Slashdot Mirror
FBI: Review of New Emails Doesn't Change Conclusion on Clinton (cnn.com)
FBI director James Comey told Congress Sunday that the new scrutiny of emails related to Hillary Clinton has turned up nothing that would cause the bureau to recommend charges against her. The conclusion comes nine days after rocking the presidential race with word that a new trove of emails had been discovered. "During that process, we have reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of State," Comey wrote. "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton." From a report on CNN:"We were always confident nothing would cause the July decision to be revisited. Now Director Comey has confirmed it," tweeted Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. Comey's last-minute announcement gives Clinton an opportunity for an I-told-you-so moment -- but it's unlikely to undo the political damage of his initial announcement. Trump and his allies have seized on that announcement, using it claim Clinton is likely to face criminal charges. "If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis," Trump claimed Saturday night in Reno, Nevada. "In that situation we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt." The political benefit for Trump has been that Republicans who'd been skeptical of their party's nominee have largely followed vice presidential nominee Mike Pence's calls to "come home" to the party -- finding Trump less objectionable than Clinton.
Of course it doesn't change their conclusion. She did nothing wrong.
Rock it on Tuesday, Hill! Slashdot is with You!
It's Strong Bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
That's pretty damn impressive.
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Table-ized A.I.
So you're terrified of strong, competent women and have a fixation with getting pegged? That's quite interesting but I don't think a political thread is really the place for it.
, if the Dems win everything, then the troubles will go away
At that point Hillary's political troubles go away and the troubles for the country really begin.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You know, the one who printed out all those classified e-mails for Hillary and others to read. Is she exhonerated as well? I mean, we already know that Weiner is cleared, even though he had a laptop full of classified e-mails from Hillary and his wife...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
> That's pretty damn impressive.
Not so much.
First, they only needed to look at messages from/to clinton, not every single message that Abedin had sent or received.
Second, they already had most of those because she had previously turned them over. All they had to do was compare the list of messages on this laptop to the list of what they already looked at. It probably took less than a hundred lines of perl to do that.
Those two combined probably got the list down to just a couple of hundred messages that required manual vetting.
Rock it on Tuesday, Hill! Slashdot is with You!
You are clearly reading a different slashdot than I am, in order to come to that conclusion. Slashdot has leaned hard-right for years (often under the pretend claim of "libertarianism"). More slashdot users will vote for Trump than Hillary, and quite likely more will abstain from voting altogether (due to Trump being not conservative enough) than will vote for her as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Everyone told me Comey was irresponsible and wasn't worth listening to last week. Why should we care what he says now?
The GOP will ensure that no matter the composition of the house and senate after this week, nothing will be allowed to progress under President Clinton. No supreme court vacancies will be filled, and no bills that have the least bit of "liberalism" in them will ever make it to the white house. There is a growing number of elected GOP politicians promising to start impeachment on her ASAP as well.
It appears we would have been better off electing a Ficus Tree instead, it would have operated on a much smaller budget.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Health issues could also arise with her again. Perhaps Kaine would be a better President anyway.
No matter who wins on Tuesday, we will all lose.
Our Presidential selection really doesn't select the best people. It selects power hungry miscreants.
Even though Google is attempting to censor searching for Clinton's scandals they are still visible. Mostly based on this, but I added some missed.
Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached. Hillary is not "pro-woman" as her and pundits will attempt to claim.
Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.
Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.
Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.
Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.
Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.
Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.
Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.
Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.
Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.
Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.
The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.
The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.
Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?
Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.
Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.
Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.
Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?
The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.
Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.
Watergate: Committee chairman stated that if he had the power to fire her he would have. “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Juanita Broaddrick: Another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Paula Jones: Yet another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Nope, it's not the "woman" thing people have problems with. We have problems with an extremely long list of scandals and concern for self interests and self preservation. Politicians are supposed to be there for the people, and the Clinton's have left a legacy of doing the exact opposite. Their vast fortune gathered while she held public office and encyclopedic list of legal troubles should tell you all you need to know.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
For the next 4 years. That's the kind of stability you can vote for on Tuesday. Why take a chance on an uncertain future when you could pick someone with a proven track record?
That seems unlikely, since you usually need to, you know, actually commit a major crime before being impeached, and as far as EVERY SINGLE INVESTIGATION into Hillary has shown, she hasn't.
Though, they impeached her husband for a consensual blow job, so never mind. Four more years of pointless investigations into the Clintons. I had enough of that two decades ago.
I would put lots of money on the proposition that the State Department does, in fact, have a classified email system that is email in every sense except being behind an air gap.
When normal people put things on the wrong box (or plug into the wrong network, or whatever) in a classified space, there are serious investigations and actions taken to prevent recurrence. Unless they cover it up, in which case normal people lose their jobs, and the agency that adjudicates their clearances decides whether to revoke the people's clearances (probably so) and/or refer them for prosecution (depends on the circumstances).
For similar reasons, people with clearances have a duty to affirmatively be alert for, and report, classified information being stored or transmitted somewhere that isn't approved for storage or transmission of that kind of classified information. Training material lists failure to report a security breach or violation as a violation itself, which can have consequences just as severe as the underlying violation.
That affirmative duty to protect information is where Clinton failed.
why did they even bring it up in the first place? Why not wait until they have examined everything and THEN report? All it does it make Comey look like an idiot or a schemer who changes alliances quickly.
Just look at how other impeachment processes go.
Just for the record, she cannot be impeached for any of this.
Can't argue that point. Or that it's not a Good Thing.
I gave the source in the first paragraph, as well as the explanation. Would you care to discount that those scandals existed with facts? I was around through most of those scandals being the lead topics on every major station for months. The Government was basically shut down during the impeachment process while we listened to Bill try to provide new definition to the word "is". Yeah, the bias is strong with you.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It was a lovely October surprise and might still throw the election to Trump. After 20 years of nonstop character assassination folks don't like Hilary. It doesn't help that she's kind of impersonal (too much time working, not enough socializing). If this news was a week ago it's be a moot point, but then again that's pretty obviously why dropped when it did...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Except Hillary Clinton RESPONDED on TOP SECRET email conversations . Hillary Clinton also IGNORED Podesta not talk about subjects on a insecure email channel, and Hillary did anyway.
Hillary Clinton set up the whole thing to get around FOIA laws.
Deleted Clinton email: Colin Powel warns Hillary Clinton to be "very careful" to not get caught hiding her emails
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
Hillary's maid can be Secretary of Defense.
There is no strong, competent woman mentioned in this thread, only Hillary.
So she got the nomination of a major political party by being weak and incompetent?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Did I at any point say she was found guilty? No, I did not. Did those scandals have impact on the USA? Yes they did. Is there enough reason to look at those and distrust the character of the person involved? Yes, there is. Is there any reason to look at the current financial status of the Clinton's and have distrust? Yes, there is.
Unfortunately for you I have actually studied most of these issues having quite a few years on most Slashdot posters. Most of that list have tremendous factual backing, but according to prosecutors lacked enough evidence to prosecute. I don't dismiss subjects because someone told me they were false, I actually read all relevant materials. The lack of prosecution does not remove facts. It's important to note that I didn't list what I consider hard to prove conspiracy that you could find on the Clinton's pretty easily. Such as the latest Podesta emails.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
With the exception of finally getting nailed by the IRS your argument works for Al Capone as well. Does it prove he was clean as a whistle, or does it prove he was a criminal but nobody could ever make anything stick because of widespread corruption?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I should have added a few facts to back my assertions. Whitewater led to 15 Felony convictions, so this is not merely speculation or allegation. Bill Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones for 850,000.00, again not speculation or allegation. Chinagate ended with an award of 900,000 to Judicial Watch and people fleeing the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton later pardoned Marc Rich who is the person who fled prosecution. Again, not speculation or allegation.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Indeed. No need to let facts compel you to reassess your deeply ingrained prejudices, which are based on visceral, irrational hatred and innuendo.
I used to argue that democracy doesn't elect the person most capable at leading a country, but the person most capable at being elected ... but this 2016 US election has me questioning the definition of "most electable".
Did you bother to read the first paragraph and check the link? Good grief, I get not reading the list but the first damn sentence gets lost? WTF
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The FBI didn't get the warrant to search the emails until Oct. 30. http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
Why do you say that? The Constitution says that even a presidential pardon does not bar impeachment.
They wrote a program that eliminated duplicates so they just altered a Hello World program to say: no new emails found.
The interesting thing is that Podesta has more incriminating emails in his Inbox that aren't even fully released yet than Clinton and her direct aides supposedly do combined. Even a cursory look over 30,000 emails by a team of 100 agents would take longer than 2 weeks, hell, millions of people pouring over the ones Podesta had revealed only the major criminal activity so far, there are so many nuggets in there if you just search for the major players (such as the interplay between the AG and the Clintons) that a single headline per day would take well over two presidential elections to finish.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Except that those rules were not in place at the time that Clinton was Secretary of State. They were enacted after she left...
I'll take Gridlock over whatever the hell Mike Pence has planned any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I don't really expect Hilary to do much good, but there's a _lot_ of bad that can be done.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
She would have to have been in office when she committed the crime.
Normal criminal proceedings could happen but impeachment is a special territory just for then president while in office.
Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. Didn't even send them to anyone.
I'm sympathetic to arguments that classified rules are too strict, but Hillary shouldn't get special treatment. Elites getting special treatment is how we get unfair rules in the first place.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5 times no less? I'm not saying she couldn't have made better decisions, but I _am_ saying that your dislike for her has nothing to do with *gazi and more to do with how she makes you feel. She's been the target of a non-stop 20 year long character assignation program the scope of which is breathtaking. The fact that she's made it this far in spite of that is no mean feat.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
She was: Secretary of State.
You're talking about the Bush that sneakily endorsed Hillary, right?
That's simply wrong. See, for example, the impeachment and conviction by the Senate of Judge G. Thomas Porteous in 2010.
Yeah, but she isn't anymore.
They could have impeached her at the time as Secretary of State but that didn't happen.
Remember, the purpose of impeachment is to remove someone in a position that has abused their power in that capacity. The limit is there so that the impeachment process cannot be abused for political gain (i.e. you cannot impeach someone who had unpaid parking tickets from 10 years ago because you don't like them).
I am not really defending her, it is just the way things are.
The correct way of doing it is convicting here of a crime and that will remove her from office but you need to use the 'right tool for the job' as it were and impeachment isn't it in this case. Going off down a blind alley is not going to help.
He was impeached for the job he was in, not another job.
Let's also remember the man leading the charge in the House was cheating on his cancer stricken wife.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Where in the constitution does it limit the use of impeachment for things which occurred during the current stretch in the current office?
It doesn't, which is exactly why Trump could be impeached on day one without having done anything.
No impeachment is happening anytime soon though, as it;s unlikely the Senate would have enough votes to remove.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Harping on very minor scandals month after month and year after year while ignoring her opponents much, much worse scandals is what I'd call character assassination. John Oliver does a much, much better job explaining it than I can over here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Do you actually think that's going to stop them?
I did not actually comment on that but since you ask, probably not.
In the end, if you get 2/3rds of the senate together you can impeach someone for anything they do in office. I have wondered why it does not happen more often. It would turn the US into a true 'banana republic' but thing are so shitty now with politics it may actually get better :P .
and I'm not trolling here. Ever read Bruce Sterling's Distraction"? This is why the left kinda lost their shit when the right started putting target signs over Hilary. If you're going to encourage a climate of violence you shouldn't be surprised when the violent pick up on what you're saying and run with it...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's Hillary who has to pay people to "Correct the Record."
The Bush administration lost 22 million emails because their entire crew was using private emails servers for administration business. How come nobody cared about that? oh, right, because at the time we were spending a trillion $ and thousands of lives searching for WMDs that didn't exist while outing CIA agents and letting people drown in New Orleans.
You couldn't care less about emails. You hate Hillary (and Obama) and that's it. No big surprise there--lots of assholes hate Hillary, it's one of the best things about her.
If anyone thinks this "lady" isn't going to be the next president, you're nuts!
No. What we would be is people with a basic understanding of statistics. A small chance is still a chance. There are people who will happily part with real money for chances many order of magnitude lower for an outcome they desire, and the amazing thing is that some of those people actually get their outcome.
Depending on which poll you read Trump has a chance somewhere in the 30% region. Claiming that someone is nuts FOR recognising that a chance is A chance is says more about THE statistically ignorant person who capitalises random WORDS.
and I'm wondering what caused it. Maybe anti-immigration? The H1-Bs have got me running scared too. I flirted with Trump because he seemed more willing to reign in the abuses (even when somewhere in the back of my head I know we'll need immigrants if we don't want to share Japan's fate as our birth rate drops, queue /. joke here).
But then I read he took $900k from one of the biggest H1-B reliant outsourcing firms out there and basically gave up on that. I haven't heard him say much more than "Crooked Hilary" and something/something about emails in weeks. Meanwhile I've got friends that rely on Obamacare (one of which is a Type-1 diabetic who until the medicaid expansion was making frequent trips to the ER to get insulin because his insurance had been cut off).
I'm not expecting either candidate to to much to help me, but I've got concrete places where Trump will _hurt_ me. Yeah, I could vote 3rd party, but that could still drop the presidency in his pocket. And besides, Johnson is definitely not my friend and Jill Stein is an anti-vaxer...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Climate of violence? You mean the bird dogging they staged at Trump rallies? You do realize that I, personally, ran down a bunch of links to corroborate that, no? I mean, we only have Zulema on camera lying to cops. Explain that if you will.
I have no intention of using violence whatsoever. Rather, I would like to see actual, lawful investigation not being prevented by politics, rather than a simple 9-day cover-up where they declare the 650k emails irrelevant, or where they hand out immunity agreements like candy, only to have nothing left to prosecute in the end. A very weird investigation with no grand jury (which you'd need if you thought there was any possibility of charging anyone...).
I'm definitely against the climate of violence, but you might want to double check just who is creating this. About half of this country apparently supports any old dirty trick to attack anyone who might not support Hillary. They're happy to blame the GOP for firebombing its own office. When someone claiming to be on their side (about which I have many doubts...) does that to a black church, they raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to rebuild it (see anyone on the Democratic side do that for the GOP office? Yeah, I didn't think so...)
So who is it who believes they have a right to retaliate? Who is staging all these assassinations? Who is staging violence?
is "Keep farking that chicken". I forget who pointed it out but at this stage Hilary Clinton is the most heavily vetted candidate for the presidency in History. Mother lovin' Obama wasn't put through this much crap.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They go back and retroactively mod bomb people too.
Wait, I thought you said you lived in reality.
Emails are classified based on the information in them. The fact she didn't mark them appropriately is of tertiary importance - the presence of the information is the crime. The classification guides didn't change. They weren't marked, sometimes, until later, but sometimes they were marked. She didn't care.
She's getting off on this one in a place where many others were convicted. For instance, Petraeus didn't have classification marks in his personal journal, yet the contents were classified as all hell. The person he shared them with had a TS clearance, but had no need-to-know for the information. In this case, Clinton shared the information with someone with neither clearance nor need to know.
Understand what you are talking about before commenting.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Same as all the VPs back to Quayle.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The entire primary was a sham. Sanders never had a chance.
Seriously, we've been studying the emails for weeks now [1], and it's been clear for a long time that the entire thing was rigged. They were going to move primaries around just to suit her campaign.
[1] They're DKIM verified by keys including Google's own. If anyone wants to claim they're modified, then get the 1 BTC from the Erratasec challenge and send me a link to the blockchain transaction where you won it first, otherwise I'm going to call you out for not knowing a damn thing about cryptography. P.S. CNN straight up lied to you, it's not illegal to read them. Go read Popehat on that one (and they're a Clinton supporter).
There's 2 forums that I read a lot, basically lurk on, and occasionally post. One is Slashdot, and the other is Fark.
I like Slashdot because sometimes some very smart techie people will post interesting insights into techie issues.
Fark, of course, is mostly known for snarky frat-boy humor.
But! I'm embarrassed to say that Slashdot users, whom I gave way too much credit for intelligence, are proving to be trolls, knuckle-draggers, and mouth-breathers of the very worst sort.
Whereas Fark seems to have some very intelligent and balanced conversations about some of the very same subjects, including politics.
Just goes to show, basement-dwellers might know how to hack, but you wouldn't want to hang out with any of them.
I've never been convicted of any crime. Therefore, by your logic, I'm a more powerful criminal than Al Capone?
I think that you believe that Hillary has not been convicted because she's bought all of the investigations. But among her opponents are very powerful Republican politicians. Not just one or two, but all of them. Some of her opponents are also billionaires. She and Bill are certainly not poor, but they cannot play in the same leagues as the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelson (and supposedly Mr Trump). Maybe add the Russian intelligence agencies to that list of enemies. And her opponents have been coming after her for decades, and have so far proved that Bill gets blowjobs and Hillary is not competent at email security. Rather underwhelming.
Look, Hillary and Bill are powerful people, and they have some rich friends, but nobody is that invulnerable. Al Capone just had a few government agents who had to work within the rules against him; Hillary has half of the most powerful people in the USA (and many outside of the USA) gunning for her. If she was guilty, there would be proof. Instead, all we get is Wikileaks about, um, black magic or something equally moronic.
Nope, I'm true independent. Go look back to me supporting Obama years ago if you like. I'm not really in favor of Trump per se, either, but after reading all the things Hillary has been up to and all the things she's faked or lied about, well, he's our best chance of not-Hillary. I disagree with a lot of his policies, but at the same time, I recognize that the "monster" people see him as is in fact a deliberate creation of media colluding with the DNC. No, that doesn't mean every scandal is fake. He's got plenty of shady business deals and he's said plenty of things I don't agree with.
But that completely pales in regards to what Hillary has done and is doing. I've been able to take a long, hard look at all of that thanks to Wikileaks. Sure, some idiot will say I'm being duped by the Russians, but... duped into what? Not going to war with them over Syria? Because we WANT more useless wars now? I don't think so. The emails are genuine and anyone who claims otherwise is going to need to get the 1 BTC from Erratasec by faking DKIM.
The fact that she's been so effective in making people believe that violence is somehow justified (and blaming both Trump & Sanders for it!) is something I find incredibly disturbing.
Hillary Clinton is an evil person. She left Americans, people under her employ, to die in Libya.
What did you expect her to do - put on her red cape and fly 1/3 of the way around to kick some ass?
By the time we found out some of them were there to kill people it was too late to rescue them. Even the nearby CIA station couldn't have brought dead people back to life.
*ignores rest of moronic screed*
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I think the only reason Trump got into the race in the first place, was because Bill Clinton
...told him the prez gets free blowjobs from interns?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Except that those rules were not in place at the time that Clinton was Secretary of State. They were enacted after she left...
Doesn't matter. She can still be prosecuted for not turning over all of her State Department official correspondence and destroying it. Bill Clinton had to pardon former CIA Director Deutch because he kept government documents after he left the CIA. It is a real crime and is very often prosecuted. And you can't claim that she didn't know that she had the documents. Even if you did try to claim that, I do not believe the law does not require intent for that.
No, not the whitewash of Clinton's mishandling of classified data. I accept what the head of the FBI told Congress (under oath), that Secretary Clinton is too stupid to understand what she was doing was illegal. OK, fine.
But there's at least 110 emails sent to her that contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. That's the whitewash. Each of those emails represents at least three federal crimes:
Removing the classified data from secure computers
Removing the fact that it's classified
Sending it through a non-secure channel.
That's a minimum of 330 serious crimes by the people who sent those emails. There is no investigation of those people, and there will be one. No one will ever go to prison for those crimes. I'm guessing that most of them were sent by Clinton appointees, insiders who would be very, very embarrassing to Clinton should they be prosecuted. But we'll never know, because the White House (and it can't come from anywhere else) has whitewashed the entire affair.
That's the coverup.
This changes nothing for most people (just like with the previous FBI 'bombshell').
That's because the vast majority of people pick a candidate early on and don't change their pick no matter what happens.
All this bullshit about the polls going back and forth is nonsense. The media ALWAYS try to portray it as a neck-and-neck horse race when it almost never is.
I mean, hello? Remember McCain-Obama and Romney-Obama? Each time the media played it up as a "virtual dead heat OMG!!1!", and each time it was a fucking landslide. It's the same this time around.
But I digress. Only the genuinely brain-damaged "undecided" voters would change their vote at this late stage, and frankly if you're still undecided at this point you're really too stupid to be entrusted with voting.
Whatever side you pick, how could anyone be moronic as not to see the difference between the two candidates or to not have made a choice months ago?
It's not like the candidates are similar or have even slightly overlapping views. Whatever choice you make, that choice should have been clear to you early on.
The "undecided" voters don't mean shit. They've never swayed an election and they never will. There just aren't enough of them to matter.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The first two of four counts in Porteous's impeachment involved patterns of behavior that started while he was a state judge, not a federal judge.
Or take the instance of William Belknap, who resigned as Secretary of War. He was impeached and tried by the Senate after his resignation.
Impeachment proceedings are the ultimate check by the legislature on the other branches, and are not limited by when the misconduct occurred. They answer the question of whether an individual has disqualified himself or herself for federal office (either their current office or that plus any future office), and do not have the same limits on jurisdiction that a federal court has.
and yet she gets a free pass for things we're putting the likes of General Petraeus away for. It only takes a few key friends... or people who just don't want to "commit suicide".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.
The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.
If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.
Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
It's not his fault, he was born "alt-right" you insensitive clod!
He has a genuine allergy to ethics in journalism.
The investigation began in 2012 when a waste station supervisor in Hampton, Connecticut, found Saucier’s cellphone with the submarine photos on top of a pile of demolition trash and showed it to his friend, who was a retired Navy chief and brought the phone to the NCIS, according to court documents.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails. There is quite a difference between speeding, and causing a traffic accident while speeding. And I know the example of General Petraeus, where we also have a quite different kettle of fish: Telling state secrets to someone not supposed to hear them for sexual favors.
All I take from the email affair so far is that some people really, really wish it to be big, and they are constantly diappointed when an official tells them: So far, it isn't, and the only conclusion they come to is that there has to be some large and widespread conspiracy going on. The other possible conclusion, that they err, and that the email affair so far isn't that big from a judical point of view just doesn't get to them.
Didn't even send them to anyone.
Did you read the article you posted? It said he took them "to show his family" and that he destroyed all of the evidence during the investigation so that they could not prove anything either way. So... we don't know if he sent them to anyone, but he clearly destroyed evidence. I suspect that that was the main reason for his conviction.
In Comey's July statement he clearly said that Hillary had not destroyed evidence during the investigation.
Also, some research shows that picture in the sub were far more extensive than a few selfies; "Saucier methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor." Amazing how a few facts can change something, eh?
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
The only legit complaint about her email server is that is violated transparency guidelines. But note that, nobody else is reacting to it in a way that we get to read their emails; The Bush administration used the RNC email server, Colin Power used a private corporate email (which he really thinks is different than a self-hosted one, but only in that it isn't secure), Bill Clinton refused to use email as President, though he was apparently using it privately for non-work stuff. There are lots of Governors around the country who have an aide whose main job is reading and writing emails, and usually not because the Gov. doesn't know how. We don't have everybody else's email, so the actual transparency problem is hard to pin down.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else, but we don't have their emails either "for whatever reason." The reality is that almost everybody in politics agrees that if they think the public will read it later, they can't actually do work in that channel, because even if they don't do anything wrong it will feed lots of "gotcha" type nonsense that is all taken out of context.
I've been stopped by the cops over a hundred times, and I've never even paid a parking ticket. I have paid library fines, 50 cents already this year, but that is my only proven misdeed. I guess I'm a master criminal too! Or I just wear clothes the cops don't like, and they aren't any good at their job.
Funny, but Hillary actually sent out a department-wide memo to tell staff to not use personal e-mail because it was insecure. Somehow her personal e-mail was different though, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I suspect that we are saved by the fact that we can barely get 50% of senators to agree that the sun is in the sky at any given time. 66% is more organization than those folks can muster.
Though Comey has managed to piss off both parties now; he may be an exception.
You lost me at "uber socialist like Hillary".
I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Except that those rules were not in place at the time that Clinton was Secretary of State. They were enacted after she left...
Doesn't matter. She can still be prosecuted for not turning over all of her State Department official correspondence and destroying it. Bill Clinton had to pardon former CIA Director Deutch because he kept government documents after he left the CIA. It is a real crime and is very often prosecuted. And you can't claim that she didn't know that she had the documents. Even if you did try to claim that, I do not believe the law does not require intent for that.
Hillary didn't destroy the email. Her email administrator was asked to delete personal email months before any subpoena. He was lazy and finally did it later. But there has been no evidence showing that he was ordered to do so after the subpoena by Hillary or anyone in her camp. He avoided prosecution by getting immunity and had the chance to implicate her and never did.
As for classified email, the vast majority were classified retroactively, except for the two or three that the FBI talked about with poor markings. It's one thing to knowingly keeping marked classified documents. Its a different thing to handle unclassified documents that later have their classifications changed.
I seem to recall Petraeus giving the information to his mistress, a journalist? While Hillary used the information (she kinda needed it for her job, after all) she did not give classified information to unauthorized folks. Kinda not the same thing at all.
Also, the Petraeus case involved in some other crap (stalking, harassing, lying to investigators, etc); I suspect that the mishandling classified information charge was a plea-bargain to avoid more stuff.
Interesting: while reading about that case, I see that the investigators knew they had a big case but did not announce anything for a few months because it was too close to the election of 2012. What a difference four years makes.
Kaine will become president in a year or two, if Nixon's career is any guide.
Nixon was impeached for something he did while President. I'm not sure Hillary could be impeached for something she did prior to taking office, especially for the things the Republicans have been frothing about over the years (as they couldn't make anything stick even then).
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I've never even heard of RWNJ. I didn't start posting much of anything about the election at all until a few weeks back when I found out about the Zulema stuff and learned the violence was staged. Before that, I bought into the idea that he was dangerous and barely talked about it at all.
And I question if you were even here in 2008, but my Slashdot history is public, go look at my posts on Obama yourself. I didn't vote for McCain, his campaign ended the day he chose Sarah Palin.
and seeing someone get their just deserts. Trump's been inciting violence. It's kinda like if you get bit by a dog I feel bad for you. If you kick a dog and get bit? Not so much.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I would put lots of money on the proposition that the State Department does, in fact, have a classified email system that is email in every sense except being behind an air gap.
The state department has important offices all around the world (hint: they're called "embassies"). How exactly would email function behind an "air gap" for such an organization???
Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. Didn't even send them to anyone.
From http://www.snopes.com/kristian... (at end of article):
Both Kristian Saucier and Hillary Clinton were federally investigated over alleged mishandling of classified information: Saucier was charged and sentenced to prison, while Clinton was controversially not indicted by the DOJ after a lengthy investigation. Shipmates of Saucier and some members of the public have contrasted the cases to suggest that Saucier faced harsher penalties for a lesser offense, but intent was the core of the FBI's recommendation not to indict Clinton, while several witnesses testified that Saucier was fully aware his actions were prohibited.
Saucier's investigation and subsequent conviction were far less complex that that of Clinton's use of private e-mail, and his lawyers suggested the decision not to indict her led to a lighter sentence their client received in his case.
As for:
I'm sympathetic to arguments that classified rules are too strict, but Hillary shouldn't get special treatment. Elites getting special treatment is how we get unfair rules in the first place.
Clinton wasn't an "elite" but Secretary of State, an appointed and confirmed position that is quite different from a sailor. Different treatment isn't necessarily "special" treatment, however unfair it may *seem*.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
lots and lots of dupes. That plus it's not hard to filter out 90% of the email from the spam folder. The public doesn't have a burning need to know the ratio of penis enlargement spam to viagra spam in Secretary Clinton's inbox (though certain members of /. might).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
there has to be evidence she is a witch, paging Ken Starr
Be honest, neither of these asshats has any business being within a mile of the white house. There's enough dirt on both to toss them both into jail for a very long time.
Of course there's voter fraud. Not at the voter level, but much higher. DWS pressed her thumb on the scale as hard as she could to ensure HRC won the primary. Knowing both candidates had an over 50% disapproval rating the powers that be didn't allow any 3rd party candidates into the debates.
Our system has been completely corrupted and I don't see any good way out of it.
If they were vetted before or when sent to her, that would not happen. Back to my original point.
Link?
Do you have direct evidence of that, or are you just guessing? I'm tired of guesses; they are a dime a dozen.
Table-ized A.I.
Your statement doesn't even address his point. As far as we know, staff were not supposed to send her anything classified (um... obviously!!). i.e. if they did they were in error and they would be the subject of prosecution, not her. No special treatment for Clinton is involved. The classified material thing is a strawman created to deceive YOU. The only real issue is the records-keeping, but the republicans violated that so flagrantly and wilfully during the previous administration that that argument actually makes Clinton look good by comparison.
To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, after this election my therapist will ask, "Please show me on this doll where the 2016 election touched you inappropriately."
FEC Extends Election By 7 Months To Give Nation Chance To Better Get To Know Candidates
just admitted he was wrong?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If that were true, many of her staff should also be on trial.
I'm willing to bet you don't have legal expertise.
Table-ized A.I.
as this.
Attacks on US embassies are surprisingly common, as are deaths resulting from them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Have you ever been pulled over for speeding, and the cop lets you off with a warning? Doesn't mean you weren't speeding. You know you were, the cop knows you were, the person you just passed knows you were.
And if you're the mayor of the town or other bigshot, you are even more likely to be let off with a warning, rather than getting a ticket.
Clinton got let off. Doesn't mean she didn't do it.
Doesn't matter, though. This election was decided years ago.
This is something I like to ask self proclaimed conservatives. Hilary is the most conservative candidate out there by the actual definition of the word. She's going to do a fine job maintaining the status quo. A few tax cuts here, a few tax raises here, but nothing substantial. She's your classic nixonite pro-corporate politician. A little corrupt but nothing out of the ordinary.
Trump's the radical one here. Same with Johnson & Stein. You can be a radical regressive and support Trump. Maybe even Johnson (Stein's another kettle of fish entirely). But you can't vote Trump and really be conservative, can you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The fact that the Clintons are always 1 foot away from going to jail after all these scandals going back decades proves that they're completely honest, upright people.
How many more scandals do you think they'll somehow narrowly escape consequences for during the next 4 years? I'm going to guess 17 new scandals -- one new scandal every few months.
RWNJ stands for Right Wing Nut Job, and is a left wing smear against anyone who questions the glorious leftist narrative.
Incidentally, due in large part to the growing ubiquity of leftist views in America, a sort of Left Wing Nut Job archetype has been taking shape. These are your basic "Trump is a Russian plant", "Biological sex is a myth", or "Hillary is the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy" type of people.
Really, the alt-right and progressives (AKA alt-left) are essentially the same sorts of people but with different ideological backgrounds. They both clamor for utopian fantasies, berate detractors with hateful insults and rhetoric, and generally wrap themselves up in worldviews that assume everyone on the other side is some combination of evil, stupid, or insane.
Both sides are incredibly toxic and are, in my opinion, regrettable side effects of the rise of internet culture and the ease with which it allows the creation of unassailable safe-space echo chambers where circlejerks and groupthink are the entire point.
BS. This false equivalency is a cop-out. While I don't think Trump is the devil, he is not what you want in a president. He appears basically out of touch with the process of governing the nation and leading on a world stage in some other way than as a bully. Clinton is maybe not the best available moderate progressive, but she clearly understands policy challenges and makes a serious effort to make things work. It is conceivable that Trump would just check out the day he is elected and leave governing to the cadre of ultra-nationalists that have gravitated to him. There are those that seek power to impose their will on others, and there are those that seek power in service of others. I'll let you identify which side is which. And no it is not complicated. The side stirring up doubt in our electoral process "if I lose" is the side seeking to impose its will. The side encouraging voter intimidation is the side seeking to impose its will. The side shouting for the other side to be put in jail is the the side seeking to impose its will. And these are just things from the candidate. To even suggest that it would be okay to break one of our most essential functions of government by refusing to confirm any supreme court nominees by the duly elected president...
I wish this would end here but the fine print of Comey's statement refers only to the mishandling of classified material, not the other violations the Clintons are facing. The pay for play isn't likely to go away so easily.
Hillary Clinton is an evil person. She left Americans, people under her employ, to die in Libya.
What did you expect her to do
I expected her to give a damn. I expected her to at least try to save those people.
The attack on September 11, 2012 should not have been a surprise and it turns out it was planned in advance. The people on site knew they were at risk and Clinton refused their requests for more security. Ever since 2001 the date of 9/11 is a time when terrorists like to carry out attacks on the USA. Clinton did not only refuse to give them more security in Libya when some security contracts ran out they were not renewed. The people there were at considerable risk.
When the attack did come the State Department knew about it within minutes. The attack went on for hours before the last of the people there died. The US military has quick response teams placed around hot spots like this to respond to attacks like this. There was a team ready and able to respond but the State Department refused to allow them to go. They had been fighting for SIX HOURS before the last of the security detail had been killed. A drone was already on site and delivering video of the attack minutes after they became aware of a possible terrorist attack.
I don't know where the US Navy had carrier groups at the time but those F-18 Hornets can haul ass if asked to. At a minimum Clinton could have sent some of these fast movers to fly overhead to put a little fear in the hearts of the attackers. I recall reading that the security detail on site had laser designators for guided weapons, they knew where the mortars were coming from and they had them lit up. It is quite possible that the F-18s could have destroyed those mortars before the American security detail was overrun. Helicopters don't move as fast as F-18s but they can carry troops and weapons, and more importantly they can go just about anywhere to take people away. While the F-18s were flying overhead with full afterburners, to disorient the attackers with sonic booms, the helicopters could have been en route to pull those American lives out of there. Even if the people there were dead by the time they arrived we could at least say we tried. Also, by sending a QRT we'd also have people on site to protect valuable documents there and potentially find the people responsible for the attack.
That's what Clinton could have done that day, but instead she left them to die.
Again, this was an attack that was potentially foreseeable for days or weeks in advance. If Clinton was doing her job then we'd likely have had proper security on site from the start and the attack might never have happened. It's a common tactic for the State Department and the US military to put a couple M1 tanks in front of valuable assets in sketchy areas. That tends to deter attacks. Even if someone is stupid enough to start shooting on a building guarded by tanks then at least the tanks are there to return fire and soak up some of the damage. I'm sure it is possible these people would be just as dead if there were tanks on site, and a quick response team was on the way to reinforce them but, again, at least we could have said we tried. Clinton didn't try. She was either oblivious, didn't care, or was so mentally addled from her many falls that she couldn't think straight.
What did I expect her to do? I expected her to try.
More info from an excellently produced video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Obama could simply pardon her, even before the trial. Ford did it for Nixon. It may cost her the election.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
...Of course, if the Dems win everything, then the troubles will go away, and she'll probably be able to serve two terms, barring issues with her health.
I agree, two life terms without possibily of parole would do very nicely.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server...
Well, since she was the boss it is dubious to claim she didn't approve something she herself did. You don't get much more "official" than permission from a cabinet Secretary! The President hires and fires those people, but while they're in the office they're actually the highest authority for most things in their department.
She didn't follow the President's policy, but it was just a political policy, there wasn't any Executive Order commanding to do it only a certain way.
He didn't "avoid prosecution by getting immunity," that isn't the way it works when nobody is actually under investigation for a crime. Here it was a pre-investigation; investigation if somebody should be investigated for a crime. For it to be honest to say that a person "avoid[ed] prosecution by getting immunity" they need to have been under investigation for a crime; they would be at least a "person of interest" if not a suspect. None of that happened here.
What happened here was the prosecutors granted immunity unilaterally. When you're granted immunity, you can no longer use the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying. So they simply decided that if a crime was committed, they were going to give up the possibility of prosecuting the sysadmin, in order to be able to demand that he provide answers at an early stage of the pre-investigtion. And so he cooperated, and they found out everything that happened, and no crime was found. (much less any person of interest)
I expect multiple Hatch Act violations to be prosecuted from this. What actually happened is that they investigated if a crime had even been committed, and didn't find a crime. They presented that to the public as simply not having enough information to prosecute somebody! But it was actually beyond-being-cleared; not only was the famous politician not accused of anything, no crime was even found! That is actually beyond-exoneration.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
"Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.
— Robert Farley"
The "for sexual favors" part is very, very important to how that was handled, because that is a prime vector of attack for intelligence services. There are certain types of behaviors that are extra-dangerous and magnify any otherwise-innocent mistakes, and giving an undisclosed lover access to stuff is right at the top of the list.
He's not even allowed to have an undisclosed lover in the job he was in; you're supposed to report that so that the counter-intel people can make sure you're not p0wned.
As for Saucier, he's lucky he only got a year. From the link:
People yackity-yack on and on about "deleted emails," but it isn't illegal to delete emails. Actually, if you're worried some of them might have been retroactively classified, deleting them is the safest thing to do. That something was deleted is not bad, wrong, suspicious, or illegal, or even poor security. And Hillary didn't delete anything, her sysadmin did so according to the data retention policies that had been communicated by his client. That is all very normal. Nothing was ordered to be deleted in response to the investigation! In Saucier's case, he destroyed the evidence right after being interviewed, and he's darn lucky they didn't charge him with a lot more. The prosecutors asked for 5 years, if they'd thought he'd only get 1yr (half at home) they'd have most likely charged a lot more things. 2 other people from his crew got in minor trouble with no charges for taking pictures in the same place; they probably didn't destroy the evidence and lie about it, that's probably why they got an internal hand slap.
According to the FBI, Clinton didn't lie about any of it, they're unequivocal about that.
You missed the point; the point is that they have to be in the position when the House impeaches them. It doesn't matter when the crime happened, it does matter if they're still in the job.
No, it doesn't, and I even gave an example of someone being impeached after leaving their office. Try reading -- I've heard it is fundamental.
Clinton wasn't an "elite" but Secretary of State
You're an idiot.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Can you show official or reliable info that says a "Classification Authority" has to do such and such relevant to the case?
Table-ized A.I.
Interestingly, the recent FOIA dumps had some new info on Vince Foster.
It seems that they found his suicide note, in which he basically took all blame on himself and said that Clinton did nothing wrong.
However, they appear to have somehow lost the gun with which he committed suicide. The documents did not explain how that could have happened.
How many more scandals do you think they'll somehow narrowly escape consequences for during the next 4 years? I'm going to guess 17 new scandals -- one new scandal every few months.
Let's try to guess what they'll be.
* Something related to voter fraud
* Documents revealing that she doesn't really carry hot sauce in her purse
* Murder
* Pant-suit gate
It's just noise. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, would have the ultimate authority to classify and declassify documents under the State Department classification system... though it's rather unlikely she did so. However, she would have no such authority for documents classified under any other classification system, such as the Department of Defense or Department of Energy systems, though as Secretary of State she was no doubt cleared for much of that. And some of the faxes she was receiving would have contained information classified under non-state classification systems.
Yeah, I hear you. I have a lot of respect for the people who actually argue their positions based on facts. I'm certainly not perfect myself and I've had people prove me wrong about a few things.
The problem is that fear wins elections so everyone has too much of an interest in stirring that up. It doesn't help when there are real occasions for fear, either. I really wish we could get people to relax a bit and calmly discuss things, but the hate gets dialed up to 11 real fast. The paid trolls aren't helping matters either.
- Quid pro quo for Obama pardons for her friends.
- Interference in the investigation of the Clinton Foundation
- Abuse of power using regulatory agencies to punish her political enemies
- Selling favors while she was Secretary of State
- Selling access to the White House
- Destroying documents and having officials lie to congress
Oh, I get it. Don't bring facts and documented history into conversations and the Leftists will be happy. There is a sad reality with most people on the left. Do you know how many people on the left complain about Ann Coulter yet have never read a single book and can't discount a single fact she provides in her book? Answer is anecdotal, but 100% of the people on the Left I speak with have that exact affliction. None have read Marx, Friedman, Aristotle, Rand, Machiavelli, Adam Smith, the Federalist papers (yes, any of them), Quigley, and though they claim to have read Plato it tends to be just the fragments stuffed into an Intro to Philosophy class.
Contrarily people on the right tend to have studied, usually not all, but many of these works. They have to, so they can defend themselves from Leftist propaganda and Sophistry used against the masses.
But hey, grats on being an ignorant fool who can not tell fact from fiction. Or pretending as much.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So the US falls from the Greatest Republic the World has ever known, to a lawless Banana Republic. Amazing to see.
What is even more amazing is that people think the Big State authoritarianism that inevitably follows in a Banana Republic is somehow "liberal" in the sense that people get to do as they please even if the political 'elites' don't like it.
Classic Liberalism has Diversity of Opinion. Modern "Liberalism" does not. Best not to confuse the two.
I guess Hilary's team of Lawyers, Chelsea Clinton, her IT staff , Yahoo and her maid all of which didn't have TS clearances were OK to read the information.
Tim Kaine, this Tim Kaine http://i.onionstatic.com/onion...
I'm surprised you didn't mention the connection to ISIL???
The Clinton foundation accepted donations from Qatar and tried to hide it, and according to wikileaks, the government of Qatar is funding ISIL. Since it was in her leaked emails, she obviously knew about it.
http://mobile.reuters.com/arti...
From https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...:
we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
She didn't have to delete any email to violate the law. She didn't even have to know that she had classified material. She was required by law to return all state department materials when she left. When she did not, she violated the law. Having classified material in the email made it that much worse.
impeachment is separate to the prosecution, impeachments entire purpose is to remove someone from office for offenses committed while in office, impeachment has no purpose if they are not in office as the prosecution is separate it is like trying to fire someone who already quit. William Belknap was impeached after resigning but only because it was said he resigned specifically to avoid impeachment so they voted anyway, interestingly they then failed to convict him and their was even one who refused to vote on conviction as he believed they did not have jurisdiction due to the resignation.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails.
What? She put copies of them on thumb drives and gave them to her non-cleared lawyers and non-cleared staff to paw through. Her closest aide's idiot husband, Carlos Danger, had thousands of them on his laptop. She replied in threads that were classified at the time, over the internet from a server in her house, to other non-secured people. What do you mean we don't have any evidence of that? The FBI director sat there and explained it to you!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
Hacked servers are generally not advertised, especially high value targets. According to the FBI there are fingerprints on the server from at least 5 different foreign agencies. That does not "prove" she was hacked but it would be safe to assume she was. She was running MS Exchange on the Public Internet for pity sake, and if you know anything about Email you know that it's not used as an internet facing server because it's so easy to exploit. Which is why every single company I have ever seen or worked at runs a Gateway (Sendmail/Postfix/etc..) service outside and Exchange inside (if they run Exchange at all).
The only way most companies know they have been hacked is because hackers start sending spam or running a DDOS service. This is IT Security 101 stuff here, so you are quite a ways behind on homework.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else
NOT SO FAST! President Obama does not have special regulations on document handling. These are US Government Codes (laws). "better than anyone else" should have stated "illegally like nobody else did". You stand up all kinds of strawman arguments as a defense, but she is the only person to have ever setup a private server for Government use despite being told numerous times she could not. On the record from the FBI there are at least a dozen warnings about this, including 2 people working at the State Department told to ~Never mention the private server again~.
In your hundreds of times being stopped by the cops were you carrying classified documents in violation of law? Well your personal anecdote is useless because, because you know that is not the case.
FWIW, I am an Army Vet, DOD contractor, and currently hold a clearance for my job. Special access programs require you to read and take an oath which covers the law. You sign the agreement which generally includes statements regarding "Violation is subject to penalty under USC up to, and including Treason." I have seen people arrested for violating law, and most of those arrests were for careless handling of data. You are Court Martial-ed in the Military and at a minimum dishonorably discharged for violations. Civilian side varies, but you don't keep your clearance or your job if you violate USC.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Just for the record, she cannot be impeached for any of this.
But she can be served another subpoena to testify before congress, under oath, to provide input on the ocean of incriminating crap that has surfaced since the last time she sat there deflecting questions. If she lies before congress, she's very impeachable. If she contradicts her earlier lies, she's guilty of perjury from her earlier testimony. Presidents aren't immune from prosecution for earlier acts (like lying under oath) just because they've been sworn into their new job.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I even gave an example of someone being impeached after leaving their office.
No, you didn't. You're alliterate, or you'd know that you gave an example of somebody who was impeached while in office, in part for things he had done while in another office. The limitation isn't on when the thing was done, the limitation is on being in office when they impeach. That's why when Nixon resigned, they couldn't have impeached him anyways. Now, if he had resigned after they impeached him, but before the trial, then they could still finish the trial in order to prevent him from holding office again.
The details matter, and if you can't even understand the words, how are you going to argue about the finer points of it?
That is what Weiner calls "Flexing his muscle" you insensitive clod!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Copypasta is copypasta, not "facts."
Just run in circles shouting Ann Coulter, I'm sure you'll eventually find somebody who cares what she has to say. What is her job again, why do you presume she has some information about the topic?
I sure as fuck don't Ann Coulter, but you're a total dipshit if you think I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's books, or Adam Smith. Who the fuck told you that liberals don't read Aristotle? Is that code for complaining that they agreed with Plato more, or do you actually think that liberals don't read classics? You didn't know liberals read the Federalist Papers, wow. That's a whole new conspiracy angle; liberals aren't educated in civics! LMFAO
The way you regurgitate talking points you read over at Breitbart pretty much proves you didn't read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It" because you'd be hanging your head in shame for regurgitating pap instead of thinking for yourself.
You blather on and on about what you presume other people have read, without noticing that any person of middling intelligence knows you don't have access to that information. You're just blathering. Furthermore, the content of the blathering is pretty daft; obviously there are lots and lots of liberals out there that are educated, since educated people are much more likely to be liberal than ignoramuses.
I know you only paid a quarter for "Sophistry," but you should really ask for your money back.
Sooner later Russia is going to have to be put into its place. The longer the West keeps stalling the harder it will be.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
> Sooner later Russia is going to have to be put into its place.
Yeesh, racist much?
Pray tell, why do you want to fight a useless war with Russia over Syria so badly? To help Saudi Arabia and Qatar build an oil pipeline?
If there is one, I hope you volunteer to deploy and put some skin in the game instead of sending poor people out to die for oil (again).
To put things in context the above poster is the "pentagon plane crash was faked" guy who also said he knew another building was demolished and not burned "because he's an engineer". Apparently writing software without a university level qualification teaches you metallurgy (he thinks steel doesn't soften until it melts) the second the HR chick decides you've put in enough years to be called engineer.
So to put things in context the poster above is a serial nutcase seeing conspiracies everywhere and prepared to lie to back up his fantasies.
Sanders wasn't even in the party until a very short time before so no surprise there - I could probably point to some of my old posts to those who thought he had a chance and say I told you so. The "superdelagates" were the biggest clue.
Given what was happening at the time it proves the latter.
Sadly it proves that the FBI was not up to the job (most likely paid to look the other way) and the Capone did not successfully bribe the IRS (maybe he didn't even try).
Hoover was scum. The FBI still uses the voodoo magic of lie detectors due to Hoover being the sort of corrupt scum who would take kickbacks and then approve purchases. Even today they do not want to admit that they have been scammed.
Yes it's a bit offtopic but the myth of Capone being a master criminal wiping everything squeaky clean so that even the mighty G-Men on the FBI could not touch him is a stupid myth to propagate, but it's still spreading.
Just about all of our "friends" in the middle east are funding ISIL/Daash. Even the Bush family has financial connections one place removed like that, and there is nothing wrong with that. Only a couple of years ago some Republicans were calling for direct support of what turned out to be ISIL/Daash because they were fighting against Assad. It is a mess. Even Turkey is in the mix. Saudi Arabia is deeply involved. If you didn't already know about what you have quoted then you haven't been paying much attention. That "governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL" was headline news a few years ago. Clinton (or any Republican in a clue who would have been in the same position) made some effort to try to stop that. It's an action that both parties would done.
I'm still amazed about the email fuss when it looks like Hillary was on the take from Pfizer - how about trying to find a real scandal like that one?
The thing that has had me laughing so much is all those posts about how Hillary is a liar, but Trump, who is a fucking con-artist from way back who couldn't lie straight in bed, is somehow above such a label.
You want a fucking trust fund baby who treats everything in life as a game running the country?
Better start playing Fallout for a bit of practice.
Or start learning Mandarin so you can do phone support for the country that's going to step in to take the role of the leading world economy while Trump and Congress are deadlocked.
A bit of the current mess is due to Russia thinking it was "put into its place" when Kosovo was bombed without asking them first. A lot of nationalism and dreams of the old empire were stirred up since with that as a rallying point.
The true irony here is Putin has been telling people since he got into politics that he is going to make Russia great again.
Considering that Trump's campaign at the time the "great again" slogan came out was run by a guy who was in charge of doing PR work for Russian separatists in Ukraine (whoops!) maybe it's not so ironic but a direct lift.
It is probably already too hard, we've already put it into it's place and it had the opposite effect we wanted. The shit about getting Ukraine into NATO was insane and provoked expansion.
YOu either discard both his statement or take both his statement to heart. Choosing and picking which one you want to hear, is partisan politic at its worst : it means you are paying attention to only what fit your worldview/echo chamber and discard what rocks your boat. Note that it works both way : those who wanted to ignore comey last week and take him seriously today (probably pro Hilary) are as guilty as those who wanted to take comey seriously last week and not seriously today (probably pro trump).
Anyway, if you are taking comey seriously all the way, or discarding him all the way , the same conclusion come : the email re-review is not relevant.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The same way it does for military organizations. By using their own satellites, and encryption between networks (ie, when changing units).
It's a special purpose network that is not connected to the non-classified network (air-gap).
The example I referred to was William Belknap. Try reading the whole comment before you reply to it. And it's spelled illiterate, you fool.
Impeachment is separate from criminal prosecution, yes, because adjudicating crimes is the business of the judiciary.
One of the things that the Senate can do during an impeachment is bar the person from holding any future federal office "of honor or profit". Clearly the person does not need to be in office for that to happen.
I didn't address all of it because it was crap.
No, alliterate is not spelled illiterate. Illiterate is spelled illiterate, alliterate is only spelled alliterate. If you were fully literate, you'd have looked up the new word you didn't know before deciding you thought it was misspelled. That you made that jump without even checking, from ignorance, proves your alliteracy!
Since you don't look shit up before you decide on the meaning, I'm not going to walk you through all the historical details about William Belknap. I will point out that the Senate disputed during the trial if they even had jurisdiction, and more than enough to acquit voted that they didn't even have jurisdiction. And he was subsequently acquitted. Note that all the Senators, including his defenders, agreed he had done the thing he was accused of. And yet, he was acquitted. We don't know if the Senate actually had jurisdiction; they would have had to convict for it to go to the SCOTUS and produce an authoritative decision. So it is an idiotic case for you to use as an example to prove that side of the argument; if you were literate you'd have read the freakin' history before referencing it. But you're not literate, you're alliterate, so you just looked up the name of the thing and ran with that, without actually reading it. D'oh!
I know what alliterate means. You pretty clearly do not know what either alliterate or illiterate means. Don't go full potato!
Belknap was impeached after he left the office where the misconduct occurred. The Senate decided they did have jurisdiction to try Belknap's impeachment, and they tried him. That disproves your claim, a claim which is distinct from the (also wrong) claim that ASDFnz made earlier. That the Senate acquitted Belknap is irrelevant.
Trump has been bankrupt four times, cheated on at least two wives, is a self confessed sexual abuser, bullies sub contractors to avoid paying them their due and refuses to accept the principles of democracy. Throughout this campaign he has shown himself as lacking the stature and intellect required to president.
Clinton has had lots of accusations thrown at her, non of which have stuck. Trump is by far the worse of the two of them. You'd have to be a fucking moron to vote for Trump.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
"I've been stopped by the cops over a hundred times".
Are you a really bad driver or just black?
You run a diff between the emails you already have, and the new ones. Only the ones that are different have to be examined by hand.
Best Slashdot Co
you do realize Bill isn't running, right?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
also, nice list of manufactured or non-existant scandals where nothing was ever proven.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and yet you still missed how ultimately nothing was ever proven in any of them
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You missed this one: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/...
How obtuse are you? Please spend a few hours reading some of the Wikileaks releases. Washington Post, CNN, Politico, CBS, ABC all working with the DNC and Clinton camp. They gave her debate questions, they asked what questions they should be asking her opponents, they sent stories they were going to publish to get the okay first. It's a massive propaganda machine and you're eating it all up and believing it. And you come on here and tell others they're ignorant?
you honestly trying to tell me Bill won't be back in the White House or won't have any tasks assigned to him at all?
Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. [theguardian.com] Didn't even send them to anyone.
The article says that he knowingly took photos of classified material with the intention of showing them to people. I'll grant you that he didn't mean any harm by it (no one seems to be claiming that he was going to sell the info to foreign governments), but he was knowingly and intentionally trying to share classified material with outside people.
As far as I know, there are no allegations that Clinton had the intention of sharing classified information with outside people. Even the people who argue that Clinton was doing terrible things are not arguing that she set up the mail server in order to share classified information with others, but rather to hide her dealings from scrutiny. Which... if that's true, then it really backfired in a spectacular fashion.
Still, as far as the issue of releasing classified information, all evidence points to the idea that she was careless to a degree that, among the thousands of emails she received on this server, only a handful contained classified information, and even that was unintentional. If Colin Powell had unintentionally received classified information on his private email account, do you think he would be in jail?
Completely different activity. Not comparable at all.
And the only "Special Treatment" Hillary has been getting was the pointless months of congressional investigation and right-wing screaming. The way I remember it (having actually worked with classified info) is the typical treatment person who mishandles classified info can expect is a slap on the wrist, a shitload of paperwork, and a note in their security file. The only reason for all the extra crap she's gotten is because she's Hillary Clinton, Republican Enemy #1.
Right. Comey never said there was no evidence of a crime, he said that "No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges". Obviously, any reasonable prosecutor would know that going up against the Clintons means your life could be ruined, or perhaps terminated, and would therefore make the reasonable decision to not bring charges.
I just see a large blob of text, I don't see an argument.
Table-ized A.I.
Contrarily people on the right tend to have studied, usually not all, but many of these works. They have to, so they can defend themselves from Leftist propaganda and Sophistry used against the masses.
"Right" gets a small R. "Left" gets a capital. You are never in a million years going to get a sniff of anything remotely true when you're that fucking blinkered.
File under 'safe to ignore'.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Wrong. The State Dept. did not summarily forbid such; it's why Colin Powell used AOL. She apparently violated the State Dept. policy for using such a service, but violating dept. policy is not by itself a criminal act related to classified info. Even if she got the proper sign-off, it wouldn't change anything security-wise. Thus, not getting the proper sign off did not contribute to an identifiable security risk. (It may solve other problems, but that's not the sub-topic here.)
If you want to argue that such is "obviously more risky" than using the regular NON-classified dept. email server, be my guest, but that's murky and full of tech minutia. Further, Colin suggested to her that Dept. equipment is unreliable, giving her reasonable justification to avoid it.
Now perhaps it can be argued it's poor judgement, but it's NOT blatantly poor; It's nuanced poor. The Dept. email server WAS hacked, so we do have direct evidence it wasn't reliable. Colin turned out to be right.
Nowhere did she clearly violate a secrecy law. If you claim otherwise, I invite you to make a written case for it as if you were to present such an argument to a jury...
Table-ized A.I.
You are correct of course. Her enemies are so powerful that no matter what she tries, she would be fucked if she had actually done anything illegal. I will rest well tonight knowing that she is safe from all of those big bullies who are trying to so hard to make her life miserable. The fact that none of them have taken down one of the most powerful women in the world is surely proof that she is innocent.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Then why aren't any peons getting prosecuted? Because that is not the issue at all. Everyone knows something illegal happened. Everyone knows jack and shit will happen concerning these illegal doings. Why? Because power.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
and yet she gets a free pass for things we're putting the likes of General Petraeus away for.
Petraeus has been doing analysis for ABC News, and I don't see him wearing a prison jumpsuit.
The fact that the Clintons are always 1 foot away from going to jail after all these scandals going back decades proves that they're completely honest, upright people.
I think it shows that when they have a line that they're not supposed to cross, they straddle it as best they can, getting away with violating the spirit of the law without necessarily violating the letter. It's why even those who don't think they've committed crimes think the Clintons show poor judgment, that they get away with exactly what they can get away with.
Bill wasn't disbarred?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The entire primary was a sham. Sanders never had a chance.
Of course he never had a chance. He's too far left for much of the Democratic Party, and the only reason he's in that party is that to get elected you must be in one of the big two. Not as bad of a problem as that was that he could never connect with minorities. He made some early gains up north, but he never had much support in South. He had decent support from white folks (like Trump does), yet very little outside of that demographic (though probably a bit more than Trump did). We've moved into a phase in our history where candidates now need more than just the white vote.
He cooperated by lied. (proven by his posts on how to hide the dirt while the dirt was under subpoena.)
His immunity is toast. When an unbiased justice department completes it's investigation, he will go to federal prison.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Too late. That has got to leave a mark.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You mean the gun that no evidence ever showed that Foster owned it or even touched it as it didn't even have his fingerprints? Makes sense that the gun would need to be 'lost'.
Health issues could also arise with her again. Perhaps Kaine would be a better President anyway.
No matter who wins on Tuesday, we will all lose.
Hillary Clinton having to step down might be the best (only?) reason to vote for her, yet I'm not willing to take that outside chance anyway.
I never said they could impeach Trump on November 9th, or are you assuming my use of 'day one' refers to being president elect and not president is enough? If so, that would be rather silly.
Correct, however that does change criminal/civil liability, the portion of that clause you happened to edit out.
Except A2S4 doesn't end with "committed during the tenure of that particular term in office", nor any mention of a statute of limitations for offenses committed in or out of office which could lead to impeachment.
If what you are saying is true... a sitting vice-president who assassinates the sitting president, they would not be subject to impeachment because the crime occurred in their former office?
Says who? There are different legal theories as to the power to impeach, the meaning of 'high crimes & misdemeanors' as just one major one (ie is it required for congress to pass a law defining impeachable offenses? some say yes). It's hard to call this an ex-post facto issue, and given you forgot about:
You know what that means? It is fully within the power of the house to draft & vote on articles of impeachment on a random federal official every week! The reasoning it could simply be "for the fashion crime of wearing white after labor day"... even in the form of white cotton briefs.
Likely? No, but fully within their power.
"But, but, the courts!" some would say, who should then be pointed to
No court would dare touch this matter for fear of being accused of involving themselves in a matter which is rather explicitly enumerated as an exclusive power to the congress, for fear that any judge who did would be the next to be impeached.
Why is the people who copy & paste bits of the constitution to try to explain their disagreement with someone often don't fully think through their arguments? Yes, some of mine are rather outlandish & unlikely, they do at least test the theories you attempt to raise.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
There is only one Strong Bad Email.
#58, source of more sore throats than any other know forms of Internet media. And that's before the thatched roofed cottages.
All Snowden pointed out is that you can easily check 650000 emails for duplicates; you can. But that's not the point.
Whether duplicate or not, what the new FBI probe suggests is that there were numerous classified emails sent from Clinton on yet another laptop outside Clinton's control. This is a laptop about which Human Abedin says that she didn't use it and she has no idea about how the classified emails ended up on there.
Even if you want to talk about just a review of "new" emails, the FBI has indicated that there were, in fact, new classified emails among those they found. They have refused to say how many; the logical conclusion is that if they had released the actual number, it would have looked bad for Clinton and/or their ability to review them in such a short time.
In addition, they have retreated from "did she mail classified materials" (which is a certainty at this point) to "did she intend to mail classified materials; If Hillary had been treated like other government officials, she should have been charged simply because she emailed classified materials, regardless of her intent.
At this point, it's been clearly established that Hillary used a private email server, that she used it for classified materials, that she accessed it from multiple and unsecured devices, that she lied about it repeatedly, and later lied about what the FBI found. Whether she is charged by Obama's FBI or not is irrelevant; legally, simply being the SoS might have given her the legal freedom to ignore regulations, but that doesn't make it right. It's our job as voters to judge high government officials at the ballot box. Hillary Clinton's conduct was reckless and irresponsible for a high government official. How those facts affect whether you want to vote for her or not you have to decide for yourself.
It's not my job to format your argument properly and cite your paragraphs properly. You are being lazy. A debate judge would flunk it.
Table-ized A.I.
Well that's obvious, isn't it? If you vote for Hillary, you're really voting for Kaine.
The Presidency takes a hell of a toll on everyone in there, even Obama and he's a playboy. I doubt she'll even make January 20th. Even if she gets in, I'm sure they'll start impeachment proceedings against her. So many charges to bring against her and they'll have no choice but to convict. Almost all of them are slam dunk cases.
He can't pardon her, she's not charged with anything yet. Besides, she will face charges in NY State. She's broken plenty of laws there and they know about it.
Defending your awful candidate for president by saying awful true things about the other statutory duopoly candidate is a wondrous thing.
Keep up the good work.
P.S. Saying awful false things is almost as good, and is in some ways better, if you get caught doing it.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
is that the word has been co-oped by extremely radical folks who don't want you to think of them as Radical. Guys like John Kasich who'd do sweeping changes to our laws and even our political structures given the chance but who talk up a game like they're moderates in favor of limited change. Those guys scare the pants off me because they can sneak into power and do awful things without anyone realizing what they are.
Call a spade a spade.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/