Yea, in a sad shaking of the head kind of way...

It's clear that what Hillary did is put lives at risk. This is well-documented with smoking-gun evidence that, oddly enough {sic} no one here wants to address...

And the only difference between Hillary and all of the other's that have been prosecuted by the Obama Administration is that Hillary is too big to jail...

Michale

That's hilarious, Michale.

And, of course, you can provide examples of this happening, right?? :D No, of course you can't..

Of anyone here, who has had actual experience working with classified information up to and including TS/SAP material??

Anyone?? Raise your hand???

"Anyone here been evolved into a super being, raise your hand.. Anyone??"
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS

:D

Michale

And, of course, you can provide examples of this happening, right?? :D No, of course you can't..

Sounds to me like you are hysterically jumping to conclusions for purely political reasons.

Of course it sounds to you like that... Because Hillary has a '-D' after her name and Patraeus has a '-R' after his name..

So, of course it sounds like that to YOU..

Which simply proves my point... :D

Michale

Not according to the people who actually do the work...

But I will grant you one point. Comparing Hillary to Patraeus IS somewhat of a false equivalency..

What Hillary did is much MUCH worse for this country as a threat to national security...

Really? Compare the the NYT article and the Washington post article you linked to in [107] [108].

From the Washington post:

Petraeus had kept the notebooks when he served as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011. They contained code words, war strategy, the names of covert officers and other sensitive information. In addition, they outlined deliberative discussions with the National Security Council and President Obama.

From the NYT article on the emails reclassified to top secret:

“We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,”

Sounds to me like a false equivalency. The note book had actual secrets, the emails not so much if they were held for years on an unclassified system...

Sounds to me like you are hysterically jumping to conclusions for purely political reasons. Is that not what you accuse others?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-decides-no-further-punishment-warranted-for-petraeus/2016/01/30/b503348e-c767-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html

Petraeus took home some personal notebooks and shared them as pillow-talk with an unauthorized individual..

Clinton routed the TOTALITY of the US State Department thru a home-brew insecure bathroom closet personal mailserv and shared that with Russia, China and North Korea..

I am assuming that Clinton did not get laid for her efforts...

Irregardless, it's clear to the politically agnostic that Clinton's actions were a hundred times worse than anything Petraeus had done..

Michale

22 Clinton Emails Deemed Too Classified to Be Made Public
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html?_r=0

This is what I meant before about Hillary hiding (or not hiding) her private server..

Hillary and Obama emailed back and forth on 18 separate occasions.. Obama HAD to notice that Hillary's email was not a .gov email address..

To be fair, Obama probably assumed that Hillary had authorization to go outside the government's secure system..

But here's the thing.. Hillary refuses to point to the person that "authorized" her private insecure home-brew bathroom closet email server..

Of course, the State Dept is covering their own ass by claiming they knew nothing about the private server even though it was a State Dept employee, under orders from SecState Clinton, who set it up...

Ironically enough, that State Dept employee has invoked his 5th Amendment protections and refuses to co-operate with the investigation... By invoking the 5th, he obviously realizes he did something illegal...

The inference is pretty clear.. And pretty damning to Hillary Clinton... Especially when you have the smoking gun email from Hillary telling her chief of staff to access a secure intelligence system, transcribe the data and information from that system, strip all classification markings from the information and data and transmit it to Hillary in the clear..

Does anyone really need any more facts to determine that Hillary is dirty???

Or is Hillary really TOO BIG TO JAIL??

Michale

FALSE EQUIVALENCE (again) comparing nuts and bricks -- both used in the building trade but for vastly different purposes -- and therefore nothing proven (again).

And, I know it's probably impossible, provide FACTS to support your claim..

But I will grant you one point. Comparing Hillary to Patraeus IS somewhat of a false equivalency..

What Hillary did is much MUCH worse for this country as a threat to national security...

So, in that regard, you are correct.. It IS a false equivalency...

But Patraeus has a '-R' after his name and Hillary, by virtue of her '-D' after her name, is too big to jail

Nothing like political bigotry, eh? :D

Michale

THAT is never done..

Reclassification downwards often occurs..

Reclassification upwards to TS/SAP?? That happens so rarely as to be virtually impossible..

Does that clear things up for you?? :D

Michale

How, EXACTLY, is it a "false equivalency??

And, I know it's probably impossible, provide FACTS to support your claim..

Michale

Two words.. General Petraeus..

Hypocrisy proven..

FALSE EQUIVALENCE (again) comparing nuts and bricks -- both used in the building trade but for vastly different purposes -- and therefore nothing proven (again).

From [60] above:

The BBC says that some emails are now "Top Secret" but were not when they were sent,

Which, if you knew anything about such things you would know that THAT is impossible..

You even wrote some in all caps. Doesn't seem to be a "misspoke" to me...

This is documented as fact from Clinton's own words...

Michale

Two words.. General Petraeus..

Hypocrisy proven..

Michale

And Clinton did not use any of those, opting instead to have THAT information re-transcribed by staff, stripped of classification markings and re-transmitted over insecure methods..

Michale says that reclassification to top secret is never done.

If I did, which is doubtful, I misspoke..

Much of the TS/SAP intel that Clinton sent and received was "BORN" classified TS/SAP..

It's the TS/SAP intel that has prompted the State Department and the White House to throw Clinton under the bus...

Michale

I aim to please. :D

What do you mean by hide

Hillary corresponded to many people in the administration up to and including President Obama.. She used her *@clintonmail.com email address for that correspondence..

Anyone receiving her emails would know she was using an unauthorized email server.

In that sense, she wasn't "hiding" her use of the email server..

and who do you think knew she had been using a private email server all along?

Anyone who received Hillary's email would know she was using a private email server..

Whether or not they cared is another question...

Michale

Keep in mind Michale is leaving out quite a few facts here. Clinton probably dealt with classified information on a daily basis, and she likely used some sort of secure channel to do so. From what I read it was mostly likely in hard copy form.

Michale says that reclassification to top secret is never done. One of the leads in the state department handling the reclassification said in an article it happens all the time. Another thing to realize is the reclassification can be over zealous as times. A classic example is if the New York Times uncovers a top secret program and publishes an article about it, an email mentioning that article but not mentioning anything else about it could be reclassified top secret. That is what Hillary is arguing. That the emails that have been classified top secret are done so through over zealousness and not need, and that is why she is asking for them to be released. Whether this is true or not I have no idea and neither does Michale.

And finally using a .gov email is not considered secure for higher levels of classified information. There are special systems separate from email to electronically transmit such stuff.

Btw, Michale, this discussion has been moderately helpful to me ... :)

Depending on what you mean by "hide", yes...

And, are you saying that having the private email server and using it for State department business is, in and of itself, violating the agreement she signed?

When it is used exclusively, yes.. A SecState can use a private email for non-secure communications. That's not any big deal.. When a SecState uses a private email exclusively for non-secure AND secure communications, that's where the felonies start..

I think you are also saying that you believe Secretary Clinton disclosed and/or compromised classified information and probably would have done so with or without a private email server.

No. If she had used the .GOV email service, THAT would have been a secure system as it is defined..

is going to put a Secretary of State in violation of Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement, then why on earth would she have been permitted to use a private email server?

She wasn't "permitted" to do so... THAT's the problem...

Hillary makes a big deal that her private email server was "authorized"...

But she refuses to identify the person who authorized it and no one has stepped up...

Michale

And, are you saying that having the private email server and using it for State department business is, in and of itself, violating the agreement she signed?

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dd_1847_1.pdf

Section 3 is especially damning for Clinton...

I have been advised that unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge anything marked as SCI or that I know to be SCI to anyone who is not authorized to receive it without prior written authorization from the United States Government department or agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) that last authorized my access to SCI. I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to SCI,
whether or not I am still employed by or associated with that
Department or Agency or a contractor thereof, in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI, or related to or derived from SCI, is considered by such Department or Agency to be SCI. I further understand that I am also obligated by law and regulation not to disclose any classified information or material in an unauthorized fashion

Based on this section alone, the FBI will recommend prosecution...

Whether Obama's DOJ will prosecute or not is solely and completely a political question...

Michale

She was.. The FBI briefed her on exactly what was expected of her with regards to handling and securing classified information.

It's a briefing that every member of any Administration is given..

Clinton signed a government form attesting to the fact that she received the briefing and understood everything..

It's a SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT form..

You can read it here..

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

If you actually read the document you can readily see how badly Hillary has broken the law...

Michale

That there is what confuses me the most.

Any SoS is going to be handling classified information. That much is a given. Now, Clinton used a private email server from the get go.

Question: why wasn't she told not to use a private server in the first place?

Not at all.. Whether it was compromised or not is not an issue..

The issue is whether there was classified information stored in an unsecured manner...

I can name a dozen people off the top of my head who have been arrested, charged AND CONVICTED of taking classified data home or having classified data and intel on unsecured storage..

A Marine maajor was prosecuted successfully because he sent an email from the states to Afghanistan that contained confidential information..

What Hillary had on her private server is way way way WAY above simple confidential information...

Put another way, everything that Hillary knew about United States diplomacy, the Russians, the Chinese and the North Koreans also knew..

THAT is the results of Hillary having her own private email server..

Michale

I know Hillary did that..

There is 'smoking gun' evidence that Hillary directed her chief of staff to access secure systems, obtain data and information, strip all classification markings from that data and information and send it to Hillary thru unsecured means...

That is several felonies right there...

Michale

What do you think General Patraeus was prosecuted for??

As an aside, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for your willingness to discuss this..

It's VERY much appreciated...

Michale

You haven't read my last few comments very closely ... or, you just don't want to help me understand what's going on here.

You think Hillary Clinton did that?

She received those emails on an insecure server she had in her home..

Let me put it another way... Do you think that it would be an issue if she received those TS/SAP emails on AOL's or YAHOO's email server??

From the New York Times, "It is against the law for officials to discuss classified information on unclassified networks used for routine business or on private servers, and the F.B.I. is looking into whether such information was mishandled."

What, precisely, does this mean?

If I were to use my security clearances to enter secure areas of the Pentagon, read a whole buttload of classified, TS and TS/SAP data then leave the Pentagon, go home and call from my house to your house and tell you all about what I just read....

I would be jailed for a million years...

Michale

What, precisely, does this mean?

They are not investigating to see if there was any classified information contained within these emails.

Do I have that much right?

This strikes me as incredible. How is it that a SoS does not deal with classified emails in her normal course of business?

It was publically revealed last spring that Clinton, when she was SOS, had used a private email server for both personal use and for State Department business.

While this may have been public knowledge only since last spring, was this not common knowledge in the State department and beyond? I mean, Clinton wasn't trying to hide the fact that she was using a private email server from the State department or from the DoJ, was she?

Now, of course, sensitive and even top secret emails were going to be sent and received by the Secretary of State, no? My question is, so what? If it is a problem to be using a private email system, it was a problem from the get go and why didn't somebody in State or DoJ act to prevent a private email server from entering the equation in the first place?

I don't get the email business ...

Right now, it's about the 22 emails that were deemed to be top secret.

So (appropriate use of 'so', btw), what is so wrong with a secretary of state receiving top secret emails? I mean, wouldn't you be surprised if a SOS didn't receive such emails?

What was Clinton supposed to do when she received a top secret email ... tell everyone about it!

Explain this to me like I'm a six year old because, apparently, I am ...

If Clinton's emails are "too damaging" to release then they are sure as hell too damaging to be stored on an insecure hackable home-brewed bathroom closet email server...

Do you know how I know I am right???

Because if this had happened to a SecState with a '-R' after their name, ya'all would be in complete agreement with me...

Michale

There are three possible actions Comey can take..

1> Comey fowards the case to the DOJ with a recommendation to prosecute..

2> Comey fowards the case to the DOJ with a recommendation NOT to prosecute.

3> Comey forwards the case to the DOJ with no recommendation..

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the normal procedure is in these cases (my experience is dated) nor do I know Comey well enough to know whether or not he normally recommends any course of action..

But for our purposes, how does this sound??

If #1 occurs, I win the wager.

If #2 occurs, you win the wager.

If #3 occurs, it's a draw and no one wins or loses..

Your thoughts?

Michale

Now, when a politician has a '-R' after their name, lying seems to be a pretty big deal with the Left Wingery..

So, of course, lying is a big deal when the liar has a '-D' after their name, right??

"I did not send or receive classified email thru my private insecure email server."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Apparently not... :^/

Michale

Still think it's much ado about nothing??

Do you know how many people Obama has prosecuted for doing this exact same thing but on a much lesser scale??

Dozens..

What makes Hillary so special that she can get away with it??

Ahhhhh That's right...

The '-D' after her name...

The FBI is going to recommend indictment of Hillary or her senior staff...

You can take that to the bank...

Michale

So then, of course, you think that Patraeus should not have been prosecuted... Right? :D

It'll be interesting to see what the DoJ do. I predict nothing.

The DOJ not doing anything wouldn't mean that Hillary didn't break the law... It would simply mean that Obama is interfering with the execution of the law and is covering Hillary..

It would mean that Hillary is TOO BIG TO JAIL...

The wager would be that the FBI recommends an indictment on Hillary or her senior staff..

THAT will be all the proof that is needed..

You still game??

Michale

Basically I'm right.

It'll be interesting to see what the DoJ do. I predict nothing.

There, you have it Michale. I'll take your wager if CW agrees to confirm receipt of the donation from the loser.

CW?

Hillary isn't even indicted yet, let alone a felon! Did you make up "indicted felon" yourself or read it somewhere.

Such an Orwellian couplet. The perfect removal of the presumption of innocence is simply artistic.

If it is your own, then chapeau, mon ami!

Otherwise, can you point me to its source.

I honestly doubt that Obama acquiesced to Hillary's request to throw her under the bus..

The mere fact that Obama confirmed that Hillary's statements about sending/receiving classified emails were complete and utter lies would indicate that matters are unfolding contrary to Hillary's wishes...

Your mileage may vary.. :D

What a ride!

I have to agree. This election is going to be the wildest one ever.. A total arrogant prick outsider for a GOP candidate and an indicted felon who traded in National Security for money and power for a DEM candidate...

You simply CANNOT make this stuff up! :D

Michale

But if she wins Iowa, she can say that the American people don't buy into Benghazi 2, and Bernie will have to counter a one-state-wonder nominee story - he can win in the socialist NNE, but not in the big states.

What a ride!

But if she wins Iowa, she can say that the American people don't buy into Benghazi 2, and Bernie will have to counter a one-state-wonder nominee story - he can win in the socialist NNE, but not in the big states.

What a ride!

Marvelous!

But, since we're going there.. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32FB-gYr49Y

Heh

Michale

Which will guarantee President Trump..

Is this a great country or what!!??? :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwa0vaR7slQ

You REALLY need to get out more!! :D

BTW - Doesn't (B)ernie's rival, Two-ton Ted doesn't remind you of Cruz :)

hehehehehe Like I have said, Cruz reminds me of a used car salesman or a game show host..

"You don't act like a scientist."
"They're usually pretty stiff."
"Your more like a game show host."
-Ghostbusters

:D

Michale

But my point is that there IS enough facts to make a prediction.. You simply don't like where those facts take you..

It's kewl..

You trust other media outlets and believe their facts and conclude that you are on the right side of the bet - but I don't trust your sources,

My sources come from the Left and the Right and they are ALL saying the exact same thing...

With the way things are going, with the Obama Administration weighing in and throwing Hillary under the bus, the FBI's recommendation to indict is going to come sooner rather than later...

We should know soon, probably before Nevada or South Carolina goes to the polls...

You can congratulate me on my prescience then.. :D

Michale

You trust other media outlets and believe their facts and conclude that you are on the right side of the bet - but I don't trust your sources, just as I don't trust any of the news-as-entertainment sources in the U.S., especially when it comes to very partisan political figures like Trump, Cruz, Hillary or Obama. There are too many people that say what they want to be true. Real journalism doesn't do that. Real journalism is frankly scarce at the moment in this country.

Who gives a rip about Trump.. I want to see Hillary do the perp walk.. :D

Then we get (B)ernie, the fastest milkman in the West ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwa0vaR7slQ

He will blow away the competition come Monday.. :D

"Seriously, Bush is 500% better when he doesn't have Trump dunking his head in the toilet"

Gotta agree.. That IS hilarious :D

Michale

I said that the FBI will recommend an indictment... You disagree.. You say there is no facts to support such a recommendation..

When the FBI does as I predict, will you admit you were wrong..

The BBC says that some emails are now "Top Secret" but were not when they were sent,

Which, if you knew anything about such things you would know that THAT is impossible..

I have already refuted your "experts" as completely ignorant of the issue we are discussing..

Just like Trump. Let's see how he does on Monday. Will he perform above or below his polling numbers? Is that due to the caucus format, and he will outperform in NH?

Who gives a rip about Trump.. I want to see Hillary do the perp walk.. :D

And I wager $100 that I will.. :D

Michale

All I said was that until serious news agencies report that there is an indictment or a real chance of an indictment, I class it under "hopeful fantasies" - something we hear a lot from all sides.

So far the Economist and the BBC have not shown any interest in examining this in any depth. The Economist states that Hillary's 'lawyering up' response makes her look bad - I agree, but can understand why she does this.

The BBC says that some emails are now "Top Secret" but were not when they were sent, and that experts don't see much chance of an indictment. No drama yet. (You don't like that so went ad hominen on the experts.)

There may be all the drama you portend just around the corner. I'm just going to wait and see.

Just like Trump. Let's see how he does on Monday. Will he perform above or below his polling numbers? Is that due to the caucus format, and he will outperform in NH?

"Seriously, Bush is 500% better when he doesn't have Trump dunking his head in the toilet"

Genius!

The BBC is in error.. Her messages were labeled classified 8 months ago..

You should shop around for a more reliable source. :D

Michale

When Obama's FBI recommends that Hillary and/or Senior Staff be indicted...

Will you admit you were wrong??

I know the answer, but I just want to get it on record... :D

Michale

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent.

Mrs Clinton's use of a personal email as secretary of state has become an issue in her presidential campaign.
It is the first time her messages have been labelled classified at any level.

The State Department will release another batch of emails on Friday evening."

BBC 01/29/16

I thought you followed the Washington Post?? :D I guess only if they don't knock those with a '-D' after their name.. :D

I specifically stated that they give the chattering classes too much volume - just to be clear, this is for both sides.

"People that don't like Obama are even more upset because he is using executive orders to get what he wants, and isn't screaming hysterically. Plus Republicans are letting him without acting hysterically either, so let's get a TV reality star because they are ALWAYS hysterical!"

Voila Trump!

If those people actually WERE "experts" then they would know that, with the crimes that Clinton will be charged with, INTENT has nothing to do with anything..

The mere fact that it HAPPENED and Clinton caused it is sufficient..

I fart in the general direction of your "experts"... :D

Washingtom Post chattering class member given too much volume on Fri 29th Jan: Ed Rogers

I thought you followed the Washington Post?? :D I guess only if they don't knock those with a '-D' after their name.. :D

Massive Storm-In-An-Echo-Chamber warnings are being posted all over the News Media ;)

We'll see... Can I say "I TOLD YOU SO" a hundred times when Hillary or her staff are indicted?? :D

Michale

I find CNN is less hysterical than most news outlets in the U.S., and the Washington Post is sort of OK, but both treat political gossip as news and give too much volume to the chattering classes.

Washingtom Post chattering class member given too much volume on Fri 29th Jan: Ed Rogers

Massive Storm-In-An-Echo-Chamber warnings are being posted all over the News Media ;)

Hmmmmmm Where have I heard someone say that exact same thing?? :D

Michale

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-29-14-48-31

While I respect your faith in The Economist, I think circumstances are going to overtake their reporting...

Liz, you want to chime in??? :D

Michale

In between deployments, I set up Salem Oregon's first Internet Based Chat Line BBS in the mid 90s... It was the very first BBS to have complete internet access...

The BBS was installed on an Amiga 2000 with an 040 card and 3 10 PORT Serial Cards connected to 30 Supra 2400bps Modems.. The Internet was provided by a whoppingly fast 14.4 Frame Relay connection out of Portland, Oregon.. An Amiga 3000 running NETBSD handled the handshaking between the Amiga 2000 running CNET and the Internet...

Of course, everything was destroyed during the great Willamette Flood of 1996...

sjfm.us/temp/flood1996-1.jpg

sjfm.us/temp/flood1996-2.jpg

My house is the house on the left past the boat in the middle of the street..

Ahhhhh, the memories..

Michale

I just downloaded the latest copy, and there was a 4 page leader (in their online verison, probably 1 page in the print version) and a 14 page briefing on the primaries.

One brief mention in passing that Hillary's email server issue plays to the 'untrustworthy' message that dogs her.

So it is an issue, but not one that The Economist deemed worthy of any great depth of examination.

Good leader and briefing if you have access.

I've been trying to find some of my early posts that predate the birth of my oldest kid, but DejaNews is gone and Google Groups doesn't seem to have a complete history any longer.

I wanted to show the kids that their dad was into the Internet before people even called it the Internet. Back when I had a Compuserve account.

You printed a blog from the Economist website from March 2015 that stated there was more problems from Hillary's reaction than any real issue (to date of course). Hardly a top, burning issue for them. Nothing much from the BBC.

And yes, frankly, given the entertainment aspect of U.S. news sources, I do wait until the BBC and/or the Economist escalate it to their top news areas before I take it seriously. I find CNN is less hysterical than most news outlets in the U.S., and the Washington Post is sort of OK, but both treat political gossip as news and give too much volume to the chattering classes. If my French was better maybe I'd keep my eye on Le Monde.

Ahhhh.. So, "it's different", right? :D

I knew you would say that..

But it's only different because the target of the faux scandal has a '-R' after his name.. :D

Abu Ghraib BARELY rose to the level of college hazing.. BARELY...

There has been no such interest in the details of Hillary's email server in The Economist or the BBC.

So, if it's not in The Economist or the BBC, it's not a valid topic??

Even though I printed verbatim an article from The Economist on Hillary's email server crimes...

By all means, continue to deny what is blatantly obvious..

Then, when Hillary *IS* indicted, it makes the crow you have to eat all the more satisfying... For me anyways.. :D

Don't worry about being snooty - I've been on Internet Usenet boards since 1993, I'm pretty thick skinned :)

Kewl.. Good ta know... :D

Remember FIDO??? :D

Michale

Abu Ghraib was all over The Economist and the BBC. So was Snowden, etc. Why these are R vs. D issues is a mystery to me - but the dyed-in-the-wool types (on both sides) see everything through a right-left prism. Can you understand that most people don't see it this way?

In Abu Ghraib I saw some junior, untrained people who should never have been turned into prison guards. They made mistakes that they should have been punished for. End of story.

In Snowden I see a guy who is both a whistle-blower/hero and probably a traitor at the same time. I don't need to be forced to choose between one or the other. In my mind he is both - more one than the other, but we all have different shades of grey except the purity contingent who insist we all must choose black or white.

There has been no such interest in the details of Hillary's email server in The Economist or the BBC. Ergo, I'm not taking the whole thing seriously until the serious press see it as an issue. Currently they don't (see your blog posting above).

Enjoy your echo chamber, but don't think if we don't live in yours we must live in somebody else's.

So you concede that I might be dead on ballz accurate in everything I have said about Hillary Clinton...

You agree that these National Security crimes MIGHT be "real"...

Is that what you are saying?? :D

Michale

That was unbelievably snooty and un-called for... My apologies...

Michale

Oh bull.. Come'on neil.. I was born AT NIGHT, not LAST NIGHT...

Pleading ignorance on this issue is like me pleading ignorance on Bush's invasion of Iraq...

Hillary got caught TELLING a subordinate to access secure NEED TO KNOW, TOP SECRET intelligence, strip the classification markings from it and send it to her on an unsecure medium..

Now I know for a fact you are an intelligent person. You wouldn't be here otherwise....

Here.. I'll make it easier for you...

Ted Cruz got caught TELLING a subordinate to access secure NEED TO KNOW, TOP SECRET intelligence, strip the classification markings from it and send it to her on an unsecure medium..

There.. THAT should allow you to form an opinion....

Let's talk more when there are articles in the adult media (BBC/The Economist).

OK.... OK....

GOVERNMENT technology is a pain. Anyone who works for the American government—or knows someone who does—knows that sending an official e-mail requires using an authorised device. Logging into Gmail, on the other hand, can be done from anywhere. So Hillary Clinton’s claim that she used a personal e-mail account instead of a government one for the sake of convenience rings true.

Luckily for Mrs Clinton—and for the Democrats, who seem to have no other plausible presidential candidates—she does not lose much. Few beyond the professional political classes care much about these e-mails. And this scandal has blown up far enough away from 2016 to have little effect on votes. But Mrs Clinton has displayed a troubling sloppiness. In a different setting, her cavalier attitude towards defying government protocol could prove damning.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/03/hillary-clintons-e-mails

Let me know when you are ready to sit at the adult table... :D

Michale

Snowden??? Manning??? Just nerd-anger, right??

All of it meaningless...

Am I on track?? :D

Michale

So, of course, you would agree that the Hysterical Left's tirade and hysteria at Bush over Abu Ghraib was also nothing but nerd-anger and meant nothing...

Is that your claim??

oh no.. wait.. "That's different"....

Right?? :D

Michale

1. Republican Hopey/Feely Tales
2. Right Wing Anger-Nerding
3. Hillary Bashing
4. Benghazi All Over Again
5. Not Obama's Fault For Once???

Let's talk more when there are articles in the adult media (BBC/The Economist).

Maybe I'll take the wager when I see what real journalists think about it.

Oh no.. I said we could wait to see who is right.. :D But asking me not to talk about the Hillary crimes is like asking ya'all not to talk about Republicans.. :D

Also, the whole "Comey and the FBI" line is more anger-nerding - this is Benghazi all over again - a storm in an echo chamber.

So... The facts mean nothing here, eh?? :D

Then you don't see a problem with the previously mentioned wager?? :D

Michale

Also, the whole "Comey and the FBI" line is more anger-nerding - this is Benghazi all over again - a storm in an echo chamber. Try searching for "Comey" on CNN or BBC - nothing about Hillary. BBC corrects it to "Comedy" because its search engine thinks you've misspelled.

ONE WAY..

And THAT is that Comey's FBI recommends NO criminal charges for anyone..

Given what we know about Comey and given what is common knowledge regarding the investigation and the facts (SAP, TOP SECRET documents on Hillary's server, Hillary's multitude of lies on the issue, etc etc) there is as much chance of Comey NOT recommending criminal charges as there is of me being elected POTUS...

So, yes.. There is an infinitesimally small chance that Hillary will weather this latest storm.. I'll grant you that..

But given the facts that we know, it's a very VERY small hook to hang an argument of viability on..

You have a MUCH better chance of convincing anyone that Bernie actually has a chance to be POTUS... :D

But, as I said.. We can wait and see.... Maybe even put up a little wager that would benefit CW.COM.. :D

Say a $100 donation to CW.com from me if Comey recommends NOT to indict.. And a $50 donation to CW.com from you if Comey recommends TO indict...

:D

Michale

That's the beauty of it..

If Obama decides to meddle in an FBI investigation and prevent an indictment, do you think Comey and the 200+ agents working on the case will take that and say nothing??

Comey was nominated by Obama **BECAUSE** Comey was an adherent to the law and the law ONLY... Obama sang Comey's praises to the high heavens, told everyone how Comey defied the Bush Administration..

NOW Obama is going to throw Comey under the bus???

And you think that THAT will be the end of it???

You are drunk on the kool-aid, my friend, if you think that that will end the issue.. :D

I understand why you have to take the position you are taking.. Denial is a useful tool...

But Hillary WILL be indicted.. It would actually be BETTER for her if she were indicted by Obama's DOJ...

The court of Public Opinion can be a LOT less forgiving...

All the GOP has to do is run ad after ad after ad, TOO BIG TO JAIL and Rocko The Chimp could beat Hillary...

Michale

Doesn't say much for Hillary supporters, now does it?? :D

Just like it didn't say much for Trump supporters when Trump made the same claim... :D

Michale

It seems that the Republicans' main hope to beat Hillary is for Obama to decide to indict his own Secretary of State, or for a second NY billionaire to run as an independent.

Bloomberg's problem is that he does not have a reality show, and thus while he is a big deal in NYC, the rest of the country barely knows who he is. Like the anti-Hillary anger-nerds, Bloomberg is counting way too much on normal people being as tuned into politics as they are.

39% of the caucus goers in Iowa will make up their minds this week. 50% (yes 50%!) of New Hampshire voters still haven't made their mind up and won't start until next week. And these are the people that actually caucus or vote mind you, not the ones who just want to see a reality TV star in person because nothing else happens in Backwoods, NH in the winter.

(source for 39% and 50% figures: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/)

Doesn't say much for Hillary supporters, now does it?? :D

Michale

But you don't have to take my word for it..

Let's compare notes when Hillary is indicted and see who was wrong and who was right.. :D

Michale

The fact that no one knows what SAP is does not lesson the seriousness of the crime...

Put another way....

If Hillary killed Joe Schmoe, it doesn't matter that no one knows who Joe Schmoe is.. What DOES matter is the seriousness of the crime...

Michale

Nobody outside the echo chamber knows who Jake Sullivan is or what SAP intelligence is. It has all been explained to you in meticulous detail because you have to have something to pin on Hillary, but >75% of the country doesn't wake up in the morning wanting to know about old Sap Sullivan and the Jake files, or was that Foster and the Whitewater tapes?. We get our Hillary conspiracy stories mixed up, etc.

It takes a special type of anger-nerd to argue with people like this. Whereas a clip of Trump shaving somebody's screaming head in a WWE video is real simple to interpret - what a clown, and he wants to be President, har har.

1. It seems like Benghazi 2 - epic fail on Benghazi 1, so the Republicans are just trying something else - this is what is wrong with politics for most independents - the Ds and the Rs are more interested in personal nonsense than putting forward feasible plans for the country

2. Outside the well trained echo chamber, nobody is sure exactly what an email server is and why an 8 year old one is an issue. Your echo chamber is motivated to find bad things about Hillary. The rest of the country see yet another desperate attempt by a desperate party to pull down Hillary because their top man is a clown and #2 is that creepy Canadian.

That's prima facie evidence of a felony...

Hillary WILL be indicted.. The only question is whether it will be by Obama's DOJ or by the court of public opinion..

Michale

This is what most of the country thinks of your idol:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/epic-flashback-that-time-donald-trump-beat-up-vince-mcmahon-on-wwe-video/

Having SAP classified data on a private email server is NOT nonsense.... It's a thousand times worse than ANYTHING Patraeus had done...

We'll see how well Hillary fares once she is indicted..

How about we compare notes after that? :D

Michale

Yes - but nobody listens to stump speeches, and they are red meat for the base, not specific attacks on TV. Hillary could shoot somebody dead on 5th Avenue ;) and still beat Trump after the dirty tricks team have finished with him, so some strange 'email server' nonsense isn't going to upset the Hillary base. Especially for anybody who remembers the 1990s and the vitriol poured on the Clintons then.

If you look at things objectively, you can see how hard it will be for the Democrats to retain the White House..

Hillary will be indicted.. Whether by Obama's DOJ or by the court of public opinion... If it's done AFTER the Primary, then there is no way Hillary can win the White House...

If it is done before the Primary is over, then Sanders will be the nominee. A self-avowed socialist winning the White House?? Yea... On what planet??

The chips are stacked against Democrats.. Big time..

Michale

Michale

Dems have already floated ALL of those ideas and more in their stump speeches...

Trump's numbers continue to rise...

Don't get me wrong. You are making a valid argument. The exact same argument can be made against Sanders and why HIS numbers beating Trump won't be sustained throughout the general..

I am not saying you are wrong.. I simply point out that, to date, EVERYONE who has predicted Trump's demise has been wrong..

You have to concede that ya'all don't have a great track record when it comes to Trump... That it's all a simple case of TDS... Trump Derangement Syndrome... :D

Well, of course, ya'all don't HAVE to admit that.. But the facts clearly show it.. :D

Michale

He also still has a lot of explaining to do. Take the deportation of 11M people. The Republicans can't come after him too hard on that one otherwise they might touch the anti-immigrant third rail in their party (look what happened to Marco when he tried to be faintly reasonable about immigration - he had to vote against his own proposal). Imagine the ads that the Dems will be able to run comparing Trumps ideas to Japanese internment. They can stray into genocidal comparisons and then tell everybody Trump is full of hot air because he states fairy tales but has no plan to achieve them, etc.

Go Trump!

Oh shit!!! You owe me a new keyboard, neil!! :D

I just spewed diet coke all over this one...

Trump has not had to put up a sustained attack yet!!??? Did you REALLY just type that???

What planet are YOU living on?? :D

On THIS planet, Trump has been putting up with sustained attacks from the Left *AND* the Right from the second he announced his candidacy..

Wait until the dirty trick team start taking down his family... blaa blaaa blaa blaa blaa...

The Left & Right Wingeries have been saying that for the last year..

"Wait til THIS happens!! Trump will be toast!!!"

"Wait til THAT happens!! Trump will be toast!!!"

We've heard it all before...

Like the Global Warming predictions and models..

It's ALL been wrong.. ALL of it... EVERY TIME..

Why should I believe that THIS TIME... THIS TIME it's going to be different.. :D

"Denial is strong with this one"

:D

I know, I know..

I am a prick.. An arrogant asshole.

But seriously... When one is wrong over and over and over again (like I have been on Obama's RCP poll numbers) one just has to put on the big boy pants and admit it...

Ya'all have been wrong about Trump at EVERY turn...

Doubling down on wrong doesn't seem to be an effective strategy..

Take it from someone who knows.. :D

Michale

You saw how well Trump shut down Hillary on her sexism accusations and neutered Bill at the same time.. :D Hell even BUBBA's approval numbers are going down...

Trump has not had to put up with a sustained attack yet:

- The Republicans are too scared because they want his voters
- The Democrats don't care yet because it is too early to run against Trump because it is far from certain he will be the nominee (despite that you think he is a shoo-in).

Wait until the dirty trick team start taking down his family, dragging up his colorful history (e.g. his affair), and diving into some of his 'deals' - e.g. Television City. He is going to go ballistic and people are going to start to wonder more and more (and 69% of people are unsettled about a 'President Trump' already) if he is Presidential material.

Firstly, it will take the sheen off The Donald - he is trying to play the 'I'm above politics' game, but more importantly he will have to become a politician to win a political race with voters not searching for somebody to take them back to the 1950s (the 'again' part of 'make American great again').