The tax payer was saved the cost resulting from Israel being nuked
By who, the United States? The only country to use nuclear weapons. For it to be another country in the region, like oh, say Iran, first they would need a nuclear weapons program. Which even the CIA and Mossad have admitted Iran doesn't have.
I would see Trump in the Hague next to Obama for war crimes, so good luck with your projection. Anymore dipshittery? No more arguing that an unpaid federal position using a private account for one. god. damned. month. is a more serious issue than one of the top cabinet posts doing so for years?
I didn't write rape, I wrote "sexual assault." There's a reason for that.
Pedantic distinction without a difference.
And authorities only allow you to travel when they've absolutely cleared you from charges. Oh, wait... they do that all the time when people are still under investigation too.
Not if you believe there's merit to the allegations and you're dealing with a foreign national that has made it clear he's about to leave the country. Then they release you from custody but keep your passport.
to Sweden refusing to promise they wont hand Assange over to the United States
Why should they? Have they done that before? Do they normally offer guarantees to such treatment to people that they question?
Do you comment on many subjects at length where you have a comical level of ignorance, or just this one? In 2001, Sweden arrested a couple of men and handed them over to the CIA to be tortured. That by itself makes Assange's fear of extradition a matter of common sense, not paranoia. Since then, Obama launched more prosecutions of whisteblowers than all previous presidents combined, had one tortured for eighteen months before finding her guilty in a kangaroo court. The current Secretary of State is a big fan of torture, and the current head of the CIA is a torturer.
Hell, not only is Assange in the right to want extradition to the US blocked, Sweden is actually required to do so as a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids countries from extraditing to regimes that practice it. Regimes like the United States. But Sweden has ignored that treaty before - thus Assange's more than reasonable request that Sweden go on the record that this really is just about getting him to answer questions about an alleged rape.
Why is Sweden so much more convenient to pull Assange from than the United Kingdom -- where he was let out on bail from December 2011 to June 2012 -- which has a "special relationship" with the UK?
1) See above 2) see recent case where UK courts blocked the extradition of an accused hacker to the United States because of America's brutal prison system. The same prison system that saw Manning tortured and found guilty under unlawful command influence.
Can't even make up your own insult. Sad.
Obviously, it was throwing your BS back in your face. Obviously.
Oh, by the way, you skipped the whole "bail jumping" thing... probably because that act is indefensible.
You think UK police spend millions of pounds on every bail jumping case? Assange has offered to answer questions via video chat or in person if Swedish investigators come to the embassy in London. Sweden has done just that in dozens of other cases since Assange was granted asylum, so neither they nor you have any excuse here. And Assange has offered to give up his asylum and return to Sweden if they promise not to hand him over to the United States. Even if you think Assange is bluffing, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant him asylum.
So the allegations are so serious as to swear out an INTERPOL warrant and for the UK to spend millions of pounds keeping Assange under siege, yet Sweden has refused to make a simple promise that would have seen Assange back in their custody in a matter of days. Which tells anyone with two functioning brain cells that this isn't about an alleged rape and never was.
You most certainly do, when you're putting on a big show of not wanting to extradite someone to the USA when that is in fact your goal. It wouldn't even be the first time Sweden has used such a pretext - with a large helping of interrogating the suspect in solitary confinement but without a lawyer - with the destination country being Denmark rather than the US.
But regardless, ask Julian Assange about those territorial limits to US law, never mind that what he and Wikileaks has done is essentially the same thing Daniel Ellsberg and the NYT did when they published the "Pentagon Papers".
And none of the smarmy shitweasels in the mainstream press that have been shitting all over Assange seem to have any awareness of the precedent about to be set. Outfits like NYTimes, WaPo and the Guardian in particular were all happy to take classified information from Wikileaks and publish it, collecting money and rewards in the process. But now that they've hung Assange out to dry, they're asking to be prosecuted themselves the next time they publish classified information.
Did Daniel Ellsberg commit various sexual assaults and then jump bail to avoid answering those charges? No? Then it's essentially a completely different thing. But you knew that, you disingenuous hack.
Treading the alleged rape as credible at this point involves as much willful stupidity as expecting Saddam's WMD's to surface any day now.....any day now. From being cleared to leave the country by the prosecutor who heard the women's request for an STD test, to Sweden refusing to promise they wont hand Assange over to the United States, to refusing to interview Assange remotely as they've done in dozens of other cases since he sought asylum, it just goes on and on.
So pull your head out of John Brennan's ass already - you disingenuous hack.
It's not like police would limit this ability to just car thefts, they'd use it for active warrants on car owners as well. And police fuck up and kill innocent people all. the. time. Hell, just within the last week, cops have gunned down two "good guys with a gun" - a security guard and a man fleeing a shooting at a mall without warning.
So lets say the case of Brandon Mayfield happened today instead of 2004. Mayfield was falsely identified by the FBI as being a suspect in the Madrid train bombings via supposedly infallible fingerprint matching. The FBI takes remote control of Mayfield's Tesla, drives it a certain location where he is promptly shot and killed by federal agents. And the public goes on thinking that an innocent man was guilty, as he's no longer around to challenge the evidence against him.
When his name first surfaced in association with Wikileaks, he made it clear that he was simply the "spokesman," and did not "hack," or supervise the release of material, and had no way to know what the internal workings were.
Irrelevant distinction. Freedom of the press covers all of said press, it's hardly limited to reporters. Otherwise the government could haul in anyone from an editor to the owner and charge them with something.
That's how he circumvented culpability for a hell of a lot of years.
Culpability for what. Publishing information the powerful and corrupt would rather keep hidden? That is the ultimate act of journalism, not covering for war criminals or politicians who rig their own elections.
Wikileaks itself elevated interest in Assange when the organization turned political in a move to increase donations which had fallen off due to lack of interest by supporters.
You mean when banks cut off donations to Wikileaks because the CIA asked them to? The reason Assange was couch surfing in Sweden in the first place?
Wikileak's decline also affected Assange's visibility and he resented the lack of attention.
Funny how this line of sniveling dipshittery isn't deployed against people like Brian Williams or Rachael Maddow, who are paid twenty to thirty thousand per day to propagandize you.
Hillary is the only reason this is a story and anyone is having a conversation here - shit for brains. Hillary is all three legs of a three legged stool.
But since you did, what she did is far worse than what Hillary did, because she didn't know it was wrong and didn't run on a campaign based in large part on saying how wrong it was.
A single month of a private account in a non-classified position is "far worse" than years of a private server dealing with highly classified information? Way to make an ass clown out of yourself, bucko. And of cooooooourse Hillary knew what she was doing was wrong AF. Not only was she was given extra training as a top official on the need for security, she blasted the Bush Administration for its use of private email accounts a mere two years before starting her own private server. So watch this and get a vasectomy before you contaminate the gene pool.
But she certainly had the power and authority to deem things unclassified and Ivanka does not.
So Petraus should be given his job back at the CIA? You're sidestepping both 1) and 2). This whole declassification tangent - which would be news to Hillary and her circle as she's never claimed to have declassified those emails - is a red herring anyway. Just as much her emails were inherently classified, using an unsecured unauthorized server was inherently mishandling classified information. Her network administrator didn't even have a security clearance FFS.
You're being a partisan hack making an assclown out of yourself
I'm a socialist that would see every living president, CIA or State Department official in the Hague for war crimes, so good luck trying to fuck that chicken. It's called having a functioning bullshit detector, and objecting to bullshit no matter who the target is or who's dishing it out. Try it some time.
Ivanka's violation of the law by saying that it is somehow better than Hillary's violation of the law
But of course it is. Undeniably and indisputably so. By equating one month of private email use in a non-classified position to years of a private email server and highly classified information, you're only insulting your own intelligence here. This is as absurd as complaining that petty vandalism is being treated as a less serious issue than a prolific serial killer.
They are not comparable, as I've mentioned because one's use was explicitly a crime and the other's was not, in and of itself, a crime. Therefore the only person trying to make any sort of comparison between the two is you.
Willfully obtuse much? Equating the two is the entire purpose of this "story". And you keep comparing the two while you're protesting that the two aren't comparable. Let's cut to the chase here and use the same scenario but with a couple of name and date substitutions. Say it was Republicans freaking out at the news that Michelle Obama used a private email account for. one. god. damned. month. for White House affairs in 2009 before getting a government email address. You and every other person wearing holes in Ivanka's fainting couch would be laughing them out of the room.
For. One. God. Damned. Month.
If this was all a big scheme for Ivanka to do government business on a private email account to avoid prying eyes, it was as piss poor a plan as Putin being crafty enough to get a WWE character elected president but yet so stupid that he couldn't anticipate any blowback.
What would be the pretext in the UK? Assange isn't accused of committing any crimes there and thus they would have no reason to detain or question him. Even now, as the Trump DOJ is proving all of Assange's fears to be completely rational and his haters to be assholes, a foriegn state doing a snatch-and-grab on the CIA's say so in broad daylight would force people to pay attention. And the UK has denied extradition [theregister.co.uk] to the USA based on how brutally America treats it's prisoners. Prisoners like Chelsea Manning, who was tortured with solitary confinement for a year and a half. As opposed to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on an alleged crime (even though he was questioned and given permission to leave by a prosecutor) and that government has had no problems giving people to the US to be tortured.
Yes, that is a copy & paste. Because you completely ignored the lack of a pretext for questioning in the UK, the UK's recent refusal to extradite some prisoners to the USA because of how brutal the prisons are, and Sweden not having a problem handing people over to be tortured.
Hillary was found to have sent 65 emails on topics deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret" but that all of them contained material that was particularly sensitive because the content of the emails discussed things that were at the time of writing available in the public domain, i.e. newspapers and it's kind of dumb to fault somebody for discussing secret things in non-secure emails that are already being discussed in newspapers. Some emails were also classified retroactively.
That excuse from Democratic partisans contains more dishonesty than an entire years worth of Trump speeches and tweets, as much of that email correspondence would have been inherently classified. If Hillary sent or received an email from the ambassador to South Korea on the status of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, it didn't have to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such. As one of a few Original Classification Authorities, Hillary received special training on this and knows full well that the "they weren't marked classified" was pure sophistry and misdirection.
If the United States manages a snatch-and-grab on Snowden, I hope his defense team goes on network news to claim with a straight face that his actions were OK because the copies of documents he took didn't have a nice red 'classified' stamp on the front.
Additionally several FBI investigations found that there was no cause for any kind of prosecution.
Which was an additional pantload. Comey stated her actions were illegal but wasn't going to press charges because she didn't intend to mishandle classified information. It's a pantload because the government DGAF about your intent, only whether or not you did it. The contemporary case of Kristian Saucier puts this lie to bed - a sailor who served a year in prison, after being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking unauthorized selfies on his unsecured cell phone while on a sub. Even though the DOJ agreed he showed no intent in his actions.
If Hillary Clinton were Hillary Johnson, she would have been serving an effective life sentence for mishandling far larger amounts of far more classified information on her unsecured, unauthorized server. With another decade on top for obstruction of justice - deleting evidence while under active FBI investigation.
I came here to see what kind of phenomenally stupid weaseling a Trumptard might use to try to say that nothing wrong was done by Ivanka.
Having a functional bullshit detector - and comparing Ivanka using a private email account for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information for years on a private email server is complete and utter bullshit - doesn't make one a Trump supporter. Not anymore than you calling BS on the Birthers meant you loved Obama's drone strikes on children.
So take this drooling rant about unthinking partisan hacks to the nearest mirror, where it belongs.
People like you will just handwave away anything and make any kind of justification you can right? I have no idea why anyone feels the need to defend Trump or his family sooooooo much. It's as if an attack on them is an attack on you personally. It's quite pathetic.
I have no idea why some people think that calling out deranged BS targeted at X means you are an X supporter. If you told a Birther that he was an idiot for claiming Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper because they knew 45 years in advance that he might run for president, does that mean you were a big fan of his drone strikes on children?
And yes, comparing Ivanka using a private email account for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information for years on an unsecured, unauthorized server is utterly deranged.
Which means that Hillary was able to declassify information related to the State Department and Ivanka is not able to declassify anything.
1) Hillary saying she declassified the information so it was okay files in the face of her excuse that it was okay because the emails weren't marked classified at the time. Which was a big bald-faced lie that she and her supporters made because much of that information is inherently classified. If the SoS receives an email from the ambassador to India on the state of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, that email doesn't have to be stamped by some flunky as "classified" for it to be treated as such.
2) Are you arguing that she wasn't mishandling classified information, because the act of mishandling it made it declassified? David Petraus, who was prosecuted for sharing state secrets with his mistress, would be fascinated by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
What has that got to do with anything?
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Partisan hacks are making ass clowns out of themselves by comparing Ivananka using private email for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information on her home server for years.
Ivanka should go to prison because she specifically engaged in this activity AFTER a federal law was passed prohibiting it.
Uh huh. If you want to make that argument, knock yourself out. But don't pretend it's in the same universe as Hillary's email server. You wouldn't want to make an ass clown out of yourself, would you?
OF COURSE it was illegal. Anyone else would be serving decades in prison for mishandling classified evidence (using her unsecured server extensively & exclusively, without authorization) and obstruction of justice (destroying evidence while under FBI investigation). Even if there wasn't prison time for violating record keeping and FOIA laws which predate Obama's order on emails, despite what Democratic chicken-fuckers would have you believe.
Except that before she took up that official position she was already in the president's inner circle
So, you're just going to ignore the fact that she wasn't a federal employee at the time. Just like you'll ignore the fact that she wasn't dealing in the highest levels of classified information as part of her day job, and set up a private server in her own home to do it. Yes, that is a straight copy and paste - because you straight up ignored those problems with your storyline the first time.
Maybe less brainwashed false equivalencies? Hillary is the only government official to set up her own server, and use it extensively and excessively. 90% of the defense of Hillary is based on apples to oranges whatabboutery (Powell barely sent email, but some of it was on government accounts and some private so it's all equal and okay derp derp).
The other 10% is based on BS so bad it insults even the intelligence of the person spreading it with a small butter knife. Nonsense like her server being more secure because some random government database was compromised (name a time the email of the CIA or Pentagon directors have been hacked) or how her emails were OK because they weren't first stamped "classified" by some State Department flunky. As if an email about sensitive information (like nuclear weapons programs) has to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such.
Rage against the opposing party for using private email accounts only to do the same thing herself two years later.
Yes she did.
When. Is it as easy to find on Youtube as Hillary blasting the Bush Administration for using private email?
Why does it matter where the server was, exactly?
Why so willfully ignorant/obtuse? Other government officials have used private email. Hillary is the only one to set up her own server and use it extensively and exclusively.
Send thousands of classified emails from said account.
We don't know she didn't yet.
As I just pointed out to MoJo, one of the more craven lies told by Democrats on Hillary's server is that the emails weren't marked as classified so it was no big deal. Which is total BS, as much of that information was inherently classified. If you're the SoS and you get or send an email about a country's nuclear weapons program, that message doesn't have to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such.
Destroy thousands of pieces of evidence while under FBI investigation.
We don't know she didn't yet.
The fuck are you talking about. She deleted tens of thousands of emails while under FBI investigation, an indisputable fact. Why don't you try that and see how many decades the DOJ threatens you with for destruction of evidence.
Hey I have a novel idea: let's make one set of laws and they apply to everyone of both parties. Lock them both up.
Again: Hillary is the only one to set up her own server and use it extensively and exclusively. When she's served a sentence proportional to Krisian Saucier's (at which point she'll be dead from old age), call us.
The FBI found 3 Clinton emails with possibly sensitive info in the, not "thousands of classified" ones.
One of the more pernicious lies from Democrats on this issue is that the emails weren't marked as classified so Hillary's server was A-Okay. Which is total Nazi bullshit, as much of those conversations would have been inherently classified. If Hillary received an email from the ambassador to India on the state of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, that email didn't have to be stamped as "classified" for it to be considered as such. Which Hillary would have known, as she was given special training as an Original Classification Authority.
If the USG manages to get Edward Snowden in a snatch-and-grab, I hope he argues in court that his actions were A-Okay because none of the documents he leaked had a big Classified header when he copied them. If only so we can watch Hillbots go on trying to rationalize her incompetent bullshit.
Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President,
Which happened after her emails from a private server, at least according to Newsweek.
Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President, which is an official government position. Complete with all of us sending her a paycheck.
Still a complete horseshit equivalency - even if she's been using private email since joining the White House staff. She's not an Original Classification Authority, the way Hillary was, trading in the highest levels of classified information as a part of her job. Nor has Ivanka set up her own private email server in Jared's house, nor has she used it exclusively.
So, you're just going to ignore the fact that she wasn't a federal employee at the time. Just like you'll ignore the fact that she wasn't dealing in the highest levels of classified information as part of her day job, and set up a private server in her own home to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
By who, the United States? The only country to use nuclear weapons. For it to be another country in the region, like oh, say Iran, first they would need a nuclear weapons program. Which even the CIA and Mossad have admitted Iran doesn't have.
I would see Trump in the Hague next to Obama for war crimes, so good luck with your projection. Anymore dipshittery? No more arguing that an unpaid federal position using a private account for one. god. damned. month. is a more serious issue than one of the top cabinet posts doing so for years?
If you're willfully obtuse, sure you can see it that way.
Pedantic distinction without a difference.
Not if you believe there's merit to the allegations and you're dealing with a foreign national that has made it clear he's about to leave the country. Then they release you from custody but keep your passport.
Do you comment on many subjects at length where you have a comical level of ignorance, or just this one? In 2001, Sweden arrested a couple of men and handed them over to the CIA to be tortured. That by itself makes Assange's fear of extradition a matter of common sense, not paranoia. Since then, Obama launched more prosecutions of whisteblowers than all previous presidents combined, had one tortured for eighteen months before finding her guilty in a kangaroo court. The current Secretary of State is a big fan of torture, and the current head of the CIA is a torturer.
Hell, not only is Assange in the right to want extradition to the US blocked, Sweden is actually required to do so as a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids countries from extraditing to regimes that practice it. Regimes like the United States. But Sweden has ignored that treaty before - thus Assange's more than reasonable request that Sweden go on the record that this really is just about getting him to answer questions about an alleged rape.
1) See above 2) see recent case where UK courts blocked the extradition of an accused hacker to the United States because of America's brutal prison system. The same prison system that saw Manning tortured and found guilty under unlawful command influence.
Obviously, it was throwing your BS back in your face. Obviously.
You think UK police spend millions of pounds on every bail jumping case? Assange has offered to answer questions via video chat or in person if Swedish investigators come to the embassy in London. Sweden has done just that in dozens of other cases since Assange was granted asylum, so neither they nor you have any excuse here. And Assange has offered to give up his asylum and return to Sweden if they promise not to hand him over to the United States. Even if you think Assange is bluffing, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant him asylum.
So the allegations are so serious as to swear out an INTERPOL warrant and for the UK to spend millions of pounds keeping Assange under siege, yet Sweden has refused to make a simple promise that would have seen Assange back in their custody in a matter of days. Which tells anyone with two functioning brain cells that this isn't about an alleged rape and never was.
You most certainly do, when you're putting on a big show of not wanting to extradite someone to the USA when that is in fact your goal. It wouldn't even be the first time Sweden has used such a pretext - with a large helping of interrogating the suspect in solitary confinement but without a lawyer - with the destination country being Denmark rather than the US.
And none of the smarmy shitweasels in the mainstream press that have been shitting all over Assange seem to have any awareness of the precedent about to be set. Outfits like NYTimes, WaPo and the Guardian in particular were all happy to take classified information from Wikileaks and publish it, collecting money and rewards in the process. But now that they've hung Assange out to dry, they're asking to be prosecuted themselves the next time they publish classified information.
Treading the alleged rape as credible at this point involves as much willful stupidity as expecting Saddam's WMD's to surface any day now.....any day now. From being cleared to leave the country by the prosecutor who heard the women's request for an STD test, to Sweden refusing to promise they wont hand Assange over to the United States, to refusing to interview Assange remotely as they've done in dozens of other cases since he sought asylum, it just goes on and on.
So pull your head out of John Brennan's ass already - you disingenuous hack.
Right, because they weren't sold a bill of goods by people pushing for the EU in the first place, or told any lies by Remain. /inserteyerollemoji
It's not like police would limit this ability to just car thefts, they'd use it for active warrants on car owners as well. And police fuck up and kill innocent people all. the. time. Hell, just within the last week, cops have gunned down two "good guys with a gun" - a security guard and a man fleeing a shooting at a mall without warning.
So lets say the case of Brandon Mayfield happened today instead of 2004. Mayfield was falsely identified by the FBI as being a suspect in the Madrid train bombings via supposedly infallible fingerprint matching. The FBI takes remote control of Mayfield's Tesla, drives it a certain location where he is promptly shot and killed by federal agents. And the public goes on thinking that an innocent man was guilty, as he's no longer around to challenge the evidence against him.
Irrelevant distinction. Freedom of the press covers all of said press, it's hardly limited to reporters. Otherwise the government could haul in anyone from an editor to the owner and charge them with something.
Culpability for what. Publishing information the powerful and corrupt would rather keep hidden? That is the ultimate act of journalism, not covering for war criminals or politicians who rig their own elections.
You mean when banks cut off donations to Wikileaks because the CIA asked them to? The reason Assange was couch surfing in Sweden in the first place?
Funny how this line of sniveling dipshittery isn't deployed against people like Brian Williams or Rachael Maddow, who are paid twenty to thirty thousand per day to propagandize you.
Hillary is the only reason this is a story and anyone is having a conversation here - shit for brains. Hillary is all three legs of a three legged stool.
A single month of a private account in a non-classified position is "far worse" than years of a private server dealing with highly classified information? Way to make an ass clown out of yourself, bucko. And of cooooooourse Hillary knew what she was doing was wrong AF. Not only was she was given extra training as a top official on the need for security, she blasted the Bush Administration for its use of private email accounts a mere two years before starting her own private server. So watch this and get a vasectomy before you contaminate the gene pool.
So Petraus should be given his job back at the CIA? You're sidestepping both 1) and 2). This whole declassification tangent - which would be news to Hillary and her circle as she's never claimed to have declassified those emails - is a red herring anyway. Just as much her emails were inherently classified, using an unsecured unauthorized server was inherently mishandling classified information. Her network administrator didn't even have a security clearance FFS.
I'm a socialist that would see every living president, CIA or State Department official in the Hague for war crimes, so good luck trying to fuck that chicken. It's called having a functioning bullshit detector, and objecting to bullshit no matter who the target is or who's dishing it out. Try it some time.
But of course it is. Undeniably and indisputably so. By equating one month of private email use in a non-classified position to years of a private email server and highly classified information, you're only insulting your own intelligence here. This is as absurd as complaining that petty vandalism is being treated as a less serious issue than a prolific serial killer.
Willfully obtuse much? Equating the two is the entire purpose of this "story". And you keep comparing the two while you're protesting that the two aren't comparable. Let's cut to the chase here and use the same scenario but with a couple of name and date substitutions. Say it was Republicans freaking out at the news that Michelle Obama used a private email account for. one. god. damned. month. for White House affairs in 2009 before getting a government email address. You and every other person wearing holes in Ivanka's fainting couch would be laughing them out of the room.
For.
One.
God.
Damned.
Month.
If this was all a big scheme for Ivanka to do government business on a private email account to avoid prying eyes, it was as piss poor a plan as Putin being crafty enough to get a WWE character elected president but yet so stupid that he couldn't anticipate any blowback.
What would be the pretext in the UK? Assange isn't accused of committing any crimes there and thus they would have no reason to detain or question him. Even now, as the Trump DOJ is proving all of Assange's fears to be completely rational and his haters to be assholes, a foriegn state doing a snatch-and-grab on the CIA's say so in broad daylight would force people to pay attention. And the UK has denied extradition [theregister.co.uk] to the USA based on how brutally America treats it's prisoners. Prisoners like Chelsea Manning, who was tortured with solitary confinement for a year and a half. As opposed to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on an alleged crime (even though he was questioned and given permission to leave by a prosecutor) and that government has had no problems giving people to the US to be tortured.
Yes, that is a copy & paste. Because you completely ignored the lack of a pretext for questioning in the UK, the UK's recent refusal to extradite some prisoners to the USA because of how brutal the prisons are, and Sweden not having a problem handing people over to be tortured.
That excuse from Democratic partisans contains more dishonesty than an entire years worth of Trump speeches and tweets, as much of that email correspondence would have been inherently classified. If Hillary sent or received an email from the ambassador to South Korea on the status of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, it didn't have to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such. As one of a few Original Classification Authorities, Hillary received special training on this and knows full well that the "they weren't marked classified" was pure sophistry and misdirection.
If the United States manages a snatch-and-grab on Snowden, I hope his defense team goes on network news to claim with a straight face that his actions were OK because the copies of documents he took didn't have a nice red 'classified' stamp on the front.
Which was an additional pantload. Comey stated her actions were illegal but wasn't going to press charges because she didn't intend to mishandle classified information. It's a pantload because the government DGAF about your intent, only whether or not you did it. The contemporary case of Kristian Saucier puts this lie to bed - a sailor who served a year in prison, after being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking unauthorized selfies on his unsecured cell phone while on a sub. Even though the DOJ agreed he showed no intent in his actions.
If Hillary Clinton were Hillary Johnson, she would have been serving an effective life sentence for mishandling far larger amounts of far more classified information on her unsecured, unauthorized server. With another decade on top for obstruction of justice - deleting evidence while under active FBI investigation.
Having a functional bullshit detector - and comparing Ivanka using a private email account for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information for years on a private email server is complete and utter bullshit - doesn't make one a Trump supporter. Not anymore than you calling BS on the Birthers meant you loved Obama's drone strikes on children.
So take this drooling rant about unthinking partisan hacks to the nearest mirror, where it belongs.
I have no idea why some people think that calling out deranged BS targeted at X means you are an X supporter. If you told a Birther that he was an idiot for claiming Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper because they knew 45 years in advance that he might run for president, does that mean you were a big fan of his drone strikes on children?
And yes, comparing Ivanka using a private email account for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information for years on an unsecured, unauthorized server is utterly deranged.
1) Hillary saying she declassified the information so it was okay files in the face of her excuse that it was okay because the emails weren't marked classified at the time. Which was a big bald-faced lie that she and her supporters made because much of that information is inherently classified. If the SoS receives an email from the ambassador to India on the state of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, that email doesn't have to be stamped by some flunky as "classified" for it to be treated as such.
2) Are you arguing that she wasn't mishandling classified information, because the act of mishandling it made it declassified? David Petraus, who was prosecuted for sharing state secrets with his mistress, would be fascinated by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Partisan hacks are making ass clowns out of themselves by comparing Ivananka using private email for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information on her home server for years.
Uh huh. If you want to make that argument, knock yourself out. But don't pretend it's in the same universe as Hillary's email server. You wouldn't want to make an ass clown out of yourself, would you?
Not coming within a 20 lightyear-foot pole of being an equivalence to HRC's private email server. Not that it would justify HRC even if it did.
OF COURSE it was illegal. Anyone else would be serving decades in prison for mishandling classified evidence (using her unsecured server extensively & exclusively, without authorization) and obstruction of justice (destroying evidence while under FBI investigation). Even if there wasn't prison time for violating record keeping and FOIA laws which predate Obama's order on emails, despite what Democratic chicken-fuckers would have you believe.
So, you're just going to ignore the fact that she wasn't a federal employee at the time. Just like you'll ignore the fact that she wasn't dealing in the highest levels of classified information as part of her day job, and set up a private server in her own home to do it. Yes, that is a straight copy and paste - because you straight up ignored those problems with your storyline the first time.
Maybe less brainwashed false equivalencies? Hillary is the only government official to set up her own server, and use it extensively and excessively. 90% of the defense of Hillary is based on apples to oranges whatabboutery (Powell barely sent email, but some of it was on government accounts and some private so it's all equal and okay derp derp).
The other 10% is based on BS so bad it insults even the intelligence of the person spreading it with a small butter knife. Nonsense like her server being more secure because some random government database was compromised (name a time the email of the CIA or Pentagon directors have been hacked) or how her emails were OK because they weren't first stamped "classified" by some State Department flunky. As if an email about sensitive information (like nuclear weapons programs) has to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such.
When. Is it as easy to find on Youtube as Hillary blasting the Bush Administration for using private email?
Why so willfully ignorant/obtuse? Other government officials have used private email. Hillary is the only one to set up her own server and use it extensively and exclusively.
As I just pointed out to MoJo, one of the more craven lies told by Democrats on Hillary's server is that the emails weren't marked as classified so it was no big deal. Which is total BS, as much of that information was inherently classified. If you're the SoS and you get or send an email about a country's nuclear weapons program, that message doesn't have to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such.
The fuck are you talking about. She deleted tens of thousands of emails while under FBI investigation, an indisputable fact. Why don't you try that and see how many decades the DOJ threatens you with for destruction of evidence.
Again: Hillary is the only one to set up her own server and use it extensively and exclusively. When she's served a sentence proportional to Krisian Saucier's (at which point she'll be dead from old age), call us.
One of the more pernicious lies from Democrats on this issue is that the emails weren't marked as classified so Hillary's server was A-Okay. Which is total Nazi bullshit, as much of those conversations would have been inherently classified. If Hillary received an email from the ambassador to India on the state of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, that email didn't have to be stamped as "classified" for it to be considered as such. Which Hillary would have known, as she was given special training as an Original Classification Authority.
If the USG manages to get Edward Snowden in a snatch-and-grab, I hope he argues in court that his actions were A-Okay because none of the documents he leaked had a big Classified header when he copied them. If only so we can watch Hillbots go on trying to rationalize her incompetent bullshit.
Which happened after her emails from a private server, at least according to Newsweek.
Still a complete horseshit equivalency - even if she's been using private email since joining the White House staff. She's not an Original Classification Authority, the way Hillary was, trading in the highest levels of classified information as a part of her job. Nor has Ivanka set up her own private email server in Jared's house, nor has she used it exclusively.
So, you're just going to ignore the fact that she wasn't a federal employee at the time. Just like you'll ignore the fact that she wasn't dealing in the highest levels of classified information as part of her day job, and set up a private server in her own home to do it.