This is why you follow the goddamn rules.
The only monster on this bus is a lack of proper respect for the rules!
Of course, if we go by the FBI's own precedent, you would face real consequences for a lot less.
I guess at this point in the election cycle it's probably better this way than if she had been indicted, but it would sure be nice to see the law equally applied across class lines.
Plus, you know, I'm no lawyer but isn't misrepresenting the contents of all those emails you deleted (potentially illegally) some kind of obstruction of justice?
Anyway, if you could buy stock in third parties this would be a good time to do it.
Indeed, the entire Bush II cabinet used a private server for email. For years Bush claimed he didn't use email at all, without clarifying that is was his public .gov account he was referring to. I'm straining a bit to remember what caused the story to surface or how it resolved, but the intent was clear: to skirt public records laws.
The Secretary of State is responsible for knowing if their emails contain classified information, regardless of how they're flagged.
"there is no evidence that she used it for emails flagged as classified. "
Comey said otherwise when testifying before Congress.
That wasn't part of his initial announcement. In front of Congress he mentioned there were three ambiguously marked emails (with a "(C)" in the body rather than "CLASSIFIED" in the subject line per normal, or however they normally mark the whole of an email). Turns out there were only two, and both were errors, dropping the total down to zero.
But you know what? I'll spot you all three emails. This whole investigation has come up with three mishandled emails out of thousands. BREAK OUT THE GUILLOTINES EVERYONE SHE'S CLEARLY AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.
This doesn't even rise to the level of getting a blowjob from a consenting adult. Hell, this doesn't even rise to the level of flirting with a consenting adult. When you sound like a 1999 Dittohead, you're probably doing something wrong.
OZ is correct, and actually, this isn't even up for debate. The FBI Director himself has already pointed out that, were she anyone else, Hillary would have faced charges:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
That's a public statement, made by a government official, in order to justify his department's participation in a potentially-scandalous whitewashing. Mr Comey is saying, in other words: "Mrs Clinton is above the law; what are we gonna do about it?"
The fact that Hillary has been an enthusiastic member of what history may come to know to as the "Anti-Whistleblower Administration" makes this whole story, both the response by the aristocracy and the response by the peasantry, even more absurd.
"Learned Helplessness" tag?
Administrative Sanctions != criminal charges. At all.
My stars are for how a few months ago the left all agreed to not care about this email thing, but once it started to look like a close loss for Bernie she may as well have used her email server to do Benghazi by controlling the attack Starcraft 2 style.
I completely get why people would and will vote for her, but who likes her?
Hillary is proof that leftists will vote for Mitt Romney if you put him in a dress and call him a Democrat.
15th - if you're asking whether anyone would drink a beer with her, you're asking the wrong question.
Xeno - I'm curious, why do you assume Hillary's in it for personal gain, in any way that wouldn't apply to every other person in Washington? Or am I making an inference there I shouldn't? When I look at Hillary I mostly see someone who is trying to be a good public servant but isn't cut out for the salesmanship side of politics.
Sanders, though: at this point I think he's in it for pure ego, with a possible side order of money. If Jane Sanders is collecting a paycheck from the campaign, then I'm going to float a conspiracy theory. We know that Burlington College went bankrupt because its president, Jane Sanders, took out loans that the institution has no way of paying back. Whether or not that rises to the level of bank fraud -- though by the standards people think apply to Hillary, Jane is guilty as sin -- the bank is going to want someone to pay it back, and it could be that Jane is drawing enough salary from Bernie's campaign to at least be able to negotiate paying back pennies on the dollar.
Bort: I never said the problems with her didn't apply to everyone else in Washington. I think most of the shit people hate about her can be applied to almost anyone in power. I think she's got some sketchy stuff in her past, but no more so than anyone else who's been in the halls of power that long.
But from a purely practical standpoint there are few people I can think of who actually are as well qualified for the office, just from the amount of stuff she's accomplished, the different roles she's held, and the fact that she's been dealing with constant right wing hate for two and a half decades now and they still haven't sunk her. I'm pretty sure Hillary will make a pretty good president, and there's a fair possibility she'll be a fantastic one. Either way, everyone will probably hate her for it.
"In the end they were both Washington insiders out for personal gain"
Where do you get that for Bernie Sanders?
Cite your sources.
Personal gain (or, more specifically, ego-stroking) is the only thing he gets from staying in the race this long. There are no more votes to cast. There is no more primary to run. But that's not important, because Bernie wants to be on TV.
As for the "Washington Insider" bit, if you've got another term for a guy who's spent a quarter century in Congress I'd love to hear it.
Myself, I'm not hoping to elect surrogate parents; I want people who can govern effectively and fairly. That means an intelligent president who can deal with complexities, and legislators who favor intelligent (usually liberal) bills.
I'm just yanking chains. I have no doubt Hilldog is effective and capable. I don't think Bernie or Hillary would usher in drastic positive change for an average Joe like myself. I think Bernie would be hindered by congress and Hillary by special interest. I'll vote for her, but I can't pretend to be excited about it.
Was it really that blatant, Raggamuffin? Did lefties really sit down and say, "look, we know Hillary Clinton leaked tons of classified documents, indicating gross incompetence and criminal negligence, but let's all agree that until next year we just pretend like it never happened- because 'Party'"?
I know tribalism is a big problem right now. I know Americans with political identities have a tendency to become irrational and hypocritical. But usually, lapses in reason and ethics occur *subconsciously*, right? Surely, if an American was *actually conscious* of the fact that his candidate of choice had been guilty of serious ethical, criminal, and/or competency issues, said American wouldn't be able to double-think his way out of reality THAT easily...
"look, we know Hillary Clinton leaked tons of classified documents"
There is no indication of her having leaked even a single classified document. Making shit up doesn't make it so.
I can understand the backlash directed at "Berntards" by the "rational left." I just think it's funny that when a more left of center candidate emerged they ran towards wireframe lightbulb mom. I'm not arguing that big B would not be ineffectual, but ideologically he is the first progressive candidate in years and he didn't take mountains of cash from special interests. He at least paid lip service to reforms that would catch us up with the rest of the first world. But, *bonghit* free education. Progressives that delude themselves into believing the only rational choice is a shill are not doing our democracy a favor.
That's not a jab at you, Bort. I actually like reading your stuff and I respect your opinion. That's just my possibly irrational feelings about the whole mess. President Trump will unite the left. :)
Jabs keep me humble, they're good for me. Feel free to jab.
The heart of my frustration with Bernie is that he's directed his supporters in pretty much the wrong direction. The problem with Washington isn't that everyone but Bernie (and possibly Warren before she turned Traitor To The People) is corrupt and we need the right president to put everyone else in line. The problem is that there are too many Republicans in power and we can't have good things until we vote Republicans out. Any other proposed solution -- bully pulpits and other Oan technology, harassing Democrats, withholding votes -- is doomed to failure and more bad governance.
I haven't paid attention to Berno since he was rendered irrelevant. If he is fracturing the party, that's no good, especially with Emporer Hair in the race. I agree, congress is where the real power is and if Clinton can positively influence them, that's great. One of you guys said Bernster's martyrdom will probably be more influential than his presidency. That's a pretty good point. If anything, having a viable candidate run off public donations is probably the most exciting thing to come from this.
That said, he lost and I accept that. I haven't met any die hard Bern Bros, but from what I gather they sound childish. Liberals shouldnt give up on progressive ideas like free education and affordable healthcare. But, they also shouldn't throw a tantrum and expect one politician to wand wave us into the better practices of Europe.
"I want people who can govern effectively and fairly. That means an intelligent president who can deal with complexities, and legislators who favor intelligent (usually liberal) bills." save for her being intelligent this is the opposite of Hillary.
"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." —Hillary Clinton
Aw don't feel bad; while Hillary got away on the technicality of having not broken any laws, hopefully we can put Jane Sanders in the slammer for bank fraud. Let's make sure that's one One Percenter who doesn't get away with it!
>not broken any laws
Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."
"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giulian i_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessne ss.html
I forgot, the ultimate arbiter of the law is blogs.
A drunken man's Justice League of America, you might say.
"Laws? What laws? You're asking for specific laws? I have FEELINGS that those laws exist! That's good enough!"
-Bernie Sanders, Daily News interview
It takes about 10 minutes (if that) of research to understand this issue, so it's not surprising so many regressives and Sanders-shitheads are not capable of doing so.
You don't have to like Clinton. You can think Clinton is a dishonest, corrupt politician. You can even have your little infantile hipster belief that Clinton is somehow OMG LIKE HITLAR and yet still understand why there is virtually no reason to prosecute her for anything that was done here and that there is ZERO evidence of any kind of wrongdoing either here or in the whole Benghazi fucktardedness.
No, we are not inventing new standards or having to pay off officials to "set her free." What she did was not only NOT illegal, but the few policies she did violate are so incredibly minor that basically by that standard, hundreds of people in the government from this time period would ALSO have to be prosecuted by the FBI, and that was largely was influenced the decision: that this was such a common thing at one time that basically it only makes sense to just acknowledge it as a flaw at the time, make new laws to fix it (which have been done so), and then move on.
And fuck all the Snowen-ites who are trying to somehow compare this to him. Snowden was a private citizen who decided on his little lonesome to effectively commit treason on an epic scale by just deciding for "INFORMATION SHOULD BE FREEE MAANNNNN *bong hit*" reasons that tons of classified information should just be disseminated to the entire world no matter who might be impacted by it and regardless of whether it was germane to the subject of surveillance intrusion. Clinton did not do this. Ever. At all. Not even when the Bush Administration made tons of classified info magically disappear from their email servers to cover up the Valarie Plame scandal did they do this.
If you want Clinton "in jail", maybe find an actual, truthful reason instead of just taking the right wing non-scandal bait because you're THAT lazy.
These days I'm seeing vanishingly little distinction between Teabaggers and a big chunk of the Sanders support base. The one detail they disagree on is whether they think the government can be used to help improve their fortunes or is a snarling rapacious beast that threatens their fortunes. But in every regard -- including blind ignorant Hillary hate -- they're indistinguishable.
I take it you're pulling for shilldawg.
I'll take her over either of the pandering demagogues, that's for sure.
I'm going to star Stanley's post.
How am I going to do it, you ask, when I already used up my stars elsewhere? Well, first, we're going to BREAK UP THE BIG BANKS (crowd cheers) and we're going to MAKE WALL STREET PAY (crowd cheers) and this will somehow result in MORE STARS FOR EVERYONE (crowed too busy vaping to cheer.)
Letting uncompromising, fact-challenged idiots run the show is not a good idea even if they're more or less on your side today. And as we've seen ever since Netroots Nation and especially since Nevada, the Sanders variety of ideologue has no problem with harassing critics and issuing death threats, with Bernie's tepid efforts to rein them in coming across much more like encouragement. When Bernie denounces Planned Parenthood -- Planned Parenthood, for Christ's sake -- in harsher terms than he does his intrepid band of Threaters, you know you've got a political movement that's got more in common with mobs than constructive governance.
The one good thing I can say about Teabaggers is that they're better at voting than the Left. Adopt that habit of theirs, shun the rest.
I agree, Ed Snowden is a terrorist. And I'm not just saying that because a pervasive electronic surveillance system is recording every byte emitted from this IP address for future analysis. No sir, I really mean it. You can take that ...to the bank!
If the left can get more people to vote, who cares about the window dressing?
If this election has a greater than 27% turnout, I am going to be so disappointed.
"If the left can get more people to vote, who cares about the window dressing?"
The Teabaggers were also famous for pushing candidates that were ideologues who really didn't know what they were doing. Which is exactly what the Left's equivalent is trying to do:
We don't do well to push a bunch of know-nothing candidates who, for example, would rather punish the banks like it was 1932 than do the FDR-style hard work of stabilizing them and insuring their assets (which is what the hated TARP did).
Here is what Brand New Congress is looking for:
We’re looking for people from all walks of life and all fields of our economy and society, representing every community, who have a few special things about them. All the candidates must:
- Be good at what they do
- Be proven servant-leaders to their communities, families, friends
- Have consistently passed on opportunities to sell out, choosing instead to keep serving their people
- Have, in general, never held or sought public office
- Agree on the whole platform
- Have the skills, story and cultural alignment to win their districts
The first thing I see is that they see lack of experience in government is a virtue. Jesus Christ. See what I mean about Teabaggers and a certain stripe of the Left?
The second thing I see is that they don't even understand the contradiction between the last two points: someone who backs Bernie's entire platform without deviation is not going to win in most places in the country. So while I might get a rude chuckle out of how doomed to failure they are, they'd do much better to simply push the best Democrat they can (rather than demand ideological purity) and make a point of voting Republicans out of office. Instead they're trying this whole other game that, unfortunately, is more likely to make people more cynical about our government and sit out elections.
If only you'd channel your frustration into actually doing something constructive, the government might work more to your liking.
The people who complain about government being ineffectual are always the ones who vote in the candidates who make it that way.
See (again): teapartiers
If I want a reason for Hillary to be in jail I'll ask some Libyans
Also fuck I didn't know David Brock was lurking this whole time
|That guy |
For the inkblot nature of this whole thing.
If nothing else, it certainly works as a test for who can tell sponsored content from actual reporting and who can't.
Rather than cite a bunch of different stuff, I'll just leave this typically salty and source-laden Chris Lehmann editorial I coincidentally happened to read at work this afternoon:
http://thebaffler.com/blog/new-conventions-corruption-lehmann< br />
and one of many choice little nuggets, this one from a description of what a 0,000 payment to The Hill will get you at the convention, taken from heir own promotional material:
"Throughout the day, The Hill will book and tape interviews with key stakeholders from a given policy area. Conducted by The Hill’s editorial talent, these interviews will feature campaign policy advisors, lawmakers, industry executives, and other policy influentials [sic]—including up to three named executives or organization representatives of your choice. These interviews are pieces of earned media and will be hosted on a dedicated page on thehill.com and promoted across The Hill’s digital and social media channels."
(spoiler: this isn't an exception, it's just an especially blunt example of the pay-for-play business that's been operating between political organizations and the mainstream media for at least a decade)
Imagine the Hilary Clinton discussion that this site would have if the rest of our country wasn't exploding around her.
Clearly the FBI is a sexist organization controlled by the patriarchy.
Only the whitest, oldest male candidate can save us from this evil system of old white men.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|