That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- and she didn't use a state department account AT ALL. How can this not ring some alarm inside your head?
She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found. How many more billions of dollars investigating Hillary need to happen before your alarm is silenced?
There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.
So, sometimes where there's smoke, there's just a smoky BBQ, not an actual fire. How many more years and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to be spent until your alarm goes quiet?
Palin wasn't dealing with top-secret State Department traffic.
Neither was Hillary. The top-secret stuff came in different channels. At best, someone hacked into the server might be able to identify the time and place she was handed top-secret material, but not the contents.
In fact, Palin properly separated her personal and political emails from her "official" government email.
In fact, she didn't.
Finally, Palin properly preserved all her emails.
No, she didn't.
But with no governemnt investigation into her, there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing to start an investigation. Hillary has always been subject to the standard that they investigate to find something they don't know is there. But Palin (and others on the (R) side) aren't subject to the same scrutiny.
Read the OP. The "oppression of minorities" always comes back to some religious extremists, or Tibet. I was addressing the "oppression of minorities" as a fallacy. Oppression of everyone is equal, though some minorities complain more than others.
Not a single criminal complaint of "rape" against him. Some civil suits and informal accusations, but no formal signed accusations of rape, where the accuser would be liable for perjury for false statements.
The scan wasn't run on the server. It was run on the IP of the server. A PAT on the router before the server would allow for that the router, or a different server behind it to have RDP open. But running a scan against an IP with no knowledge of what that IP is doesn't prove any particular machine was insecure.
As opposed to (R) Palin using Yahoo Mail for government business? She got a free pass for that one, the free pass funded by (R), who are against the same thing done by (D) Clinton, but not when done by (R) Rice or (R) Powell.
Yes, the whole thing stinks like shit, but not for the reasons you list.
Name the lie (about the email server). Nobody has proven a lie about that, or Monica, or Whitewater, or any of the other politically motivated witch hunts. All we get are investigations and assertions of lies, but no actual lies, nor proof of any misdeed worthy of action.
While at the very least, Hillary set up a private email server (and a not particularly secure one) against government protocol.
Nope. She did what Rice and Powell had done before her. There were no rules against it at the time. The rules passed after exempted the existing external email. They still haven't found a law or rule broken, despite billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent investigating the Clintons. You'd think the "small government" (R) would try to save money, rather than blowing billions on witch hunts and goose chases.
Of course, flagrant violation of security rules like this would get you or me thrown in prison.
Nope. For one, she didn't break any rules (all the rules that it breaks came after it was up and running, and she had explicit permission to continue). And for another, there is nothing illegal about breaking a department rule. If she did insecurely store classified documents, it's only because someone else illegally emailed classified documents, which nobody is raising their hand to confess to that crime.
Anyone sending Hillary classified information was breaking the rules to email it in the first place, so her assertions that she was not emailed classified documents seems rational.
repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious.
Name the lie. I've seen the accusations of lies against the Clintons for 30 years. But *never* have any of them stuck. And yet again, unsubstantiated accusations of "lying about it" being the problem, without actually establishing the lie.
The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem.
Are you talking about Fox News, of the Kerry Swift Boating now?
If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.
Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her? Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken, and nobody has been able to show otherwise. At some point it looks like a witch hunt, not accountability.
That's a lie. She is being excused because she did what every (R) before her did, she didn't use the government server (if any). The law didn't require her to do so. She broke no law. She's seeing more scrutiny over this than Palin did for using Yahoo mail for official Alaska business, in violation of state law. Palin got a big pass from the (R), as well as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell who also did not use government servers for email.
This gets a pass from (D) because it's obviously a political witch hunt, no more. Like the Planned Parenthood hearings, and the Benghazi hearings, both now admittedly purely political in nature. The (R) is spending billions of taxpayer money harassing the (D). Hillary has been under constant investigation for over 20 years, and nothing has been found.
Did she ever deny the existence of it? I see that pushed as one of her denials. When I've never seen that denial, and the denials I've seen were about hiding emails, sending classified emails, and other misuse of email, but not the existence of the email server.
When did she deny having a server? The only quotes I can find deny that she set up one for the purpose of hiding emails. And denying that she broke any law. But I guess denying one has shoes on is proof of denial of socks.
Mind you, to truly grasp any of this, you'd have to understand the world for what it is, not what you've been led to believe it is.
That problem is almost uniquely American. The world often has police forces who place the good of the people above the good of the government or themselves.
One clear example of this is pursuit policies. Most countries will have police abandon pursuits when they become dangerous. In the US, a dangerous pursuit is pressed as needing punishment more urgently.
Yes, I know Americans come back with "what, you are going to let them go free", but in many cases, the pursuit ends when the suspect crashes, often into an innocent. So the protection of the innocent is more important than the iron fist rule of the government.
In NZ, tasers are considered lethal (for most purposes). You *never* tase someone you wouldn't shoot. You just tase them first, rather than shooting. Not all cops carry guns, and you can't carry a taser unless you have a gun (A cop friend won't car a taser because he doesn't want to have the gun he'd have to have with it). Shootings (with taser or gun) are roughly the same after as before, but tasings have replaced some shootings.
The problem is the US perception of tasers being "non lethal" thus safe for casual use. If the use of a taser was written up and investigated the exact same way as a firearm discharge, there'd be almost no use of tasers.
Well, not for poor people. GW Bush, against AA, got into Yale based on who his father was, and his daughters Jenna and Barbara were given lots of discretion when drinking under age, and it took a private citizen who didn't like Bush to press the issue to get his daughters arrested. They lasted years using fake IDs (yes, the daughter of the Governor of Texas was drinking a few miles from the capitol with a fake ID, oh, and said daughters of the Governor were also granddaughters of the President). I have friends who were in school with them, and it was a joke to see the known celebrities bar hopping on fake IDs. And they did it for a long time, slightly caught many times, until a liberal bartender threatened a scandal if nothing was done, so they were arrested, and released. Though the national media focuses on the times they were caught http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... and not the times the police took them away "to be booked" and instead dropped them off home. Note in the story, neither was cited at the time of the offense (standard procedure). Because they generally cite and release, moving on to the next infringement, as there are so many. But they took them away and cited them later. Probably hoping that a call from the president would get the bar owner's story changed. When it didn't, they had to press the issue because the complete lack of rule of law for the 1% would be sufficiently obvious that it would have hurt the Bush politics more than the alcohol trouble.
If the cops gave the benefit of the doubt to everyone the way they do the priviledged, then there'd be almost no crime. I had more than one friend, back in the day, get a warning for a felony. Of course, all of them were white. A black friend spent the night in jail until a relative could show up the next day proving identity. He was arrested for lying about his identity, which is a crime. But he never lied about his identity. That's how walking while black is treated, and why the crime rate is so high. If you are going to jail simply for breathing, you might as well steal a TV while you are at it. It's jail either way.
And yes, the cops broke the law keeping an under-aged person in adult jail overnight. But someone too young to drive doesn't have a license/ID on them, so you presume them an adult and lock them up. When it's a destitute black child, nobody cares. Try that arrest with the Bush girls (as they were using fake ID, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume all their ID was fake, until confirmed by a 3rd party), and you'd have seen a massive outcry from the whites, upset that their privilege wasn't respected.
Could you clarify? The Tibetans deserved it because they didn't mind too much, since they didn't fight. Or Native Americans deserved it because they did fight?
I'm unclear on you stance as to which is the apple and which is the orange. You claim they aren't comparable, then compare them. But never state which is worse, which was my statement you are correcting, so I'd assume you'd have some opinion on that otherwise, why bother to post.
A slut having a tad bit of buyers remorse is not the same as rape, and is more of a victim of her own choices.
It isn't anywhere in the world, except Sweden, based on what I've seen around this case.
Here's a thought, make better choices to start. If you dress up like a street working whore, then you can't be offended when people mistake you for one.
So it's more important that the woman dress like your mother, than the men decide to not attack and rape women? And you wonder why you and SJWs don't get along...
In the US there is a presumption of innocence (not held to a high standard) and a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction standard.
But the presumption of innocence pretty much applies as a jury instruction, and nothing else. The police shooting unarmed people in the back are certainly not presuming innocence. Judges and grand juries rely on a much weaker standard to bring charges.
Slashdot Mirror
That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- and she didn't use a state department account AT ALL. How can this not ring some alarm inside your head?
She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found. How many more billions of dollars investigating Hillary need to happen before your alarm is silenced?
There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.
So, sometimes where there's smoke, there's just a smoky BBQ, not an actual fire. How many more years and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to be spent until your alarm goes quiet?
Palin wasn't dealing with top-secret State Department traffic.
Neither was Hillary. The top-secret stuff came in different channels. At best, someone hacked into the server might be able to identify the time and place she was handed top-secret material, but not the contents.
In fact, Palin properly separated her personal and political emails from her "official" government email.
In fact, she didn't.
Finally, Palin properly preserved all her emails.
No, she didn't.
But with no governemnt investigation into her, there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing to start an investigation. Hillary has always been subject to the standard that they investigate to find something they don't know is there. But Palin (and others on the (R) side) aren't subject to the same scrutiny.
Read the OP. The "oppression of minorities" always comes back to some religious extremists, or Tibet. I was addressing the "oppression of minorities" as a fallacy. Oppression of everyone is equal, though some minorities complain more than others.
She did what Rice and Powell did before her. But it's only a problem when she does it. Why?
That, and why is it her "home server"? Was it physically in their home? Why wouldn't someone put it in a host of some kind?
Not a single criminal complaint of "rape" against him. Some civil suits and informal accusations, but no formal signed accusations of rape, where the accuser would be liable for perjury for false statements.
The scan wasn't run on the server. It was run on the IP of the server. A PAT on the router before the server would allow for that the router, or a different server behind it to have RDP open. But running a scan against an IP with no knowledge of what that IP is doesn't prove any particular machine was insecure.
As opposed to (R) Palin using Yahoo Mail for government business? She got a free pass for that one, the free pass funded by (R), who are against the same thing done by (D) Clinton, but not when done by (R) Rice or (R) Powell.
Yes, the whole thing stinks like shit, but not for the reasons you list.
She did what Rice and Powell did before her. Yet she's the first to have committed an error in doing so. Why?
Name the lie (about the email server). Nobody has proven a lie about that, or Monica, or Whitewater, or any of the other politically motivated witch hunts. All we get are investigations and assertions of lies, but no actual lies, nor proof of any misdeed worthy of action.
While at the very least, Hillary set up a private email server (and a not particularly secure one) against government protocol.
Nope. She did what Rice and Powell had done before her. There were no rules against it at the time. The rules passed after exempted the existing external email. They still haven't found a law or rule broken, despite billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent investigating the Clintons. You'd think the "small government" (R) would try to save money, rather than blowing billions on witch hunts and goose chases.
Of course, flagrant violation of security rules like this would get you or me thrown in prison.
Nope. For one, she didn't break any rules (all the rules that it breaks came after it was up and running, and she had explicit permission to continue). And for another, there is nothing illegal about breaking a department rule. If she did insecurely store classified documents, it's only because someone else illegally emailed classified documents, which nobody is raising their hand to confess to that crime.
I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"
More like, "She didn't break a law, so stop spending millions of taxpayer's dollars investigating her."
Anyone sending Hillary classified information was breaking the rules to email it in the first place, so her assertions that she was not emailed classified documents seems rational.
repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious.
Name the lie. I've seen the accusations of lies against the Clintons for 30 years. But *never* have any of them stuck. And yet again, unsubstantiated accusations of "lying about it" being the problem, without actually establishing the lie.
The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem.
Are you talking about Fox News, of the Kerry Swift Boating now?
If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.
Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her? Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken, and nobody has been able to show otherwise. At some point it looks like a witch hunt, not accountability.
That's a lie. She is being excused because she did what every (R) before her did, she didn't use the government server (if any). The law didn't require her to do so. She broke no law. She's seeing more scrutiny over this than Palin did for using Yahoo mail for official Alaska business, in violation of state law. Palin got a big pass from the (R), as well as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell who also did not use government servers for email.
This gets a pass from (D) because it's obviously a political witch hunt, no more. Like the Planned Parenthood hearings, and the Benghazi hearings, both now admittedly purely political in nature. The (R) is spending billions of taxpayer money harassing the (D). Hillary has been under constant investigation for over 20 years, and nothing has been found.
Bill Clinton can rape people, and it is okay,
Who did Bill rape?
You are making lots of wild acusations, but I see nothing in support of them. Did I miss this week's Conspiracy Times?
Did she ever deny the existence of it? I see that pushed as one of her denials. When I've never seen that denial, and the denials I've seen were about hiding emails, sending classified emails, and other misuse of email, but not the existence of the email server.
When did she deny having a server? The only quotes I can find deny that she set up one for the purpose of hiding emails. And denying that she broke any law. But I guess denying one has shoes on is proof of denial of socks.
Mind you, to truly grasp any of this, you'd have to understand the world for what it is, not what you've been led to believe it is.
That problem is almost uniquely American. The world often has police forces who place the good of the people above the good of the government or themselves.
One clear example of this is pursuit policies. Most countries will have police abandon pursuits when they become dangerous. In the US, a dangerous pursuit is pressed as needing punishment more urgently.
Yes, I know Americans come back with "what, you are going to let them go free", but in many cases, the pursuit ends when the suspect crashes, often into an innocent. So the protection of the innocent is more important than the iron fist rule of the government.
In NZ, tasers are considered lethal (for most purposes). You *never* tase someone you wouldn't shoot. You just tase them first, rather than shooting. Not all cops carry guns, and you can't carry a taser unless you have a gun (A cop friend won't car a taser because he doesn't want to have the gun he'd have to have with it). Shootings (with taser or gun) are roughly the same after as before, but tasings have replaced some shootings.
The problem is the US perception of tasers being "non lethal" thus safe for casual use. If the use of a taser was written up and investigated the exact same way as a firearm discharge, there'd be almost no use of tasers.
[cops] rarely use their discretion any more.
Well, not for poor people. GW Bush, against AA, got into Yale based on who his father was, and his daughters Jenna and Barbara were given lots of discretion when drinking under age, and it took a private citizen who didn't like Bush to press the issue to get his daughters arrested. They lasted years using fake IDs (yes, the daughter of the Governor of Texas was drinking a few miles from the capitol with a fake ID, oh, and said daughters of the Governor were also granddaughters of the President). I have friends who were in school with them, and it was a joke to see the known celebrities bar hopping on fake IDs. And they did it for a long time, slightly caught many times, until a liberal bartender threatened a scandal if nothing was done, so they were arrested, and released. Though the national media focuses on the times they were caught http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... and not the times the police took them away "to be booked" and instead dropped them off home. Note in the story, neither was cited at the time of the offense (standard procedure). Because they generally cite and release, moving on to the next infringement, as there are so many. But they took them away and cited them later. Probably hoping that a call from the president would get the bar owner's story changed. When it didn't, they had to press the issue because the complete lack of rule of law for the 1% would be sufficiently obvious that it would have hurt the Bush politics more than the alcohol trouble.
If the cops gave the benefit of the doubt to everyone the way they do the priviledged, then there'd be almost no crime. I had more than one friend, back in the day, get a warning for a felony. Of course, all of them were white. A black friend spent the night in jail until a relative could show up the next day proving identity. He was arrested for lying about his identity, which is a crime. But he never lied about his identity. That's how walking while black is treated, and why the crime rate is so high. If you are going to jail simply for breathing, you might as well steal a TV while you are at it. It's jail either way.
And yes, the cops broke the law keeping an under-aged person in adult jail overnight. But someone too young to drive doesn't have a license/ID on them, so you presume them an adult and lock them up. When it's a destitute black child, nobody cares. Try that arrest with the Bush girls (as they were using fake ID, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume all their ID was fake, until confirmed by a 3rd party), and you'd have seen a massive outcry from the whites, upset that their privilege wasn't respected.
Could you clarify? The Tibetans deserved it because they didn't mind too much, since they didn't fight. Or Native Americans deserved it because they did fight?
I'm unclear on you stance as to which is the apple and which is the orange. You claim they aren't comparable, then compare them. But never state which is worse, which was my statement you are correcting, so I'd assume you'd have some opinion on that otherwise, why bother to post.
A slut having a tad bit of buyers remorse is not the same as rape, and is more of a victim of her own choices.
It isn't anywhere in the world, except Sweden, based on what I've seen around this case.
Here's a thought, make better choices to start. If you dress up like a street working whore, then you can't be offended when people mistake you for one.
So it's more important that the woman dress like your mother, than the men decide to not attack and rape women? And you wonder why you and SJWs don't get along...
In the US there is a presumption of innocence (not held to a high standard) and a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction standard.
But the presumption of innocence pretty much applies as a jury instruction, and nothing else. The police shooting unarmed people in the back are certainly not presuming innocence. Judges and grand juries rely on a much weaker standard to bring charges.