2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: MrGoldenSun

Hillary with an abolutely A+ reply on Twitter: "Do you want to build a strawman?"

That's freaking hilarious. I hope she keeps the intern that wrote that when she wins the election.

Quote: gamerfreak

That's freaking hilarious. I hope she keeps the intern that wrote that when she wins the election.

Yeah, all the tweets that are actually from Hillary end with "-H"

They said during the 2012 campaign, any tweet that Mitt Romney put out had to be approved by a team of 22 people.

I get the impression that all of Trump's tweets are sent out directly from him while he is sitting on the toilet with the door locked.

Hillary Clinton is "very unsophisticated" -with a laugh from Comey.

So there you have it. She's a blonde that makes Sara Palin look bright.

Quote: Keyser

Hillary Clinton is "very unsophisticated" -with a laugh from Comey.

So there you have it. She's a blonde that makes Sara Palin look bright.

Sarah*

You misspell that every time you talk about her brightness..... comical.

Most sixty year olds are unsophisticated when it comes to the web and internet this gives.
We didnt grow up with them.

Quote: billryan

Most sixty year olds are unsophisticated when it comes to the web and internet this gives.
We didnt grow up with them.

Yes - that seems to be the big takeaway from today's hearing: Hillary is very technologically challenged.

Quote: ams288

Yes - that seems to be the big takeaway from today's hearing: Hillary is very technologically challenged.

Which is almost as frustrating as her knowingly putting classified info at risk and not caring.

I don't think she is a stupid person, she could bring herself up to speed on these things. There is no excuse for being technologically incompetent when you are running for a high office.

Quote: gamerfreak

Which is almost as frustrating as her knowingly putting classified info at risk and not caring.

I don't think she is a stupid person, she could bring herself up to speed on these things. There is no excuse for being technologically incompetent when you are running for a high office.

You'd be amazed how many
Senators don't use email themselves.

Quote: gamerfreak

Which is almost as frustrating as her knowingly putting classified info at risk and not caring. I don't think she is a stupid person, she could bring herself up to speed on these things. There is no excuse for being technologically incompetent when you are running for a high office.

Actually, Comey made clear that he considered her actions not be those of a "sophisticated" person, or a nice way to say dumb rube. Or in WoV terms, ploppy.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Actually, Comey made clear that he considered her actions not be those of a "sophisticated" person, or a nice way to say dumb rube. Or in WoV terms, ploppy.

Is Trump a member here?
Are we likely to hear talk of 'Ploppy Clinton' tomorrow?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Actually, Comey made clear that he considered her actions not be those of a "sophisticated" person, or a nice way to say dumb rube. Or in WoV terms, ploppy.

Actually - he clarified he was speaking about technology.

You must have been only listening to what you wanted to hear.

While we were all paying attention to the hearing on Capitol Hill, this happened:

(I've bolded my favorite parts)

Quote:

The Washington Post reported that when the Arizona Republican stood up and introduced himself, Trump said, “You’ve been very critical of me.”

“Yes, I’m the other senator from Arizona — the one who didn’t get captured — and I want to talk to you about statements like that,” Flake responded, two Republican officials told the Post.

Flake was referring to Trump’s comments from roughly one year ago when he questioned whether Sen. John McCain of Arizona was a war hero because he was captured during the Vietnam War. Trump said he preferred people who weren’t captured.

According to the Post, Flake told the Manhattan billionaire that he wants to be able to support him, but is still uncomfortable doing so.

Trump noted he has yet to start attacking Flake and threatened to start. Flake then urged Trump to stop attacking Mexicans, according to the report.

The presumptive Republican nominee predicted Flake would lose his reelection bid, to which Flake shot back that he’s not on the ballot until 2018.

Sources told CNN’s Manu Raju that Trump also threatened to defeat Flake in an election.

Party unity!!

Quote: gamerfreak

Which is almost as frustrating as her knowingly putting classified info at risk and not caring.

I don't think she is a stupid person, she could bring herself up to speed on these things. There is no excuse for being technologically incompetent when you are running for a high office.

There is even less of an excuse for being politically incompetent when you are running for a high office, and if you have to pick one, it's much more important to be politically astute but technologically incompetent than vice-versa. What we know about Trump indicates precisely that opposite scenario -- his political idiocy is broadcast daily via social media with his blessing.

Doubling down on his "it's not a Star of David, it's just a plain star" stance by posting a picture of a coloring book and citing to Microsoft clip art is just infantile, because everyone knows what the image actually meant. Denying that is not only untruthful but insulting. It's as if he got a tattoo of a swastika on his forearm and said "it's not a Nazi symbol, I'm just a big fan of the 1920s Finnish Air Force and ancient sanskrit writings." (wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?)

Quote: ams288

Actually - he clarified he was speaking about technology.

You must have been only listening to what you wanted to hear.

Wrong. Comey was referring to the mishandling of classified national security materials. But keep on speculating about your subject.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Wrong. Comey was referring to the mishandling of classified national security materials. But keep on speculating about your subject.

He was specifically referring to the "C" in parenthesis, which refers to confidential information.
http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Information.pdf

I have been exposed to confidential DoD IT information and I didn't have a security clearance at the time. I was on a military base working over the shoulder of a Navy tech -- I wasn't allowed to touch the keyboard but I told her everything to type. It really wasn't a big deal to any of the military staff involved because we had work to get done, it was a warfighting effort, and we weren't about to wait around for my civilian credentials to get processed. Don't think that just because something is marked (or intended to be marked) "confidential" that it's something of actual importance. Examples of confidential information can include server names and IP addresses. In short, if you've never worked with classified information, you're the one who's speculating as to what's actually important and what -- in practice -- nobody cares about.

That said, do you believe that after all this kerfuffle over email handling, former Secretary Clinton is likely to ever mishandle classified materials again? Or do you believe that she's learned from those mistakes (and the ensuing attention) and she will be more diligent in the future?

Now, contrast your answer to that question regarding Hillary Clinton with your answer to an equivalent question regarding Donald Trump:

After all this kerfuffle over bigoted social media posts, do you believe Donald Trump is likely to ever post a bigoted message to Twitter again? Or do you believe he's learned from those mistakes (and the ensuing attention) and he will be more diligent in the future?

For my part, I'd expect Clinton to never play fast and loose with classified information again, and I'd also expect Trump to post something else discriminatory on Twitter by the end of the week. Probably regarding the two police shootings earlier this week and the gun battle in Dallas that is currently happening.

Quote: MathExtremist

and the gun battle in Dallas that is currently happening.

I'm kind of interested in what Trump will suggest. Previously, he said he wouldn't allow BLM protestors to take over the stage and microphone like at Bernie's rally. He can't suggest to arm the police. Doesn't sound like there will be anyone to stop at the border.

Maybe he will say something sensible.

Not holding my breath though.

Quote: MathExtremist

He was specifically referring to the "C" in parenthesis, which refers to confidential information.
http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Information.pdf

I have been exposed to confidential DoD IT information and I didn't have a security clearance at the time. I was on a military base working over the shoulder of a Navy tech -- I wasn't allowed to touch the keyboard but I told her everything to type. It really wasn't a big deal to any of the military staff involved because we had work to get done, it was a warfighting effort, and we weren't about to wait around for my civilian credentials to get processed. Don't think that just because something is marked (or intended to be marked) "confidential" that it's something of actual importance. Examples of confidential information can include server names and IP addresses. In short, if you've never worked with classified information, you're the one who's speculating as to what's actually important and what -- in practice -- nobody cares about.

Hillary Clinton mishandled information of a much higher level of sensitivity than that which you use to dismiss the severity of what happened based on your experience. Even the things you are talking about could be harmful--the idea of having classified information is to keep it secure and in the hands of those that are properly cleared AND that have a need to know. It isn't the server and IP information that may be the most sensitive detail, it has to do with letting anyone gather too much information about our operations by giving them little bits of information at a time. You were in an operational situation and someone allowed you access, but they didn't let you handle it.

Top Secret--Special Access is many levels above that. It generally isn't some mere IP address or server location...

"Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as “top secret: special access programs.” That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation’s most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/fbi-findings-damage-many-of-hillary-clintons-claims.html?_r=0

Quote: MathExtremist

That said, do you believe that after all this kerfuffle over email handling, former Secretary Clinton is likely to ever mishandle classified materials again? Or do you believe that she's learned from those mistakes (and the ensuing attention) and she will be more diligent in the future?

In most ordinary circumstances, we would never have to worry about that issue again. Here clearance would likely be lifted and she would never be placed in a position to mishandle additional highly classified (not just "classified", low level stuff as you use for your example) information.

Quote: MathExtremist

Now, contrast your answer to that question regarding Hillary Clinton with your answer to an equivalent question regarding Donald Trump:

After all this kerfuffle over bigoted social media posts, do you believe Donald Trump is likely to ever post a bigoted message to Twitter again? Or do you believe he's learned from those mistakes (and the ensuing attention) and he will be more diligent in the future?

For my part, I'd expect Clinton to never play fast and loose with classified information again, and I'd also expect Trump to post something else discriminatory on Twitter by the end of the week.

The country would likely be best served by having both parties nominate different candidates. At least you hear some of that in the Republican party; you don't hear much about it from the Democrats. The lack of "Party unity" is mentioned in a derogatory way by the opposition; a few years ago, people were talking about how great it was Democrats weren't all the same. Everyone in a particular party does not have to be lock step with what is happening in their party at all times.

Hillary's continuous lies about the level of information that was mishandled are as troubling as the server itself. It shows a pattern. There was "nothing to" the whole Benghazi thing...except that there was--the administration, including the Secretary of State, LIED about what caused the attacks to deflect from potential issues with the way they handled it. That is not a criminal issue; but it is part of the pattern that continues with the email issue.

Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Trump is...whatever Trump is...

The lasting legacy of the next President may be who he/she leaves behind on the Supreme Court. Hillary will nominate more liberals and we'll have a court that takes positions that I don't think the court should take. That is something that I do not want to happen.

Quote: MathExtremist

Probably regarding the two police shootings earlier this week and the gun battle in Dallas that is currently happening.

The police shootings are under investigation and there is a chance that (at least from the one I saw video from) that prosecutions may result.

Now someone is shooting police in another city. We have a lot to learn about why this has happened.

I'm worried about a whole lot more than what Trump might tweet at this point.

Quote: ams288

Oh my god.

Donald Trump just tweeted an image of a coloring book from the Disney movie Frozen that has a six pointed star on the cover. Apparently this is somehow proof that his white supremacist-created meme about Crooked Hillary wasn't anti-Semitic.

You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

He asks where the "outrage" is for that coloring book.

The answer is, the authors of a children's coloring book are not making a political statement, nor are they running for president.

I was honestly on the fence this election, but the more stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth, the more I am (unfortunately) leaning towards Hillary. I really want to see how the debates go, though.

Quote: TigerWu

He asks where the "outrage" is for that coloring book.

The answer is, the authors of a children's coloring book are not making a political statement, nor are they running for president.

I was honestly on the fence this election, but the more stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth, the more I am (unfortunately) leaning towards Hillary. I really want to see how the debates go, though.

They said on TV last night that Newt Gingrich encouraged him to send out the Frozen tweet.

I'm hoping he picks Newt as his VP (it's becoming more and more likely - just about everyone else has said no).

Quote: ams288

They said on TV last night that Newt Gingrich encouraged him to send out the Frozen tweet.

I'm hoping he picks Newt as his VP (it's becoming more and more likely - just about everyone else has said no).

A bad VP pick is a death sentence. Just look at McCain. I was all for him until he picked Palin. Totally ruined his chances right there.

I could be wrong, again. But, I don't think Palin was McCain's downfall. I think McCain was the GOP's downfall when Romney would have been a better choice. Which I think they realized, too late, and let Romney be the choice the next cycle. You can't go back, Romney should not have run a second time, much less be nominated. I think this 'elect the former loser as a winner this time' may come into play with Clinton in this election. I don't know how much, but I think it will be a factor. But Hey, it's just 2F ;-)

Quote: TigerWu

He asks where the "outrage" is for that coloring book.

The answer is, the authors of a children's coloring book are not making a political statement, nor are they running for president.

Its mind boggling that a presidential candidate does not understand the concept of "context"
Is Trump that dumb? Looks like it
A smart politician will say its a small mistake and drop it
Not Trump
A week later and we are still talking about it
LOL

Quote: terapined

Its mind boggling that a presidential candidate does not understand the concept of "context"
Is Trump that dumb? Looks like it

I think it should be clear to anyone that Trump is of average intelligence at best. The only reason he's gotten to where he is in life is money and connections. And probably a little bit of charisma. If he had been born into an average American family, at this point in his life he'd probably be retired from some middle-management job shuffling papers around, or at best running a fast-food chain franchise location in suburbia.

Quote: MathExtremist

I have been exposed to confidential DoD IT information and I didn't have a security clearance at the time. I was on a military base working over the shoulder of a Navy tech -- I wasn't allowed to touch the keyboard but I told her everything to type. It really wasn't a big deal to any of the military staff involved because we had work to get done, it was a warfighting effort, and we weren't about to wait around for my civilian credentials to get processed. Don't think that just because something is marked (or intended to be marked) "confidential" that it's something of actual importance. Examples of confidential information can include server names and IP addresses. In short, if you've never worked with classified information, you're the one who's speculating as to what's actually important and what -- in practice -- nobody cares about.

“Many readers continue to ask questions about Hillary Clinton’s private email setup and whether she mishandled classified information. We have looked at this issue in the past, but the reader interest spiked again after the revelation that seven email chains contained “top secret” information and would not be released. . . .

“Clinton did sign a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, in which she pledged to safeguard classified information whether “marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications,” as defined by Executive Order 12958. (That was later superseded by Executive Order 13526.) . . .

“Clinton is in a pickle here, largely of her own making.
The emails in question were sent on an unclassified system — as they would have been if she had followed standard protocol and used a state.gov account. Under State Department practice, a request for public release of her emails would have been subject to the same classification discussion currently underway. Any “top secret” communications would have been withheld.” Washington Post, Feb. 14
——
From Comey’s Congressional testimony:
“Well, I just want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication,” Comey said. “I don’t think that our investigation established that she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information, and the levels, and the treatment.”
DeSantis was stunned and asked if she was an original classification authority. Comey nodded.
Later in the hearing, Comey explained to Meadows there were three documents that had confidential classified markings.
“There were three documents that bore portion markings where you’re obligated when something is classified, you put a marking on that paragraph,” he said.“And there were three that bore C in parentheses, which means that’s confidential classified information.”
Meadows jumped in to ask if it was reasonable to assume Clinton would be able to understand the marking.
“So a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a First Lady– wouldn’t a reasonable person know that that was a classified marking?” he asked. “As a Secretary of State.”
Comey said yes.
Meadows continued to make his point.
“A reasonable person,” he said. “That’s all I’m asking you.”
Comey gave a shocking response.
“Yeah, before this investigation I probably would have said yes, I’m not so sure,” he said. “I don’t find it—”
“Director Comey, come on,” Meadows said. “I mean, I’ve only been here a few years and I understand the importance of those markings. So, you’re suggesting that a long length of time she had no idea what a classified marking would be. That’s your sworn testimony today?”
Comey immediately said no.
“No, no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be, but, it’s an interesting question as to whether she—this question about sophistication came up earlier—whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in parenthesis means,” he said.
“So, you’re saying this former Secretary of State is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking?” Meadows asked. “That’s a huge statement.”
Comey said no. He said before this investigation, he would have assumed that someone would know what that meant but wasn’t sure any longer.
——-
All of us who have held high level clearances can attest to the facts that the accompanying briefings with their strong explanations of obligations and penalties leave little wiggle room. Even for a top echelon official, who despite not signing the requisite departure declarations, did sign the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement at the start of her term. And then proceeded to violate it nonchalantly.

"Unsophisticated" in the handling of classified materials should bother everyone. The President handles so much super highly classified material...

Again, not is she the better candidate of the two...but should she even be a candidate?

Quote: TigerWu

The only reason he's gotten to where he is in life is money and connections.

understanding the power of bankruptcy as a business strategy. If it works, great, if not screw those suckers I'm not paying my debts. People complain about others leeching off the government for basic living while praising a guy who has a planned strategy of leaching off others for hundreds of millions of dollars and intentionally screwing them.

The reason Hillary's handling of the email issue is a scandal is because that's not what you'd come to expect from a high ranking official of the US government. There's no question that she screwed up according to the standards we expect of our representatives.

But when Kim Jong-Un test fires a nuclear-capable missile over Japan, nobody is surprised. When Basham al-Assad uses WMD on his own people, nobody is surprised. When Donald Trump panders to racists and bigots just to keep his name and fake presidential campaign in the media, nobody is surprised.

If you want a leader who doesn't surprise you when his behavior is despicable, you should move to Syria or North Korea. I don't want that in the US.

It would be useful if you site the author and where this is from.

Quote: MathExtremist

The reason Hillary's handling of the email issue is a scandal is because that's not what you'd come to expect from a high ranking official of the US government. There's no question that she screwed up according to the standards we expect of our representatives.

But when Kim Jong-Un test fires a nuclear-capable missile over Japan, nobody is surprised. When Basham al-Assad uses WMD on his own people, nobody is surprised. When Donald Trump panders to racists and bigots just to keep his name and fake presidential campaign in the media, nobody is surprised.

If you want a leader who doesn't surprise you when his behavior is despicable, you should move to Syria or North Korea. I don't want that in the US.

Actually, I am not surprised at all by Hillary's actions...or at least by the fact that she did something wrong/potentially illegal (Comey did not say that nothing illegal happened, he just said that there was not enough to prosecute)...heck, I am not even shocked. Hillary is part of a screwed up family that has been involved in many unsavory issues along the way.

I know, I know...Trump is more screwed up. Only I don't really know that...there is Trump University and the alleged bigotry issue among others...but then there is also the Clinton Foundation and a SoS who made millions from foreign officials while serving in office.

We're screwed! Feel free to defend your chosen candidate, but we have not selected the brightest bulbs for potential election.

Quote: RonC

Again, not is she the better candidate of the two...but should she even be a candidate?

No, I personally don't think so, but she has been a major player on the global political stage for decades now, and nobody with her experience or connections stepped up to the plate for the Democrats this cycle.

Mrs Clinton didn't make a dime off of foreign powers while Sec. of State. Any funding from them to The Clinton Foundation went to charitable causes around the world. Republicans are trying to make a big deal about Arab nations donating money to the Haitian Earthquake Relief Initiative.

Quote: RonC

We're screwed! Feel free to defend your chosen candidate, but we have not selected the brightest bulbs for potential election.

If I believed Hillary set up her server to conduct real nefarious actions, I'd have a different opinion whether she should continue on.

I think she mistakenly thought she would avoid exactly what happened. Republicans rummaging at some point through her emails looking for something they could make accusations on. All you really need is ambiguous emails that can be taken two different ways, and that's potential trouble brought by trash pickers,

I do hold her accountable for not outsmarting the Republican trash brigade. But I also figure she now learned that valuable lesson.

Quote: billryan

Mrs Clinton didn't make a dime off of foreign powers while Sec. of State. Any funding from them to The Clinton Foundation went to charitable causes around the world. Republicans are trying to make a big deal about Arab nations donating money to the Haitian Earthquake Relief Initiative.

"The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week."

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

Dimes were made by friends...maybe family...and it sounds shady...but, of course, it is all fine and dandy...

Quote: rxwine

If I believed Hillary set up her server to conduct real nefarious actions, I'd have a different opinion whether she should continue on.

I think she mistakenly thought she would avoid exactly what happened. Republicans rummaging at some point through her emails looking for something they could make accusations on. All you really need is ambiguous emails that can be taken two different ways, and that's potential trouble brought by trash pickers,

I do hold her accountable for not outsmarting the Republican trash brigade. But I also figure she now learned that valuable lesson.

So, in other words, she did it all to avoid scrutiny of her actions.

What a relief!!

This brought to you by the most transparent administration in history!!!

Quote: billryan

Mrs Clinton didn't make a dime off of foreign powers while Sec. of State. Any funding from them to The Clinton Foundation went to charitable causes around the world. Republicans are trying to make a big deal about Arab nations donating money to the Haitian Earthquake Relief Initiative.

Just because to typed it here, doesn't make it true. If you had added the little 'IMO' at the end, well then you would be fine. You didn't.

Quote: RonC

Dimes were made by friends...maybe family...and it sounds shady...but, of course, it is all fine and dandy...

I wonder what shady foreign investment deals Trump is involved in... why do we never hear anything about that? He's been a big financial player for decades. He's gotta be into all kinds of fishy deals by now...

Quote: TigerWu

I wonder what shady foreign investment deals Trump is involved in... why do we never hear anything about that? He's been a big financial player for decades. He's gotta be into all kinds of fishy deals by now...

You don't hear about it because it's overshadowed by his discriminatory Twitter feed. But you don't need to look overseas to find shady Trump deals. He's done plenty right here at home:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

Quote:

But the Republican front-runner is at least as saddled with controversy as Clinton is—and while many of the Clinton cases involve suspicion and shadowy links, many of Trump’s are fully documented in court cases and legal proceedings.

Quote: RonC

So, in other words, she did it all to avoid scrutiny of her actions.

What a relief!!

This brought to you by the most transparent administration in history!!!

Don't know if the Clintons specifically have promised transparency, but they do have a couple decades of people wanting to put them in jail for one thing or another. They might be a little cagey by now.

Quote: billryan

Mrs Clinton didn't make a dime off of foreign powers while Sec. of State. Any funding from them to The Clinton Foundation went to charitable causes around the world.

Not when the vast majority of expenses went to what might most accurately be called "administrative expenses."

The Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Plane tickets and hotel accommodations do not directly change the lives of charitable recipients.

Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Ink cartridges and staplers are not exactly “life-changing” commodities.

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013. Other administrative spending categories include employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million).

The foundation says no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses. Both claims cannot be true. The claim that 88 percent of expenditures go directly to life-changing work is false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The Internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

Quote: rxwine

I think she mistakenly thought she would avoid exactly what happened. Republicans rummaging at some point through her emails looking for something they could make accusations on. All you really need is ambiguous emails that can be taken two different ways, and that's potential trouble brought by trash pickers.

That is an extremely weak excuse for the theft and destruction of legally protected federal property.

Quote: SanchoPanza

That is an extremely weak excuse for the theft and destruction of legally protected federal property.

And I'm sure if she would have been indicted you'd be saying the process worked.

Since the rightwing didn't get the result they wanted, they're likely to pursue every angle probably 3 times over.

I don't even think Mafia bosses could get 7 congressional committees convened to find wrongdoing. Even Jesus Christ would probably give up and go climb up on the cross and nail himself to it after a certain point of being accused over and over.

Hey whatever, Clintons may be used to it by now.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Just because to typed it here, doesn't make it true. If you had added the little 'IMO' at the end, well then you would be fine. You didn't.

No, if someone has evidence that she was bribed, it would be investigated.
Just as I can say George Bush never made a dime off foreign powers when he was in office.

Money donated to a charity doesn't go to the people whose name is on the charity. The money has gone to many causes, there is zero evidence either Clinton has taken a dime from it they weren't entitled to.

Quote: rxwine

And I'm sure if she would have been indicted you'd be saying the process worked.

The presumptions never stop.

Quote:

Since the rightwing didn't get the result they wanted, they're likely to pursue every angle probably 3 times over.

As opposed to the leftwing on questions like, say, gun control?

Quote:

I don't even think Mafia bosses could get 7 congressional committees convened to find wrongdoing. Even Jesus Christ would probably give up and go climb up on the cross and nail himself to it after a certain point of being accused over and over. Hey whatever, Clintons may be used to it by now.

The hyperbole comes touchingly close to Godwin's Law. At any rate, the truly grave effects of the release from any and all responsibility go way beyond the fortunes of one power-hungry woman or even partisan interests. They deal directly and immediately with the future of enforcing national security laws and regulations covering the most important national secrets.

“The FBI recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton and her staff on charges of mishandling classified information will give those accused of flouting national security rules a new line of defense even as it highlights a dual standard in how senior government officials are treated, several experts said Wednesday. . . .

“I intend to use the Hillary defense,” said Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer whose firm handles dozens of cases a year involving national security clearances. “I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar. We’ve had people lose 20-year careers for doing less than what she did.” Mark F. Riley, a former military intelligence officer who became a lawyer defending those accused of national security violations, said he, too, would invoke the Clinton recommendation. . . .

“This happens a lot without anyone even knowing about it except the agencies and people involved,” said McAdoo Gordon, whose Washington firm specializes in security cases. “I’ve had dozens of these cases over the last 10 years, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Kel McClanahan, another national security lawyer, said the FBI had not pursued an important line of inquiry: whether Clinton violated the law merely by setting up private servers and diverting government records. Someone who “conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government records can face a fine and up to three years in prison. The Justice Department has sent defendants to prison for such a crime, McClanahan said. “The thrust of this law is to prevent people from depriving the government of the use it gets from public records, and that is exactly what happened here.”\

The costs inflicted on those ensnared in national security probes can be devastating. Thomas Drake, a former official at the National Security Agency, a U.S. spy agency that collects and monitors information and data, was criminally prosecuted in 2010 under the Espionage Act. His alleged crime: disclosing to a journalist, Congress and a government watchdog millions of dollars in waste and other problems with the surveillance program and response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Obama administration prosecuted him, asserting that he had revealed classified information. The case eventually fell apart, but the Justice Department agreed to settle the matter only if Drake entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of exceeding authorized use of a government computer.McClatchy

Quote: billryan

No, if someone has evidence that she was bribed, it would be investigated.
Just as I can say George Bush never made a dime off foreign powers when he was in office.

Money donated to a charity doesn't go to the people whose name is on the charity. The money has gone to many causes, there is zero evidence either Clinton has taken a dime from it they weren't entitled to.

Pls, just because you type it here doesn't make it true, I say again.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for me to type a simple bad joke?

Zero evidence has been presented to a grand jury that either Clinton 'has taken a dime from it that they weren't entitled to'. OK. Define 'entitled to'. It is the Clinton's foundation after all. Maybe they are 'entitled' to 100%.
I may set up a TwoFeathers Foundation with lofty goals of:
Ending world hunger,
Reversing climate change,
Stopping all violence against humans in Nationalistic, Religious, or other BS causes,
And saving the whales.
Pls forgive me if all the donations are essentially going to my latest advertising campaign, less a little for my overhead. My latest projections show we will give a small % to something in the next fiscal year, while increasing our ad/promotion budget (one paid employee only here -me) nearly 200%.
The future looks bright indeed!

<edit> I have just added pure fresh drinking water available to all god's children as a goal. This may delay some other stated goals, and increase some overhead and operational expenses in the immediate future but will, no doubt, lead to one of the breakthroughs in modern history. People caring for People, how you gonna one up dat jhit?

Quote: SanchoPanza

I intend to use the Hillary defense,” said Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer whose firm handles dozens of cases a year involving national security clearances. “I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar. We’ve had people lose 20-year careers for doing less than what she did.”

Sure, Ford pardoned Nixon, and ever since then it ruined fairness for everyone. Damn Republicans.

Quote: rxwine

Sure, Ford pardoned Nixon, and ever since then it ruined fairness for everyone. Damn Republicans.

There is nothing quite like comparing some screwed-up third-rate burglary 40+ years ago to exposing national secrets to hackers in Rumania, Russia, most likely China and who knows elsewhere.

Quote: SanchoPanza

There is nothing quite like comparing some screwed-up third-rate burglary 40+ years ago to exposing national secrets to hackers in Rumania, Russia, most likely China and who knows elsewhere.

Hackers got into her account? You can prove this? Apparently SanchoPanzo is privy to information the FBI did not have...

Quote: ams288

Hackers got into her account? You can prove this? Apparently SanchoPanzo is privy to information the FBI did not have...

It shouldn't have to be "proven" that others gained access to her emails, though Gucifer (or whatever his name is) says that he did--it is the incompetent mishandling of highly classified documents that is the problem. We don't know WHO might have gotten the info, or even if someone did. We do know that the former Secretary of State and her staff did not comply with the laws governing handling of classified material. We also know that she lied about it time after time. Has she even apologized for her lies?

Nixon's paranoia caused him to be involved in criminal activity...so did Hillary's. Not that either one are "criminals" because neither one was found guilty of anything, but they both were involved in clearly criminal activities. Nixon was pardoned and Hillary's crimes were deemed to below the level necessary for prosecution. That doesn't make their actions any more acceptable.

Quote: SanchoPanza

The foundation says no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses. Both claims cannot be true. The claim that 88 percent of expenditures go directly to life-changing work is false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The Internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

That is being incredibly nit-picky. Even a 15% overhead is remarkably low as far as a charity is concerned. I think even 20-25% is considered very low overhead.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Note that that link shows the 12% number, but those figures are also a couple years old, so it could be 15% more recently.