presidency: his efforts to appeal to the base (and/or establishment) after winning the popular vote, combined with his sloth and stupidity, mean that the worst things to come out of a Trump presidency might just be the things that are the most Trump-free... the things he's too lazy to concern himself with, so the people behind the scenes take care of it instead. At the end of the day, I do most worry that he's basically just a Howard Stern version of George W. Bush. I'm not sure, though.
So keep out Syrian refugees because some different refugees aren't from Syria!
Yes. That is what we do. We find a rich Arab nation (doesn't have to be Saudi Arabia, could be UAE or whatever) and give them some huge incentives to take the refugees. They speak the same language. They mostly have the same religion. We won't be senselessly increasing the risk of another major terrorist attack in America leading to another post-9/11 hysteria that greatly emboldens the right wing in this country.
This is win/win/win/win/win, but you can't stand the thought of doing something that might also have the side effect of pleasing the Islamophobes or the alt-right. One must have the courage to do the right thing, regardless of who is advocating what.
Said with the confidence of someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. The background checks would not have caught many of the attackers of the past few years.
Boy, reading that one would hardly realize the vast majority of Syrian refugees are still in the middle east. But don't let completely deceiving the reader stop you from making a statement.
The refusal of many rich Middle Eastern states to accept significant numbers of refugees for permanent settlement has been widely reported by sources such as the Guardian. I don't have the time to research this in depth right now, but I'm not about to accept my "facts" from a site that fiatly asserts that everyone in this migration is both a Syrian and a refugee, when there is widespread evidence that this is not the case.
We absolutely should help genuine refugees and I do agree that some degree of moral imperative does exist, but that's not a license to smear over all the niggling details here.
Except for the fact the only time he talks about blacks is from the perspective they all live in inner city warzones.
I don't keep up with Trump quotes nor am I particularly fond of the typical progressive Trump quote dissection. The man has all the nuance of... you know, I can't think of a good hyperbolic way to end this analogy. THAT'S how bad it is, but as a consequence it does mean that the etiquette police wear out their welcome pretty fast. I don't care. This point was conclusively made like a year ago.
It's not clear at all.
Yes it is. He repeatedly made a big deal of the Latinos who supported him. Given that, please explain to me the logic of calling it "racist" to say that someone's ethnicity might cloud their judgement. I don't think it's *reasonable*--a Ku Klux Klan member probably shouldn't be permitted to objecting to having a black judge, for instance, but the fact is the internal logic of the objection itself (provided it's based on an accusation of bias) is not racist.
Besides, he only raises ethnic bias when the ethnicity isn
There's plenty of evidence - Comey laid it all out pretty clearly a few months ago.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
Whether or not that evidence meets the bar of conviction under the statute in question is up to a trial and a jury.
Saying there shouldn't be a trial is saying "the evidence doesn't matter when you're politically protected". If anyone unpolitically connected person had 110 classified emails discovered on an inappropriate, non-classified system, they'd at the very *least* go to trial, and likely be convicted.
110 classified emails on an unclassified system. Literally stated by the head of the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
That's evidence, period. Whether or not that rises to a violation of 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) should be up to a jury.
Bush lied, people died!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Evidence that intent is not required for section (f)?
Sure, let's read it together:
"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—"
Now, I'm going to assume you accept that 110 classified emails on an unclassified system is indeed *not* a proper place of custody.
Moving from there, you have two possible violations - one through "gross negligence permits", and the other "having knowledge" and "fails to make prompt report".
Neither of those requires intent. You could, because you're an extremely negligent person, leave classified documents sitting in your unlocked car while you rush to starbucks for cappucino. You didn't *intend* for the classified information to be at risk, you simply didn't exercise enough due diligence. You may not have actually been the person who placed classified documents in an unlocked car, but if you fail to make a prompt report, you are guilty of a violation.
People are what matters, not dirt.
Imagine all the people...
True enough, but we have words that mean different things for a reason. Not that this is at all important; just was a bit confused because it suddenly seemed conceivable you were referring to a non-California state.
The complaint generally isn't that the campaign would need to be "built around" misogyny for it to be a problem. Merely choosing to include it might actually be the big problem. And the problems in that area don't relate only to character or policy, they relate to both actually.
Hey clue stick, you might want to check units before quibbling about claims of "largest;" it may turn out that the Universe has more than one possible unit, and that there was actually one obvious unit type that fits the statement. It wasn't at all ambiguous, and he didn't make any mistake.
Her attempt at a nuanced position to trick you worked. She's not "against vaccination" in that she isn't trying to ban them; she'd still allow people who want them to get them.
But lets be clear and honest: She is against the current system of requiring vaccinations for school children. That is the actual debate that people are talking about when they call her a "vaxxer-apologist." They're accusing her of exactly the position that she is taking, you simply misunderstood what the positions are.
That's why we indict people and put them in front of a jury - to decide if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or are you just going to do away with any decision process for guilt and innocence, and declare people innocent if they're properly politically connected? :)
No, they're presumed innocent on account of having not been convicted, or are you just going to declare them guilty on your own?
Key phrase in there is: likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both .
Since no grave injury or harm happened, it is pretty easy to conclude that it wasn't that likely. And it is hard to make the case anyways, since she hired IT people to handle security. Furthermore, the State Department is the one whose email got hacked, so you'd need to be claiming that it would cause some sort of grave harm that it "could have" been hacked, and that would have to be in harm in contrast to if she had used the hacked State Dept. email. There is no there there.
Actually, for most crimes and for most of our history, intent, or mens rea has been a vital component of criminal convictions. Only regulatory infractions don't require mens rea, or at least that was the case until recently. Congress has been creating "strict liability" crimes for some time now. This has been a big issue with civil libertarian types. I think it started with things like statutory rape and kiddie porn... but it has spread pretty far afield.
The irony is that in this particular case... in the case of the law that Comey was citing, mens rea is not a factor. It specifically excludes intent in the statute. A fact that has been pointed out repeatedly by partisans and legal pedants.
Do you have news source, as opposed to an entertainment source?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Specifically I think it's because he did it across state lines.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
The complaint generally isn't that the campaign would need to be "built around" misogyny for it to be a problem.
Except that that was, word for word, SvnLyrBrto's complaint.
Merely choosing to include it might actually be the big problem.
Choosing to include it where exactly? His comments to Kelly or Fiorina, maybe? You're not talking about his quotes dredged up from years ago in that sentence ("choosing to include it"), so let's have it. In terms of the platform Trump is actually running on, (as opposed to character assessment, which is a valid but very much separate enterprise), I can find no trace of misogyny except to the extent that his clumsy, base-appealing, nonsense about abortion that he didn't really believe himself[1].
In a subsequent reply, SvnLyrBrto gave examples of Trump's misogynistic platform as calling Clinton crooked and calling Warren "goofy" and "Pocahontas". Making this election a referendum on SJW privilege / victimhood mentality (i.e. this complaint is obviously absurd because he's treated male rivals with no less disdain; most of the misogyny claims only make sense if you consider women to be inferior creatures in need of coddling) is the worst possible thing the left in this country could be doing, but that's exactly what many of the political advertisements seem to be doing.
And the problems in that area don't relate only to character or policy, they relate to both actually.
No. Trump has zero misogynistic policies (note the italics) himself. The amount of damage he might do to women's issues in this country is entirely related to his interactions with the GOP establishment and base, and his laziness (as explained in the link in footnote 1) and has pretty much nothing to do with touching women's pussies or doing whatever his accusers are saying he did. (Corollary: Whether or not Bill Clinton is a rapist, as Juanita Broderick claims, has very little to do his future position in Hillary's administration that she's hinted at.) Calling out this muddled thinking was precisely the point of my post. I am against Trump.
1. As I concede here, this is actually disturbing for quite another reason. There are, in fact, a mountain of sound arguments against Trump, but an inability to property distinguish and frame them has been damaging Hillary's approach and (even more disturbingly to me) significantly damaging what could have easily been a pretty large resurgence and revitalization of the left in this country.
You, sir or madam, are clearly guilty of unfounded optimism.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There's a big difference in mishandling classified information that you're allowed to read/access for some sane reason and obtaining classified information you are not allowed to access and have no legitimate use for elsewhere.
It's simply not the same thing. And hardly insightful, I might add.
Then you have completed forgotten about Howard Dean.
Of course, and that's what warrants FBI's involvement.
-SR
Well, actually, Melania Trump has said he can be easily manipulated by C-list celeb gossip show hosts...
(But yeah, if the Republican leadership thought he was a manipulable puppet, why haven't they started yet?)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Sanders said nothing of the sort. He complained about the DNC not giving him a fair shot in the Democratic Primaries, but he never accused Clinton of rigging the election.
The majority of states are in Republican hands. Republicans, literally, count most of the votes in this country. They've also been at the forefront of voter suppression efforts trying to ensure traditionally democratic groups - such as car less, urban voters - have roadblocks Republican voters have already cleared. The idea that Clinton has any undue influence over the election is laughable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Why never Trump? Both sides seem to be against him, clearly he's not part of the corrupt problem. He actually created jobs, he actually knows about money and how to handle it, he actually knows how to handle labor, he's a businessman.
Politicians are for the most part dumb people that think they know how to handle stuff. Don't know about money, don't know how to handle it, can't manage people worth a damn (they exempt themselves from just about every labor law the rest of us have to deal with), etc. Check them out sometime. Just California, we have Boxer and Feinstein, both wack jobs with no clue and they are from one of the largest states. The other house, look at the crazy people that were acting like babies and sitting on the house floor. http://www.usatoday.com/story/... . Why? It was so they can prevent people from buying guns that are on the no fly list. A list that there is no oversight to, no appeal, no due process, very un-American and they know it. A few of the Congressmen were on it, like Ted Kennedy. A Senator and even he wasn't able to find out how he was added. A US Senator! So to ban guns, easy, just add everyone to the list. They've got to know it's unconstitutional, though I'm sure they don't care. Just blatant bullshit, yet people still support Democrats and Republicans. They both smell like last week's fish catch in the dumpster, or a rendering plant, take you pick.
Why keep the madness going on? An opportunity like this comes up about once a lifetime. You can do something about it. It's time to dump the crap out of Washington and Trump is your best bet to do that. He'll be a one term President I bet. Clearly way better than Hillary. Besides, even if she wins, she loses. If you vote for her, you're really voting for Tim Kaine because that's who will be either be President right off, or will be President when she's removed or resigns. There's no getting around all of her crimes. Espionage, corruption, murder, racketeering, and so on.
Intent is required. You have to prove gross negligence. Given that virtually _everyone_ in Washington runs these kind of servers you're going to find that damn near impossible. Hell, if they ever did it would be open season on both parties. Yeah, if you want the world to burn that'd be nice. Some of us don't.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So, you can't be convicted if you're politically powerful enough to avoid trial...which leads to the politically powerful being always innocent.
Do you really support a get-out-of-jail-because-we-never-put-you-on-trial card for the rich, powerful, politically connected 1% of 1%ers?
between "take appropriate investigative steps" and reopening an investigation. The latter fires off all sorts of processes and allocates resources to a full scale effort. The former really just means "We're gonna go read some email".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If it did she would have been charged under USC 18 (for which the standard _is_ gross negligence). This is one of those "Get your facts straight" things. You can disagree with the investigation's conclusions but you can't disagree with what they found. They ran the investigation, not you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it's gross negligence, which they didn't find. Not in any legal sense they could prove. If they had they would have charged her.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
473 emails saying "Anthony stop sending me those goddamn pictures"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Great. Thanks for linking something concrete, rather than the usual "Did Too!!!" claims most people post.
But notice some problems: First, this thread has gone from "It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws", which I challenged up-tread, to what Comey calls "potential violations" in your response.
And why is that? He knows the should-have-been-classified e-mails were on or sent through the server; isn't that direct evidence of "actual violations" rather than just "potential" ones? For this question it is useful to look at Comey's testimony to Congress about the FBI's decision not to prosecute, which I am pasting from Wikipedia (which has a link to their source):
Hurd: What does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it?
Comey: It takes mishandling it and criminal intent.
Hurd: And so an unauthorized server in a basement is not mishandling?
Comey: No, there is evidence of mishandling here. This whole investigation is focussed on “is there sufficient evidence of intent.”
Hurd: Was this the unanimous opinion with the FBI on your decision?
Comey: The whole FBI wasn’t involved, but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists — Yes.
Seems as though the fact that classified information went through a non-classified server wasn't actually the question under investigation. Which brings us back to your link:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
So... it looks like we still don't have support for the claim that "It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws", or even one. The only way you can get there from here is to challenge the competency and/or honesty of Comey's entire team. (And to pre-empt those who will say "the 'Man' got to him" - if he's afraid of or sold out to Hillary, he sure was bold in trashing her during his announcement that he couldn't find anything to prosecute.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Your requested evidence and links have been supplied and you're oddly silent. My guess is that you've abandoned this thread and, like a hydra, are posting in new threads, "How come nobody can ever point out any evidence?"
Bzzzzt!
Forgive me for doing something else between late evening and mid morning on a weekend.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Amazing this guy is back in the news. He's the guy that keeps on giving...
Almost a comic's best wish. Tony Weiner in Hillary.. Just works so well. Come back, I'm here all week.
I don't think 99.9% of Trump supporters have a problem with a female president. They have a problem with THIS female as president. If she supported their positions on things and wasn't horrible corruption incarnate, they would be more than happy to vote for her.
I have no interest in any opinion of anyone who has no trouble with a Donald Trump as president.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Stalin wasn't ever convicted of crimes against humanity either. Was he a good leader?
Or Putin. Oh wait, this was supposed to be a proTrump thread. Never mind.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I don't understand it at all.
If Trump loses, the Republican party will have been dealt a terrible setback that will take years to recover from.
If Trump wins, the Republican party is over.
At this point, nobody should be pulling harder for Hillary than the Republican establishment.
The Republican party is currently under the control of dysfunctional crazies. They seized control from a bunch of semifunctional crazies who diligently recruited them. Anybody who was an actual small c conservative jumped ship and joined the Democrats years ago. I see no way this will change. If the Rockefeller Republicans couldn't fight the rabidly radical right's takeover up to now, they won't suddenly find the strength next year; nor would founding a new party get them the advantage over the Trump Tea Party; and the Democrats aren't exactly going out of their way to oust them, merely putting up arguments from the Bernie wing. Look, if the Democrats could provide a home for the Blue Dog Democrats for a century, swapping them for the Rockefeller Republicans can only make things easier.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet. It is better to have an inept poser in the white house who will advance the positions the party advocates than a competent person who will actively fight against those positions. With any luck he'll just strut around, occasionally say something offensive, but mostly just carry out what is one of the main responsibilities of any modern president: Put on a big show and serve as a focal point for the public while congress and the network of commitees, subcommitees and appointees gets on with the task of actually running the country.
No you're the puppet! You're the puppet!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
How you can argue that it's been "completely investigated" when new batches of emails are magically discovered on nearly a weekly basis? Not to mention the fact that Commey and the FBI laid out every facet to convict, but stated that they didnt prosecute because they didnt think they could make a case that she intended to commit a crime. Intent is not a factor for conviction. An act (or lack of action) is a crime, or its not. Intent is a potential factor in sentencing, not in gaining a conviction. The FBI already laid out that she is unequivocally guilty. That ship has sailed. It's strongly believed now that Commey (and Lynch and Obama) are being heavily pressured by whistleblowers within the FBI that there every criteria was already met to prosecute, and were going to come forward with the damning details if the FBI didnt reopen the case and treat it with equal justice under the law. And dont forget that the case was dropped the first time after Clinton's husband, a former US President, met in private with the sitting Secratary of Justice, Loretta Lynch. If there's evidence now that the conversation was not in fact specific to yoga, and their kid, then the scope of the investigation could (and should) increase to whether or not there was prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, and corruption within the Dept of Justice, ALL under Obama.
"new batches of emails are magically discovered on nearly a weekly basis", meaning that they had looked at Hillary's email recipients to find copies of her emails, and after they thought they were done they were investigating a completely different case and found that that person had also received some emails sent by Clinton. I know any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic but you are setting the bar absurdly low.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Mittens had "binders of women" to ensure that, should he win, he would be sure to have a large list of qualified women to appoint and hire. He didn't say he HAD them, he said that women's groups had DELIVERED "binders full of women" to him.
"I had the chance to pull together a cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men... I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
This is Romney being sure that he couldn't be accused of being sexist, being sure that the "war on women" thing wouldn't apply to him, by working with people on both sides to avoid even the APPEARANCE of sexism.
It became, of course, "proof" of his sexism, with predictable media slant.
The message was clear: any Republican, whether or not they are sexist, will be painted as sexist by the media, the painting will be fully effective.
ALL this accomplished was the removal of "is not a sexist" from the list of requirements for Republican presidential candidates- after all, you'll be considered a sexist just for having (R) by your name, no matter your history, intentions, or statements.
I wonder if that had any effect? Now that you've opened up the pool of Republican presidential candidates to sexists, what would be the end result of that? Hrm....
I bet they will get tired reading about cake recipes, the son-in-law and Bills canvassing for funds for his foundation. And then you have to ask if there was intent to hide any emails from hackers who probably were following the messages to/from government servers.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
How about this - it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate, at trial, with vigorous prosecution and defense, whether or not Hillary is guilty of breaking the law. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
Even when you have the murder weapon, the video tape, the taped confession, and 100 witnesses, you still go to trial. This is why newspapers always talk about "alleged murderers", even when they've got video tape showing the murder.
But that *is* against the law :)
My best guess, after diving into the latest coverage, is that the Wiener underage sexting case showed prima facie evidence of mishandling of classified materials, and that Comey was threatened by leaks of that evidence from the team doing that investigation, and decided to get ahead of it.
At the very least, it establishes culpability and intent for Huma on several charges (such as lying about knowing there was a private email server when she had a private email account on it, or mishandling of classified information in a extremely careless way by putting it on a computer shared with someone sexting with an underage girl), but at the furthest end, if there is some smoking gun email saying "Huma, this is hillary, please forward this classified material to your personal account so you can print it out for me", it could destroy Hillarys "no intent" defense as well.
I think the only question now is how soon does Huma get thrown under the bus. Considering Hillary's very, very, very close relationship with her (insert your favorite conspiracy theory about how close), it is likely that all of Hillary's advisors are demanding Huma's head, and Hillary is the only one standing in the way. Will Hillary abandon her most loyal servant in this desperate hour? Or will Hillary decide to go down in defeat in the honorable defense of her loyal servant?
Hopefully we'll know before November 9th :)
if trump wins, the world will get a Russo-U.S hegemony. this would be good for nobody on the planet save the top .0001% of the wealthy.
mind you, the email on the shared laptop were placed there by Huma, NOT Ms. Clinton. So again, how is this relevant?
To add to the list, Turnip bankrupted a casino, practically a license to print money, and he managed to fail at even that.
it's funny that all the hacks were NOT against Ms. Clinton's server, but other peoples'. So had the mail not been sent from her server, but instead from an official server, how would this be different?
in the same time frame and since there have been several successful intrusions in to official government networks where files were copied, but not her servers. maybe we should have other people handling government security?
It has not be shown that she sent the mail TO THAT ACCOUNT that was accessed by the SHARED laptop. It was send by Ms. Abedin from another of her accounts. So, again, how is Clinton responsible for the email on the SHARED laptop?
A couple of quick disagreements, plus some other remarks:
How about this - it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate, at trial, with vigorous prosecution and defense, whether or not Hillary is guilty of breaking the law. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
Comey doesn't think there's enough evidence to take it to court.
If someone accuses you of (say) treason, you don't automatically go to court. The FBI decides whether the accuser has enough credibility to warrant an investigation, and if so, they use the investigation to decide whether there is enough evidence to take you to court. (Maybe an additional step with a Grand Jury - don't know how that works on Federal charges.)
Maybe she should have gone to court. Opinions differ. I'm more inclined to accept Comey's judgement than what strangers post to the internet.
Even when you have the murder weapon, the video tape, the taped confession, and 100 witnesses, you still go to trial. This is why newspapers always talk about "alleged murderers", even when they've got video tape showing the murder.
Yes, the newspapers talk about "alleged murderers". But the prosecution outright accuses them of doing it.
My best guess, after diving into the latest coverage, is that the Wiener underage sexting case showed prima facie evidence of mishandling of classified materials, and that Comey was threatened by leaks of that evidence from the team doing that investigation, and decided to get ahead of it.
Or maybe Comey is just responding to requests from the congressional committee for all related material?
Or maybe he's just trying to cover his be-hind so nothing will come back on him later?
(One blog said he's reacting to a push from within his own team, but didn't offer any evidence for the claim.)
At the very least, it establishes culpability and intent for Huma on several charges [...]
Is this fact or speculation? I haven't heard anything about it. (Do we even know what the new e-mails are?)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Apropos of:
Or maybe Comey is just responding to requests from the congressional committee for all related material?
I mention that because, AIUI, it was a member of that committee that went public with it. (Or, more accurately, with a misrepresentation of what Comey's letter actually said.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yes. That is what we do. We find a rich Arab nation (doesn't have to be Saudi Arabia, could be UAE or whatever) and give them some huge incentives to take the refugees. They speak the same language. They mostly have the same religion.
As a nation of 30 million Saudi Arabia has already accepted 100k. Sure they could do more, especially considering they're the source of the whabbism driving ISIS, but it's not true that Arab nations aren't accepting refugees. Sure there's a few holdouts but many, especially Turkey, are doing a lot.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. The background checks would not have caught many of the attackers of the past few years.
Which attackers in specific? Because all the ones I remember were radicalized in the US. And the best way to avoid homegrown radicalization is to avoid demonizing the minority.
I don't keep up with Trump quotes nor am I particularly fond of the typical progressive Trump quote dissection. The man has all the nuance of... you know, I can't think of a good hyperbolic way to end this analogy. THAT'S how bad it is, but as a consequence it does mean that the etiquette police wear out their welcome pretty fast. I don't care. This point was conclusively made like a year ago.
This isn't some obscure quote, this is almost every time he talks about black people.
Yes it is. He repeatedly made a big deal of the Latinos who supported him.
Which is basically saying "I can't be racist! I have black friends!" (I can explain why this argument is false).
Given that, please explain to me the logic of calling it "racist" to say that someone's ethnicity might cloud their judgement. I don't think it's *reasonable*--a Ku Klux Klan member probably shouldn't be permitted to objecting to having a black judge, for instance, but the fact is the internal logic of the objection itself (provided it's based on an accusation of bias) is not racist.
So according to logic a Black Panther couldn't be judged by a white judge. Or an accused rapist judged by a female.
There's a reason we trust judges to do as they're supposed to and avoid most sources of bias.
Trump says dumb shit. Film at 11.
On the one hand you're using a careful literal parsing to defend Trump from charges of racism.
At the same time you're claiming he can't be called racist based on his words, because can't take Trump's words seriously.
The role is fairly minor when our concern here is pursuing real solutions. (If your concern is harping about the damage done trying to drum up outrage, that it might be considerably less minor.)
There are lots of cases of white cop on white suspect violence. There are lots of cases of black cop on black suspect violence. The apparent solutions to these issues are the same regardless of the race of the cops and the suspects. If it happens more often to black people then addressing the problems in general will help black people more often than it helps white people (adjusted for population % differences.) This is a very simple concept that people nonetheless appear to overlook... I'd like to make a video on it when I get the chance.
There are two aspects where race is important.
Both white and black cops can be racist against black civilians, that's actually well established research wise. When the person is black, police are much quicker to suspect the person of a crime, and then they are much quicker to escalate the situation to where force is required, and finally they are more prepared to actually open fire when a situation has escalated.
I know there was a big splash when some researcher came out with a paper saying blacks and whites were shot at roughly the same rate in police interactions, which is true. What the paper missed i
I stole this Sig
As a nation of 30 million Saudi Arabia has already accepted 100k [wikipedia.org]. Sure they could do more, especially considering they're the source of the whabbism driving ISIS, but it's not true that Arab nations aren't accepting refugees. Sure there's a few holdouts but many, especially Turkey, are doing a lot.
Turkey is not an Arabic nation. They don't speak the same language (except some as a second language primarily for reading the "original" Qu'ran) or ethnically identify with Arabs, excepting any pan-Islamic movements that might be popular over there.
Saudi Arabia took a long time to accept even the 100k, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Europe is taking. It's more than what we're taking, true, but at the end of the day America and Europe are proposing to take both moderates and extremists out of the Arabic-speaking parts of the Middle East. If we're taking out millions of moderates, then we're giving the crazies the upper hand. If we're taking out the extremists, we're increasing the odds/prevalence of terrorist attacks, which over time will only embolden the right and far right.
There are ways to help these people flee the war zone that avoid these dire risks. I say we focus on those ways, and we worry about creating some kind of global super duper pluralistic multicultural utopia much later... after Islamists no longer have multiple strong seats of power.
On the one hand you're using a careful literal parsing to defend Trump from charges of racism. At the same time you're claiming he can't be called racist based on his words, because can't take Trump's words seriously.
I'm saying that dissecting the words of a man who is known to blurt out dumb shit gets old and isn't a good indicator of his political leanings. He leans pro-police and anti-immigration. You caricature these positions as "racist" at your (and the nation's) own peril. I would've thought that the Brexit result (something that is a hundred times more dangerous to them than Trump is to us) would've made this clear enough... people are getting tired of having the conversation be hijacked and turned into a finger-pointing anti-racism game. There are plenty of intellectually honest ways to rebut his statements about supporting the police or his ridiculous "wall".
Donald Trump does not strike me, in any way, as a person with racist leanings. He's merely a demagogue and a populist and an airhead, and not very long ago he was a registered Democrat.
Which is basically saying "I can't be racist! I have black friends!" (I can explain why this argument is false).
No no.... argh. I don't feel like repeating myself here. The point is that he's not engaged in any overt campaign of "othering". If he were keeping Latinos at arms length in all areas then you might have a slightly more reasonable case for parsing his comments about the "Mexican" judge as racist.
So according to logic a Black Panther couldn't be judged by a white judge. Or an accused rapist judged by a female.
Yes, more or less. According to that logic. I already said (and you quoted where I said it) that I think this logic isn't reasonable, but by itself it's not racist. It's just dumb. Your case against Trump as a dumb person is much, much stronger than your case against him as a racist. Play to your strengths, damnit.
There are two aspects where race is important. Both white and black cops can be racist against black civilians, that's actually well established research wise.
I wouldn't doubt it, but if you'll notice I'm talking about importance regarding effective solutions. Non-explicit bias is extremely hard to stamp out (and it's also extremely hard to measure the precise magnitude of that bias. Do black people commit more crimes per capita or are police just more likely to arrest them? Adjusting for poverty makes sense, but what other fac
If the charity really is spending that money on charitable causes, and not on anything Clinton benefits from except to the extent that her name is on the charity, then that particular issue (not necessarily others) would look pretty damn benign to me. You have to have an ounce of perspective and priority in these things... there are a thousand things we should worry about before we get concerned that someone is contributing to a legitimate charity.
Here, I'll spend 5 minutes on Google, why not. Ok, so this is the charity in question.
Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs [source from Polififact]
Grants might be a shady way to funnel money out of the charity but if it's mostly kept in-house that makes it a harder to abuse.
The foundation appears to be involved in healthcare, disaster relief, climate change, and economic growth,
It's worth noting that the donation in question appears to have been exclusively to the Clinton Foundation, not the Clinton Family Foundation, which is more privately held and guarded.
So no, on the whole this doesn't particularly strike me as being a very damning case of corruption. You want to fight corruption? Start with zero political donations from legal entities that are not individuals, and all donations must be public. Money shouldn't be treated as "free speech". That's the overriding issue here.
But she's a reasonable protest vote inasmuch as she stands a zero percent chance of winning, but pushing her (and Johnson's) numbers up will increase the odds that someone will finally attempt to dismantle the two party system by trying to abolish first past the post elections. It'll be a long process, but it's conceivable. A lot of people on both sides are sick of having to deal with the party establishment. The more rejection of Trump (admittedly, he's a special case but it's naive to flatly call him anti-establishment) and Hillary we see, the more seriously politicians in dead-end careers due to party politics will discuss, behind closed doors, the possibility of nuking the whole damn thing.
Johnson is the best protest vote right now, with Stein being the second-best. Voting Trump as a protest vote is playing with fire. The man has sucked up to the establishment and base far too strongly, and demonstrated far too little focus or intelligence for him to be a plausible anti-establishment crusader. He's more likely to be a Howard Stern version of Bush Jr. at this point.
Jill Stein is an amazing communist from hell even though she invests like an amazing capitalist who strongly believes in fossil fuels and war profiteering. AFAIC she or Sanders or anybody like that should never be in positions where they could actually influence politics, yet they are, which shows the insanity of modern society.
You can't handle the truth.
A brief clarification and additional wrinkle to note here regarding what I just wrote about exceptions to my semi-isolationist leanings: I think that a support for separatism for safety concerns is generally a lot more defensible... unfortunately, this provides a horrible precedent for some countries, particularly China and Russia, who will use it as justification for the creation of satellite states with puppet governments.
I don't have a good answer to that, except to say that we should try to push for a "soft" separatism as much as possible. And in some particularly volatile cases, it provides another reason to consider not intervening. In the case of Rwanda (a very tragic situation when we consider precisely how the Tutsi / Hutu divide originally came about), we might have facilitated an escape or regional protectionism without elevating our support to helping them counterattack (or advocating actual separatism, not unlike our protection of Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.) Actually I'm a bit ignorant about the eventual outcome of that conflict... Kosovo might be a better example. Our recognition of it as a separate country is probably noble in intention, but protection without the endorsement of separatism may be a better solution, particularly with a resurgent Russian imperialism backing (and/or outright controlling) separatist movements in Ukraine or possibly other Eastern European countries.
My semi-protectionist stance, therefore, would try to do the minimum necessary to prevent genocide generally without engaging in regime change, recognition of new states or other geopolitical maneuvers that are prone to backfiring or setting bad precedent.
Actually, I'm not even sure I'd say I'm 100% against regime change... simple assassination without an actual war, if it could be accomplished, and if we could be reasonably confident that the successor would be more reasonable, might not be a bad idea. Except, will that lead to China and Russia more openly pursuing assassination efforts?
I don't know. I can outline the goals of my favored ideology much more confidently than I can confidently say which specific policies will support those goals. But it's fairly clear that the orthodox neoconservative / realpolitik approach is out.
FTFY.
Then I assume you believe his decision to re-open the investigation after a trove of huma/clinton emails were found on wiener's computer, and would support the granting of a search warrant with that scope for the seized laptop?
The funny part about Comey's first statement, is that he laid out the evidence for violation of (f) - literally he used the term "extremely careless". That's all that's required to bring prosecution. The fact that he deferred, and explicitly avoided asking hard questions, or looking at certain thing (note all of the secret immunity deals for the major players), was likely a large factor in the decision not to prosecute.
Now, having a tranche of classified material on an unclassified system, uncovered by any immunity deals, he's got no choice but to go forward.
And the ambiguity of the exact details of the path I prefer does not cause or imply an ambiguity in the broad goals that I favor. That's the "easiness" I tried to explain... I can clearly outline the goals and factors that I'm concerned about, and analyze the pros and cons of any proposed action. That's markedly different from a traditional hard left approach that tries to reconcile blatantly contradictory goals, in addition to mixing in goals that shouldn't be goals (self-flagellation and promotion of a very naive multiculturalism in the west without regard to the likely long-term consequences.)
Turkey is not an Arabic nation.
A fair point.
Saudi Arabia took a long time to accept even the 100k, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Europe is taking. It's more than what we're taking, true, but at the end of the day America and Europe are proposing to take both moderates and extremists out of the Arabic-speaking parts of the Middle East.
Geographic reality suggests that Arab nations are going to take a lot of refugees. I think a lot of the reason they're so hesitant to officially accept them is the moment they agree to accept some everyone else will come there.
As for Europe, again geographic reality suggests they're getting a ton, and they don't have a lot of choice as to the composition.
The US on the other hand is taking in a very tiny number by comparison, and they get to choose the cream of the crop. In Canada we've taken 25k and had absolutely no problem.
I'm saying that dissecting the words of a man who is known to blurt out dumb shit gets old and isn't a good indicator of his political leanings. He leans pro-police and anti-immigration. You caricature these positions as "racist" at your (and the nation's) own peril.
That's why you need to rely on tone and subtext.
Donald Trump does not strike me, in any way, as a person with racist leanings. He's merely a demagogue and a populist and an airhead, and not very long ago he was a registered Democrat.
I don't know how racist he is personally, though he does have a long history of racially questionable statements and actions.
No no.... argh. I don't feel like repeating myself here. The point is that he's not engaged in any overt campaign of "othering". If he were keeping Latinos at arms length in all areas then you might have a slightly more reasonable case for parsing his comments about the "Mexican" judge as racist.
Again, subtext. Notice how blacks and latinos are always "the blacks" and "the latinos"? That's because blacks and latinos are not part of his group.
Illegal immigration thing is really only an issue when it's non-whites, and even if he doesn't directly say racist things he does nothing to contradict or restrain his supporters who do.
Yes, more or less. According to that logic. I already said (and you quoted where I said it) that I think this logic isn't reasonable, but by itself it's not racist. It's just dumb. Your case against Trump as a dumb person is much, much stronger than your case against him as a racist. Play to your strengths, damnit.
Do you think Trump would agree with you about the white judge and the black panther? I'd be shocked if he did.
Do you want to call that racism or stupidity him for not realizing he's holding different races to different standards?
Do black people commit more crimes per capita or are police just more likely to arrest them?
Both. It's tricky but they're measurable. (and poverty may play a role)
The second aspect doesn't even require racism on the part of cops. Police accountability is extremely poor,
Yes, yes yes yes. Yes. YES. That was my entire point. Effective solutions involve increasing accountability--body cams, better body cams (none of this "falling off" / "wasn't working" bullshit), better body cam policies (to make it harder for police to say it wasn't working or they forgot to turn it back on), and indictment reform. I would even go beyond indictment reform and advocate some form of private prosecution in this country, though there are all kinds of tricky areas there and there will be a tremendous amount of opposition from the establishment.
But the reason such a bad situation is allowed to persist is the typical victim is black and not deemed important. Hence the insistence that black lives matter.
I stole this Sig
The second point is that if since it is a completely standard practice then why is it suddenly such an outrage?
Do you see anyone outraged? I wish there were some actual outrage over how the US system works, but no one seems to care any more.
The reality is that other countries have complex politics and motives of their own, and that sometimes causes them to do things like give some support to ISIS
And that makes them evil fuckers who need a regime change. ISIS is as evil as they come. There can be no excuse.
They're not just a bunch of "evil fuckers" who must be avoided by the plague.
Do you have no moral compass at all? You're OK with slavery? You're OK with all the evil that is ISIS, the mass murder, the wholesale child raping just fine with you?
Fuck man, you sound like an extreme sociopath with that noise.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
since none of the emails would be admissible. They were almost certainly obtained under a warrant to search for emails related to the sexting case. It's highly unlikely that he was using her email account to send sexy text messages to 15 year olds. That means the FBI most likely used the warrant for searching Anthony's email account to search his wife's email account (since it's already been established they didn't have a warrant to search for more Clinton emails). It's either that or his wife knew about the sexting the whole time (since he would have been using her account) which is damn unlikely.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The FBI will come out with their determination on November 9th comma one day too late to keep that crazy bitch out of office
Why would I object to a warrant? If he thinks there is information relevant to something he has been tasked to investigate, his job requires him to ask for a warrant.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In Canada we've taken 25k and had absolutely no problem.
History tells us that these things can take time. In terms of ISIS operatives already planning mayhem, I would expect them to wait some years. Patience is explicitly part of their M.O. They know they can't win a lightning war. Their strategy, if you care tor read any of their literature, is explicitly one of long-term attrition to sway public opinion.
But there is also a much more latent threat of pissed-off second and third generation immigrants, which worryingly enough often tend to be much more prone to jihadi ideology. If those 25k have fairly large families and 1% of their children are involved in some form of nastiness (not necessarily overtly violent) as a result of their conservative upbringing combined with their resentment for the Iraq War or western support of that dirty Shiite Assad... we're still talking about something on the order of a thousand troublemakers here, a thousand people doing things to embolden the right.
Incidentally, as a Canadian, you should be outraged by the way Tarek Fatah was treated by your senator Mitchell, and I suspect he was not alone in that attitude amongst your left. The most nauseating and damaging thing the "progressive" left has done (mostly in the UK, but to some extent in the New World as well) is to imply that only vilely conservative Muslims are "true" Muslims.
That's why you need to rely on tone and subtext.
The tone and subtext is cynical populism tinged with narcissism combined with an inability to properly phrase things to clearly illustrate his intended focus.
I don't know how racist he is personally, though he does have a long history of racially questionable statements and actions.
This new low-level McCarthyism is extremely damaging. Don't weaken the word racism like that. There used to be words like "insensitivity" or even "political incorrectness" to describe people who weren't actually racist but just didn't care about carefully mincing words to describe their position, but it's all gone by the wayside. They're all "racists" now, and this weakening of the term has emboldened millions of actual racists.
The person you describe (a crypto-racist expounding carefully crafted dog-whistles) may well describe people like the late William F. Buckley. It almost certainly does not describe Donald J. Trump.
Again, subtext. Notice how blacks and latinos are always "the blacks" and "the latinos"? That's because blacks and latinos are not part of his group.
"The whites" are not generally viewed a cohesive group (or at least, it's not thought proper to discuss things openly, but that doesn't mean people like you should be engaging in witch-hunts.) "The West", a non-racial term, is used instead to identify and contrast the different values between subcultures.
White is thought of, rightly or wrongly, as the vanilla in our culture. It's still the plurality and it's thought (and the statistics do back up) that the most diversity there. There's usually very little to be gained by addressing "the whites"... in fact, if Trump did do such a thing, people like you would instantly call him a racist. The left doesn't really permit discussion of white culture (if indeed such a thing exists--I'm pretty dubious myself), and particularly not in a positive light.
Illegal immigration thing is really only an issue when it's non-whites
1. Plenty of Latinos consider themselves white, and a good number of them you'd readily consider white, or at least perhaps up until you heard them speak with an accent. This applies to their own self-image as well; the questions on our Census were changed a few years back after it become apparent that many Latinos were routinely self-identifying as "white".
2. Admitting only for the sake
In Canada we've taken 25k and had absolutely no problem.
History tells us that these things can take time. In terms of ISIS operatives already planning mayhem, I would expect them to wait some years. Patience is explicitly part of their M.O. They know they can't win a lightning war. Their strategy, if you care tor read any of their literature, is explicitly one of long-term attrition to sway public opinion.
Their strategy is to alienate Muslims and Christians as much as possible so that the Muslims all join the caliphate. And there is no long term plan right now, they're doing everything they can to stave off complete collapse. If they had the capability to launch an attack in Canada they would have.
But there is also a much more latent threat of pissed-off second and third generation immigrants, which worryingly enough often tend to be much more prone to jihadi ideology. If those 25k have fairly large families and 1% of their children are involved in some form of nastiness (not necessarily overtly violent) as a result of their conservative upbringing combined with their resentment for the Iraq War or western support of that dirty Shiite Assad... we're still talking about something on the order of a thousand troublemakers here, a thousand people doing things to embolden the right.
So don't alienate those second and third generation immigrants by suggesting the Muslims are a dangerous "other" and fundamentally predisposed to terrorism.
Incidentally, as a Canadian, you should be outraged by the way Tarek Fatah was treated by your senator Mitchell, and I suspect he was not alone in that attitude amongst your left. The most nauseating and damaging thing the "progressive" left has done (mostly in the UK, but to some extent in the New World as well) is to imply that only vilely conservative Muslims are "true" Muslims.
I haven't followed this and I can't view the video right now. But in general my philosophy is that while some people have a highly unusual interpretation of Christianity/Islam/Judaism, no one who considers themselves a Christian/Muslim/Jew is anymore "true" than anyone else.
That's why you need to rely on tone and subtext.
The tone and subtext is cynical populism tinged with narcissism combined with an inability to properly phrase things to clearly illustrate his intended focus.
So if it's just populism and narcissism then why are self-identified white nationalists acting like he's their saviour? Why are his rallies filled with people shouting incredibly racist things without getting shut down by the rest of the attendees?
They're not imagining things. Does he realize how racist his campaign is? I don't know. But it's a real phenomena.
I don't know how racist he is personally, though he does have a long history of racially questionable statements and actions.
This new low-level McCarthyism is extremely damaging. Don't weaken the word racism like that. There used to be words like "insensitivity" or even "political incorrectness" to describe people who weren't actually racist but just didn't care about carefully mincing words to describe their position, but it's all gone by the wayside. They're all "racists" now, and this weakening of the term has emboldened millions of actual racists.
That's a legitimate concern. I think there is something we can call racial anxiety, basically a fear that a bunch of people from another ethnicity and another culture are going to come in and fundamentally change your community.
I think that's what's driving most of Trump's base. But there's also stuff that I'd consider straight racism. He himself might be more oblivious than racist, but that doesn't mean he's not making racist statements.
I stole this Sig
And there is no long term plan right now, they're doing everything they can to stave off complete collapse.
Unalloyed ignorance. They don't desire to diminish, but they will certainly survive it (although a name change or two may occur.) Read the words of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Read the words of Osama bin Laden. Read the words of the propaganda magazines like Dabiq and Inspire. Read the words of Sayyid Qutb, the father of the modern Islamist movement. Although they try to inspire immediate long wolf attacks in the here and now as part of that long strategy of attrition, their long term strategy is lain plain for all to see. They view the west as effeminate and weak, and they view their victory as coming after a very long low-level conflict alternating with periods of high-level conflict when they and their brothers are "strong".
ISIS has demonstrated a willingness to repeatedly alternate between overt and "fourth generation warfare" (blending in with the population) with an eye for the long view. Ignore this at your peril.
I haven't followed this and I can't view the video right now.
Well, what are you views on the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Out of curiosity.
So don't alienate those second and third generation immigrants by suggesting the Muslims are a dangerous "other" and fundamentally predisposed to terrorism.
15% truth, 85% self-flagellation. It is not primarily our fault if people grow up dreaming about killing as many non-combatants as possible. It's particularly not the fault of Europe, where the social safety net is an order of magnitude better than America's, yet the extremism problem is much worse
If you require coddling to be dissuaded from joining the likes of ISIS or carrying out a lone wolf attack, you're a bad person and/or your upbringing and ideology are horrible, and it's completely reasonable to discuss taking measures to keep you from joining our society. Period.
So if it's just populism and narcissism then why are self-identified white nationalists acting like he's their saviour?
Hitler was raving about Jews before anyone gave a shit about what he said. Trump is a bandwagon-jumper with no shame who used to be a Democrat. That should be clear to even the laziest observer.
If Hillary Clinton could convince white nationalists to vote for her, while all sane intellectuals realized she didn't mean what she said and had no intention of supporting white nationalism, that would be *fantastic*. That was part of the appeal of Trump, particularly early on (an appeal I briefly flirted with, though I quickly realized he was too incompetent and vain to make it work.) Troll the media; troll the extremists. That was all great shit while it lasted, before it became apparent that Trump didn't really care and wasn't smart enough to soften his stance after he was nominated or otherwise wink at the savvy people in the audience.
But there's also stuff that I'd consider straight racism.
See the above.
The causation is demographic anxiety, that the US will become a Latino country.
No, it isn't. If Latin America were full of highly successful countries, many of which put our to shame, with little gang violence to worry about, this demographic anxiety would not exist.
For example, other than a handful of people no one really cares about, there is no discrimination against East Asians around here. (The trade situation with China is entirely different; I'm talking about East Asian immigrants as a whole.) In fact, the last time I checked they were doing "better" than white people by roughly the same margin that white people were doing "better" than blacks. I myself worked at a company that displayed a ridiculously overt pro-Asian bias (and not just for salary reasons either; the people we were hiring were all recent American citi
Excellent, we are sympatico :)
Now, I'm not saying I believe Scott Adams' interpretation of events, but it seems plausible: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
At this point, now that they've got a warrant for searching the Wiener laptop, we can expect possible changes to Comey's July opinion, depending on the evidence surfaced. At the very least, I think Huma gets thrown under the bus for mishandling classified materials, but if she goes down swinging, as Clinton's right hand lady, she's probably got dirt on Hillary for days. Heck, even if she tries to take a bullet for Hillary, and takes all the blame, their relationship is so close it's hard to believe there wouldn't be blowback.
The popcorn is popping, and we've all got front row seats. My black swan prediction - they find that Huma forwarded classified materials to ISIS, or the muslim brotherood, or some other terrorist organization.
I am absolutely not a democrat. I'm an independent who has voted Republican more frequently than democrat. Ironically, Hillary is more Republican in policy than Trump. Trump is all about race, that's not what the republican party is about.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Since I see almost no difference between the Rs and the Ds these days, you might be surprised for me to say 'I agree with you.' Unfortunately, freedom has suffered under both parties.
I can agree with that. The way the system is set up- two parties have an advantage over the others. This encourages a dichotomy of thinking instead of allowing a full spectrum of belief and ideas. We're forcing the people to chose between two polar thoughts instead of picking something in the middle that might make a lot more sense.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I don't see it that way at all. Picking someone in the middle of facism and fascism is someone who is a fascist. We have two evil, evil parties who are destroying freedom in the US and in the world. Picking someone 'politically moderate' is like saying "I think I'll take a half dose of cyanide." Having said that, it isn't clear to me that Americans give a damn about freedom anymore. I cannot speak for others in the world. As long as they have their 2000 inch TV sets that is all that matters.
The FBI director came out in a speech and detailed the list of laws she broke and she wasn't prosecuted. There is nothing that will get her in front of a judge for all her misbehavior...it is quite sad actually.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I think you are overthinking the positions on surpreme court judges. While political analysts and commentators might like to talke about 'constructionist' and terms like that, both the run-of-the-mill voter and most members have a much simpler question: "Will the candidate appoint a judge who promises to advance my agenda on abortion/marriage/deregulation/guns?"
They just use different language. Instead of "rigged", use the words "voter suppression".
Except voter suppression IS are real thing - or there would be nothing for courts to overturn. Again and again and again...
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.thenation.com/arti...
I mean... either those laws WERE voter repression... or it's a secret conspiracy buy judges in various US states against the Republican party's attempts to... hmm...
Wait... hold on... there must be a way to paint this as a conspiracy against old white conservatives instead of the people they are actively trying to keep from voting.
But why even bother with that... when "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT" puts it so much more succinctly:
After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force.
But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an âoeomnibusâ election law.
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.
Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications.
Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
Oh... and by the way... while you're cherry picking through wikipedia... You do know that other people can read that and point out that your worm is showing?
I mean... I'm not even talking about you quoting THIS as a proof.
Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and "claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy."[43]
Which IS proof, but only for the paranoid conspiracy theory bias among Republicans.
I'm talking about you failing to read the full section. Like this part.
In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win).
More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid.
Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precinctsâ"40% in Nixon's caseâ"showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens