So widely reported that it's obvious that only people who are trying to wish it away by pretending they can't read are the ones shocked, shocked! that it's not showing up where they hang out at MSNBC. I know, reading is hard.
You're not reading comments asking for taken from the special donor list, and saying it's "last call" for appointments? That all just smells OK to you? You understand that any offer of a position that's tied to one's status as a campaign supporter is illegal, right?
The faux laziness of Hillary supporters who want to maintain the ability to pretend they're unaware of her and her campaign's corruption never ceases to amaze. I know, that whole google searching thing is laborious, isn't it?
Go to any of the numerous news outlets that have already culled out the boring email from the big dump, and just dig out the stuff from DNC finance boss Scott Corner. He's actually somewhat apologetic that he can't promise some contributors would get anything better than "The President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History" in exchange for being loyal campaign supporters.
I was responding in a tone I thought appropriate to a comment in a tone that couldn't be serious. DNC finance boss Scott Corner's solicitations of names and contact info and the ensuing conversation about doling out appointments to supporters (even as he tried to lower expectations about just how juicy a given appointment might be for supporters - he apologetically said "It’s much more likely they’ll get something like ‘President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.’") has been widely reported. Anyone who's actually interested in any of this would have to go out of their way to avoid reading highlights like these. Numerous outlets have already done the dirty work of digging out the "interesting" emails from among the pile of more mundane stuff, so you don't have to hunt them down yourself.
Have you read the emails? You know, where Clinton's DNC operatives are gleefully making jokes about Mexican ethnicity, ridiculing a black woman over her name, that sort of thing? Not paying attention when Hillary Clinton makes remarks about getting some "colored people time" in her schedule? No? Too distasteful for you? I see.
If he's in cahoots with Putin and the like, why are the GOP still so in love with him?
What indication, other than the breathless nonsense uttered by a Hillary shill in an interview, do you have that Trump is "in cahoots" with the Russians? Be specific.
The only connection between Trump and the Russians is that both of them find her to be an annoying liar. Of course everybody else notices that, too. Which means we're ALL in on the conspiracy, right? Please.
The GOP still likes to rattle their sabres at them from time to time, yet for some reason now they're buddy-buddy.
Please provide examples of this buddy-buddy relationship you're describing, which appears to be exactly the opposite of reality.
The real issue is the fact that DNC tried to stop Bernie with a few underhanded tactics.
Oh, it's better than that. We also get to see them denigrating people based on their ethnicity, making fun of a black woman's name, and (the best part) conspiring to violate the US Code in the offering of quid pro quo government appointments in exchange for Hillary campaign support.
I haven't read the emails, but I don't believe they expose any crimes committed by the DNC
Conspiring to violate 18 USC/599 is a federal crime. The rest is just typical liberal crap on display (hey! nobody's looking! let's use disparaging references to ethnic groups and make fun of a black woman's name!), but that's simply them displaying their hypocrisy. It's the whole caught-in-the-act of offering quid pro quo on promising government appointments to high profile supporters that actually breaks the law.
What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious.
Among other things, the emails show direct discussions surrounding the promising of high profile government positions to generous campaign supporters and contributors. A direct violation of 18 U.S.C./599. That's a crime.
The fact: she claimed repeatedly she only used one device, and explained WHY she only used one device. The FBI said that her claims, as demonstrated by her use of several devices, were "untrue." She spoke untruthfully. How much more simple do you need it to be? SHE is the one that made such a big deal bout "one device," citing it as the primary reason she turned away the official systems she was supposed to be using. Are you really going with "maybe she doesn't doesn't remember that very well" or "some people forget things" etc to explain why she was untruthful with her story line?
No, you're missing the point. I mentioned the obviously misleading regular assertion by her about her use of "only one phone" because it fits into the pattern, plain to anyone who's been paying attention,and confirmed by the FBI, that she was not telling the truth about nearly every aspect of the whole topic. Along the way, she's asserted that she made the decision to use "only one phone" because it would have been inconvenient to have to carry more than one device. That was (at one point, before she changed her story several more times) her justification for using a single private email account to conduct all of her official business. It's now clear that that explanation was pure, deliberate fiction. She (and sometimes her aides) carried multiple devices. This demonstrates that she was looking you in the eye and lying about that. The FBI confirmed that, saying that her assertion on that front was "untrue."
The IT and security people at the State Department said that they warned her multiple times about the problems - both in terms of security, and in terms of complying with federal records laws - with her choice to refuse to use an official DoS email box. They got so much push back from her and her team that finally the head of that department told their worried employees to never talk about it again. The FBI has interviewed these people and confirms that. But Clinton said - repeatedly - that she specifically talked to State's IT, security, and legal people about using her own server and they said it was "approved." The FBI says that there not only no indication of any such request ever having even been made by her or any of her team, but that every layer of the DoS IT and security and legal apparatus say they would have flatly said "No!" to any such request. The FBI director says that her assertions about having asked for and received such approvals were "untrue" - they never happened. It goes on and on.
The FBI investigated all of these things because they were part of establishing the circumstances and motivations surrounding her mishandling of classified information - acts which the FBI director assures us would get anyone other than her in administrative legal hot water, at least, in their careers. So while checking out how and why so much mishandling occurred over the course of YEARS on Clinton's part, we see topic after topic on which she stated untruthfully what it was about and why and how or even whether she did such things. You're attributing ALL of her actions and everything she said for years afterwards to simple problems of context and "sloppiness?"
Even if we ignore the career-ending, no-security-clearance-for-you consequences that anyone else would face for both those acts and the lies following them, let's take your spin on it at face value. Is someone so spectacularly incompetent, careless, forgetful, and unable to judge the hiring of underlings to the point where an entire team of them ALSO all make the same "mistakes" and can't describe things truthfully really who should be the top law enforcement, intelligence, and military command figure in the country?
Are you sure you wouldn't rather tell me you can't talk to strangers until they promise they've read a link that Hillary told you to show to people whenever they ask you questions? I mean, you've put in all this effort to avoid ever backing up your own position with thoughts of your own, so why stop? Unless it just feels good to you to admit you really don't have anything coherent to say about pretending to throw away your vote.
Hey look! Another failure to utter even a single sentence on the subject matter at hand! Fascinating. Someone so dedicated to his cause, and so unable to muster the wit and energy necessary to construct sentences about it. OK, so it's some sort of cognitive problem. That's a shame, I feel for you. Since you can't form sentences to express your thoughts, I'll make it easier for you by giving you multiple choice. Just pick the one that describes your thinking.
1) Fustakrakich knows that voting for a third party cannot possibly result in that third party candidate actually being elected, but does know that depriving one of the actually viable candidates of votes will result in that candidate's opponent being more likely to win. Thus Fustakrakich is actively choosing to support the person most likely to benefit from his action: Hillary Clinton. This is a conscious choice. Because Fustakrakich has to maintain his slashdot street cred by pretending he doesn't really support Hillary Clinton's long career display of lying and massive corruption, he's using this back-channel way of supporting her. His inability to simply say all of this reflects the depths of his embarrassment over his poor choice and his growing awareness that his entire philosophical stance is based on badly mixed premises and contradictions, and that saying anything out loud in his own words will expose him to having to reconcile his broken world view with reality - a process he finds too painful, which causes him to regress to juvenile insults and painfully bad ad hominem and hissy-fit foot stamping in order to distract from that dawning realization on his part. And so he childishly tries the "Well, just talk to my daddy! He'll explain what I mean!" tactic of refusing to articulate his own thoughts, and attempts to steer any expectations that he might be clear on the subject over to another person's writings, in hopes that that will somehow spare him from having to examine the fragile, self contradictory constructs on which he's built his thinking.
Ah, good, we're back to you displaying your own inability to explain your actions without admitting the consequences, and thus once again deflecting and dishing out juvenile insults. SOP for "my type?" What, pointing out your inability to so much as answer a direct question in your own words? Wow, that is just awful, isn't it? Of course anyone with the intellectual courage to stand behind their position to support Hillary Clinton would have no trouble using their own words, or at least doing the usual Shillary cut-and-paste. But no, you don't want to be seen typing out those words - it's embarrassing, I know, being unable to form your own sentences to explain yourself. Perhaps your next Hillary campaign workshop can help you out with that.
He pointed out her untruthfulness about a long list of things, one at a time. She said she only ever used a single mobile device. The FBI said that was untrue. Why? Because she used several of them. It's not a matter of English usage or context.
Are you really suggesting that she, a person known to be glued to her device, wasn't clear on the fact she used several, instead of one? She said she never handled any classified information on that account. She, who as the nation's top diplomat and read in on all sorts of extremely sensitive material and programs involving billions of dollars and life-or-death activities, was unable to recall the dozens of email threads - including top-secret and ABOVE top-secret material - in which she participated? Or understand that things like imagery from the NRO of sites in North Korea are born classified? She claimed no, and the FBI said her characterization of all of that was untrue. Are you saying that she really meant it when she said that knew she'd turned over every single work-related email because her lawyers had read each and every one of them... which the FBI reported was untrue (to say nothing of the thousands more they turned up, which she had deleted)? I know I don't need to run down the list of 100%-exactly-wrong things she said, even under oath in front of congress, as she tried to wish this away, because you already know about them. They're not "context" problems, or her not double-checking things. She repeated these untrue things dozens of times for a year and a half.
Yes, actually, it does. You've seen multiple examples of this surrounding Hillary Clinton and her operatives in the DNC in the last days and weeks. With Clinton, you've seen it for years. Are you actually surprised?
So you consider your actions in relation to the election to be irrelevant? Then why are you telling people that you're going to vote? Why do something you consider to be irrelevant, or why say it's irrelevant if you don't actually think that?
Oh, I get it... you think that the fact you know your vote is going to be thrown away as a way to help Hillary Clinton is irrelevant, because talking about it means you have to justify your support for her. That makes more sense, and fits your previous pattern of evasion.
No, you're confusing two different things. There's whether or not she was "extremely careless" with classified material (the FBI chose the words "extremely careless," not me - and that's not at all like "sloppy"), and then - separately - there's whether or not she regularly, over and over again, lied about what she did. The FBI director, when asked specific questions on several fronts about Clinton's statements regarding numerous aspects of her conduct, said they her statements were (his word) "untrue."
So, you're finally able to respond to a comment or question with your own actual thoughts on the matter. Progress! Let's try this one:
Can the person for whom you will be casting your vote actually win the election? Use your new-found Yes/No skills to simply answer that with a yes or a no.
You mean, other than the FBI director directly answering questions about whether or not specific things that Clinton swore were true were in fact untrue? Are you really going to pretend that you haven't watched video of him clarifying that in response to multiple direct questions with examples?
And yes, the director was very clear that other people would face consequences for the things that he found Clinton had done and lied about. No, he was not able to find anyone willing to cite an example of a cabinet secretary deliberately destroying public records and mishandling classified information. Who was going to come up with that? It doesn't happen (until now). What he should have asked for was for any intern-level high school student to spend some time giving him a list of the people representing the long history of criminal prosecutions for government employees breaking the law - including the removing of classified information, sharing it with non-cleared third parties, and more of the things which he agreed that Clinton did. Because there are numerous examples of felony convictions in just such cases, many of which involving far less critical behavior than Clinton's.
Slashdot Mirror
So widely reported that it's obvious that only people who are trying to wish it away by pretending they can't read are the ones shocked, shocked! that it's not showing up where they hang out at MSNBC. I know, reading is hard.
You're not reading comments asking for taken from the special donor list, and saying it's "last call" for appointments? That all just smells OK to you? You understand that any offer of a position that's tied to one's status as a campaign supporter is illegal, right?
The faux laziness of Hillary supporters who want to maintain the ability to pretend they're unaware of her and her campaign's corruption never ceases to amaze. I know, that whole google searching thing is laborious, isn't it?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...
Sorry, my typo. "LaQueenia" (not "LaQueenie").
Go to any of the numerous news outlets that have already culled out the boring email from the big dump, and just dig out the stuff from DNC finance boss Scott Corner. He's actually somewhat apologetic that he can't promise some contributors would get anything better than "The President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History" in exchange for being loyal campaign supporters.
Why so rude?
I was responding in a tone I thought appropriate to a comment in a tone that couldn't be serious. DNC finance boss Scott Corner's solicitations of names and contact info and the ensuing conversation about doling out appointments to supporters (even as he tried to lower expectations about just how juicy a given appointment might be for supporters - he apologetically said "It’s much more likely they’ll get something like ‘President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.’") has been widely reported. Anyone who's actually interested in any of this would have to go out of their way to avoid reading highlights like these. Numerous outlets have already done the dirty work of digging out the "interesting" emails from among the pile of more mundane stuff, so you don't have to hunt them down yourself.
I don't suppose I need to guess where you get your news.
Start with "LaQueenie" and go from there.
One party nominated a racist
Have you read the emails? You know, where Clinton's DNC operatives are gleefully making jokes about Mexican ethnicity, ridiculing a black woman over her name, that sort of thing? Not paying attention when Hillary Clinton makes remarks about getting some "colored people time" in her schedule? No? Too distasteful for you? I see.
18 USC/599
If he's in cahoots with Putin and the like, why are the GOP still so in love with him?
What indication, other than the breathless nonsense uttered by a Hillary shill in an interview, do you have that Trump is "in cahoots" with the Russians? Be specific.
The only connection between Trump and the Russians is that both of them find her to be an annoying liar. Of course everybody else notices that, too. Which means we're ALL in on the conspiracy, right? Please.
The GOP still likes to rattle their sabres at them from time to time, yet for some reason now they're buddy-buddy.
Please provide examples of this buddy-buddy relationship you're describing, which appears to be exactly the opposite of reality.
The real issue is the fact that DNC tried to stop Bernie with a few underhanded tactics.
Oh, it's better than that. We also get to see them denigrating people based on their ethnicity, making fun of a black woman's name, and (the best part) conspiring to violate the US Code in the offering of quid pro quo government appointments in exchange for Hillary campaign support.
I haven't read the emails, but I don't believe they expose any crimes committed by the DNC
Conspiring to violate 18 USC/599 is a federal crime. The rest is just typical liberal crap on display (hey! nobody's looking! let's use disparaging references to ethnic groups and make fun of a black woman's name!), but that's simply them displaying their hypocrisy. It's the whole caught-in-the-act of offering quid pro quo on promising government appointments to high profile supporters that actually breaks the law.
What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious.
Among other things, the emails show direct discussions surrounding the promising of high profile government positions to generous campaign supporters and contributors. A direct violation of 18 U.S.C./599. That's a crime.
The fact: she claimed repeatedly she only used one device, and explained WHY she only used one device. The FBI said that her claims, as demonstrated by her use of several devices, were "untrue." She spoke untruthfully. How much more simple do you need it to be? SHE is the one that made such a big deal bout "one device," citing it as the primary reason she turned away the official systems she was supposed to be using. Are you really going with "maybe she doesn't doesn't remember that very well" or "some people forget things" etc to explain why she was untruthful with her story line?
No, you're missing the point. I mentioned the obviously misleading regular assertion by her about her use of "only one phone" because it fits into the pattern, plain to anyone who's been paying attention,and confirmed by the FBI, that she was not telling the truth about nearly every aspect of the whole topic. Along the way, she's asserted that she made the decision to use "only one phone" because it would have been inconvenient to have to carry more than one device. That was (at one point, before she changed her story several more times) her justification for using a single private email account to conduct all of her official business. It's now clear that that explanation was pure, deliberate fiction. She (and sometimes her aides) carried multiple devices. This demonstrates that she was looking you in the eye and lying about that. The FBI confirmed that, saying that her assertion on that front was "untrue."
The IT and security people at the State Department said that they warned her multiple times about the problems - both in terms of security, and in terms of complying with federal records laws - with her choice to refuse to use an official DoS email box. They got so much push back from her and her team that finally the head of that department told their worried employees to never talk about it again. The FBI has interviewed these people and confirms that. But Clinton said - repeatedly - that she specifically talked to State's IT, security, and legal people about using her own server and they said it was "approved." The FBI says that there not only no indication of any such request ever having even been made by her or any of her team, but that every layer of the DoS IT and security and legal apparatus say they would have flatly said "No!" to any such request. The FBI director says that her assertions about having asked for and received such approvals were "untrue" - they never happened. It goes on and on.
The FBI investigated all of these things because they were part of establishing the circumstances and motivations surrounding her mishandling of classified information - acts which the FBI director assures us would get anyone other than her in administrative legal hot water, at least, in their careers. So while checking out how and why so much mishandling occurred over the course of YEARS on Clinton's part, we see topic after topic on which she stated untruthfully what it was about and why and how or even whether she did such things. You're attributing ALL of her actions and everything she said for years afterwards to simple problems of context and "sloppiness?"
Even if we ignore the career-ending, no-security-clearance-for-you consequences that anyone else would face for both those acts and the lies following them, let's take your spin on it at face value. Is someone so spectacularly incompetent, careless, forgetful, and unable to judge the hiring of underlings to the point where an entire team of them ALSO all make the same "mistakes" and can't describe things truthfully really who should be the top law enforcement, intelligence, and military command figure in the country?
Are you sure you wouldn't rather tell me you can't talk to strangers until they promise they've read a link that Hillary told you to show to people whenever they ask you questions? I mean, you've put in all this effort to avoid ever backing up your own position with thoughts of your own, so why stop? Unless it just feels good to you to admit you really don't have anything coherent to say about pretending to throw away your vote.
Hey look! Another failure to utter even a single sentence on the subject matter at hand! Fascinating. Someone so dedicated to his cause, and so unable to muster the wit and energy necessary to construct sentences about it. OK, so it's some sort of cognitive problem. That's a shame, I feel for you. Since you can't form sentences to express your thoughts, I'll make it easier for you by giving you multiple choice. Just pick the one that describes your thinking.
1) Fustakrakich knows that voting for a third party cannot possibly result in that third party candidate actually being elected, but does know that depriving one of the actually viable candidates of votes will result in that candidate's opponent being more likely to win. Thus Fustakrakich is actively choosing to support the person most likely to benefit from his action: Hillary Clinton. This is a conscious choice. Because Fustakrakich has to maintain his slashdot street cred by pretending he doesn't really support Hillary Clinton's long career display of lying and massive corruption, he's using this back-channel way of supporting her. His inability to simply say all of this reflects the depths of his embarrassment over his poor choice and his growing awareness that his entire philosophical stance is based on badly mixed premises and contradictions, and that saying anything out loud in his own words will expose him to having to reconcile his broken world view with reality - a process he finds too painful, which causes him to regress to juvenile insults and painfully bad ad hominem and hissy-fit foot stamping in order to distract from that dawning realization on his part. And so he childishly tries the "Well, just talk to my daddy! He'll explain what I mean!" tactic of refusing to articulate his own thoughts, and attempts to steer any expectations that he might be clear on the subject over to another person's writings, in hopes that that will somehow spare him from having to examine the fragile, self contradictory constructs on which he's built his thinking.
2) Nah, there's no number two.
Ah, good, we're back to you displaying your own inability to explain your actions without admitting the consequences, and thus once again deflecting and dishing out juvenile insults. SOP for "my type?" What, pointing out your inability to so much as answer a direct question in your own words? Wow, that is just awful, isn't it? Of course anyone with the intellectual courage to stand behind their position to support Hillary Clinton would have no trouble using their own words, or at least doing the usual Shillary cut-and-paste. But no, you don't want to be seen typing out those words - it's embarrassing, I know, being unable to form your own sentences to explain yourself. Perhaps your next Hillary campaign workshop can help you out with that.
He pointed out her untruthfulness about a long list of things, one at a time. She said she only ever used a single mobile device. The FBI said that was untrue. Why? Because she used several of them. It's not a matter of English usage or context.
... which the FBI reported was untrue (to say nothing of the thousands more they turned up, which she had deleted)? I know I don't need to run down the list of 100%-exactly-wrong things she said, even under oath in front of congress, as she tried to wish this away, because you already know about them. They're not "context" problems, or her not double-checking things. She repeated these untrue things dozens of times for a year and a half.
Are you really suggesting that she, a person known to be glued to her device, wasn't clear on the fact she used several, instead of one? She said she never handled any classified information on that account. She, who as the nation's top diplomat and read in on all sorts of extremely sensitive material and programs involving billions of dollars and life-or-death activities, was unable to recall the dozens of email threads - including top-secret and ABOVE top-secret material - in which she participated? Or understand that things like imagery from the NRO of sites in North Korea are born classified? She claimed no, and the FBI said her characterization of all of that was untrue. Are you saying that she really meant it when she said that knew she'd turned over every single work-related email because her lawyers had read each and every one of them
And then it just continues in plain sight?
Yes, actually, it does. You've seen multiple examples of this surrounding Hillary Clinton and her operatives in the DNC in the last days and weeks. With Clinton, you've seen it for years. Are you actually surprised?
Irrelevant
So you consider your actions in relation to the election to be irrelevant? Then why are you telling people that you're going to vote? Why do something you consider to be irrelevant, or why say it's irrelevant if you don't actually think that?
... you think that the fact you know your vote is going to be thrown away as a way to help Hillary Clinton is irrelevant, because talking about it means you have to justify your support for her. That makes more sense, and fits your previous pattern of evasion.
Oh, I get it
No, you're confusing two different things. There's whether or not she was "extremely careless" with classified material (the FBI chose the words "extremely careless," not me - and that's not at all like "sloppy"), and then - separately - there's whether or not she regularly, over and over again, lied about what she did. The FBI director, when asked specific questions on several fronts about Clinton's statements regarding numerous aspects of her conduct, said they her statements were (his word) "untrue."
So, you're finally able to respond to a comment or question with your own actual thoughts on the matter. Progress! Let's try this one:
Can the person for whom you will be casting your vote actually win the election? Use your new-found Yes/No skills to simply answer that with a yes or a no.
You have no evidence of this
You mean, other than the FBI director directly answering questions about whether or not specific things that Clinton swore were true were in fact untrue? Are you really going to pretend that you haven't watched video of him clarifying that in response to multiple direct questions with examples?
And yes, the director was very clear that other people would face consequences for the things that he found Clinton had done and lied about. No, he was not able to find anyone willing to cite an example of a cabinet secretary deliberately destroying public records and mishandling classified information. Who was going to come up with that? It doesn't happen (until now). What he should have asked for was for any intern-level high school student to spend some time giving him a list of the people representing the long history of criminal prosecutions for government employees breaking the law - including the removing of classified information, sharing it with non-cleared third parties, and more of the things which he agreed that Clinton did. Because there are numerous examples of felony convictions in just such cases, many of which involving far less critical behavior than Clinton's.